Date: 20021003
Docket: A-479-00
Neutral citation: 2002 FCA 357
Present: Rothstein J.A.
Noël J.A.
Sharlow J.A.
BETWEEN:
MELBA FLORINE MANSON AND MELBA FLORINE MANSON IN RIGHT OF
ESTATE OF HUGH MANSON (deceased husband)
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN AS REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE AND CANADA CUSTOMS AND REVENUE AGENCY
Respondent
Dealt with in writing without appearance of parties
Order delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, October 3, 2002
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: SHARLOW J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY: ROTHSTEIN J.A.
NOËL J.A.
Date: 20021003
Docket: A-479-00
Neutral citation: 2002 FCA 357
Present: Rothstein J.A.
Noël J.A.
Sharlow J.A.
BETWEEN:
MELBA FLORINE MANSON AND MELBA FLORINE MANSON IN RIGHT OF
ESTATE OF HUGH MANSON (deceased husband)
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN AS REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE AND CANADA CUSTOMS AND REVENUE AGENCY
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
SHARLOW J.A.
[1] This appeal was commenced on July 26, 2000 to challenge a decision of Justice Gibson dated May 23, 2000. He had dismissed the appellants' applications to prevent Revenue Canada from collecting certain income and excise tax debts until they were proved, and to refund money that had been collected. The appeal has not been made ready for hearing because no acceptable appeal book has been filed.
[2] There has been considerable controversy in this case about the matter of the appeal book. The appellants from the outset wished to include material that was not part of the record before Justice Gibson, but they did not follow the correct procedure to obtain leave to present new evidence on appeal. That apparently was because they are self-represented and did not understand what was required.
[3] In any event the matter finally came before me and I concluded that some but not all of the appellants' additional material could be introduced on the appeal. That led to my order of August 9, 2001, which would have permitted the following material to be presented as evidence on appeal:
(a) the following pages from Exhibit B appended to Ms. Manson's affidavit sworn July 17, 2001:
(1) the pages showing the following page references at the bottom right hand corner: 19, 21, 23, 96, 98;
(2) letter dated March 26, 2001 from Suzanne Lafrance, Director, Access to Information and Privacy Division, Canada Customs and Revenue Agency and the three following pages indicating exemptions pursuant to section 27 of the Privacy Act;
(3) letter dated August 6, 1998 from Mike Bartram, Collection Contact Officer, Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, showing the following page references at the bottom right hand corner: 24, 25;
(4) the pages showing the following page references at the bottom right hand corner: 22, 101, 114, 28, 130, 132, 20, 18, 17, 16, 15, 6, 4, 3, 29, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 55, 44, 45, 46, 47, 52, 56, 62, 65, 67, 83, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 227;
(5) letter dated April 10, 2001 from Colleen Heikkila, Appeals Officer, Canada Customs and Revenue Agency;
(6) letter dated April 6, 2001 from Paul Cadieux, Manager, Access to Information and Privacy Division, Canada Customs and Revenue Agency with the pages showing the following page references at the bottom right hand corner: 24, 23, 22, 16, 11, 10, 7, 6, 5, 4, 1;
(b) the pages from Exhibit D appended to Ms. Manson's affidavit sworn July 17, 2001 showing the following page references at the bottom right hand corner: 133, 134, 135;
(c) Exhibit E appended to Ms. Manson's affidavit sworn July 17, 2001 (letter dated May 3, 2001 from C. Heikkila, Appeals Division, Canada Customs and Revenue Agency);
(d) the pages from Exhibit F appended to Ms. Manson's affidavit sworn July 17, 2001 showing the following page references at the bottom right hand corner: 138, 139; and
(e) the pages from the supplementary material filed by Ms. Manson on July 19, 2001 showing the following page references at the bottom right hand corner: 64, 61, 60, 59, 48.
[4] In written reasons for my August 9, 2001 order, I explained among other things that the purpose of the appeal book is to assemble in one or more volumes all the documents that the judges hearing the appeal may have to refer to in order to determine the appeal.
