http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/120163/index.do
Smith v. The Queen (October 1, 2015 – 2015 TCC 234, Boyle J.).
Précis: The taxpayer instituted an appeal respecting rental losses. He failed to appear at a hearing in February and the Crown moved to dismiss the appeal. The Court adjourned sine die to be set down promptly at a future date. The taxpayer failed to appear at the second hearing although he had been notified of the hearing.
The Court dismissed the appeal with costs of $625 even though it was an informal procedure appeal.
Decision: The Court was not pleased with the taxpayer’s cavalier conduct:
[2] Mr. Smith did not attend a prior hearing called in February of this year. At that time, Mr. Smith alerted Crown counsel an hour before the hearing of an ailing family member. At that time, Justice Pizzitelli denied the Crown's motion to dismiss and adjourned the matter sine die to be set down promptly and, importantly, peremptorily at a future date.
[3] Mr. Smith's new address was specified in Justice Pizzitelli's earlier Order; yet, the notice of today's hearing, which was sent by registered letter, was returned to the Court unclaimed, and so it was resent by regular mail by the Court. Crown counsel's letter of August 10 has tracking information from Canada Post indicating that it was successfully delivered to that address.
[4] I understand that Mr. Smith did not provide any documents supporting his rental loss claim in that one year to Canada Revenue Agency at the objection stage, nor did he provide any to Respondent's counsel when asked in preparation for the February hearing or, again, for today's hearing.
[5] I will presume that Mr. Smith acted in good faith in filing his Notice of Appeal and commencing this process. However, it appears that at some point he has decided not to pursue it with the requisite diligence. He did not communicate with the Court regarding today's hearing when a simple quick phone call would have sufficed, nor did he contact the Court in writing or by e-mail with respect to today's hearing. He simply e-mailed Crown counsel last Friday, this being Monday, indicating that he would not be attending and that he needed an adjournment.
[6] I see no reason or circumstance warranting another hearing at a later date in Mr. Smith's case. Mr. Smith's inaction has the effect of wasting public resources and available Court sitting dates for both the Court and the Respondent. It is an abuse of the Court's process, and it also has the effect of unduly delaying the effective and prompt resolution of the appeal, which it appears he is not pursuing, and it should therefore be dismissed.
[7] I am dismissing the appeal on Respondent counsel's motion, and I am fixing costs in accordance with Rule 10(2) amounts at $625.