[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
|
Docket: 2002-3215(IT)I |
|
BETWEEN: |
|
FERNAND ST-PIERRE, |
|
Appellant, |
|
And |
|
|
|
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, |
|
Respondent. |
____________________________________________________________________
Motion heard on January 28, 2004, at Quebec City, Quebec
|
Before: The Honourable Judge Alain Tardif |
|
|
|
|
|
Appearances: |
|
|
|
|
|
Counsel for the Appellant: |
No one appeared |
|
|
|
|
Counsel for the Respondent: |
Emmanuelle Faulkner |
____________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
The motion to dismiss the appeal is allowed, and the appeal made under the Income Tax Act for the 1998 taxation year is dismissed in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 20th day of February 2004.
|
"Alain Tardif" |
Tardif J.
Certified true translation
Colette Beaulne
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
|
Reference: 2004TCC160 |
|
Date: 20040220 |
|
Docket: 2002-3215(IT)I |
|
BETWEEN: |
|
FERNAND ST-PIERRE, |
|
Appellant, |
|
And |
|
|
|
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, |
|
Respondent. |
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Alain Tardif J.
[1] This is a motion to dismiss an appeal. The motion states the following:
1. The respondent made a motion to dismiss the appeal in this file because the appellant had never served on the Minister of National Revenue a notice of objection under subsection 165(1) of the Income Tax Act with respect to the reassessment dated May 21, 2002, for the 1998 taxation year.
2. The respondent maintained that, for that reason, the appellant's appeal was not valid.
3. The hearing of that motion took place in Quebec City before the Honourable Judge Tardif on July 24, 2003.
4. Following the hearing of that motion, the Tax Court of Canada made an order on August 5, 2003, that granted the appellant a period of time ending on August 29, 2003, to issue an amended notice of appeal.
5. With that same order, the Tax Court of Canada granted the appellant a period of time ending on October 30, 2003, to issue a response to the amended notice of appeal.
6. The appellant has still not complied with the order dated August 5, 2003, and has not filed an amended notice of appeal.
[2] The motion was supported by an affidavit setting out all of the facts on which the submission of the motion was based.
[3] It involved the following facts:
[TRANSLATION]
[...]
AFFIDAVIT
I, the undersigned, Annick Provencher, do solemnly affirm as follows:
1. I am a lawyer with the Department of Justice, Tax Litigation Directorate, whose offices are located in the Guy-Favreau Complex, 200 René-Lévesque Blvd W, East Tower, 9th floor, in Montreal, H2Z 1X4.
2. I have personal knowledge of this file.
3. The respondent made a motion to dismiss the appeal in this file because the appellant had never served on the Minister of National Revenue a notice of objection under subsection 165(1) of the Income Tax Act with respect to the reassessment dated May 21, 2002, for the 1998 taxation year.
4. The respondent maintained that, for that reason, the appellant's appeal was not valid.
5. The hearing of that motion took place in Quebec City before the Honourable Judge Tardif on July 24, 2003.
6. Following the hearing of that motion, the Tax Court of Canada made an order on August 5, 2003, that granted the appellant a period of time ending on August 29, 2003, to issue an amended notice of appeal, as appears from the order attached as Exhibit R-1.
7. With that same order, the Tax Court of Canada granted the appellant a period of time ending on October 30, 2003, to issue a response to the amended notice of appeal.
8. On November 7, 2003, I left a message on the voicemail box of Daniel Cantin, counsel for the appellant, informing him that some of the deadlines had not been met.
9. On November 17, 2003, as I had still not heard from counsel for the appellant, I faxed him a letter, attached as Exhibit R-2 with a transmission slip and a notice of confirmation, asking him to take, within a reasonable period of time, the necessary measures with the Tax Court of Canada to extend the timeframe for filing his amended notice of appeal and thus rectify his failure to comply with the order dated August 5, 2003.
10. On November 20, 2003, as I had still not heard from counsel for the appellant, further to my message of November 7, 2003, and my letter dated November 17, 2003, I left him another message on his voicemail box asking him to call me back.
11. That same day I received a call from counsel for the appellant confirming that he would ensure that the amended notice of appeal was filed no later than November 28, 2003.
12. On or about November 28, 2003, an amended notice of appeal was faxed to me in this file.
13. On December 9, 2003, Denis Pépin of the Registry for the Tax Court of Canada told me, in response to a call I had made, that the Tax Court of Canada had not accepted the filing of that amended notice of appeal because the deadline for filing it had already passed.
14. During that same telephone conversation, Denis Pépin informed me that a registry officer had contacted counsel for the appellant on December 4, 2003, to notify him of the situation.
15. On December 9, 2003, I left a message for counsel for the appellant asking him if he intended to make a motion in this file in order to comply with the order dated August 5, 2003.
16. That same day, counsel for the appellant informed me that he had gone past the deadline because the accountant in the file had not provided him with the documents he had needed to prepare his amended notice of appeal.
17. During that same conversation, counsel for the appellant assured me that a motion would be served to me in this file during the week of December 15.
18. To date, I still have not heard from counsel for the appellant, and I have not been served with any motions in this case.
[...]
[4] When the roll call was given at 9:30 a.m., counsel for the appellant was absent.
[5] Further to the representations of the respondent/moving party, the Court granted the motion on the grounds of non-compliance with the order dated July 24, 2003, by failing to file the amended notice of appeal, and failure to appear when the respondent was making the motion.
[6] I also believe it is relevant to refer to an extract from Adams v. Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police et al (October 7, 1994), A-634-93 (F.C.A.), cited in Sidhu v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue), [1994] F.C.J. No. 2028 (Q.L.), in which the Honourable Judge Isaac stated the following on November 16, 1994:
. . . The day has passed when courts could allow to litigants the luxury of being at their beck and call. Courts are public institutions for the resolution of disputes and cost substantial public money. Court congestion and delay is a serious public concern. Parties who launch proceedings at any level with the intention of putting them in a "holding pattern" for their own private purposes may be called to account for their waste and abuse of a public resource. They also risk having those proceedings dismissed.
[7] The motion to dismiss the appeal is allowed, and the appeal under the Income Tax Act for the 1998 taxation year is dismissed.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 20th day of February 2004.
|
"Alain Tardif" |
Tardif J.
Certified true translation
Colette Beaulne
|
REFERENCE: |
2004TCC160 |
|
COURT FILE NO.: |
2002-3215(IT)I |
|
STYLE OF CAUSE: |
Fernand St-Pierre and Her Majesty the Queen |
|
PLACE OF HEARING: |
Quebec City, Quebec |
|
DATE OF HEARING: |
January 28, 2004 |
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: |
The Honourable Judge Alain Tardif |
|
DATE OF JUDGMENT: |
February 20, 2004 |
|
APPEARANCES: |
|
For the Appellant: |
No one appeared |
|
Counsel for the Respondent: |
Emmanuelle Faulkner |
|
COUNSEL OF RECORD: |
|
For the Appellant: |
|
Name: |
Daniel Cantin |
|
Firm: City: |
Gagné Letarte Quebec City, Quebec |
|
For the Respondent: |
Morris Rosenberg Deputy Attorney General of Canada Ottawa, Canada |