Dundurn Street Loffts Inc. v. The Queen

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
Tax Law (gst) Procedural Law Administrative Law Corporate Representation Leave to Represent Under Rule 30(2) Inability to Pay Counsel Court Discretion and Factors

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

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)

  1. 1 Whether a corporation may be represented by a non‑lawyer shareholder/officer under Tax Court Rule 30(2)
  2. 2 What factors the Court should consider in granting leave under Rule 30(2)
  3. 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.