Iwanow v. Canada (Attorney General)

Iwanow v. Canada (Attorney General)

The motion was dismissed because the applicant relied on the wrong rule, failed to show any matter arising after the order, and failed to include any grounds demonstrating her appeal was well founded in support of her extension application, so there was no basis to reconsider or set aside the April 16, 2008 order.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2008 FCA 180
Parties
Applicant: Susanne Iwanow; Respondent: Attorney General of Canada
Court
Federal Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 May 2008
Procedural Posture
Application for Reconsideration/setting Aside of Order; Motion for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal From Tax Court Decision / Motion for Reconsideration of April 16, 2008 Order; Dealt With in Writing Without Appearance
Outcome
Motion dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Reconsideration, Setting Aside Order, Extension of Time, Timeliness, Leave to Appeal
Source Language
en
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Tax Law Appeals Reconsideration Setting Aside Order Extension of Time Timeliness +1 more

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 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Susanne Iwanow

Applicant

Attorney General of Canada

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Reconsideration/setting Aside of Order; Motion for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal From Tax Court Decision / Motion for Reconsideration of April 16, 2008 Order; Dealt With in Writing Without Appearance

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's motion was properly brought under Rule 397 or Rule 399
  2. 2 Whether the applicant demonstrated a matter arising after the order sufficient to set aside the order under Rule 399(2)(a)
  3. 3 Whether the applicant included grounds that her appeal was well founded to justify an extension of time to file a notice of appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The motion was dismissed because the applicant relied on the wrong rule, failed to show any matter arising after the order, and failed to include any grounds demonstrating her appeal was well founded in support of her extension application, so there was no basis to reconsider or set aside the April 16, 2008 order.

Court Disposition

Motion dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Motion for reconsideration dismissed with costs.
  • Original order dated April 16, 2008 not set aside.