Date: 20000117
Docket: 97-711-UI
BETWEEN:
YOLAND CHANTAL,
Appellant,
and
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
Respondent.
Reasons for Order
Charron, D.J.T.C.C.
[1] A motion for withdrawal of the judgement rendered by Judge
Tardif of this Court on February 17, 1999, dismissing the
appellant's appeal, is before the Court.
The evidence
[2] On July 22, 1996, the law firm of Grondin, Poudrier,
Bernier, a general partnership, requested a review of the
decision rendered on May 29, 1996, by André Paquin,
Director, Tax Services—Quebec, at Revenue Canada. The
appellant's address was not disclosed, even though the letter
from Grondin, Poudrier, Bernier directed the Minister of National
Revenue (the "Minister") in the following terms:
[TRANSLATION] "any correspondence concerning this case
should be sent to the undersigned" (i.e.: Myriam
Trudel).
[3] However, the Minister appears to have been aware of the
appellant's address, because he sent the appellant a letter
dated January 22, 1997, informing him [TRANSLATION] "that
this employment was not insurable because there was no provision
for wages . . . ." The letter was addressed to 10716 St-Jean
Boulevard, Apt. A, Trois-Rivières. Mr. Chantal appealed
from that decision by a letter dated April 22, 1997. He did not
disclose his address.
[4] By a letter of June 18, 1997, Pierre Gamache advised this
Court that he would be appearing before it to represent the
interests of Yoland Chantal, but failed to disclose the
appellant's address. By notice of hearing dated December 22,
1998, this Court informed Pierre Gamache that the appeal had been
set down for hearing at Trois-Rivières on February 8,
1999.
[5] The appellant having failed to appear on that date, his
counsel explained that he had done everything he could to notify
his client of the hearing date. He also said that the appellant
had not informed him of his change of address, thus making
communication impossible. Since counsel for the appellant was
thus prevented from going ahead, he asked permission to remove
himself from the record, which the judge granted.
[6] The respondent asked for the appeal to be dismissed, which
the judge also granted.
Testimony of Pierre Gamache
[7] Mr. Gamache met with the appellant on June 17, 1997, and
agreed to take his case. After receiving the notice of hearing of
December 22, 1998, Mr. Gamache attempted to
contact the appellant by letter and by telephone to inform him of
the hearing date for his case, but to no avail. He did not
succeed in reaching him in time. He had requested an adjournment
to a later date which had been granted and the case set down for
February 8, 1999. Mr. Gamache telephoned every Chantal in the
telephone directory, but in vain.
[8] At 9:47 a.m., the appellant arrived.
Testimony of Yoland Chantal
[9] Yoland Chantal is an electrician by trade. He currently
resides at 775 Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, in Longueuil. He
now requests the withdrawal of the judgment dismissing his
appeal. He admits that he did not inform Mr. Gamache of his
address, even though it had changed twice in the meantime. He has
been living in Montréal and Ste-Catherine for the past two
years. The last address that the Court has for Mr. Chantal is
10716 St-Jean Boulevard, Trois-Rivières.
[10] Human Resources Development Canada reached him by letter,
dated May 2, 1999, at 165 Brébeuf Street in Ste-Catherine
and informed him of the outcome of a claim for employment
insurance benefits made sometime earlier
(Exhibit R-1).
Conclusion
[11] Subsection 18.21(2) of the Tax Court of Canada Act
allows the appellant to apply to the Court to have the order of
dismissal set aside where the requirements of subsection 18.21(3)
of that Act are satisfied:
18.21(3) The Court may set aside an order of dismissal made
under subsection (1) where
(a) it would have been unreasonable in all the
circumstances for the appellant to have attended the hearing;
and
(b) the appellant applied to have the order of
dismissal set aside as soon as circumstances permitted the
application to be brought but, in any event, not later than one
hundred and eighty days after the day on which the order was
mailed to the appellant.
[12] Given the facts set out above, it was reasonable for the
appellant to have attended the hearing. Although the application
herein was made within the prescribed time, one of the conditions
set out in subsection 18.21(3) was not met.
[13] Accordingly, the appellant's motion for withdrawal of
the judgment is dismissed.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 17th day of January, 2000.
"G. Charron"
D.J.T.C.C.
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
Translation certified true on this 30th day of October
2000.
Erich Klein, Revisor
Email this Content