Citation: 2008TCC203
Date: 20080410
Docket: 2006-59(IT)G
BETWEEN:
PRAKASH CHANDRA JATTAN,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR ORDER
(Delivered orally from the Bench at
Vancouver, British Columbia on January 14, 2008)
Beaubier, D.J.
[1] This hearing of a Motion by Respondent’s
counsel to dismiss this appeal by the Appellant was heard by telephone
conference on January 14, 2008. In the alternative, the Respondent has asked
that the Court order the Appellant to provide “full and proper answers to the
undertakings given by the Appellant at his examination for discovery.” The
Affidavit of Jennifer McDougall dated January 4, 2008 was filed in support of
the Motion. It exhibited a transcript of the examination for discovery, a list of
undertakings and the answers to the undertakings.
[2] Examples of some of
the answers to undertakings in Exhibit “F” were:
273. Village Rentals only – check
with Connie.
277. Connie has made
arrangements to provide the information directly with Lisa Macdonell.
279. Answer (277).
622. Check with Connie (277).
The response was rife with similar
answers such as:
724. Mrs. Maraquel to provide
information directly to Lisa Macdonell.
840. Revenue Canada has the information.
851. See the record with Revenue Canada.
[3] The Appellant and
his counsel admit that “the responses were a bit thin.” (Appellant’s Affidavit
of January 10, 2008.) The Appellant then stated that if further elaboration was
required, his counsel would be happy to request it from the Appellant.
[4] An examination for
discovery is conducted to provide answers which are binding on the examinee
party; in this case, the Appellant. They shorten the proceedings and reduce the
expense of trial. The sample answers described are nonsense in these
circumstances and amount to no answer at all.
[5] In these
circumstances, the Appellant holds out that if requested, more would be
provided. It is not for Respondent’s counsel to ask for more. Rather, it is for
the Appellant to provide a full and binding answer in the examination for
discovery or in the response to the undertakings. Respondent’s counsel
suggested that the Appellant may not have understood. In the Court’s view, the
Appellant’s counsel would have understood and had a responsibility.
[6] Rule 96(1) of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure) states that where a
person has failed to furnish the information, the party may not introduce that
information at the hearing. Therefore, it merely lies for the hearing judge to
exercise that rule where answers such as those samples quoted are given by the
Appellant. The parties hereto and their counsel can be sure that that kind of a
rule will be conducted thoroughly in the course of the hearing of this matter.
[7] Therefore this
appeal is ordered to be heard at the Tax Court of Canada 701 West Georgia Street, 8th
Floor, Vancouver, British Columbia, commencing at 9:30 a.m. on May 12, 2008 for an estimated duration of five days.
Signed at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan this 10th day of April, 2008.
“D.W. Beaubier”
Beaubier, D.J.
CITATION: 2008TCC203
COURT FILE NO.: 2006-59(IT)G
STYLE OF CAUSE: Prakash Chandra Jattan v. The Queen
PLACE OF HEARING: Vancouver,
British Columbia
DATE OF HEARING: January 14, 2008
ORAL REASONS
FOR ORDER BY: The Honourable Justice D.W. Beaubier,
Deputy
Judge
DATE OF ORAL
REASONS FOR ORDER: April 10, 2008
PARTICIPANTS:
|
Counsel for the Appellant:
|
Patrick
W. Watson
|
|
Counsel for the Respondent:
|
Lisa Macdonell
|
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For the Appellant:
Name: Patrick W. Watson
Firm:
For the
Respondent: John H. Sims, Q.C.
Deputy
Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa,
Canada
Email this Content