Muldoon,
J.:—Applying
under
Rule
324,
the
defendant
moves
the
Court
as
constituted
at
the
relevant
time,
pursuant
to
Rule
337(5)
and
(7),
to
reconsider
the
terms
of
the
interlocutory
order
pronounced
in
this
matter
on
September
22,1986.
In
the
circumstances,
the
defendant
seeks
leave
so
to
proceed,
because
a
span
of
much
more
than
ten
days'
time
has
elapsed
since
last
September.
The
defendant
seeks
reconsideration
of
the
terms
of
that
order,
so
as
to
include
reference
to
the
plaintiff's
demand
that
the
defendant
pay
for
the
production
of
a
transcript
of
proceedings
of
the
plaintiff's
unsuccessful
application
for
an
extension
of
time
within
which
to
file
his
notices
of
objection
in
regard
to
his
1979
and
1980
taxation
years.
It
is
true
that
the
interlocutory
order
made,
pronounced
and
signed
on
September
22,
1986,
makes
no
reference
to
the
matter
of
a
free
transcript
for
the
defendant.
It
makes
no
such
reference
because
no
such
order
in
favour
of
the
plaintiff
was
ever
made.
The
taxpayers
of
Canada
do
not
unconditionally
owe
the
plaintiff
the
cost
of
a
transcript
of
proceedings
in
the
Tax
Court
of
Canada.
Representing
himself,
as
he
is,
the
plaintiff
is
spared
paying
solicitors’
and
counsel's
fees.
For
good
and
obvious
reasons
the
Court
must
not
be
concerned
whether
the
plaintiff
is,
or
is
not,
entitled
to
legal
aid,
or
if
so,
whether
he
is
too
proud
or
too
negligent
to
have
obtained
it.
By
whatever
lawful
means,
however,
the
plaintiff
is
obliged
to
bear
the
disbursements
of
the
action
which
he
has
instituted.
A
transcript
is
available
to
all,
and
is
not
a
document
in
the
sole
possession
of
the
defendant.
Therefore,
if
the
plaintiff
wants
a
transcript,
he
must
pay
for
it.
/f
the
plaintiff
be
ultimately
awarded
his
costs
of
this
action,
and
if
the
Court
or
taxing
officer
consider
that
the
transcript
was
necessary
and
relevant
to
the
prosecution
of
the
plaintiff's
action,
then
the
cost
of
the
transcript
can
be
included
as
a
disbursement
in
any
such
costs
as
may
be
awarded
to
the
plaintiff.
But
first
the
plaintiff
must
decide
whether
such
a
transcript
be
relevant
and
necessary,
and
if
so,
he
must
pay
for
it
at
this
stage
of
the
proceedings.
The
leave
sought
by
the
defendant
is
allowed.
The
affidavits
filed
in
the
instant
matter
on
behalf
of
both
parties
hereto
indicate
that
the
question
of
paying
for
a
transcript,
although
not
articulated
in
the
plaintiff's
notice
of
motion
dated
August
11,
1986,
was
discussed
between
the
plaintiff
and
counsel
for
the
defendant
and
mentioned
at
the
hearing
of
September
18,
1986.
In
reply
to
the
plaintiff's
submissions
the
defendant
has
deposited
a
letter
dated
August
26,
1987,
in
which
counsel
seeks
to
crystallize
and
clarify
the
issues
being
litigated
in
the
present
round
of
interlocutory
proceedings.
Only
the
matter
numbered
1
on
the
first
page
of
that
letter
relates
to
this
discrete
proceeding.
It
is
self-evident
and
indeed
adds
nothing
to
the
defendant's
application
pursuant
to
Rule
337(5)
and
(7).
It
therefore
requires
no
further
response
from
the
plaintiff,
who
has
already
tendered
his
submissions
in
opposition
to
the
application.
The
matters
numbered
2
and
3
on
the
first
page
clearly
appear
to
be
beyond
the
scope
of
this
application
brought
pursuant
to
Rules
324
and
337(5)
and
(7).
If
not
already
disposed
by
Mr.
Justice
Martin's
order
herein
dated
January
29,
1987,
they
may,
if
appropriately
placed
before
the
Court,
be
dealt
with
by
the
judge
who
is
next
assigned
to
this
case.
Matters
4
through
10
are
also
extraneous
to
this
limited
application
for
clarification
under
Rule
337(5)
and
(7).
No
officious
order
having
been
pronounced
to
oblige
the
defendant
to
pay
for
the
plaintiff's
transcript,
it
is
beyond
doubt
that
no
such
order
was
ever
contemplated
by
the
Court.
The
defendant
is
not
now
and
has
never
been
so
obliged.
That
is
clear
from
a
perusal
of
the
terms
of
the
subject
order.
However,
for
greater
certainty
and
to
indicate
a
disposition
of
the
informally
raised
issue,
the
order
of
September
22,
1986
will
be
amended
nunc
pro
tunc,
and
this
is
the
sole
separate
document
in
which
it
will
be
so
amended,
in
reference
to
Rule
337(7).
Disposition
of
Application
1.
THIS
COURT
accords
the
leave
sought
by
the
defendant
to
seek
reconsideration
of
the
terms
of
the
order
made
herein
on
September
22,
1986.
2.
THIS
COURT,
upon
such
reconsideration
made
on
the
ground
specified
in
Rule
337(5)(b),
only,
orders
nunc
pro
tunc,
in
this
sole
separate
document
that
the
said
order
of
September
22,
1986
be
and
it
is
hereby
amended
this
day
by
the
addition
of
a
paragraph
9
(which
may
be
written
or
typed
by
a
registry
officer
under
the
judge's
signature
with
a
brief
reference
hereto)
thus:
9.
THIS
COURT
FURTHER
ORDERS
that
the
defendant,
subject
to
the
ultimate
awarding
of
costs
of
this
action,
is
not
obliged
to
pay
for
a
transcript
of
the
proceedings
of
the
Tax
Court
of
Canada
on
behalf
of
the
plaintiff,
whose
application
therefor,
if
justiciable
at
all
herein,
is
hereby
dismissed.
3.
THIS
COURT
awards
the
defendant
the
costs
of
this
application
for
leave
and
reconsideration,
which
are
hereby
fixed
at
$90
plus
necessary
relevant
disbursements,
to
be
paid
by
the
plaintiff
in
any
event
of
the
cause.
Order
accordingly.
Email this Content