Docket: 2006-1167(EI)
BETWEEN:
GILLES JEAN,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
____________________________________________________________________
Appeal
heard on September 1, 2007, at Québec, Quebec.
Before: The Honourable Justice Alain Tardif
Appearances:
|
Counsel for the Appellant:
|
Yvon Chouinard
|
|
Counsel for the Respondent:
|
Marie-Claude Landry
|
____________________________________________________________________
ORDER
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
The motion to adjourn is
granted, but the Appellant must pay $1,000 in fines for abuse of procedure on
or before December 7, 2007, in accordance with the attached Reasons for
Judgment.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada,
on this 26th day of October 2007.
“Alain Tardif”
on this 10th day
of December 2007.
Gibson Boyd, Translator
Citation: 2007TCC619
Date: 20071026
Docket: 2006-1167(EI)
BETWEEN:
GILLES JEAN,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH
TRANSLATION]
REASONS FOR ORDER
Tardif J.
[1] This is an appeal
concerning the insurability of work performed by the Appellant.
[2] The case had
initially been scheduled for hearing at Percé on May 16, 2007. Following a
motion to adjourn, the case was rescheduled for hearing on September 11,
2007, this time in Québec.
[3] On the morning of
September 11, 2007, counsel for the Appellant filed a medical certificate that
was received the same morning or the day before, as the date appearing on this
certificate in support of a further adjournment is September 10.
[4] The medical
certificate issued in the Appellant’s name describes an unmanaged diabetes
problem and prescribes an indeterminate period of disability.
[5] The Respondent had
to accept the obvious: it was impossible to proceed.
Yet she insisted on adding that
there was abusive behaviour warranting $1,000 in compensation.
[6] In support of her
motion, she relied on three Federal Court of Appeal Judgments:
·
Fournier
v. Canada [2005] F.C.J. No. 606, 2005 FCA 131 A‑677‑04;
·
Yacyshyn
v. Canada [1999] F.C.J. No. 196, A‑416‑98; and
·
Sherman
v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue‑MRN) [2003] 4. F.C. 865,
[2003] F.C.J. No. 710, 2003 FCA 202 and A‑387‑02.
[7] Since its creation,
the Tax Court of Canada has always held in very high consideration the goal of
simplifying procedure as much as possible, but also, and above all, its
implementation, such that the Appellants can be heard as quickly as possible
and in a place that is as near to their residence as possible, in the aim of decreasing
the costs required to hear the case.
[8] The Tax Court of
Canada travels around and sits at numerous sites, very often in places other
than courthouses, in order to conduct hearings promptly, considering the
significant financial impact the cases can have on the parties.
[9] This method incurs
exorbitant costs because counsel for the Respondent and all witnesses, who
usually come from urban centres, must travel.
[10] Those are realities
that must be saluted and encouraged; to keep the system functioning properly,
however, requires the good faith and cooperation of all parties involved in the
case.
[11] Unfortunately, it
must be noted that a considerable number of cases do not proceed for various
reasons; settlements, discontinuances, adjournments occur in the week preceding
the week when the hearing is scheduled or even, as is the case here, the very
morning of the hearing.
[12] The result is that
significant expenses must be borne by the party suffering this inconvenience;
if the settlement, the motion for adjournment, or the discontinuance had
occurred earlier, it would then have been possible to fill the opening becoming
available, while avoiding the many journeys made by the witness.
[13] I understand and
readily accept that this ideal scenario is not always possible, due to various
reasons including illness and accident, situations that are entirely unforeseen
and beyond control.
[14] Abuse, laxism,
negligence, lack of planning are however too often the root cause preventing
the proceedings.
[15] In this case, the
Respondent accused the Appellant of negligence tantamount to abuse, which she
wishes to sanction by levying a penalty of $1,000.
[16] At first, the
Appellant’s case was to be heard in Percé. Counsel for the Respondent and the witnesses
went there for the hearing that never took place. The Appellant had requested
and obtained an adjournment.
[17] A new date was set
for trial in Québec this time. However, either on the morning of the hearing or
the day before, counsel for the Appellant received a medical certificate to the
effect that the Appellant cannot go to Québec for his trial.
[18] However, the
Respondent and her witnesses were present and found out at the same time as the
Court that the Appellant’s absence would draw attention. This is the same
scenario that had played out on the first trial date in Percé, when the
witnesses also travelled from Québec.
[19] The circumstantial
evidence seems sufficiently convincing to conclude that there was truly abuse
on the part of the Appellant, who is acting like he is above the law, behaviour
that I find quite unacceptable and totally contrary to healthy administration
of matters under the jurisdiction of the Tax Court of Canada.
[20] With respect to
this, I would like the parties to note Jangir Sidhu v. Canada (Minister of
National Revenue M.N.R.), [1994] C.F.A. No. 2028, Registry file
No. A‑679‑93.
[21] The motion to
adjourn is granted and the Appellant will be required to pay $1,000 in fines
for abuse of procedure, which will have to be paid on or before December 7,
2007.
Email this Content