http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/143955/index.do
Yourkin v. The Queen (May 3, 2016 – 2016 TCC 111, Boyle J.).
Précis: This was the 7th time Mr. Yourkin unsuccessfully appealed the same issue to the Tax Court. He did not show up for his hearing and Justice Boyle awarded costs of $1,850 against him finding his behaviour “on the outer end of the range of cantankerousness” [para. 6].
Decision: This was a case of a great lack of courtesy to the Court:
[1] Walter Yourkin was not present when his informal appeal was called at 9:30 this morning. It has been adjourned for an hour in the event he was delayed en route. He has not appeared, nor does it appear that he has tried contacting the Respondent or the Court Registry this morning.
[2] The Appellant requested an adjournment from the Court on March 1st, although I’m using the word “request” lightly. The Court informed the Appellant that a medical certificate would be required to support his request. His request had included copies of several prescriptions, the office hours of his medical clinic and a list of his upcoming doctor appointments, which showed a single appointment upcoming in June of 2016. His March 1st adjournment request was not worded in the form of a request of the Court. It included the handwritten paragraph: “I will not be able to attend my day in Court, set for 23rd day of March 2016 at 9:30 a.m. Reason? I am extremely ill. My medical condition is a private matter. Beyond any related reason or reasons will require my written signature. I hereby remove Court Authority to exercise ‘Appellant Failure to Appear’.”
[3] No response was received from Mr. Yourkin to the Court’s written request for a medical certificate confirming his inability to proceed. When the Court tried communicating with the Appellant by telephone, it was learned that the telephone number he had provided to the Court was no longer in service.
[4] The Court waited to decide his adjournment request until yesterday, no doubt to allow for the possible receipt of a medical certificate or a follow-up telephone call from the Appellant. None was received.
Mr. Yourkin’s behaviour was not an aberration:
[6] It is clear from the Appellant’s prescriptions that he is at least 84 years old at this stage. It is very well possible that the Appellant is extremely ill and that his chosen communication style is simply at the outer end of the range of cantankerousness that is at times exhibited by some at his stage of life, both old and ill. However, there is more to be considered.
[7] The Reply sets out in specific detail, and Respondent counsel has confirmed its correctness to the Court this morning, that Mr. Yourkin has appealed this very same issue in this Court in seven different proceedings, heard in six different years, for his 2001 to 2012 taxation years. Each hearing resulted in the dismissal of his claim for the deduction of spousal support payments.
As a result Justice Boyle took the rare step of awarding costs of $1,850 against Mr. Yourkin despite the fact that this was an informal procedure appeal.