Jackson v. The Queen (March 25, 2019 – 2019 TCC 63, Pizzitelli J.).
Précis: Counsel for the taxpayer brought a motion under Rule 21(4) of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (Informal Procedure) for failure by CRA to serve the Reply to the Notice of Appeal within the 5 day period following the filing of the Reply by CRA with the Court pursuant to Rule 6(2). While such motions are technically possible I can never recall one having been granted. This case was no exception. The motion was dismissed with costs of $250 payable within 30 days of the Court’s order, notwithstanding the fact that this was an informal procedure appeal.
Decision: In a nutshell the Court was obviously annoyed by the motion:
 While the Appellant is free to bring a motion pursuant to Rule 21(4) to seek a determination by the Court for irregularities in compliance with the Rules, I am not satisfied there is any reason to grant summary judgment to the Appellant in the matter at hand. The delay was but a week, the Respondent offered to provide a copy of the Reply immediately on being notified of the 2 day overdue period in service of the Reply and the Appellant had already obtained a copy of the Reply from the Court within that 2 day period. I am satisfied the Respondent acted immediately to cure the default and the Appellant has not been prejudiced in any way. In my opinion, any prejudice suffered by the Appellant relating to costs incurred in bringing this motion are self-inflicted and totally unnecessary. I find the Appellant was extremely unreasonable in wasting the Court’s time in bringing its motion and causing the Respondent to have to respond and bring its cross-motion in the circumstances of these matters.
 The Appellant’s motion is disallowed and the Respondent’s cross-motion to extend the time for service of the Reply is allowed. The Appellant shall pay the Respondent costs in respect of the Appellant’s motion of $250 as requested within 30 days of the date of this Order.
A cautionary tale of the perils of trying the Court’s patience.