May 18, 2017 Montreal

Attendees

Questions of law: The presiding judge on a determination of a question of law under paragraph 58(1)(a) of the Tax Court Rules is rarely the judge who, in the first stage of the process, set down the question for determination. Would the Court consider having the same judge seized at both stages of the determination under paragraph 58(1)(a) so any issues on the appropriateness of the question are raised in the first stage by the judge who will ultimately determine the question?
Availability of witnesses: In the past, the Court has set dates for trial at status hearings without giving counsel an opportunity to check if their witnesses are available. Will the court consider deferring an order setting dates until counsel can ensure the availability of witnesses?
Electronic exhibits: Parties make increasing use of Court facilities to present exhibits in electronic form and each experience provides an opportunity to improve the process. DOJ counsel have several suggestions to make the presentation of electronic exhibits easier and more efficient. What is the proper forum for this kind of discussion? What can parties do to assist the Court in facilitating e-litigation in general?
Notice to set down applications: At the last Committee meeting, the Chief Justice indicated that the Court will consider not setting down applications on 30 days’ notice and extending it to 45 days. Has this practice been implemented by the Court?

Exhibits: Concern about quality of copies from the Court.
Written questions on discovery: At least one Justice Canada lawyer has taken the position that questions must be asked at least 30 days before the deadline set for completing discoveries. Is this the Department’s position on this point?
Statement of Agreed Facts: Could the Rules be amended to treat Statement of Agreed Facts as a jointly filed Response to a Notice to Admit, to guard against the Court not proceeding on facts agreed to by the litigants?
Access to justice for taxpayers with smaller disputes: For example, the cost of taking even a $100,000 dispute to Tax Court is prohibitive. One possible remedy may be to increase the thresholds for Informal Procedures. Many taxpayers incur significant expenses for professional assistance at the audit and appeals stages so the additional cost of proceeding to Tax Court is prohibitive.
Hours of sitting: Could the Court consider adopting regular hours of sitting so counsel presenting their case (usually Appellant’s counsel) can anticipate when the court will rise each day? Even a practice of the presiding judge stating at the outset when the Court plans to recess (done in many other courts) is helpful in planning. But it would be best to have consistent hours that do not vary from judge to judge.