SELINA WONG, Appellant, v. THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,, 2023 TCC 128

Docket: 2023-51(EI) BETWEEN: SELINA WONG, Appellant, and THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE, Respondent . Motion made by the Respondent in writing for an order to quash the Appellant’s appeal filed with the Tax Court of Canada on January 10, 2023 Before: The Honourable Justice Gaston Jorré, Deputy Judge Written Submissions : For the Appellant: The Appellant did not provide submissions Counsel for the Respondent: Katherine Matthews ORDER In accordance with the attached reasons for order, The motion shall be set down for hearing at the first available sitting in Vancouver.

Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 23 rd day of August 2023. “G. Jorré” Jorré J. Citation: 2023 TCC 128 Date: 20230823 Docket: 2023-51(EI) BETWEEN: SELINA WONG, Appellant, and THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE, Respondent. REASONS FOR ORDER Jorré J. [ 1 ] This matter was referred to me during a week where I was acting as the duty judge. [ 2 ] The Respondent has filed a motion seeking to have this appeal quashed on the basis that this court does not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The Respondent has also asked that the motion be dealt with in writing. [ 3 ] The registry of the Court wrote to the Appellant on 4 April 2023 inviting her to comment on the motion. As of the writing of these reasons no response has been received from the Appellant.

[ 4 ] This appeal has been opened as an employment insurance appeal and the Appellant is self-represented. [ 5 ] Employment insurance appeals under the Tax Court of Canada Act follow a procedure that one might describe as quasi-informal since many, but not all, key features of the informal procedure for tax appeals apply to employment insurance appeals. [1] [ 6 ] Parties other than the Minister of National Revenue are only occasionally represented by counsel.

With the leave of the court it is possible to have document discovery and examination for discovery; however, discovery is rare in practice. [2] [ 7 ] The vast majority of employment insurance appeals are, in practice, similar in procedural and evidentiary terms to informal income tax appeals. [ 8 ] This quasi-informal procedure is intended to make the court and its procedures accessible as well as relatively simple, inexpensive and expeditious.

This objective is reflected in subsection 18.15(3) of the Tax Court of Canada Act , which applies to employment insurance appeals. [3] It reads: Notwithstanding the provisions of the Act under which the appeal arises, the Court is not bound by any legal or technical rules of evidence in conducting a hearing and the appeal shall be dealt with by the Court as informally and expeditiously as the circumstances and considerations of fairness permit. [ 9 ] Most unrepresented parties have great difficulty in dealing with a motion in writing. [ 10 ] Given the objectives of the procedure, it is not generally appropriate to proceed by a motion in writing in employment insurance appeals where the Appellant is not represented by counsel. [4] I am satisfied that in this case it is appropriate to hold a hearing. [ 11 ] Before concluding, I would draw to the attention of the Appellant that, in the Respondent’s written representations, at paragraphs 14 and 15 in

Part III, the Respondent takes the position that this Court has no jurisdiction and that the matter belongs in the Federal Court. The Appellant should seriously consider the possibility of protecting her position by also filing an application for judicial review in the Federal Court; should the Appellant decide to do so she would have to also apply to the Federal Court for a time extension to do so. [ 12 ] For these reasons, this matter should go to hearing. Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 23 rd day of August 2023. “G. Jorré” Jorré J.

CITATION: 2023 TCC 128 COURT FILE NO.: 2023-51(EI) STYLE OF CAUSE: SELINA WONG AND M.N.R. MOTION REFERRED TO THE JUDGE: During the week of 8 August 2023. REASONS FOR ORDER BY: The Honourable Justice Gaston Jorré, Deputy Judge DATE OF ORDER: August 23, 2023 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: For the Appellant: The Appellant did not provide submissions Counsel for the Respondent: Katherine Matthews COUNSEL OF RECORD: For the Appellant: Name: N/A For the Respondent: Shalene Curtis-Micallef Deputy Attorney General of Canada Ottawa, Canada