Mogan,
T.C.C.J.:—The
appellants
have
asked
for
a
number
of
items
in
their
notices
of
motion.
On
the
question
of
short
service
of
the
notices,
I
have
in
effect
granted
that
by
hearing
the
motions
this
morning.
Because
they
had
previously
asked
for
an
adjournment
which
was
turned
down,
and
then
had
served
these
notices
late,
I
decided
it
was
better
to
hear
them
this
morning.
I
have
in
effect
allowed
short
service
of
the
notices
of
motion.
The
second
item
is
an
order
striking
out
certain
paragraphs
in
the
Minister's
reply
to
the
notice
of
appeal.
I
would
not
permit
that.
I
would
not
order
that
any
paragraphs
be
struck
out.
I
might
say
that
in
this
Court
we
see
primarily
pleadings
in
income
tax
cases
and
usually
the
Minister's
reply
is
quite
terse.
Sometimes
it
is
almost
too
succinct.
I
have
seldom
seen
the
Minister
file
and
serve
a
reply
to
a
notice
of
appeal
that
is
as
extensive
and
filled
with
specifics
as
this
reply.
The
appellants
have
been
informed
in
this
reply,
for
many
months
now,
in
single
syllable
words
of
many
facts
and
arguments
the
Minister
intends
to
use
in
this
proceeding.
And
so,
rather
than
having
to
wonder
what
the
Minister's
position
is,
the
appellants
have
an
abundance
of
information,
some
of
it
allegations
of
fact,
some
of
it
probably
in
the
nature
of
argument,
as
to
what
the
Minister's
position
is.
The
appellants
have
had
that
for
so
long
that
I
do
not
see
any
reason
to
strike
it.
There
is
nothing
which
I
can
see
that
is
improper
in
the
allegations
the
Minister
has
made
and
I
would
not
make
an
order
striking
them.
As
to
the
third
item,
the
alternative,
granting
leave
to
the
appellants
to
amend
their
notice
of
appeal,
I
would
not
permit
that
either
but,
if
they
want
to
file
an
answer
to
anything
that
they
think
is
fresh
in
the
Minister's
position
in
his
Reply,
I
would
choose
a
time,
I
am
thinking
of
five
o'clock
Monday
afternoon,
June
17
to
serve
such
an
answer.
That
would
give
the
appellants
the
remainder
of
today
and
Saturday
and
Sunday
to
draft
whatever
answer
they
want
and
they
have
obviously
thought
about
that.
If
they
want
to
serve
that
on
Mr.
Olsson,
they
can
file
it
in
the
Court
Tuesday
morning
and
that
way
they
could
at
least
plead
whatever
response
they
want
to
what
they
think
is
new.
As
to
such
further
and
other
relief,
to
the
extent
that
it
may
lead
to
a
request
for
an
adjournment,
I
will
not
adjourn
this
case.
If
the
appellants
want
to
speak
to
it
on
Tuesday
morning
at
nine-thirty,
they
may
persuade
me
to
adjourn
it
for
twenty-four
hours.
I
would
like
to
hear
them
then,
but
this
case
is
going
to
go
ahead
either
at
nine-thirty
on
Tuesday
or
nine-thirty
on
Wednesday.
I
would
have
some
flexibility
Tuesday
morning
depending
on
what
is
said
then
because
I
am
sure
we
all
find
this
kind
of
motion
on
a
conference
call
not
as
satisfactory
as
all
being
in
court
together.
If
the
appellants
want
to
make
a
motion
for
an
adjournment
on
Tuesday
morning
and
if
they
could
persuade
me,
I
could
adjourn
it
for
twenty-four
hours
on
the
basis
that
we
commence
at
nine-thirty
on
Wednesday
morning,
June
19.
I
cannot
stop
them
from
renewing
on
Tuesday
morning
their
request
for
adjournment,
but
I
have
given
my
inclination
that
I
think
they
have
no
grounds
for
it.
They
may
be
able
to
persuade
me
to
adjourn
for
twenty-four
hours,
but
my
inclination
is
that
this
has
to
proceed
either
at
nine-thirty
Tuesday
or,
subject
to
a
motion
then
for
adjournment,
I
may
be
persuaded
to
adjourn
it
twenty-four
hours
to
nine-thirty
Wednesday,
but
my
present
inclination
is
that
this
matter
is
going
to
proceed
on
Tuesday
or
Wednesday
next
week.
If
the
appellants
are
not
prepared
to
go
ahead
on
either
of
those
days,
then
I
will
have
to
listen
to
whatever
motion
the
respondent
makes.
Therefore,
if
the
appellants
want
until
five
o'clock
in
the
afternoon
of
Monday,
June
17,
to
serve
on
the
respondent
some
form
of
answer
to
whatever
they
conclude
is
new
in
his
pleading
that
should
be
answered
by
way
of
a
response
from
the
appellants,
they
may
serve
such
an
answer
and
they
do
not
have
to
file
any
such
answer
in
court
until
Tuesday
morning.
That
will
give
them
a
chance
to
at
least
respond
to
whatever
they
think
is
a
fresh
allegation
in
the
respondent's
reply.
I
am
making
that
order
now
but
it
is
the
only
relief
the
appellants
obtain
this
morning.
There
is
nothing
to
be
struck
from
the
respondent's
reply
and
the
appellants
are
not
to
amend
their
notices
of
appeal,
but
they
can
respond
to
what
they
think
is
new.
On
that
basis
we
will
convene
at
nine-thirty
on
Tuesday
morning,
June
18
[sic].
Application
allowed
in
part.
Email this Content