https://decisia.lexum.com/fca-caf/decisions/en/item/307839/index.do
Dirani v. Canada (March 21, 2018 – 2018 FCA 56, Rennie (author), Woods, Laskin JJ.A.).
Précis: While it is not entirely clear from the decision it appears that the Tax Court dismissed Mr. Dirani’s appeal where he did not appear pursuant to a Notice of Hearing. He moved unsuccessfully to set aside that decision. Mr. Dirani appealed that decision to the Federal Court of Appeal where the new Crown counsel informed the Court of Appeal that prior Crown counsel had misinformed the Tax Court that Mr. Dirani was “refusing to accept registered mail.” Accordingly the Court of Appeal set aside the decision of the Tax Court in an opinion rendered from the bench. They ordered that Mr. Dirani’s application remitted to the Tax Court for “determination on a full and complete record” [para. [3]]. There was no order as to costs.
Decision: The Tax Court had simply proceeded on erroneous information and the decision could not stand:
[2] We are not satisfied on the record before us that there was any evidence upon which the Tax Court of Canada could have concluded that the appellant was served with the Notice of Hearing in respect of his appeal. We note, in particular, that counsel previously acting for the Minister had advised the Tax Court that the appellant was refusing to accept registered mail, a statement from which current counsel now, correctly, resiles.
[3] In the circumstances we would allow the appeal, set aside the decision of the Tax Court and return the appellant’s motion to set aside to the Tax Court for determination on a full and complete record.
[4] The Crown raises before us the objection that the appellant would, in any event, require an extension of time within which to file his motion to set aside. In our view, this should have been raised before the Tax Court in first instance. The matter having been put in issue before us, we would, having regard to the relevant criteria governing extensions of time, grant the motion in order that the substantive question – whether the appellant received notice of the hearing date- can be properly determined.
Thus the matter was referred back to the Tax Court. There was no order as to costs.