Date: 20020403
Docket: A-109-01
Neutral citation: 2002 FCA 127
CORAM: ROTHSTEIN J.A.
EVANS J.A.
SHARLOW J.A.
BETWEEN:
AHSAN M KHAN
Applicant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
A-110-01
BETWEEN:
RAFAT KHAN
Applicant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
Dealt with in writing without appearance of parties.
Order delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, April 3, 2002
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: SHARLOW J.A
CONCURRED IN BY:. ROTHSTEIN J.A.
EVANS J.A.
Date: 20020403
Docket: A-109-01
Neutral citation: 2002 FCA 127
CORAM: ROTHSTEIN J.A.
EVANS J.A.
SHARLOW J.A.
BETWEEN:
AHSAN M KHAN
Applicant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
A-110-01
BETWEEN:
RAFAT KHAN
Applicant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
Sharlow J.A.
[1] On January 25, 2001, Judge Rowe of the Tax Court of Canada allowed the Crown's motion to quash appeals filed by Ashan Mohammed Khan and his wife Rafat Khan for the taxation years 1992 to 1999. According to the reasons for judgment, reported as Khan v. Canada, [2001] T.C.J. No. 193, [2001] 2 C.T.C. 2557 (T.C.C.), the appeals were quashed because the appellants had not filed notices of objection, a statutory precondition to a valid Tax Court appeal. It appears that neither appellant appeared at the hearing of the motion, although they had been notified.
[2] On February 28, 2001, notices of application for judicial review were filed in this Court by Mr. Khan (A-109-01) and Ms. Khan (A-110-01). However, they took no further steps to prepare the matter for hearing, as required by the Federal Court Rules, 1998. Specifically, they did not serve and file an affidavit under Rule 306, an application record under Rule 309, or a requisition for hearing under Rule 314.
[3] On September 27, 2001, Notices of Status Review were issued under Rule 381. That required the Khans to explain why they had failed to take the required steps to move this matter forward, and to explain what steps they proposed to take to remedy the situation. Instead, they responded by a letter requesting a hearing date. That response was unsatisfactory. In fact, it could have justified dismissing these applications for delay.
[4] However, as it appeared that the Khans may have failed to understand the function of the Notice of Status Review or their obligations upon receiving such a notice, an order was made on January 15, 2002 setting out in some detail what steps they were required to take to move this matter to hearing and setting new deadlines for each step. The Khans have not complied with that order. They have simply sent letters dated January 27, 2002 explaining why they believed they had been incorrectly assessed and again requesting a hearing date.
[5] At this stage, fourteen months have passed since the Khans commenced their applications for judicial review, and the matter is no closer to hearing than it was at the outset. It is not clear whether that is because they do not understand what is required, or because they simply do not wish to take the necessary steps. Whatever the cause, there is no reason to believe that this matter will be advanced by further directions from the Court.
[6] For these reasons, these applications for judicial review will be dismissed for failure to comply with the Rules and the order dated January 15, 2002. These reasons will apply to A-109-01 and A-110-01 and will be included in both files.
"K. Sharlow"
J.A.
"M.R."
"J.M.E."
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-109-01 & A-110-01 STYLE OF CAUSE:
AHSAN M KHAN v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN RAFAT KHAN v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
A-109-01 A-110-01
REASONS FOR ORDER: SHARLOW J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY: ROTHSTEIN J.A. EVANS J.A.
DEALT WITH IN WRITING WITHOUT APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES
ORDER DELIVERED AT OTTAWA, ONTARIO, APRIL 3, 2002.
REPRESENTATIONS MADE BY:
Mr. Ahsan M Khan
Ms. Rafat Khan FOR THEMSELVES
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Mr. Ahsan M Khan Ms. Rafat Khan Vancouver, B.C. FOR THE THEMSELVES
Mr. Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario FOR THE RESPONDENT
Email this Content