Date: 20000517
Docket: 98-369-UI
BETWEEN:
MARTINE GARNEAU,
Applicant,
and
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
Respondent.
Reasons for Order
Tardif, J.T.C.C.
[1] This is a motion for an extension of the time for filing a notice of appeal.
[2] The decision to which the motion relates was communicated to the appellant on February 10, 1998. The same day, she received another decision concerning the insurability of work she had done for another employer; in other words, the appellant received two decisions concerning the insurability of work she had done for two different employers.
[3] After receiving the two determinations bearing the same date, namely February 10, 1998, the appellant filed a notice of appeal worded as follows:
[TRANSLATION]
St-Prime, April 15, 1998
REVENUE CANADA
Lyne Courcy, Officer
165, rue de la Pointe-aux Lièvres sud
Québec, Quebec
G1K 7L3
Subject: Appeal
Further to your letter dated February 10, 1998, I, Martine Garneau, domiciled at 976 rue Principale, St-Prime, G8J 1V3 (SIN 254-454-242), would like to appeal your decision.
The reasons for my appeal are that I have never made a false statement concerning my previous jobs, since the information with respect to the work I did and was paid for and reported was all accurate and I have always been an employee.
I would like to attend the hearing, and I ask that it be held in French. I will be represented by Françoise Gauthier, solicitor.
I trust that this is satisfactory. Feel free to contact me for further information.
Martine Garneau
(418) 251-3149
c.c. Jim Lafrenière, Constituency Assistant, Office of Michel Gauthier
[4] The notice of appeal in question says nothing about either the period of time involved or the name of the employer concerned.
[5] As a result of that notice of appeal, a hearing was held before the Honourable Louise Lamarre Proulx on November 5, 1999, and judgment was rendered on December 16, 1999.
[6] The trial related solely to the work done for the payer Club Nautique Roberval Inc. during the periods from May 15 to August 25, 1995, and from April 1 to June 26, 1996.
[7] Following the judgment, which dealt solely with the work done by the appellant for Club Nautique Roberval Inc., the appellant decided to initiate new proceedings, hoping to obtain a hearing on the insurability of the work she had done for 9010-8150 Québec Inc., which operated Resto-Pub 449, during the periods from May 15 to August 25, 1995, and from September 18, 1995, to June 21, 1996. That explains the motion for an extension of the time for filing a notice of appeal.
[8] The Court must therefore basically dispose of the appellant's motion, since the judgment rendered by the Honourable Louise Lamarre Proulx resolved the question of the subject of the appellant's notice of appeal dated April 15, 1998, by deciding that it concerned only the work done for Club Nautique Roberval Inc. from May 15 to August 25, 1995, and from April 1 to June 22, 1996.
[9] The motion for an extension of time was filed on January 10, 2000, and relates to a decision communicated on February 10, 1998. In other words, it was filed 23 months later.
[10] The strict time limit for filing a notice of appeal following the communication of a determination was 90 days. At the time in question, it was possible to obtain more time than the allotted 90 days on the express condition that an application for that purpose be made within the initial 90-day time limit.
[11] Although the provisions on obtaining additional time have been amended and have become more flexible in that it is now possible to make a motion for additional time within 90 days after the expiration of the initial 90 days following communication of the decision, the appellant does not qualify.
[12] First of all, the decision that gave rise to the motion predates the new provisions, which came into force in October 1998.
[13] Moreover, even if the applicable law had been that set out in the new provisions, the appellant's motion was still filed out of time. The time limit is a strict one, which means that failure to comply with the time limit laid down in the Act is fatal.
[14] For these reasons, the application for an extension of time is dismissed.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 17th day of May 2000.
"Alain Tardif"
J.T.C.C.
Translation certified true on this 5th day of January 2001.
Erich Klein, Revisor
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
98-369(UI)
BETWEEN:
MARTINE GARNEAU,
Applicant,
and
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
Respondent.
Motion heard on May 9, 2000, at Chicoutimi, Quebec, by
the Honourable Judge Alain Tardif
Appearances
For the Applicant: The Applicant herself
Counsel for the Respondent: Simon Petit
ORDER
The motion for an extension of time is dismissed.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 17th day of May 2000.
|
"Alain Tardif" |
J.T.C.C.
Translation certified true
on this 5th day of January 2001.
Erich Klein, Revisor
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]