Date: 20000117
Docket: 97-711-UI
BETWEEN:
YOLAND CHANTAL,
Appellant,
and
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
Respondent.
Reasons for Order
Charron, D.J.T.C.C.
[1] A motion for withdrawal of the judgement rendered by Judge Tardif of this Court on February 17, 1999, dismissing the appellant's appeal, is before the Court.
The evidence
[2] On July 22, 1996, the law firm of Grondin, Poudrier, Bernier, a general partnership, requested a review of the decision rendered on May 29, 1996, by André Paquin, Director, Tax Services—Quebec, at Revenue Canada. The appellant's address was not disclosed, even though the letter from Grondin, Poudrier, Bernier directed the Minister of National Revenue (the "Minister") in the following terms: [TRANSLATION] "any correspondence concerning this case should be sent to the undersigned" (i.e.: Myriam Trudel).
[3] However, the Minister appears to have been aware of the appellant's address, because he sent the appellant a letter dated January 22, 1997, informing him [TRANSLATION] "that this employment was not insurable because there was no provision for wages . . . ." The letter was addressed to 10716 St-Jean Boulevard, Apt. A, Trois-Rivières. Mr. Chantal appealed from that decision by a letter dated April 22, 1997. He did not disclose his address.
[4] By a letter of June 18, 1997, Pierre Gamache advised this Court that he would be appearing before it to represent the interests of Yoland Chantal, but failed to disclose the appellant's address. By notice of hearing dated December 22, 1998, this Court informed Pierre Gamache that the appeal had been set down for hearing at Trois-Rivières on February 8, 1999.
[5] The appellant having failed to appear on that date, his counsel explained that he had done everything he could to notify his client of the hearing date. He also said that the appellant had not informed him of his change of address, thus making communication impossible. Since counsel for the appellant was thus prevented from going ahead, he asked permission to remove himself from the record, which the judge granted.
[6] The respondent asked for the appeal to be dismissed, which the judge also granted.
Testimony of Pierre Gamache
[7] Mr. Gamache met with the appellant on June 17, 1997, and agreed to take his case. After receiving the notice of hearing of December 22, 1998, Mr. Gamache attempted to contact the appellant by letter and by telephone to inform him of the hearing date for his case, but to no avail. He did not succeed in reaching him in time. He had requested an adjournment to a later date which had been granted and the case set down for February 8, 1999. Mr. Gamache telephoned every Chantal in the telephone directory, but in vain.
[8] At 9:47 a.m., the appellant arrived.
Testimony of Yoland Chantal
[9] Yoland Chantal is an electrician by trade. He currently resides at 775 Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, in Longueuil. He now requests the withdrawal of the judgment dismissing his appeal. He admits that he did not inform Mr. Gamache of his address, even though it had changed twice in the meantime. He has been living in Montréal and Ste-Catherine for the past two years. The last address that the Court has for Mr. Chantal is 10716 St-Jean Boulevard, Trois-Rivières.
[10] Human Resources Development Canada reached him by letter, dated May 2, 1999, at 165 Brébeuf Street in Ste-Catherine and informed him of the outcome of a claim for employment insurance benefits made sometime earlier (Exhibit R-1).
Conclusion
[11] Subsection 18.21(2) of the Tax Court of Canada Act allows the appellant to apply to the Court to have the order of dismissal set aside where the requirements of subsection 18.21(3) of that Act are satisfied:
18.21(3) The Court may set aside an order of dismissal made under subsection (1) where
(a) it would have been unreasonable in all the circumstances for the appellant to have attended the hearing; and
(b) the appellant applied to have the order of dismissal set aside as soon as circumstances permitted the application to be brought but, in any event, not later than one hundred and eighty days after the day on which the order was mailed to the appellant.
[12] Given the facts set out above, it was reasonable for the appellant to have attended the hearing. Although the application herein was made within the prescribed time, one of the conditions set out in subsection 18.21(3) was not met.
[13] Accordingly, the appellant's motion for withdrawal of the judgment is dismissed.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 17th day of January, 2000.
"G. Charron"
D.J.T.C.C.
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
Translation certified true on this 30th day of October 2000.
Erich Klein, Revisor