Dundurn Street Loffts Inc. v. The Queen
The application was allowed because the appellants demonstrated they lacked the finances to retain counsel and the proposed representative was competent and prepared to proceed; inability to pay counsel is a decisive factor justifying departure from the general rule requiring corporate parties to be represented by...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2008 TCC 558
- Parties
- Appellant: Dundurn Street Lofts Inc.; Appellant: Alexander Street Lofts Development Corporation Inc.; Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen
- Court
- Tax Court of Canada
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 1 October 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Tax Court (gst) Appeal / Application for Corporate Representation Under Rule 30(2)
- Outcome
- Application allowed; appellants permitted to be represented by Adam J. Stelmaszynski.
- Legal Topics
- Corporate Representation, Leave to Represent Under Rule 30(2), Inability to Pay Counsel, Court Discretion and Factors
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Dundurn Street Lofts Inc.
Appellant
Alexander Street Lofts Development Corporation Inc.
Appellant
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Tax Court (gst) Appeal / Application for Corporate Representation Under Rule 30(2)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a corporation may be represented by a non‑lawyer shareholder/officer under Tax Court Rule 30(2)
- 2 What factors the Court should consider in granting leave under Rule 30(2)
- 3 Whether inability to pay for counsel justifies granting leave to a corporate party to be represented by a non‑lawyer
Ratio Decidendi
The application was allowed because the appellants demonstrated they lacked the finances to retain counsel and the proposed representative was competent and prepared to proceed; inability to pay counsel is a decisive factor justifying departure from the general rule requiring corporate parties to be represented by counsel under Rule 30(2).
Court Disposition
Application allowed; appellants permitted to be represented by Adam J. Stelmaszynski.
Orders
- The application by the Appellants to be represented by Mr. Adam J. Stelmaszynski is allowed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Dundurn Street Loffts Inc. v. The Queen Court (s) Database Tax Court of Canada Judgments Date 2008-10-01 Neutral citation 2008 TCC 558 File numbers 2005-2906(GST)G Judges and Taxing Officers Valerie A. Miller Subjects Part IX of the Excise Tax Act (GST) Decision Content Docket: 2005-2906(GST)G BETWEEN: DUNDURN STREET LOFTS INC. and Appellant, and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, Respondent, Docket: 2005-2908(GST)G AND BETWEEN: ALEXANDER STREET LOFTS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Appellant, and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, Respondent. ____________________________________________________________________ Agent for the Appellant: Adam J. Stelmaszynski Counsel for the Respondent: Gatien Fournier ____________________________________________________________________ ORDER The application by the Appellants to be represented by Mr. Adam J. Stelmaszynski is allowed. Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 1st day of October 2008. “V.A. Miller” V.A. Miller, J. Citation: 2008TCC558 Date: 20081001 Docket: 2005-2906(GST)G BETWEEN: DUNDURN STREET LOFTS INC. Appellant, and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, Respondents, Docket: 2005-2908(GST)G AND BETWEEN: ALEXANDER STREET LOFTS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION INC. Appellant, and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, Respondent REASONS FOR ORDER V.A. Miller, J. [1] This is an application by the Appellants to be represented by Mr. Adam J. Stelmaszynski who is the sole shareholder and officer of the two Appellants. [2] Subsection 30(2) of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure) (the Rules) reads as follows: (2) Where a party to a proceeding is not an individual, that party shall be represented by counsel except with leave of the Court and on any conditions that it may determine. [3] In his decision in Chase Bryant Inc. v. R., [2003] 2 C.T.C. 2163, Associate Chief Justice Bowman, as he then was, discussed some of the factors that should be considered when exercising the discretion under Subsection 30(2) of the Rules. He said the following at paragraphs 4 to 7: 4 In Pratts Wholesale Ltd. v. R. (1998), 98 D.T.C. 1561 (T.C.C.), Beaubier J. of this court applied the four factors stated by Muldoon J. in Kobetek Systems Ltd. v. R., [1998] 1 C.T.C. 308 (Fed. T.D.) at page 310. From these cases the following factors appear to be relevant to the determination of whether special circumstances exist: whether the corporation can pay for a lawyer; whether the proposed representative will be required to appear as advocate and as witness; the complexity of the legal issues to be determined (and therefore whether it appears that the representative will be able to handle the legal issues) and whether the action can proceed in an expeditious manner. 5 These factors were referred to by Bowie J. in RFA Natural Gas Inc. v. R., [2000] G.S.T.C. 40 (T.C.C. [General Procedure]). 6 The factors referred to in these cases are a useful starting point but they are neither determinative nor exhaustive. For example in RFA Natural Gas Bowie J. did not put much weight on the question whether the proposed representative might appear as a witness. I respectfully agree. 7 If there is one factor that outweighs the others it is whether the company can afford to pay a lawyer. If it can it is difficult to imagine circumstances which would justify a departure from the rule that a corporation must be represented by counsel. In Mavito Inc. c. R. (2000), [2001] 2 C.T.C. 2048 (T.C.C. [General Procedure]), Tardif J. considered a corporate appellant's inability to pay a lawyer's fees as "a decisive factor" in such a motion as this. [4] Mr. Stelmaszynski’s stated that the Appellants do not have any assets or money to pay for a lawyer. He stated that he is fully familiar with the issues in these appeals and is prepared to proceed with the appeals in an expeditious manner. [5] In my opinion the fact that the Appellants do not have the finances to retain counsel is “a decisive factor” in this application. [6] The application is allowed. Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 1st day of October 2008. “V.A. Miller” V.A. Miller, J. CITATION: 2008TCC558 COURT FILE NO.: 2005-2906(GST)G STYLE OF CAUSE: DUNDURN STREET LOFTS INC. AND THE QUEEN COURT FILE NO: 2005-2908(GST)G STYLE OF CAUSE: ALEXANDER STREET LOFTS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION INC AND THE QUEEN PLACE OF HEARING: , DATE OF HEARING: , REASONS FOR ORDER BY: The Honourable Justice Valerie Miller DATE OF ORDER: October 1, 2008 APPEARANCES: Agent for the Appellant: Adam Stelmaszynski Counsel for the Respondent: Gatien Fournier COUNSEL OF RECORD: For the Appellant: Name: Firm: For the Respondent: John H. Sims, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada Ottawa, Canada