Czerczak v. Canada (Attorney General)

Czerczak v. Canada (Attorney General)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2011-08-11
Neutral citation
2011 FCA 233
File numbers
A-487-10
Decision Content
Federal Court of Appeal
Cour d'appel fédérale
Date: 20110811
Docket: A-487-10
Citation: 2011 FCA 233
Present: PELLETIER J.A.
BETWEEN:
Konrad Czerczak
Appellant
and
The Attorney General of Canada
Respondent
Dealt with in writing without appearance of parties.
Order delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on August 11, 2011.
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: PELLETIER J.A.
Date: 20110811
Docket: A-487-10
Citation: 2011 FCA 233
Present: PELLETIER J.A.
BETWEEN:
Konrad Czerczak
Appellant
and
The Attorney General of Canada
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
PELLETIER J.A.
[1] The appellant’s notice of appeal was filed on December 24, 2010. The appellant’s address for service at that time was shown as “in care of his Authorized Tax Representative at: Tax Audit Solutions, …, Whitby, Ontario”.
[2] The respondent’s Notice of Appearance was filed on January 11, 2011. There is no further activity noted on the Court file until June 29, 2011, when a notice of status review was forwarded to the appellant at his address for service.
[3] The appellant filed representations in response to the notice of status review dated July 27, 2011. In those representations, he claims to be self-represented. The representations are signed by the appellant without reference to his address for service. Attached to his representation is a proposed Agreement as to content of appeal book dated July 27, 2011, signed by the appellant “c/o Tax Audit Solutions, …, Whitby, Ontario”.
[4] It is apparent that while the appellant is not represented by a lawyer, he is in fact receiving assistance from someone purporting to have expertise in tax matters. The appellant should know that only lawyers may appear on behalf of taxpayers in the Federal Court of Appeal, unless the taxpayer chooses to represent himself.
[5] The presence of this adviser is significant only to the extent that the appellant seeks to explain his delay by reference to the complexity of the matter and to confusion as to the person responsible for bringing a motion to settle the content of the appeal book. These explanations are unpersuasive in light of the appellant’s access to a tax adviser.
[6] That said, the appellant should not be deprived of his day in Court at this stage of the proceedings.
“J.D. Denis Pelletier”
J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-487-10
STYLE OF CAUSE: Konrad Czerczak and The Attorney General of Canada
MOTION DEALT WITH IN WRITING WITHOUT APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: PELLETIER J.A.
DATED: August 11, 2011
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY:
Konrad Czerczak
FOR THE APPELLANT ON HIS OWN BEHALF
John Grant
FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Myles J. Kirvan
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
FOR THE RESPONDENT