Appearances:
|
For the appellant:
|
No one
appeared
|
|
Counsel for the respondent:
|
Emmanuel Jilwan
|
JUDGMENT
Whereas the appellant was not present when the case was
called, although duly notified of the time and place of the hearing;
Whereas the request for an
adjournment filed by the appellant on November 13, 2014, to which the
respondent had objected, was denied by the Chief Justice of this Court, and the
appellant had been informed by letter mailed on November 14, 2014, of the
denial of the adjournment (this Court's hearings coordinator being unable to
reach the appellant by telephone because the number provided by the appellant
was not in service);
Whereas no one appeared on behalf of the appellant;
Whereas an oral motion was brought to dismiss the
appeals;
The appeals from the reassessments made under the Income
Tax Act for the 2004, 2005 and 2006 taxation years are dismissed for want of prosecution.
Costs are awarded to the respondent
under sections 10 et seq. of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (Informal
Procedure).
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 25th day of November 2014.
"Lucie
Lamarre"
Translation
certified true
On this 7th day of
January 2015
Margarita
Gorbounova, Translator
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Lamarre J.
[1]
On June 28, 2012, the
appellant filed a Notice of Appeal from reassessments for 2004, 2005 and 2006
regarding unreported income.
[2]
The appellant stated in the
Notice that he had received advances and loans that should not be part of the
additional income added by the Minister of National Revenue (the Minister), but
never provided any documentation in support of these claims.
[3]
Based on the correspondence
on the Court’s record, it can be seen that the respondent tried to contact the
appellant several times.
[4]
Before filing his Reply to
the Notice of Appeal on August 20, 2012, counsel for the respondent had asked
the appellant for relevant documentation and had received no reply.
[5]
The first hearing was
scheduled for June 25, 2013. Before
that hearing, counsel for the respondent again tried to contact the appellant
twice in writing as well as by leaving several voicemail messages, but never
received a reply.
[6]
On the day of the hearing,
June 25, 2013, the appellant failed to appear, and Justice Archambault of this
Court dismissed the appeal with costs of $1,000 to the respondent. The judgement was signed on July 8, 2013.
[7]
On December 27, 2013, the
appellant filed a motion to set the judgment aside.
[8]
The respondent objected to
it in a letter dated January 20, 2014. Counsel for the respondent maintained at that time that the
appellant was still not returning his calls, except twice without leaving a
number he could be reached at.
[9]
The motion to set the
judgment aside was scheduled to be heard on March 13, 2014, and the
appellant failed to appear. I
dismissed the motion the same day.
[10]
On March 14, 2014, the
appellant came to the Court and said that he had been at the wrong courtroom
the day before. After listening
to his explanations, I gave him a chance and allowed his motion. I signed an order on March 21, 2014, setting aside the
judgment dated July 8, 2013, and rescheduled the appeal to be heard on November
18, 2014.
[11]
On November 13, 2014, the
appellant made an adjournment request stating that he had to undergo prostate
surgery in the following weeks and attaching a medical note.
[12]
Counsel for the respondent
objected arguing that the medical note does not indicate that the appellant
could not appear at his trial on November 18, 2014. In addition, he argued that the appellant still had not
provided any documentation in support of his claims.
[13]
The Chief Justice of this
Court denied the adjournment request, and the Court's registry staff were not
able to reach the appellant at the telephone number he had provided.
[14]
The letter informing him
that the adjournment had been denied was mailed on Friday, November 14,
2014.
[15]
I am of the view that, by
providing an incorrect telephone number, the appellant failed to take the measures
needed for the Court to be able to inform him as soon as possible of the Chief
Justice's denial of his request for adjournment.
[16]
The medical note did not
state that the appellant was unable to appear in court on November 18, 2014.
[17]
This file has been open for
over two years, and the appellant has shown a lack of interest and concern with
regard to his appeal to the Court. The appellant failed to return the calls of counsel for the
respondent and to co-operate with the respondent regarding the documentation
needed in order to potentially settle this file, gave the Court the wrong
telephone number, and failed to appear on the scheduled hearing date for a
second time.
[18]
Therefore, I am of the view
that the appeals should be dismissed for want of prosecution, with costs to the
respondent.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 25th day of November 2014.
"Lucie Lamarre"
Translation
certified true
On this 7th day of
January 2015
Margarita
Gorbounova, Translator
Email this Content