Vasarhelyi v. Canada

Vasarhelyi v. Canada Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2007-01-04 Neutral citation 2007 FCA 4 File numbers A-179-06, A-180-06 Decision Content Date: 20070104 Docket: A-179-06 A-180-06 Citation: 2007 FCA 4 Present: NADON J.A. SHARLOW J.A. PELLETIER J.A. BETWEEN: BALINT VASARHELYI Appellant and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent Dealt with in writing without appearance of parties. Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on January 4, 2007. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: SHARLOW J.A. Date: 20070104 Docket: A-179-06 A-180-06 Citation: 2007 FCA 4 Present: NADON J.A. SHARLOW J.A. PELLETIER J.A. BETWEEN: BALINT VASARHELYI Appellant and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT SHARLOW J.A. [1] The appellant is appealing two decisions of the Tax Court of Canada, one relating to an income tax assessment, the other to an assessment of goods and services tax (Vasarhelyi v. Canada, 2006 TCC 282). When the parties were unable to agree on the contents of the appeal books, the contents were settled by the Order of Noël J.A. dated August 14, 2006. That Order limited the appeal books to the 9 items proposed by the respondent, and specifically required the exclusion of certain documents that constituted “new evidence” that was not before the Tax Court at trial. [2] The 9 items that the respondent proposed for the appeal books were as follows: A-179-06 A-180-06 1. Table of contents Table of contents 2. Notice of appeal filed at the Federal Court of Appeal Notice of appeal filed at the Federal Court of Appeal 3. Notice of Appeal filed at the Tax Court of Canada, Appeal No. 2005-3516(IT)I Notice of Appeal filed at the Tax Court of Canada, Appeal No. 2005-3516(GST)I 4. Reply filed at Tax Court Reply filed at Tax Court 5. Judgment of Mr. Justice Archambault in respect of the Tax Court IT Appeal Judgment of Mr. Justice Archambault in respect of the Tax Court GST Appeal 6. Certified Transcript of the Reasons for Judgment of Mr. Justice Archambault in the Tax Court IT Appeal Certified Transcript of the Reasons for Judgment of Mr. Justice Archambault in the Tax Court GST Appeal 7. Complete Certified Transcript of the Tax Court IT Appeal Complete Certified Transcript of the Tax Court GST Appeal 8. Copies of all exhibits filed at the trial of the Tax Court IT Appeal Copies of all exhibits filed at the trial of the Tax Court GST Appeal 9. Agreement regarding contents of Appeal Book Agreement regarding contents of Appeal Book [3] This reflects the standard list of contents for an appeal book, although in this case, as there was no agreement, item 9 would automatically be replaced with the Order settling the contents. [4] The appellant failed to comply with the Order of Noël J.A. He apparently asked for the matter to be reconsidered, which led to the following Order of Létourneau J.A. dated November 15, 2006: The appellant is given until November 29, 2006 to file, in accordance with Noël J.A.’s Order dated August 14, 2006, and serve the Appeal Books on the respondent. Failure to do so in conformity with Noël J.A.’s Order or within the time-limit prescribed by the present Order will result in the dismissal of the appeal without further notice. [5] The appellant has now served and filed appeal books, but the respondent argues that in a number of respects the appeal books do not conform to the Order of Noël J.A. The respondent requests that the Court consider dismissing the appeals as indicated in the Order of Létourneau J.A. The appellant has submitted a letter of explanation opposing the respondent’s position. [6] My examination of the appeal books discloses that the appeal books do not conform to the Order of Noël J.A. There are a number of deficiencies, but the most important one is that the appeal books both contain the “new evidence” that Noël J.A. specifically required to be excluded. The appellant’s letter does not provide a reasonable explanation. [7] The appellant is self represented, and it may be that he is not familiar with the rules. However, he has been given significant guidance in the steps required to file a proper appeal book, which he has chosen to disregard. I would dismiss both appeals with costs. “K. Sharlow” J.A. “I agree M. Nadon J.A.” “I agree J.D. Denis Pelletier J.A.” FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-179-06 A-180-06 STYLE OF CAUSE: BALINT VASARHELYI and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN MOTION DEALT WITH IN WRITING WITHOUT APPEARANCE OF PARTIES REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: SHARLOW J.A. DATED: January 4, 2007 WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY: Balint Vasarhelyi ON HIS OWN BEHALF John Gibb-Carsley FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Balint Vasarhelyi North Vancouver, B.C. John H. Sims Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada ON HIS OWN BEHALF FOR THE RESPONDENT