http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/99605/index.do 
Belval v. The Queen (November 21, 2014 – 2015 TCC 349, Jorré J.).
Précis: The Crown moved to dismiss a GST appeal for want of prosecution. The appeal related to 2003 and had been filed in 2009. The taxpayer had failed to comply with two orders of the Court and either failed to respond to letters from the Court or responded late. In light of the extreme delay in bringing the appeal forward and the conduct of the taxpayer the Court granted the motion to dismiss.
Decision: This is a decision on a motion to strike a 2009 GST appeal for want of prosecution. It falls in the pattern of most of such motions, with an odd twist that the appellant claimed to have reached a settlement with the Crown which he wanted certified by the Court. The Court was not amused:
[51] Here is a summary of the essential facts:
(a) When the Registry sent the letter dated December 21, 2011, requesting a written report on the appellant’s health by January 6, 2012, there was no reply.
(b) When the Registry wrote to the appellant again on May 1, 2012, to ask him to clarify his intentions by May 4, 2012, Mr. Draghia replied that he was still waiting to hear from the appellant; the appellant gave no news between this date and the October 4, 2012, hearing.
(c) When the Registry wrote to the appellant on October 17, 2012, to ask him to submit his observations regarding the respondent’s letter dated October 10, 2012, by October 31, 2012, there was no reply from the appellant between this date and the March 27, 2013, hearing.
(d) When the Court ordered the appellant, in an order dated April 4, 2013, to inform the respondent and the Court whether he was discontinuing or not, the appellant did not disclose his intentions to the respondent or the Court before the deadline set by the Court, namely, May 6, 2013. There was a reply only on June 14, 2013. There was no application for an extension of this deadline.
(e) After the appellant stated in his notice of objection that a motion to certify would be filed [translation] “as soon as possible” and the Court ordered the holding of a hearing for the respondent’s motion for dismissal, as requested by the appellant, on condition that the motion to certify be filed by September 20, 2013, the appellant filed a motion to certify only on November 21, 2013, without requesting an extension of the September 20, 2013, deadline.
[52] I recognize that in late October 2012, the appellant had a heart attack that may have made him unable to respond to the letter dated October 17, 2012, by October 31, 2012; however, this does not explain the lack of a reply before March 27, 2013.
[53] There is no evidence that would explain why the motion to certify was filed late.
[54] At one point in his pleadings, Mr. Draghia suggested that the delay was the result of difficulties related to his motion for confidentiality. I fail to understand this argument, as there is no link between the motion to certify and the motion for confidentiality. Moreover, as I have said previously, when one reads the notice of motion to certify and the supporting affidavit, it is hard to fathom why the motion could not have been filed on time.
Conclusion
[55] When one considers the events I have just described, it is clear that the appellant did not act with due dispatch. Not only did he fail to comply with two orders, but, generally speaking, his behaviour was not to respond or to respond late.
[56] On the contrary, when looking at the events described as a whole, I cannot but conclude that the appellant sought to delay the proceeding. In the circumstances, the appeal should be dismissed.
[57] The appeal is dismissed.
[Footnotes omitted]