Giles,
A.S.P.:—This
motion
brought
in
writing
pursuant
to
Rule
324,
seeks
to
strike
out
the
plaintiff's
claim
on
the
grounds
that
the
only
appeal
from
an
appeal
to
the
Tax
Court
of
Canada
under
the
Informal
Procedure
is
to
the
Federal
Court
of
Appeal
under
section
28
of
the
Federal
Court
Act.
The
plaintiff
has
indicated
that
his
appeal
was
commenced
before
1991.
He
is
presumably
relying
on
the
transitional
provisions,
in
particular
that
section
which
was
once
section
41
of
the
Statutes
of
1988,
c.
61
and
now
appears
as
section
27
of
chapter
T-2.
The
section
provides
that
where
an
appeal
has
been
instituted
in
the
Tax
Court
before
the
coming
into
force
of
the
section,
any
further
appeal
should
be
to
the
Trial
Division
of
the
Federal
Court.
The
taxpayer
was
asked
by
me
to
explain
his
statement
that
the
first
appeal
started
before
1991
and
has
filed
material
indicating
that
in
1990
he
had
made
an
application
to
the
Tax
Court
of
Canada.
That
however,
was
an
application
for
an
extension
of
time
to
file
a
notice
of
objection
and
the
application
was
granted
prior
to
1991.
It
does
not
appear
that
anything
was
before
the
Tax
Court
of
Canada
at
the
end
of
1990.
Section
41
of
chapter
61
of
the
Statutes
of
1988
was
partially
consolidated
into
the
Revised
Statutes
of
1985
as
chapter
51
in
the
4th
supplement
and
under
that
guise
was
proclaimed
to
come
into
force
on
January
1,
1991.
No
type
of
appeal
to
the
Tax
Court
of
Canada
appears
to
have
been
pending
on
January
1,
1991.
This
may
be
born
out
by
the
fact
that
the
appeal
to
the
Tax
Court
of
Canada
appears
to
have
been
under
the
informal
procedure
which
started
at
that
time
and
would
not
have
been
available
before
January,
1991.
The
plaintiff
also
relies
on
subsection
30(2)
of
the
Federal
Court
Act
which
has
been
repealed.
The
plaintiff
also
raised
the
matter
of
his
inability
to
retain
counsel
to
plead
before
the
Federal
Court
of
Appeal.
Poverty,
even
if
accepted
as
a
fact,
would
not
be
a
ground
for
disregarding
the
provisions
of
the
Tax
Court
of
Canada
Act.
The
statement
of
claim
is
therefore
struck
out
because
it
reveals
no
cause
of
action
within
the
jurisdiction
of
the
Trial
Division
of
this
Court.
Application
allowed.
Email this Content