Citation: 2004TCC159
|
|
Date: 20040220
|
|
Docket: 2002-3214(IT)I
|
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
VICTOR ST-PIERRE,
|
|
Appellant,
|
|
and
|
|
|
|
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
|
|
Respondent.
|
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Tardif J.
[1] This is a motion to dismiss an
appeal. The motion states the following:
1. The
Respondent made a motion to dismiss the appeal in this file on
the ground that the Appellant had never served the Minister of
National Revenue with a notice of objection under
subsection 165(1) of the Income Tax Act with respect
to the reassessment dated May 21, 2002, for his 1998
taxation year.
2. The
Respondent maintained that, for that reason, the Appellant's
appeal was not valid.
3. The hearing
of the motion took place in Quebec City before the Honourable
Justice Tardif on July 24, 2003.
4. Following
the hearing of the motion, the Tax Court of Canada made an order
on August 5, 2003, that granted the Appellant a period
of time ending on August 29, 2003, to serve an amended
Notice of Appeal.
5. With this
order, the Tax Court of Canada granted the Respondent a period of
time ending on October 30, 2003, to serve a Reply to
the amended Notice of Appeal.
6. The
Appellant has still not complied with the order dated
August 5,2003, and has not filed an amended Notice of
Appeal.
[2] The motion is supported by an
affidavit setting out all of the facts on which the submission of
the motion is based.
[3] It involves the following
facts:
[...]
AFFIDAVIT
I, the undersigned, Annick Provencher, make oath and
affirm:
1. I am a
lawyer with the Department of Justice, Tax Litigation
Directorate, whose offices are located in the Guy-Favreau
Complex, 200 René-Lévesque Blvd W., East Tower,
9th floor, in Montreal, H2Z 1X4.
2. I have
personal knowledge of this file.
3. The
Respondent made a motion to dismiss the appeal in this file on
the ground that the Appellant had never served the Minister of
National Revenue with a notice of objection under
subsection 165(1) of the Income Tax Act with respect
to the reassessment dated May 21, 2002, for his 1998
taxation year.
4. The
Respondent maintained that, for that reason, the Appellant's
appeal was not valid.
5. The hearing
of the motion took place in Quebec City before the Honourable
Justice Tardif on July 24, 2003.
6. Following
the hearing of the motion, the Tax Court of Canada made an order
on August 5, 2003, that granted the Appellant a period
of time ending on August 29, 2003, to serve an amended
Notice of Appeal, as appears from the order attached as
Exhibit R-1.
7. With this
order, the Tax Court of Canada granted the Respondent a period of
time ending on October 30, 2003, to serve a Reply to
the amended Notice of Appeal.
8. On November
7, 2003, I left a message on the voicemail box of Daniel Cantin,
counsel for the Appellant, informing him that some of the
deadlines had not been met.
9. On November
17, 2003, as I had still not heard from counsel for the
Appellant, I faxed him a letter, attached as Exhibit R-2 with a
transmission slip and a notice of confirmation, asking him to
take, within a reasonable period of time, the necessary measures
with the Tax Court of Canada to extend the timeframe for filing
his amended Notice of Appeal and thus rectify his failure to
comply with the order dated August 5, 2003.
10. On November 20, 2003,
as I had still not heard from counsel for the Appellant, further
to my message of November 7, 2003, and my letter dated November
17, 2003, I left him another message on his voicemail box asking
him to call me back.
11. That same day I
received a call from counsel for the Appellant confirming that he
would ensure that the amended Notice of Appeal was filed no later
than November 28, 2003.
12. On or about November
28, 2003, an amended Notice of Appeal was faxed to me in this
file.
13. On December 9, 2003,
Denis Pépin of the Registry for the Tax Court of Canada
told me, in response to a call I had made, that the Tax Court of
Canada had not accepted the filing of the amended Notice of
Appeal because the deadline for filing it had already passed.
14. During that same
telephone conversation, Denis Pépin informed me that a
registry officer had contacted counsel for the Appellant on
December 4, 2003, to notify him of the situation.
15. On December 9, 2003, I
left a message for counsel for the Appellant asking him if he
intended to make a motion in this file in order to comply with
the order dated August 5, 2003.
16. That same day, counsel
for the Appellant informed me that he had gone past the deadline
because the accountant in the file had not provided him with the
documents he had needed to prepare his amended Notice of
Appeal.
17. During that same
conversation, counsel for the Appellant assured me that a motion
would be served to me in this file during the week of December
15.
18. To date, I still have
not heard from counsel for the Appellant, and I have not been
served with any motions in this case.
[...]
[4] When the roll call was given at
9:30 a.m., counsel for the Appellant was absent.
[5] Further to the representations of
the respondent/moving party, the Court granted the motion on the
grounds of non-compliance with the order dated
July 24, 2003, by failing to file the amended Notice of
Appeal, and failure to appear when the respondent was making the
motion.
[6] I also believe it is relevant to
refer to an extract from Adams v. Commissioner
of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police et al (October 7, 1994),
A-634-93 (F.C.A.), cited in Sidhu v. Canada
(Minister of National Revenue), [1994] F.C.J. No. 2028
(Q.L.), in which the Honourable Judge Isaac stated the
following on November 16, 1994:
. . . The day has passed when courts could allow to
litigants the luxury of being at their beck and call. Courts are
public institutions for the resolution of disputes and cost
substantial public money. Court congestion and delay is a
serious public concern. Parties who launch proceedings at
any level with the intention of putting them in a "holding
pattern" for their own private purposes may be called to
account for their waste and abuse of a public resource.
They also risk having those proceedings dismissed.
[7] The motion to dismiss the appeal
is allowed and the appeal made under the Income Tax Act in
respect of the 1998 taxation year is dismissed.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 20th day of February
2004.
Tardif J.
Translation certified true
on this 4th day of January 2005.
Colette Dupuis-Beaulne, Translator
Email this Content