Date: 20050125
Docket: 04-A-63
Citation: 2005 FCA 32
Present: EVANS J.A.
BETWEEN:
SATISH KUMAR
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
"Dealt with in writing without appearance of parties."
Order delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on January 25, 2005.
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: EVANS J.A.
Date: 20050125
Docket: 04-A-63
Citation: 2005 FCA 32
Present: EVANS J.A.
BETWEEN:
SATISH KUMAR
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
EVANS J.A.
[1] This is a motion, dated December 7, 2004, brought by Satish Kumar under Rule 369 of the Federal Court Rules, 1998, requesting an extension of time to appeal an order of Justice Bowie of the Tax Court of Canada, dated August 10, 2004.
[2] In that order, Justice Bowie dismissed a motion by Mr. Kumar for an extension of time to appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal a judgment of Justice Teskey, dated August 3, 1999, respecting the amount of money to be remitted by Mr. Kumar to the Crown by way of goods and services tax for the years 1992, 1993 and 1994. Mr. Kumar also requested Justice Bowie to grant him an extension of time to appeal an order of Justice Teskey, dated September 14, 1999, dismissing a motion by Mr. Kumar to reconsider his judgment of August 3, 1999.
[3] Mr. Kumar alleges that Justice Teskey's order of August 3, 1999, is at variance with the reasons for decision that he gave orally at the end of the hearing. He also denies that he consented to the order drafted by Justice Teskey. However, when Justice Teskey reconsidered his order he stated that:
And upon reviewing my own notes made at the hearing on July 14, 1999, in Sydney, Nova Scotia and being satisfied that the judgment dated August 3, 1999 is what was agreed upon by the parties;
[4] Having considered the materials filed by Mr. Kumar and those filed on behalf of the Crown, which opposes the motion for an extension of time, I am not persuaded that I should extend the time for appealing, which expired on September 30, 2004.
[5] In particular, Mr. Kumar has not satisfied me that there is an arguable case that the judgment dated August 3, 1999, on consent of both parties, was in error. I note also that Mr. Kumar did not appeal Justice Teskey's judgment of September 14, 1999, dismissing the motion to reconsider the judgment of August 3, 1999. Further, since the judgments that Mr. Kumar wishes to challenge were rendered more then five years ago and relate to assessments of the amount of Mr. Kumar's GST liability in the years 1992-94, the Crown is liable to the prejudiced by the grant of an extension of time. Finally, in view of the consent of the parties to the order of August 3, 1999, it would not be in the interests of justice to grant the extension.
[6] Mr. Kumar has provided no explanation for not appealing in time Justice Bowie's order of August 10, 2004, other than the fact that he is representing himself and is unfamiliar with the procedures for appealing. In all the instances of this case, I cannot conclude that his ignorance of the rules warrants the extension of time that he is seeking.
[7] For these reasons, the motion for an extension of time within which to appeal Justice Bowie's order of August, 10, 2004, is dismissed.
"John M. Evans"
J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: 04-A-63
STYLE OF CAUSE: Satish Kumar v. Her Majesty The Queen
MOTION DEALT WITH IN WRITING WITHOUT THE APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: The Honourable Mr. Justice Evans
DATED: January 25, 2005
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY:
Mr. Satish Kumar ON HIS OWN BEHALF
Mr. John Smithers FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Mr. Satish Kumar ON HIS OWN BEHALF
John H. Sims, Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada FOR THE RESPONDENT
Email this Content