Federal Court of Appeal Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content

Date: 20050427

Docket: A-13-05

Citation: 2005 FCA 149

Present: PELLETIER J.A.

BETWEEN:

                                                              QING HUA ZHOU

                                                                                                                                            Appellant

                                                                         - and -

                               HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN and MR. SIMON PETIT

                                                                                                                                      Respondents

                                       "Dealt with in writing without appearance of parties."

                                    Order delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on April 27, 2005.

REASONS FOR ORDER BY:                                                                            PELLETIER J.A.


Date: 20050427

Docket: A-13-05

Citation: 2005 FCA 149

Present: PELLETIER J.A.

BETWEEN:                                                               

                                                              QING HUA ZHOU

                                                                                                                                            Appellant

                                                                         - and -

                               HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN and MR. SIMON PETIT

                                                                                                                                      Respondents

                                                        REASONS FOR ORDER

PELLETIER J.A.

[1]                The appellant requests that the Court reconsiders its order setting the contents of the Appeal Book so as to permit the appellant to include in the Appeal Book "any other document relevant to the appeal."


[2]                Leaving aside for a moment the question as to whether such a request is a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 397, the Court is not inclined to allow the appellant to add to the Appeal Book documents which were not received in evidence by the Trial Judge and which were not otherwise before the Court. The appeal is to be heard on the basis of the record as it existed before the Tax Court.

[3]                As for the question of the transcript of proceedings before the Tax Court, the order setting the contents of the Appeal Book provides that the Appeal Book will include the transcript of evidence. This Court has no jurisdiction to make an order directing the Tax Court to pay for the transcript. The Tax Court, it goes without saying, is not a litigant before this Court.

[4]                For these reasons, the Court orders that the motion for reconsideration is dismissed.

                                                                                                                            "J.D. Denis Pelletier"             

                                                                                                                            J.A.


                                                  FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

                            NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:                               A-13-05

STYLE OF CAUSE: QING HUA ZHOU and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN and MR. SIMON PETIT

MOTION DEALT WITH IN WRITING WITHOUT APPEARANCE OF PARTIES

REASONS FOR ORDER BY: PELLETIER J.A.

DATED:                                  April 27, 2005

WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY:

Mrs. Qing Hua Zhou                                                                 Appellant on her own behalf

Mr. Martin Gentile                                                                     For the respondent

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

John M. Sims, Q.C.                                                                   For the respondent

Deputy Attorney General of Canada

Ottawa, Ontario


 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.