http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/145576/index.do
Blackwell v. The Queen (June 20, 2016 – 2016 TCC 155, Boyle J.).
Précis: The taxpayer’s Notice of Appeal purported to appeal his 2008 taxation year however he had never filed a notice of objection to the second notice of reassessment for that year. As a result the Court granted the Crown’s motion to strike the appeal. It awarded costs fixed at $625 to the Crown. In light of the conduct of Mr. Blackwell’s representative, Mr. Garrison, the Court gave him 30 days to make submissions why he should not be ordered to pay all or part of Mr. Blackwell’s costs personally.
Decision: The Notice of Appeal was clearly bad, having been filed several years late:
[12] The closing phrase of subsection 169(1) provides that the right to appeal the Second 2008 Reassessment to the Court only continued for 90 days after the date of the Second 2008 Reassessment. The appeal was clearly filed several years after that. For that reason, the Respondent’s motion is allowed and the appeal is quashed.
[13] Given the nature of the Appellant’s response to the motion, and the performance of his representative at the hearing, I am fixing costs payable by the Appellant to the Respondent in the amount of $625 within 60 days. The prompt and effective resolution of the appeal was delayed by Mr. Garrison’s cavalier approach to the motion materials and its merits, as well as to the hearing itself.
The taxpayer’s representative, Mr. Garrison, was given 30 days to make submissions why he should not be ordered to pay all or part of Mr. Blackwell’s costs personally:
[14] Given Mr. Garrison’s performance at the hearing, including arriving almost an hour and a half late for the Monday hearing, knowing that he had not obtained the adjournment he first requested after business hours the previous Friday, that he chose to attend an examination for a Worship and Lifestyle course at World Impact Bible Institute notwithstanding he had not obtained an adjournment of the hearing, that he did not inform his client that the hearing would be proceeding notwithstanding his adjournment request so that his client could attend, and that I described his explanations at the hearing as “less than fully truthful”, “misleading”, and “fundamentally dishonest”. At the hearing, I told Mr. Garrison twice that I would be considering ordering him to personally reimburse his client, Mr. Blackwell, for all or a portion of any costs award against his client. Mr. Garrison has 30 days from the date hereof to file his written submissions with the Court as to why the Court should not be making such a reimbursement order against him in respect of all or a part of the $625 costs award against his client.