Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Applicant's lawyers failed to appear at a scheduled Tax Court hearing after their adjournment request was denied, leaving their client to proceed alone

• Late adjournment request was submitted only one week before the hearing date despite lawyers knowing of conflicting obligations for several weeks

• Client demonstrated clear lack of understanding of the procedural purpose of the hearing, indicating inadequate preparation by counsel

• Crown sought personal costs against counsel under Rule 152 and the Court's inherent jurisdiction to sanction reprehensible conduct

• Lawyers prioritized obligations to Quebec Court over their duties to the Tax Court and their client without proper withdrawal procedures

• Court found lawyers breached their professional obligations as officers of justice, causing unjustified delays and expenses

The underlying dispute and procedural background

Benoit Rivard filed an application before the Tax Court of Canada seeking an extension of time to file a notice of objection against a tax assessment. Mr. Rivard claimed he had been a victim of fraud and believed the assessment against him should be annulled. His case had been ongoing for approximately 15 years. The hearing for this application was scheduled for July 10, 2025, in Sherbrooke, Quebec, with notice sent to all parties on February 25, 2025.

The adjournment request and counsel's absence

On July 3, 2025, just one week before the scheduled hearing, Mr. Rivard's lawyers—Me Franco Iezzoni and Me Lise A. Gagnon of the firm Avocats I.G.M. s.e.n.c.—requested an adjournment. They cited their involvement in preparing written arguments for a criminal case in Quebec Court, following a lengthy trial that had concluded on June 23, 2025. The deadline for submitting those written arguments was July 11, 2025. The Court refused this adjournment request on July 8, 2025.

Despite the refusal, neither lawyer appeared when the case was called on July 10, 2025. Mr. Rivard explained to the Court that he had forwarded the hearing notice to his lawyers on April 24, 2025 and they had twice confirmed their attendance. He only learned on the evening of July 8 that the adjournment had been denied and that his lawyers would not attend. Mr. Rivard stayed up late in the nights preceding the hearing preparing copies of his documents to proceed alone. Crown counsel Me Louis-Roch Desjardins indicated he only learned of the lawyers' intended absence hours before the hearing when Me Gagnon sent an email confirming they would not attend.

The client's lack of preparedness

The Court observed that Mr. Rivard appeared nervous and overwhelmed by recent events. When questioned about the purpose of the hearing, he spoke about challenging the assessment and proving he was a fraud victim, but he did not address the application for extension of time to file a notice of objection. The Associate Judge noted that Mr. Rivard clearly did not understand that he first needed to obtain an extension from the Court before he could challenge the underlying assessment. This was confirmed both at the July 10 hearing and again at a case management conference on July 31, 2025.

Subsequent proceedings and withdrawal

The Court offered Mr. Rivard the choice to proceed alone or adjourn to November 2025 to proceed with counsel. He chose the latter, and the hearing was rescheduled to November 5, 2025, later moved to November 6, 2025 at the request of Mr. Rivard's lawyers. On November 3, 2025, the lawyers requested permission for Me Gagnon to participate by videoconference. This request was refused due to technological limitations allowing the Court to hold virtual and hybrid hearings in certain cities only. On November 5, 2025, Mr. Rivard withdrew his application while the costs issue remained under deliberation.

The costs motion and the Court's analysis

The Crown requested that the lawyers personally pay costs due to their unjustified absence. While the Informal Procedure Rules provide for costs of $250 for hearing preparation and $375 for the hearing itself (totaling $625), the Crown argued the Court's inherent power to sanction reprehensible conduct justified costs up to $2,000. The Crown cited several precedents including De Pellegrin v. The King, 2024 TCC 134, Young c. Young, [1993] 4 R.C.S. 3, 9128-8456 Québec inc. c. La Reine, 2014 CCI 85, and Dacosta c. La Reine, 2008 CCI 136. Mr. Rivard deferred to the Court on this issue. During a July 31, 2025 case management conference held by videoconference, Me Gagnon maintained that it had been agreed with Mr. Rivard that he would proceed alone and reiterated their obligations to Quebec Court.

The Court's ruling on costs

Associate Judge Sophie Matte concluded that the conduct of Me Iezzoni and Me Gagnon toward their client, the Crown, and the Court was unacceptable. They failed in their obligations as officers of justice. The Court found that the lawyers submitted their adjournment request at the last minute despite knowing for several weeks about the obligations and deadlines they faced in other cases. They also knew for a long time the circumstances preventing them from travelling to Sherbrooke. The Court had the impression the lawyers had no intention of attending the July 10, 2025 hearing regardless of the Court's decision on their adjournment request. After their request was denied, they neither sought a directive for cessation of representation nor informed the Court that they would not attend and that their client would proceed alone.

The Court was particularly troubled that the lawyers allowed Mr. Rivard to proceed alone when it should have been evident he did not understand the hearing's purpose. Contrary to counsel's assertion that Mr. Rivard knew his file well after 15 years, the length of his case does not mean Mr. Rivard understands the procedure and elements he must demonstrate to obtain an extension of time to file a notice of objection with the minister.

The Court ordered the lawyers of Avocats I.G.M. s.e.n.c. to personally pay costs of $625 to the Crown within 30 days, adhering to the amounts specified under Article 11 of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (Informal Procedure). The Court expressly stated that this amount must not in any way be paid by Mr. Rivard, and the lawyers have no right to seek reimbursement from their client.