Richard J.:
1 The Applicants commenced an application for judicial review pursuant to section 18.1 of the Federal Court Act by filing an originating notice of motion on November 22, 1996. They were represented by the same counsel.
2 The Applicants sought to set aside a demand for information under the Income Tax Act and the return of any documents concerning the Applicants obtained under paragraph 231.2(1) of the Income Tax Act.
3 The Applicants' application record was filed and served on January 21, 1997 and the Respondent's record was filed and served on February 18, 1997.
4 By order dated August 18, 1997, Mr. Justice Joyal upheld the decision of the Prothonotary dismissing the Respondent's motion to strike out certain material and the Applicants' motion to file additionnal material.
5 In August 1997, counsel for the Applicants and the Respondent made a joint application for a hearing of the application for judicial review. They estimated that the hearing would take one day.
6 By order dated September 17, 1997, the Associate Chief Justice ordered that the hearing of the matter take place before this Court at Montreal on Tuesday, the 24thday of February 1998 at 10:00 o'clock in the forenoon.
7 On November 21, 1997, the solicitors for the Applicants applied to withdraw from the record under Rule 300.1. They gave the following reasons for this application:
2. The firm of Sweibel Novek has received the mandate to represent the Petitioners and to take the current Originating Motion against the Respondent.
3. Sweibel Novek is currently the solicitors on record for the Applicants.
4. Sweibel Novek has on numerous occasions requested the payment of outstanding professional fees and legal disbursements as well as requesting instructions regarding the conduct of the file from the Applicants.
5. The Applicants do not answer the requests made by Sweibel Novek and refuse to cooperate and communicate.
6. It has become impossible for the undersigned solicitors on record to continue effectively representing the Applicants.
8 This application was granted on December 12, 1997 and a copy of this order was personally served on each of the Applicants and on the Respondent on December 19, 1997.
9 By letter dated February 20, 1998 a firm of solicitors in Montreal advised the Court registry that Mr. Khush B.R. Chaudhry had communicated with them on February 18, 1998 concerning the application for judicial review. The solicitors stated that they have not accepted to represent Mr. Chaudhry and that he will seek an adjournment on February 24, 1998. If an adjournment is granted the solicitors state that they will examine the file and then decide whether or not they will represent Mr. Chaudhry. They make it clear that they had not accepted any mandate from Mr. Chaudhry.
10 On February 24, 1998, after the registrar had called file T-2570-96, Mr. Ahmad, assisted by a solicitor, and the remaining Applicants sought an adjournment on the ground that they were not prepared to proceed in the circumstances.
11 Counsel for the Respondent objected to any adjournment. The information was requested on October 25, 1996 in order to conduct an audit of each of the Applicants' tax liability for the taxation years 1989 through to 1992. By reason of the refusal to produce these documents, the audit has been stalled.
12 Subsection 18.4(1) of the Federal Court Act directs that an application under section 18.1 shall be heard and determined without delay and in a summary way. The Applicants had notice as early as November 20, 1997, when they were personally served with their solicitor's appliction to withdraw, that their solicitor was seeking to withdraw. They did not oppose the motion or contest the grounds for it.
13 On December 19, 1997 they were served with the order allowing their solicitor to withdraw and did nothing until February 18, 1998, even though counsel for the Respondent had written to them on January 27, 1998 reminding them of the hearing date and stating that Respondent would not consent to a postponement of the hearing.
14 Accordingly, in these circumstances, the application for an adjournment is denied.
Email this Content