Date: 19981106
Docket: 98-463-UI
BETWEEN:
J.F. GUITÉ,
Appellant,
and
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
Respondent.
Reasons for Judgment
Prévost, D.J.T.C.C.
[1] This appeal was to have been heard at Percé, Quebec, on October 19, 1998.
[2] The appellant did not appear at the hearing; counsel for the respondent moved for the dismissal of the appeal and the Court granted the motion, saying that its reasons would follow. These are those reasons.
[3] The appellant did not claim the respondent’s Reply to the Notice of Appeal from Canada Post. The Reply had been sent to him by registered mail, and the envelope containing it (Exhibit I-1) was returned to the respondent.
[4] Nor did he claim from Canada Post the notice stating that the hearing would be on October 19, 1998. That Notice of Hearing had also been sent to him by registered mail. The letter (Exhibit I-2) from the Court’s hearings co-ordinator dated September 18, 1998, indicates that the notice was then sent back to the appellant by regular mail.
[5] In his Notice of Appeal, the appellant gave his address as 169, rue principale 132, Percé, Quebec G0C 2L0, and the Reply to the Notice of Appeal and the Notice of Hearing were sent to him at that address.
[6] Section 26 of the Court’s employment insurance rules reads in part as follows:
26. (1) Unless otherwise provided in these rules, service of any document provided for in these rules shall be effected by personal service or by mail or by fax addressed
. . .
(c) in the case of the appellant or any intervener
(i) to the address of the appellant or intervener for service as set out in the notice of appeal or notice of intervention, or
(ii) where no address for service is set out in the notice of appeal or notice of intervention, to the postal or other address set out in the notice of appeal, notice of intervention or any written communication made by that person to the Court or Registrar . . .
(2) Any party to an appeal who wishes to change address for service shall
(a) serve notice in writing of the change at the Registry in which the notice of appeal was filed or to which it was mailed, and
(b) serve a copy of the notice on all other parties,
which address shall thereafter be that party’s address for service.
[7] The record does not show that the appellant served notice in writing of a change of address at the Registry in which the Notice of Appeal was filed or to which it was mailed.
[8] Section 12 of the Court’s employment insurance rules provides that the Minister must file the Reply to the Notice of Appeal at the Registry and serve it on the appellant; the Reply in this case was filed at the Registry, and the Minister tried to serve it on the appellant at the only known address in the file.
[9] The Registrar of the Court tried to send the appellant the Notice of Hearing by registered mail, but the appellant did not claim it; the Registrar then sent it to him by regular mail.
[10] Every effort was made to properly inform the appellant of the Reply to the Notice of Appeal and the hearing date, but the appellant did not change his address for service as he should have.
[11] The appeal must therefore be dismissed and the decision under appeal confirmed.
Signed at Laval, Quebec, this 6th day of November 1998.
“A. Prévost”
D.J.T.C.C.
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
Translation certified true on this 29th day of June 1999.
Erich Klein, Revisor