Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Characterization of the underlying transaction as either a taxable bulk sale or a secured loan, and the Tax Appeal Commission’s treatment of the Bill of Sale and extrinsic evidence.

• Scope and standard of review on a statutory appeal under section 58 of The Tax Administration and Miscellaneous Taxes Act (TAMTA), likened to judicial review with correctness and palpable and overriding error standards.

• Application of Manitoba Court of King’s Bench Rules 38.12 and related Rule 24 jurisprudence to dismissal of an application for delay, including the threshold of inordinate and inexcusable delay.

• Assessment of inherent and actual prejudice arising from a four-and-a-half-year delay, including the psychological and practical impact of a potential tax debt of approximately $375,000 and an erroneously registered lien.

• Consideration of how ongoing settlement negotiations and voluntary partial payments affect responsibility for advancing proceedings and rebutting the presumption of prejudice.

• Exercise of judicial discretion to deny a dismissal for delay while also refusing costs to the successful applicant, despite its procedural success.

  ---

Background and procedural history

The dispute centres on a provincial tax assessment under The Tax Administration and Miscellaneous Taxes Act, C.C.S.M. c. T2 (TAMTA). On October 25, 2019, the Deputy Minister of Finance (DMF) issued a Notice of Assessment against Brooke Proutt in the amount of $377,537.22, representing the tax said to be owing as of the hearing date. The assessment flowed from the DMF’s view of a particular transaction as a taxable bulk sale, rather than some other form of financing or security arrangement. On September 14, 2020, the Tax Appeal Commission (TAC) released a decision in favour of Ms. Proutt, rescinding the Notice of Assessment. As a result, at the administrative level she was treated as owing nothing on that assessment, and the substantial tax liability was effectively set aside. In response, the DMF exercised the statutory appeal mechanism under section 58 of TAMTA. On December 14, 2020, it filed a Notice of Application to the Court of King’s Bench seeking to overturn or vary the TAC’s decision. The application was formally filed on December 22, 2020 and made returnable on January 11, 2021. On that return date, the matter was adjourned from the civil uncontested list to no fixed date. After this adjournment, the DMF took no significant procedural steps to advance the appeal for approximately four and a half years, until the respondent brought a motion to dismiss the application for delay. During this period the parties engaged in settlement discussions, and Ms. Proutt made partial payments to the DMF toward what might ultimately be found to be tax indebtedness, even though she had prevailed before TAC and the payments were not yet legally enforceable. At one point, the DMF registered a lien against her property despite the TAC decision in her favour. The lien was later acknowledged as an error and promptly discharged, but it formed part of her prejudice argument on the delay motion.

Issues on appeal and standards of review

The statutory appeal lies from TAC to the Court of King’s Bench under section 58 of TAMTA. Relying on Santarsieri (Michelle) Inc. v. Manitoba (Minister of Finance), the DMF framed the Court’s role as analogous to a judicial review by certiorari on the record, rather than a full rehearing. Under that approach, the Court would apply a correctness standard to extricable questions of law, and a palpable and overriding error standard to findings of fact or mixed fact and law made by TAC. Substantively, the central issue identified by the DMF is whether the transaction at the heart of the tax assessment was properly characterized as a bulk sale, which would attract the tax consequences the Minister sought to enforce, or whether, as TAC found, it was in substance a secured loan. The DMF argued that TAC made palpable and overriding errors by treating the transaction as a loan, by disregarding a signed Bill of Sale and preferring certain extrinsic evidence, and by ignoring other “germane and contradictory” extrinsic evidence. The Court in this decision did not resolve those merits questions; it simply noted that the appellate issue would be whether a bulk sale occurred or the transaction was indeed a loan, and expressly declined to comment further on the facts to avoid prejudging the eventual hearing.

