Supercity Machining & Electric Motor Shop Inc. v. Nova Scotia (Attorney General)
Because the notice of appeal was received by the Board after the statutory 30 day period set out in s.61 of the Revenue Act and the Revenue Act contains no provision to extend that period, the Board lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal; equitable estoppel could not be invoked to cure the late or misdirected...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 1998 NSCA 223
- Parties
- Appellant: Supercity Machining & Electric Motor Shop Inc.; Respondent: The Attorney General of Nova Scotia (Minister of Finance)
- Court
- Nova Scotia Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 9 December 1998
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Appeal to Nova Scotia Court of Appeal From Decision of Nova Scotia Utility & Review Board on Jurisdiction to Hear Tax Appeal
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction, Limitation Periods, Equitable Estoppel, Statutory Appeal Period, Administrative Tribunal Procedure
- 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
Supercity Machining & Electric Motor Shop Inc.
Appellant
The Attorney General of Nova Scotia (Minister of Finance)
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal to Nova Scotia Court of Appeal From Decision of Nova Scotia Utility & Review Board on Jurisdiction to Hear Tax Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Nova Scotia Utility & Review Board had jurisdiction to hear the appeal filed after the 30 day statutory period
- 2 Whether equitable estoppel can be invoked based on representations by an official of the Provincial Tax Commissioner to cure a late or misdirected filing
- 3 Whether the Board has power under the Revenue Act to extend the time for filing an appeal
Ratio Decidendi
Because the notice of appeal was received by the Board after the statutory 30 day period set out in s.61 of the Revenue Act and the Revenue Act contains no provision to extend that period, the Board lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal; equitable estoppel could not be invoked to cure the late or misdirected filing, particularly where the notice was not initially sent to the proper statutory recipient.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- No costs awarded
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Supercity Machining & Electric Motor Shop Inc. v. Nova Scotia (Attorney General) Court Court of Appeal Date 1998-12-09 Citation 1998 NSCA 223 Docket CA 149601 Judge/Registrar/Adjudicator Glube, Constance R. (Honourable Chief Justice) (CA); Flinn, Edward J. (Honourable Justice); Hart, Gordon L.S. (Honourable Justice) Document Type Decision Relations Library Sheet - Supercity Machining & Electric Motor Shop Inc. v. Nova Scotia (Attorney General) - 1998 NSCA 223 - 1998-12-09 - Library Sheet Decision Content Date: 19981209 Docket: C.A. 149601 NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Cite as: Supercity Machining & Electric Motor Shop Inc. v. Nova Scotia (Attorney General), 1998 NSCA 223 Glube, C.J.N.S.; Hart and Flinn, JJ.A. BETWEEN: SUPERCITY MACHINING & ELECTRIC ) D. Bruce Clarke MOTOR SHOP INC., a body corporate ) for the Appellant ) Appellant ) ) - and - ) ) Jennifer L. Palov ) for the Respondent THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NOVA ) SCOTIA (MINISTER OF FINANCE) ) ) Respondent ) Appeal Heard: ) December 9, 1998 ) ) ) Judgment Delivered: ) December 9, 1998 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) THE COURT: Appeal is dismissed as per oral reasons of Flinn, J.A.; Glube, C.J.N.S., and Hart, J.A. concurring FLINN, J.A.: The appellant appeals from a decision of the Nova Scotia Utility & Review Board. The Board decided that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the appellant’s appeal - from a decision of the Provincial Tax Commissioner - because the appeal was filed out of time, and because there are no provisions in the Revenue Act, S.N.S. 1995-96, c. 17, to extend the time to file an appeal. Section 61 of the Revenue Act, which gives the appellant a right of appeal to the Board, provides that the appeal is taken by filing a notice of appeal, with the Clerk of the Board, within 30 days of the appellant’s receipt of the decision of the Provincial Tax Commissioner. The decision of the Provincial Tax Commissioner, in this case, was received by the appellant on January 7th, 1998. The appellant’s notice of appeal is dated February 5th, 1998, and, according to the appellant’s testimony, was mailed - “by clerical error” - to the Provincial Tax Commission, instead of to the Clerk of the Board. It arrived at the offices of the Tax Commission on February 9th, 1998. The Tax Commission returned it to the appellant, who then redirected it to the Board. It was received by the Board on February 12th, 1998. The appellant’s 30 day appeal period expired on February 6th, 1998. Among other submissions, the appellant relies on representations which he testified were made to him by an auditor at the Provincial Tax Commissioner’s office. He testified that he was told that as long as the notice of appeal was date stamped by the last day required for the appeal then everything would be okay. He submits that the doctrine of equitable estoppel applies, which would require the Board to entertain his appeal. Even if the doctrine of equitable estoppel applies - with respect to representations made by an official of one administrative tribunal with respect to the rules of another administrative tribunal - and we do not agree that it does, the appellant cannot rely on the doctrine, because the notice of appeal, here, was not sent to the proper party, initially. The Board made no jurisdictional error. The late filing of the notice of appeal deprived it of jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, and the Board had no power to extend the appeal period (see Glow Worm Investments Ltd. v. Atlantic Shopping Centres Ltd. and Provincial Planning Appeal Board (1981), 46 N.S.R. (2d) 223; and Re: Chafe (1974), 10 N.S.R. (2d) 261). The appeal is, therefore, dismissed, under the circumstances, without costs. Flinn, J.A. Concurred in: Glube, C.J.N.S. Hart, J.A. C.A. No.149601 NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN: SUPERCITY MACHINING & ELECTRIC MOTOR SHOP INC., ) a body corporate ) ) Appellant ) - and - ) REASONS FOR ) JUDGMENT BY: THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ) NOVA SCOTIA (DEPARTMENT OF ) FLINN, J.A. FINANCE) ) (Orally) ) Respondent ) ) ) ) ) ) )