Federal Court of Appeal Decisions

     A-147-97

     A-178-97

     A-205-97

CORAM:      MR. JUSTICE JAMES K. HUGESSEN

B E T W E E N :

     HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

    

     Appellant

     - and -

     GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED

    

     Respondent

     Heard at Ottawa, Ontario, Wednesday, March 19, 1997.

     Order rendered from the Bench, March 19, 1997.

REASONS FOR ORDER BY:      HUGESSEN J.A.

     A-147-97

     A-178-97

     A-205-97

CORAM:      MR. JUSTICE JAMES K. HUGESSEN

B E T W E E N :

     HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

    

     Appellant

     - and -

     GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED

    

     Respondent

     REASONS FOR ORDER

HUGESSEN J.A.

     These are my reasons for an Order made earlier today refusing applications by the Crown to stay certain orders of the Tax Court of Canada; those orders would have the effect of forcing the Crown to proceed to trial in that Court on April 14, 1997.

     There are presently three appeals by the Crown pending in this Court. The first (A-147-97) is from an order made 24 February, 1997 refusing leave to the Crown to amend its reply to the Notice of Appeal. The second (A-178-97) is from an order dated 6 March, 1997, dismissing the Crown's application to adjourn the April 14 trial. The third (A-205-97) is from an order given March 11, 1997 denying the Crown's application to stay the earlier order fixing the trial for April, 14, 1997.

     On the hearing of the motions before me, it was conceded by the respondent that the appellant may have an arguable case. The Crown's principal contention was that it would suffer irreparable harm if it were forced to trial on April 14 without knowing whether or not its motion to amend was going to be allowed; that would only be known after the judgment of the Court of Appeal in file A-147-97. In my view, that position was utterly without merit. The Crown has done nothing to bring its appeal on the amendment question (A-147-97) into a state of readiness for hearing prior to April 14. That is so even though the materials show that counsel had been informed by Court staff that dates for urgent hearings were available before then. If, as is the case, the failure to have the appeal heard before the proposed trial date is due to the appellant's own inaction, any injury suffered by the Crown as a result of its having to go to trial without knowing the final state of the pleadings would be entirely self inflicted.

     Accordingly, I fixed all three appeals for hearing on April 7 on a priority basis. Counsel for the Crown then renewed his application for a stay on the ground that if the appeal on the question of the amendment succeeded it would then be too late to prepare properly for the trial a week later. That position is equally untenable. The appeals from the orders refusing the adjournment and the stay will also be heard on April 7. Once the Court has dealt with the question of the proposed amendment, the correctness of the Tax Court judge's refusal to adjourn or to stay proceedings can then be assessed in the light of that decision.

     For these reasons I dismissed all the applications to stay. The question of the correctness of making such an application to a single judge of the Court of Appeal when the very same question is also the subject of an appeal was not argued and I express no view on it.

     OTTAWA, Wednesday, March 19, 1997.

     "James K. Hugessen"

     J.A.

     FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

     A-147-97

     A-178-97

     A-205-97

B E T W E E N :

     HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

    

     Appellant

     - and -

     GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED

    

     Respondent

     REASONS FOR ORDER