Hamlyn,
T.C.C
J.:—The
appeals
in
this
matter
were
filed
March
6,
1991.
No
application
was
filed
with
this
Court
by
the
parties
requesting
that
a
date
and
time
for
hearing
of
these
appeals
be
set
in
accordance
with
Rule
123
of
the
Rules
of
the
Tax
Court
of
Canada
(General
Procedure)
and
accordingly
the
matter
was
not
set
down
for
hearing.
As
a
consequence
the
matter
had
to
be
set
for
a
status
hearing
in
accordance
with
Rule
125.
At
that
status
hearing,
on
September
28,
1992,
with
the
concurrence
of
both
counsel
the
appeals
were
set
peremptorily
for
Monday,
January
25,
1993
at
9:30
a.m.
at
the
Tax
Court
of
Canada
at
Vancouver,
British
Columbia.
At
the
hearing
of
January
25,
1993,
a
motion
by
the
counsel
who
appeared
both
for
the
counsel
of
record
and
for
the
appellants
was
placed
before
the
Court
to
adjourn
the
hearing
of
these
appeals
to
a
later
date.
The
following
was
submitted
to
support
the
motion.
It
was
alleged
the
appellant
(Bruce)
who
was
to
be
the
main
witness
for
both
appellants
had
not
left
the
State
of
Arizona
in
the
United
States
of
America.
It
was
further
alleged
the
appellant
(Bruce)
was
unable
to
travel
by
road
because
of
weather
(unsupported)
and
was
unable
to
travel
by
aircraft
because
of
a
medical
condition
(supported
by
medical
letters
filed).
Counsel
for
the
respondent
submitted
that
the
appellant
(Bruce)
had
not
made
sufficient
efforts
to
attend
the
hearing
of
the
appeals
nor
had
he
filed
sufficient
proof
as
to
the
impossibility
of
attendance.
On
these
submissions
this
Court
ordered
the
appellants’
motion
be
granted.
Counsel
on
the
motion
asked
for
a
brief
adjournment
to
seek
telephone
instructions
from
the
appellants’
counsel
of
record
as
to
future
availability
for
the
hearing
of
the
appeals.
The
hearing
of
the
appeals
thereafter
was
set
down
peremptorily
at
Vancouver,
British
Columbia
for
Wednesday,
April
28,1993
at
9:30
a.m.
Counsel
for
the
respondent
then
petitioned
the
Court
for
an
order
as
to
costs
alleging
that
the
actions
of
the
appellant
(Bruce)
on
this
motion
and
in
the
conduct
of
the
appeals
were
consistent
with
a
conclusion
that
the
appellant
(Bruce)
is
delaying
the
proceeding.
Counsel
for
the
appellants
opposed
the
requested
costs
award.
This
Court
has
a
discretion
under
the
Rules
of
the
Tax
Court
of
Canada
(General
Procedure)
over
the
payment,
amount
and
allocation
of
costs
in
respect
of
a
part
of
a
proceeding
including
the
determination
of
the
persons
by
whom
they
are
to
be
paid.
In
the
exercise
of
its
discretion
this
Court
may
consider
the
conduct
of
any
party
that
tends
to
lengthen
unnecessarily
the
duration
of
the
proceeding
(Tax
Court
of
Canada
Rules
(General
Procedure)
Rule
147(1)(3g)(3i)(4)(5a)).
This
Court
concluded
the
appellant
(Bruce)
by
not
making
further
and
other
efforts
to
attend
the
hearing
or
providing
better
cogent
evidence
as
to
why
he
was
not
attending
has
lengthened
unnecessarily
this
proceeding.
This
Court
ordered
that
the
respondent
be
awarded
costs
of
$1,000
for
this
part
of
the
proceeding
payable
by
the
appellants
notwithstanding
the
result
of
the
appeals.
Order
accordingly.
Email this Content