Citation: 2014 TCC 81
Date: 20140314
Docket: 2012-2834(EI)
BETWEEN:
SYLVAIN DURAND,
Appellant,
and
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
Respondent.
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH
TRANSLATION]
____________________________________________________________________
Appeal called for hearing on March 10,
2014, at Montréal, Quebec.
Before: The Honourable Justice
Gaston Jorré
Appearances:
|
For the appellant:
|
No one appeared
|
|
|
|
|
Counsel for the respondent:
|
Ilinca Ghibu
|
____________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT AND REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Jorré J.
[1]
Despite the fact that
the appellant was duly notified of the time and place of the appeal hearing,
the appellant was not present when the case was called at the beginning of the
hearing on Monday, March 10, 2014, and was still not present at
10:30 a.m.
[2]
No one appeared for the
appellant, and the respondent filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for want of
prosecution.
[3]
As Justice Woods wrote
in North Shore Footwear Ltd. v. M.N.R., "[a]n appellant should be prepared to
proceed with the appeal on the date scheduled for the hearing".
[4]
I would add that an
appellant who claims to be unable to proceed on a scheduled hearing date, for
whatever reason, must apply for an adjournment as soon as possible.
[5]
A notice of hearing was
sent to the appellant by registered mail in September 2013 and was returned
by the post office.
[6]
The notes in the
Court's electronic file show that the registrar had a telephone conversation
with the appellant on September 18, 2013, and was given a new address for
the appellant.
[7]
The notice of hearing
was resent by standard mail in September 2013, more than four months
before the hearing date.
[8]
The Court had no word
from the appellant between the day the notice of hearing was sent and the day
of the hearing.
[9]
At the hearing, counsel
for the respondent stated that two weeks before the hearing, she had tried to
contact the appellant in a number of different ways, but the only answer she
received was a message left on her assistant's voicemail box on Friday,
March 7, 2014. Since counsel and her assistant were not in the office that
day, she only found out about the message the morning of the trial.
[10]
In that message, the appellant
said that he would be unable to attend the hearing because, among other
reasons, he did not have a driver's licence.
[11]
In this case, the
appellant did not apply to the Court for a postponement, and the circumstances
of which I am aware do not suggest that there is any justification for the
absence of the appellant, who had four months' notice of the hearing.
[12]
For these reasons, the
appeal is dismissed, and the decision that the Minister of National Revenue
rendered on June 1, 2012, pursuant to the Employment Insurance Act is
affirmed.
[13]
However, I would note
that if the appellant has a reasonable explanation for his failure to pursue
his appeal in a timely manner, he may file a motion have this decision set
aside pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of this Court.
[14]
If the appellant were
to file such a motion, he would have to explain not only why he failed to
appear for the hearing, but also why he did not seek a postponement well before
the hearing was held.
Signed at Montréal, Quebec, this 14th day of March
2014.
"Gaston Jorré"
on this 28th day
of April 2014
Michael Palles, Translator
CITATION: 2014 TCC 81
COURT FILE NO.: 2012-2834(EI)
STYLE OF CAUSE: SYLVAIN DURAND v. M.N.R.
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: March 10, 2014
REASONS FOR
JUDGMENT BY: The Honourable Justice Gaston Jorré
DATE OF JUDGMENT: March 14, 2014
APPEARANCES:
|
For the appellant:
|
No one appeared
|
|
|
|
|
Counsel for the respondent:
|
Ilinca Ghibu
|
SOLICITORS OF
RECORD:
For the appellant:
Name:
Firm:
For the
respondent: William F.
Pentney
Deputy
Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa,
Ontario
Email this Content