Words and Phrases - "in person"
The appellant brought a motion pursuant to Rule 30(2) of the Tax Court of Canada (General Procedure) Rules (the “Rules”) to have its sole shareholder, director and principal officer act on its behalf in its tax appeal. Subsection 17.1(1) of the Tax Court of Canada Act read:
A party to a proceeding in respect of which this section applies may appear in person or be represented by counsel, but where the party wishes to be represented by counsel, only a person who is referred to in subsection (2) shall represent the party.
In disagreeing with the finding in Masa Sushi and subsequent cases that Rule 30(2) conflicted with section 17.1, and the latter section did not allow a corporation to be represented other than by counsel, Miller J stated (at paras 5, 8):
A corporate taxpayer, like an individual taxpayer, has the choice to appear in person or by counsel. If it chooses to appear “in person,” how does it do that? It turns to Rule 30(2), which provides how a corporation may appear in person in the Tax Court of Canada – by means of leave of a judge of the Court with possible conditions. … Yes, there is common law jurisprudence to the effect that “in person” can only mean by the presence of a visible person … but there has been no such jurisprudence, until Masa Sushi, from the Tax Court of Canada. The jurisprudence referenced by Justice Graham is not founded in legislation that explicitly allows a corporation to appear in person.
…Surely we can give the drafters of the legislation and the drafters of the Rules credit for recognizing the uniqueness of the Court, unencumbered by the traditional common law findings of other Courts.
He went on to allow the appellant to appear in person through the individual on stipulated conditions.