Burman v. Canada
The motion for an extension of time was refused because the appellant failed to provide specific, credible affidavit evidence explaining the delay, did not demonstrate arguable merit or a continuing intention to appeal, and referenced a non‑existent supporting affidavit.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2003 FCA 437
- Parties
- Appellant: Sarah Burman; Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen
- Court
- Federal Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 20 November 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal From Tax Court of Canada / Motion for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal
- Outcome
- Motion refused
- Legal Topics
- Extension of Time to File Appeal, Notice of Appeal, Motions, Requirements for Affidavit, Self Representation
- 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
Sarah Burman
Appellant
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Tax Court of Canada / Motion for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether to grant an extension of time to file a notice of appeal
- 2 Whether the appellant provided a sufficient explanation and evidentiary basis (illness/surgery) for the delay
- 3 Whether the appellant demonstrated arguable merit and an intention to appeal
Ratio Decidendi
The motion for an extension of time was refused because the appellant failed to provide specific, credible affidavit evidence explaining the delay, did not demonstrate arguable merit or a continuing intention to appeal, and referenced a non‑existent supporting affidavit.
Court Disposition
Motion refused
Orders
- Motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Burman v. Canada Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2003-11-20 Neutral citation 2003 FCA 437 File numbers 03-A-47 Decision Content Date: 20031120 Docket: 03-A-47 Citation: 2003 FCA 437 CORAM: STRAYER J.A. BETWEEN: SARAH BURMAN Appellant and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent REASONS FOR ORDER STRAYER J.A. [1] This is a motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal from a final judgment of the Tax Court of Canada issued on May 30, 2003. The appellant appeared before the Tax Court and represented herself on May 28. She took no steps to appeal the decision until some 3 months later when she wrote to the Tax Court concerning a possible appeal. She subsequently applied to this Court, by notice of motion filed on October 16, 2003 for an extension of time to file an appeal (3½ months after the time for doing so had expired). She states in a brief affidavit that she is "due for duplicate eye surgery" which was delayed "by the SARS tragedy". She does not give any specifics in this affidavit as to the nature of her condition, when it started, and what problem she would encounter in the mere filing of a notice of appeal that she would not have encountered in personally presenting her case to the Tax Court. Nor does she state that her appeal has merit or why it does, nor that she has intended throughout the delay to appeal. These are all necessary elements of a motion for an extension of time to file an appeal. I also note that while in her affidavit she states that she relies on the facts in her "affidavit sworn October [no date specified]" such affidavit is nowhere in the materials. [2] In the circumstances, on the material before me and making all due allowances I have concluded that this motion should be refused. (s) "B.L. Strayer" J.A. FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: 03-A-47 STYLE OF CAUSE: Sarah Burman v. Her Majesty the Queen MOTION DEALT WITH IN WRITING WITHOUT APPEARANCE OF PARTIES REASONS FOR ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE STRAYER DATED: November 20, 2003 WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS: Ms. Sarah Burman Toronto, Ontario ON HER OWN BEHALF Ms. Meghan Castle Toronto, Ontario FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Ms.Sarah Burman Toronto, Ontario ON HER OWN BEHALF Morris Rosenberg Deputy Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario FOR THE RESPONDENT