Virdi v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue)

Virdi v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue)

The appeal is dismissed because the appellant, as the moving party, failed to meet the burden to justify an extension of time by not swearing his own affidavit that could be cross-examined; the trial judge did not err in exercising his discretion to dismiss the motion.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2006 FCA 38
Parties
Appellant: Jasvir Singh Virdi; Respondent: Minister of National Revenue
Court
Federal Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 January 2006
Procedural Posture
Administrative Law Judicial Review (tax) / Appeal to Federal Court of Appeal From Order Dismissing Motion for Extension of Time (april 19, 2005)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; order below affirmed.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Motion Procedure, Burden of Proof, Affidavit Evidence, Judicial Review
Source Language
en
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Tax Law Extension of Time Motion Procedure Burden of Proof Affidavit Evidence Judicial Review

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jasvir Singh Virdi

Appellant

Minister of National Revenue

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Administrative Law Judicial Review (tax) / Appeal to Federal Court of Appeal From Order Dismissing Motion for Extension of Time (april 19, 2005)

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in refusing an extension of time to seek judicial review
  2. 2 Whether a moving party must swear his own affidavit that can be cross-examined to establish the elements for an extension of time
  3. 3 Whether an affidavit sworn by counsel's secretary is sufficient to discharge the moving party's burden

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the appellant, as the moving party, failed to meet the burden to justify an extension of time by not swearing his own affidavit that could be cross-examined; the trial judge did not err in exercising his discretion to dismiss the motion.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; order below affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • Order of the Honourable Mr. Justice von Finckenstein dated April 19, 2005 affirmed.