[5] On the same date I issued directions that were intended to clarify certain other matters relating to the contents of the appeal book. Those directions were not complied with. By letter dated September 19, 2001, counsel for the Crown requested that the appeal be dismissed for failure to comply with my direction. Instead, I issued an order dated October 15, 2001 which reads in part as follows:
Having reviewed the material filed pursuant to my direction dated August 9, 2001, and having reviewed again the material filed prior to that date, I have determined that the appeal book should contain the following documents:
(a) the notice of appeal,
(b) the order of Mr. Justice Gibson appealed from (as signed and entered),
(c) any written reasons given for his order,
(d) the originating documents in the Trial Division file and any other pleadings,
(e) all documents or exhibits that were before Mr. Justice Gibson when he made the order appealed from, and
(f) the documents comprising the new evidence to be admitted on appeal, as set out in my order dated August 9, 2001, arranged chronologically to the extent possible, in a separate volume clearly marked "New Evidence on Appeal".
[6] According to Rule 345, the appeal book should have been filed within 30 days after my order of October 15, 2001. That was not done.
[7] On April 2, 2002, I made an order requiring the Appeal Book to be filed by April 30, 2002, failing which the appeal could be dismissed without further notice.
[8] An appeal book was filed on April 30, 2002. By letter dated May 22, 2002, counsel for the Crown pointed out a number of deficiencies in the appeal book, and requested directions. The matter came before Létourneau J.A., who found that the appeal book did not comply with my order of October 15, 2001 or the applicable Federal Court Rules, 1998. By order dated May 28, 2002, he required the appeal book to be returned and a compliant appeal book to be filed by June 21, 2002, "failing which the appeal is to be dismissed without further notice".
[9] On July 2, 2002, counsel for the Crown notified the Court that the May 28, 2002 order of Létourneau J.A. had not been complied with and requested that the appeal be dismissed in accordance with that order.
[10] On July 12, 2002, Décary J.A. issued a notice of status review requiring the appellants to show cause, by August 12, 2002, why the appeal should not be dismissed for delay.
[11] On July 31, 2002, the appellants filed a submission in response to the notice of status review. The submission does not explain their delay in filing the appeal book or their failure to comply with the order of Létourneau J.A. On the contrary, the appellants say they have no intention of filing an appeal book. The appellants apparently are of the view that requirement for appeal books should be waived and that the matter should be resolved or settled immediately.
[12] Counsel for the Crown also made submissions with respect to the status review, opposing the continuation of the appeal and also indicating that the appellants had filed an application for leave to appeal the May 28, 2002 order of Létourneau J.A. to the Supreme Court of Canada.
[13] On August 14, 2002, the appellants filed a "rebuttal" in which they say, among other things, that they had made a leave application and that they wished to have the matter heard without delay. However, they demonstrated no intention to file an appeal book.
[14] On September 12, 2002, I issued a direction that no further steps were to be taken in this appeal until all proceedings in the Supreme Court of Canada were concluded. By letter dated September 17, 2002, counsel for the Crown advised that the Supreme Court of Canada had returned the appellant's documents on August 16, 2002 and that at the moment there are no Supreme Court of Canada proceedings relating to this matter. It is now necessary to consider the status review, and also to consider the consequences of the appellants' failure to comply with the May 28, 2002 order of Létourneau J.A.
[15] A response to a notice of status review must justify the delay that has occurred in preparing the matter for hearing, and must propose concrete steps to move the matter forward (see for example, Baroud v. Her Majesty the Queen (1998), 160 F.T.R. 91, and Rogers (c.o.b. Lairds Aircraft Support) v. Canada, 2001 FCA 382). Where there are court orders or directions that have not been complied with by the time the notice of status review is issued, those outstanding matters should also be dealt with in the response to the notice of status review.
[16] Those requirements are underlined in a case such as this one. If the appellants had complied with the numerous directions and orders issued to date, this matter would have been ready for hearing many months ago. Instead, the appellants' repeated failure to comply with court orders and directions led to the clearest possible warning in the May 28, 2002 order of Létourneau J.A. that the appeal could be dismissed without a hearing on the merits. Nothing in the material filed by the appellants justifies their failure to file the appeal book in accordance with the May 28, 2002 order.
[17] I conclude that this appeal must be dismissed.
"K. Sharlow"
J.A.
"I agree
Marshall Rothstein J.A."
"I agree
Marc Noël J.A."
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-479-00
STYLE OF CAUSE: Melba F. Manson and others v. Her Majesty the Queen
PLACE OF HEARING: Dealt with in wirting without appearance of parties
REASONS FOR ORDER : Sharlow J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY: Rothstein J.A.
Noël J.A.
DATED: October 3, 2002
APPEARANCES:
Ms. Melba F. Manson FOR THE APPELLANT
(on her own behalf)
Kerry E.S. Boyd FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Ms. Melba F. Manson FOR THE APPELLANT
Calgary, Alberta
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario
Email this Content