Docket:
2006-3130(EI)APP
BETWEEN:
CLARENCE TREMBLAY,
Applicant,
and
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
Respondent.
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH
TRANSLATION]
____________________________________________________________________
Application
heard on February 6, 2007, at Québec, Quebec.
Before: The Honourable Deputy Justice S.J. Savoie
Appearances:
|
For the Applicant:
|
The Appellant
himself
|
|
|
|
|
Counsel for the Respondent:
|
Martin Gentile
|
____________________________________________________________________
ORDER
Whereas
the application for an order extending the time within which an appeal from the
decisions made under
subsection 103(1) of the Employment Insurance Act may be instituted;
And in light of the arguments put forward by
the claims;
The application is dismissed.
Signed at Grand-Barachois, New Brunswick, this 23rd day of April 2007.
“S.J. Savoie”
Translation certified true
on this 5th day of July 2007.
Daniela Possamai,
Translator
Citation: 2007TCC184
Date: 20070423
Docket: 2006-3130(EI)APP
BETWEEN:
CLARENCE TREMBLAY,
Applicant,
and
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
Respondent.
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH
TRANSLATION]
REASONS FOR ORDER
Savoie D.J.
[1] This application
for an extension of time under section 103 of the Employment insurance Act
(the “Act”) was heard at Québec, Quebec, on February 6, 2007.
[2] On February 14,
2002, the Applicant requested that
the Minister of National Revenue (the “Minister”) rule
on the issue of whether he was employed in insurable employment, during the
period from August 31, 1998, to February 26, 1999, while employed with
9021-6052 Québec Inc., and whether he was employed in insurable employment
during the periods from March 14, 1999, to October 31, 1999, and from January
30, 2000, to February 12, 2000, while employed with 9068-9852 Québec Inc.,
within the meaning of the Act.
[3] By letters dated
July 19, 2002, the Respondent informed the Applicant of his decisions that
those employments were not insurable.
[4] On September 1,
2006, the Applicant filed an application for an extension of time with the Tax
Court of Canada to appeal from those decisions.
[5] The Applicant did
not file his application for an extension of time with the Tax Court of Canada
within the time limit prescribed in subsection 103(1) of the Act in respect of
the decisions dated July 19, 2002, which ended on January 15,
2003.
[6] It is also relevant
to reproduce below the provisions of the Act applicable in the case at bar:
103. (1) The Commission or a
person affected by a decision on an appeal to the Minister under section 91 or
92 may appeal from the decision to the Tax Court of Canada in accordance with
the Tax Court of Canada Act and the applicable rules of court made
thereunder within 90 days after the decision is communicated to the Commission
or the person, or within such longer time as the Court allows on application
made to it within 90 days after the expiration of those 90 days.
(1.1) Extension of time to appeal - Section
167, except paragraph 167(5)(a), of the Income
Tax Act applies, with such modifications as the circumstances require, in
respect of applications made under subsection (1).
(2) Communication of decision - (2) The determination of the time at which a
decision on an appeal to the Minister under section 91 or 92 is communicated to
the Commission or to a person shall be made in accordance with the rule, if
any, made under paragraph 20(1.1)(h.1) of the Tax
Court of Canada Act.
(3) Decision - On an appeal, the Tax
Court of Canada
(a) may vacate,
confirm or vary a decision on an appeal under section 91 or an assessment that
is the subject of an appeal under section 92;
(b) in the case of an
appeal under section 92, may refer the matter back to the Minister for
reconsideration and reassessment;
(c)
shall notify in writing the parties to the appeal of its decision; and
(d) give reasons for
its decision but, except where the Court deems it advisable in a particular
case to give reasons in writing, the reasons given by it need not be in
writing.
1996, c. 23, s. 103; 1998, c. 19, s. 268.
104. (1) Authority to decide questions - The
Tax Court of Canada and the Minister have authority to decide any question of
fact or law necessary to be decided in the course of an appeal under section 91
or 103 or to reconsider an assessment under section 92 and to decide whether a
person may be or is affected by the decision or assessment.
(2) Decisions and rulings final - Except
as otherwise provided in this Act, a decision of the Tax Court of Canada or the
Minister and a ruling of an authorized officer under section 90 are final and
binding for all purposes of this Act.
[7] At the hearing, the
Applicant set forth the reasons for filing his application with the Tax Court
of Canada beyond the time limit prescribed by the Act. However, he did not add
anything to the debate that could provide any basis for intervention by this
Court whose jurisdiction and power are clearly and carefully circumscribed by
the provisions of the Act reproduced above.
[8] For these reasons,
the application is dismissed.
Signed at Grand-Barachois, New
Brunswick, this 23rd day of
April 2007.
“S.J. Savoie”
Translation certified true
on this 5th day of July 2007.
Daniela Possamai, Translator
CITATION: 2007TCC184
COURT FILE NO.: 2006-3130(EI)APP
STYLE OF CAUSE: CLARENCE
TREMBLAY AND M.N.R.
PLACE OF HEARING: Québec, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: February 6, 2007
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: The Honourable Deputy Justice S.J. Savoie
DATE OF ORDER: April 23, 2007
APPEARANCES:
|
For the Applicant:
|
The Applicant
himself
|
|
|
|
|
Counsel for the Respondent:
|
Martin Gentile
|
|
|
|
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For the Applicant:
Name:
Firm:
For the
Respondent: John H. Sims, Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Canada
Email this Content