Bicz v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue)

Bicz v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue) Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2003-03-13 Neutral citation 2003 FCA 135 File numbers A-539-01 Decision Content Date: 20030313 Docket: A-539-01 Neutral citation: 2003 FCA 135 CORAM: LÉTOURNEAU J.A. NADON J.A. SHARLOW J.A. BETWEEN: JANUSZ BICZ Applicant - and - THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE Respondent Heard at Toronto, Ontario, on Thursday, March 13, 2003. Judgment delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on Thursday, March 13, 2003. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: LÉTOURNEAU J.A. Date: 20030313 Docket: A-539-01 Neutral citation: 2003 FCA 135 CORAM: LÉTOURNEAU J.A. NADON J.A. SHARLOW J.A. BETWEEN: JANUSZ BICZ Applicant - and - THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario on Thursday, March 13, 2003.) LÉTOURNEAU J.A. [1] We have not been satisfied that Miller J.T.C.C. exercised improperly or abusively his discretion when he refused to grant an adjournment in the circumstances of this case. [2] The case had been already adjourned once at the request of the applicant in order to be represented by counsel. The matter had been fixed peremptorily to July 18, 2001. Mr. Bicz, who is the owner and operator of Bicz Transport Corporation showed up half an hour late at the hearing which had been suspended in the meantime. The judge then adjourned the case to one o'clock in order to allow the applicant to contact his lawyer who was absent. [3] The judge took into consideration the fact that the reason offered for counsel's absence was that he was not prepared to proceed and that he was, in any event, attending a hearing in another court although he had been given two months to prepare for the hearing before the Tax Court. Also relevant and considered by the judge was the fact that the respondent had to subpoena at least one of the witnesses who were present and ready to proceed. In addition, the hearing had been scheduled in Kitchener to accommodate the applicant. [4] In his request for an adjournment, Mr. Bicz tendered a letter of a doctor which basically said no more than Mr. Bicz could not attend the hearing for medical reasons. Yet he was present at the hearing. [5] Counsel for the applicant, who was not counsel at the hearing, insists that Mr. Bicz had a limited knowledge of English and that the judge should have conducted a more detailed inquiry on this issue than he did. It is important to note that no request for an interpreter had been made by Mr. Bicz or his previous counsel at any time. It is reasonable to presume that previous counsel for Mr. Bicz was satisfied that his client had a sufficient understanding of the English language to proceed to the hearing and would have examined his client in that language if he had been there. [6] We have not been convinced also that the applicant was treated unfairly as a result of the decision of the judge to proceed with the hearing. As in the case of Trentadue v. Canada [1994] F.C.J. No. 1586 (F.C.A.), counsel for the applicant has been unable to point to anything in the record that would indicate that specific evidence was not tendered as a result of the decision to proceed with the hearing which would have otherwise been filed with the judge if counsel had been there. Moreover, there is no indication in the record that witnesses needed to be heard on behalf of the applicant and that these witnesses were not there. Indeed, as it turned out, no witnesses had been called by the applicant for the hearing. [7] Counsel for the applicant has not been able to show any prejudice suffered by his client other than and different from the usual limitations which grieve those who happen to be self-represented in these kinds of proceedings, notwithstanding, as in this case, the assistance and vigilance of the Tax Court judge. [8] For these reasons, this application for judicial review in file A-539-01 will be dismissed with one set of costs. Copies of these reasons will be entered in files A-537-01, A-538-01 and A-540-01. "Gilles Létourneau" J.A. FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA APPEAL DIVISION Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record DOCKET: A-539-01 STYLE OF CAUSE: JANUSZ BICZ Applicant - and - THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE Respondent DATE OF HEARING: THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 2003 PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: LÉTOURNEAU J.A. DATED: THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 2003 JUDGMENT DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH ON THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 2003. APPEARANCES BY: Mr. Michael A. Jaeger For the Applicant Ms. Rosemary Fincham Mr. Ernest Wheeler For the Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Waterous, Holden, Amey, Hitchon Barristers and Solicitors P.O. Box 1510 28 Wellington Street Brantford, Ontario N3T 5V6 For the Applicant Morris Rosenberg Deputy Attorney General of Canada For the Respondent