AMENDED REASONS FOR ORDER
(Appeal
called for hearing and decision rendered orally from the Bench
on August 31, 2015 at Toronto, Ontario.)
Boyle J.
[1]
Respondent's counsel has moved under section
18(21) of the Tax Court Act for a dismissal, as Mr. Smith has again not
appeared at a scheduled hearing.
[2]
Mr. Smith did not attend a prior hearing called
in February of this year. At that time, Mr. Smith alerted Crown counsel an
hour before the hearing of an ailing family member. At that time, Justice
Pizzitelli denied the Crown's motion to dismiss and adjourned the matter sine
die to be set down promptly and, importantly, peremptorily at a future
date.
[3]
Mr. Smith's new address was specified in Justice
Pizzitelli's earlier Order; yet, the notice of today's hearing, which was sent
by registered letter, was returned to the Court unclaimed, and so it was resent
by regular mail by the Court. Crown counsel's letter of August 10 has tracking
information from Canada Post indicating that it was successfully delivered to
that address.
[4]
I understand that Mr. Smith did not provide any
documents supporting his rental loss claim in that one year to Canada Revenue
Agency at the objection stage, nor did he provide any to Respondent's counsel
when asked in preparation for the February hearing or, again, for today's
hearing.
[5]
I will presume that Mr. Smith acted in good
faith in filing his Notice of Appeal and commencing this process. However, it
appears that at some point he has decided not to pursue it with the requisite
diligence. He did not communicate with the Court regarding today's hearing when
a simple quick phone call would have sufficed, nor did he contact the Court in
writing or by e-mail with respect to today's hearing. He simply e-mailed Crown
counsel last Friday, this being Monday, indicating that he would not be
attending and that he needed an adjournment.
[6]
I see no reason or circumstance warranting
another hearing at a later date in Mr. Smith's case. Mr. Smith's inaction has
the effect of wasting public resources and available Court sitting dates for
both the Court and the Respondent. It is an abuse of the Court's process, and
it also has the effect of unduly delaying the effective and prompt resolution
of the appeal, which it appears he is not pursuing, and it should therefore be
dismissed.
[7]
I am dismissing the appeal on Respondent
counsel's motion, and I am fixing costs in accordance with Rule 10(2)
amounts at $625.
This Amended Reasons for Order is issued in
substitution of the Reasons for Order dated October 1, 2015.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 10th
day of November 2015.
“Patrick Boyle”
Email this Content