Hamlyn, T.C.C.J.:—These procedural motions are in relation to an appeal for the 1986 taxation year from an assessment decision of the Minister of National Revenue wherein the sale of a particular real property was assessed to be on revenue account as opposed to the appellant’s contention that the sale of the property was on capital account.
The motions and cross-motions before the Court are nine in number with 35 points in issue. Oral reasons were given at the hearing and this hereinafter merely summarizes those findings.
Three motions filed first by the respondent asked that the appellant's appeal be dismissed for failure to file a list of documents in accordance with the rules of this Court and in accordance with an order of this Court.
Thereafter three motions were filed by the appellant asking for several headings of relief in relation to prior orders, including a requested change of a fixed trial date as well as demands for relief for other perceived procedural problems. This was followed by three other cross-motions by the appellant in response to the respondent's above-noted motions for dismissal.
In essence, the respondent's motions are well founded, that is, the appellant has failed to file a list of documents in accordance with the rules of this Court and an order of this Court. The explanation that was tenuously offered in the myriad of confused submissions, that no documents were available, is without merit given the obvious complexity of the transaction and facts.
The motions of the appellant and his cross-motions to the respondent's motions for dismissal are not well founded. The respective requests for relief including further adjournments, new trial dates, other discoveries and examinations and non-legal representation other than self representation have been previously dealt with in other motions and orders of this Court in this appeal.
Specifically, for the appellant to argue he has a right of examination and document discovery in other appeals that are not joined nor consolidated with his appeal is without foundation. The appellant in the present appeal successfully fought a consolidation motion, as such, he has no right nor implied right of discovery or examination to appellants not party to nor consolidated with nor joined with his appeal.
It is the responsibility of the appellant to prosecute his appeal without delay and with due dispatch within the prescribed rules. The appellant in this appeal has not been proactive but merely reactive. The appellant has not filed the list of documents in accordance with the rules nor in compliance with a specific court order. The explanation given, as reviewed, is without merit.
The total effect of the appellant's conduct of the appeal is by deliberate intentional action to delay the prosecution of the appeal.
The conclusion is that the appellant has not provided a reasonable excuse for non-compliance nor has he made any attempt whatsoever to comply with the rules or the order of this Court, as such this Court is left with no alternative but to dismiss the appeal.
Costs have been demanded however in view of all circumstances there will be no order. The motions of the appellant and the cross-motions of the appellant are dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.