Order UT95-01 - UT94106 - Sales Tax Appeal - Comprehensive Research Corporation & Others v. Provincial Tax Commissioner (Jan 31, 1995)

Docket UT94106
Order UT95-1

IN THE MATTER of an appeal by Comprehensive Research Corporation and others against a decision of the Provincial Tax Commissioner, dated September 26, 1994.

BEFORE THE COMMISSION

on Tuesday, the 31st day of January, 1995.

Linda Webber, Chair
John L. Blakney, Vice-Chair
Anne McPhee, Commissioner

Order

WHEREAS:

On January 26, 1995, a hearing was convened to hear argument on preliminary objections raised by Roger Langille, counsel for the Provincial Tax Commissioner, over the jurisdiction of the Commission to hear this appeal. The objections raised by Mr. Langille are set out in a letter to the Commission dated November 7, 1994. Kenneth Clark, counsel for the appellants Comprehensive Research Corporation, CRC Data Systems and Daniel Mullen, responded to Mr. Langille's letter via a letter dated November 28, 1994.

At the commencement of the hearing on January 26, the Commission proposed that the issue of jurisdiction could best be dealt with in the following manner:

the appellants would present evidence supporting their allegations;

argument would be made on the legal significance or relevance of these facts in relation to the issue of jurisdiction assuming these facts to be true; and

if the Commission found that it had jurisdiction, cross-examination of the witnesses would be allowed and the merits of the appeal would be dealt with.

While the appellant agreed with this procedure, the respondent did not. The respondent suggested that the facts contained in its letter of November 7, 1994 were not in dispute and that a decision on the respondent's jurisdictional challenge could be made on these facts alone. The appellants, on the other hand, stated that they did not agree with the above facts and that other facts would give rise to additional legal remedies-that actions of the respondent induced or misled the appellants.

Having heard the position of the parties and upon further consideration, the Commission concluded that, as there was no agreement on the facts, the procedure proposed by the respondent could not be implemented. The Commission further concluded that the factual issues in dispute appeared to have relevance to both the matter of jurisdiction and the merits of the appeal itself.

As a result, the Commission determined that the most expeditious way of disposing of this appeal would involve the hearing of all of the evidence of the parties followed by the presentation of argument on the issue of jurisdiction as well as the merits of the appeal.

The Commission hereby affirms this procedure. The hearing will continue on a date to be fixed.

The foregoing is

SO ORDERED.

DATED at Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, this 31st day of January, 1995.

BY THE COMMISSION:

Linda Webber, Chair

John L. Blakney, Vice-Chair

Anne McPhee, Commissioner

NOTICE

Section 12 of the Island Regulatory and Appeals Commission Act reads as follows:

12. The Commission may, in its absolute discretion, review, rescind or vary any order or decision made by it or rehear any application before deciding it.

Parties to this proceeding seeking a review of the Commission's decision or order in this matter may do so by filing with the Commission, at the earliest date, a written Request for Review, which clearly states the reasons for the review and the nature of the relief sought.

Sections 13.(1) and 13(2) of the Act provide as follows:

13.(1) An appeal lies from a decision or order of the Commission to the Appeal Division of the Supreme Court upon a question of law or jurisdiction.

(2) The appeal shall be made by filing a notice of appeal in the Supreme Court within twenty days after the decision or order appealed from and the Civil Procedure Rules respecting appeals apply with the necessary changes.