Date: 20020716
Docket: 2001-1711-IT-G
BETWEEN:
THOMSON MOTORS CO. LTD.,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
Reasonsfor Order
Little, J.
FACTS
[1] Notices of reassessment were issued by the Minister of National Revenue (the "Minister") on December 13, 1999 for the Appellant's 1995 and 1996 taxation years.
[2] The Appellant filed Notices of Objection to the said reassessments and after the reassessments were confirmed the Appellant filed Notices of Appeal to the Court.
[3] By letter dated May 10, 2001, Mr. R.G. Wilson, the sole director and officer of the Appellant wrote to the Court to request that he be allowed to represent the Appellant in respect of the appeals for the 1995 and 1996 taxation years.
[4] Subsection 30(2) of the Rules of the Tax Court of Canada ("rule 30(2)") reads as follows:
A corporation shall be represented by counsel in all proceedings in the Court, unless the Court, in special circumstances, grants leave to the corporation to be represented by an officer of the corporation.
[5] By letter dated May 6, 2001, counsel for the Respondent suggested that this is not a situation where the Court should grant leave to permit Mr. Wilson to represent the Appellant in its appeal.
[6] In her submission counsel for the Respondent outlined the criteria that have been considered by Courts before leave can be granted under rule 30(2). Counsel for the Respondent outlined the following criteria:
1. Whether the corporation can pay for a lawyer;
2. Whether the proposed representative would likely be a witness;
3. Whether the issue(s) were complex legal issues;
4. Whether the action can proceed in an expeditious manner;
5. Whether the Attorney General has elected to move the appeal from the Informal Procedure to the General Procedure;
6. Whether the officer is also the director and sole shareholder of the corporation.
[7] I believe that counsel for the Respondent is correct in the summary that she prepared outlining the criteria that should be considered before leave can be granted under rule 30(2).
[8] During the hearing of the application, Mr. Wilson stated that the Appellant does not have the funds required to retain a lawyer to conduct the appeal. When asked if the Appellant was able to sell assets in order to obtain funds to retain a lawyer Mr. Wilson said that the assets of the company could not be sold to generate the money required to obtain legal counsel.
[9] Mr. Wilson said that he understands the legal issues involved and that he will endeavour to have the Appellant's appeal proceed in an expeditious manner. While discussing the Appellant's appeal with Mr. Wilson, I concluded that he appears to be capable to represent the Appellant.
DECISION
[10] In my opinion the fact that a company does not have the financial resources to retain a lawyer to conduct its appeal is a decisive factor in granting a motion under rule 30(2). Support for this conclusion may be found in Mavito Inc. c. R. [2001] 2 C.T.C. 2048 and Sharpe's Tropical Shell Co. v. Canada (1995), 100 F.T.R. 59 (Fed. T.D.) and RFA Natural Gas Inc. v. R. [2000] G.S.T.C. 40. In Sharpe's Tropical Shell Co. v. Canada, Prothonotary Hargrave said at page 61:
...Where there is a director who seems reasonably capable of representing a company, an impecunious company ought not to be denied its day in court.
[11] Under the circumstances as outlined above, I am satisfied that this is a situation where the Court should exercise its discretion and permit Mr. Wilson to represent the Appellant in its appeal.
[12] The application is granted
Signed at Vancouver, British Columbia, this 16th day of July 2002.
"L.M. Little"
J.T.C.C.
COURT FILE NO.: 2001-1711(IT)G
STYLE OF CAUSE: Thomson Motors Co. Ltd. and
Her Majesty the Queen
PLACE OF HEARING: Vancouver, British Columbia
DATE OF HEARING: July 12, 2002
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: The Honourable Judge L.M. Little
DATE OF ORDER: July 16, 2002
APPEARANCES:
Agent for the Appellant: Robert G. Wilson
Counsel for the Respondent: Linda Bell
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For the Appellant:
Name:
Firm:
For the Respondent: Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Canada
2001-1711(IT)G
BETWEEN:
THOMSON MOTORS CO. LTD.,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
Motion heard on July 12, 2002, at Vancouver, British Columbia, by
the Honourable Judge L.M. Little
Appearances
Agent for the Appellant: Robert G. Wilson
Counsel for the Respondent: Linda Bell
ORDER
Upon application, on behalf of the Appellant, for an Order granting leave to the Appellant to be represented by R.G. Wilson, an officer of the Appellant, pursuant to subsection 30(2) of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure);
Upon having heard the comments of Mr. Wilson on behalf of the Appellant and the comments of counsel for the Respondent;
IT IS ORDERED that R.G. Wilson will be allowed to represent the Appellant in this appeal.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Appellant file a Resolution with the Court in which the Appellant appoints R.G. Wilson as its agent for the purposes of conducting the appeal.
Signed at Vancouver, British Columbia, this 16th day of July 2002.
|
"L.M. Little" |
J.T.C.C.