Mandic reached a form of agreement with the Crown regarding a reassessment of his 2015 taxation year, and the parties signed a consent to judgment stating that the reassessment would be vacated. However, on review by a Tax Court judge, that judge directed that the agreement refer instead to referring the reassessment back to the Minister for reconsideration (not vacating it). Mandic died before the parties signed an amended consent to judgment with the corrected wording. With such death and the lack of an executor for Mandic’s estate, the Crown now refused to implement the settlement.
Before determining that, notwithstanding the deficiencies raised by the Crown, he would allow the appeal by referring the assessment back to the Minister for reconsideration and reassessment in accordance with the settlement agreement with the proposed amendment, MacPhee J referred to the degree of discretion accorded to him in this regard by the General Procedure rules, stating (at paras. 11-13):
Before determining that, notwithstanding the deficiencies raised by the Crown, he would allow the appeal by referring the assessment back to the Minister for reconsideration and reassessment in accordance with the settlement agreement as so amended, MacPhee J stated (at paras. 11-13):
Rule 4(1) states that the Rules shall be liberally construed to secure the just, most expeditious and least expensive determination of every proceeding on its merits.
Rule 9 allows the Court to dispense with compliance with the rules where it is in the interest of justice.
Finally, pursuant to subsection 126(4)(e), a case management judge may make any order that is considered just in the circumstances.