Civil procedure, delay and the governing rules

The motion before the Court was brought by Ms. Proutt to dismiss the DMF’s application for delay. She relied on the Manitoba Court of King’s Bench Rules (KBR), particularly Rule 38.12, which allows the Court to dismiss an application on motion for delay and sets out factors it may consider: whether the applicant has unreasonably delayed obtaining a hearing date, whether there is a reasonable justification for the delay, any prejudice to the respondent, and any other relevant factor. She also invoked Rule 1.04 and the former Rule 24 jurisprudence on dismissal of actions for long delay, pointing to authorities such as Manitoba Lotteries Corporation v. Dominion Construction and Development Inc., Springfield Taxpayers Rights Corp v. Rural Municipality of Springfield and Berger Peat Moss Ltd., Gamble and Wojtowicz v. Karpluk, and Laing v. Sekundiak. These cases emphasize that timeliness and proportionality are essential to civil justice, that applications typically tolerate shorter permissible delays than ordinary actions, and that inordinate and inexcusable delay can give rise to a presumption of significant prejudice. She further cited The Worker’s Compensation Board v. Ali and Parkinson v. Winnipeg Regional Health Authority, in which the Manitoba Court of Appeal explained that once delay is found to be inordinate and inexcusable, there is a rebuttable presumption under the rules that the moving party has suffered significant prejudice, and that this presumption must be rebutted on a balance of probabilities. The Court accepted that jurisprudence regarding Rule 24 (dismissal of actions) is instructive for motions under Rule 38.12 (dismissal of applications). The factors to consider include the subject matter of the litigation, the complexity of the issues, the length of delay, the explanation for delay, and prejudice. Although Parkinson directly concerned Rule 24.01, the Court in this case held that the same analytical framework and public-interest considerations—particularly the strong interest in timely resolution of civil disputes—apply when deciding whether to dismiss an application for delay.

Arguments of the respondent, Ms. Proutt

On the motion, Ms. Proutt emphasized that proportionality and timeliness are critical to the fair functioning of the justice system. She argued that this was a non-complex statutory appeal that should have been advanced expeditiously, particularly because it proceeded on an already-closed record from TAC. In her submission, the applicant bore the responsibility to move its own appeal forward and could at any time have requested a hearing date and set deadlines for remaining procedural steps. She contended that a four-and-a-half-year lull with no meaningful progress was inordinate and inexcusable, easily surpassing the “long delay” thresholds recognized in the case law. As to prejudice, she argued both actual and inherent prejudice. She described living for years under the “dark cloud” of a potential tax debt approaching $400,000, despite having prevailed before TAC and being, in law, treated as owing nothing at that stage. She argued this ongoing uncertainty was inherently prejudicial and psychologically burdensome. She also relied on the DMF’s registration of a lien on her property after the TAC decision in her favour, which she said was a concrete example of prejudice: having a charge registered against one’s property without legal justification. Citing Ali, she submitted that once delay is inordinate and inexcusable, significant prejudice is presumed and need not be proved in detail. She further referred to Papasotiriou-Lanteigne v. Tsitsos to argue that the Court has discretion, when dismissing for delay, to decide whether to also bar a fresh proceeding. She urged the Court, if it granted her motion, to go further and preclude the DMF from filing any new application to overturn TAC’s original decision, on the basis that allowing a new application would only compound her prejudice and set an unfair precedent for similarly situated taxpayers.

Arguments of the applicant, the Deputy Minister of Finance

The DMF, as applicant, accepted that the appeal had not been moved forward promptly but urged the Court not to dismiss it. It stressed that the proceeding arose under a statutory appeal mechanism and that, on the merits, it believed TAC’s decision was deeply flawed, particularly in its characterization of the transaction and its treatment of the Bill of Sale and extrinsic evidence. The DMF argued that dismissing the appeal for delay would effectively insulate a seriously erroneous administrative decision from judicial oversight. On the question of delay, the DMF submitted that the elapsed time must be considered in light of all the circumstances. It pointed out that the parties engaged in extended settlement discussions over the years and that, during those negotiations, Ms. Proutt herself made partial payments toward the disputed amount, despite those payments not being legally enforceable at that time. From the applicant’s perspective, this conduct indicated that the respondent remained actively interested in negotiating a resolution, and that both parties benefited from the informal standstill while talks continued. The DMF therefore contended that there was no inherent or actual prejudice arising from the time taken, because the respondent was not left in the dark, remained involved in negotiations, and voluntarily chose to make payments. As to the lien, the DMF acknowledged that it had been filed in error while TAC’s decision in her favour remained fully effective, but stressed that it moved promptly to remove the lien once the error was identified. It argued that this brief mistake, while regrettable, did not amount to lasting prejudice that could justify the extreme remedy of dismissing a statutory appeal with potentially significant revenue implications.

The court’s analysis of delay and prejudice

The Court accepted that the passage of four and a half years between the filing of the application and the motion to dismiss was, viewed on its face, a delay that could warrant dismissal. It noted that the DMF, as applicant, could have at any time sought a hearing date and set deadlines for remaining procedural steps, and that the case was relatively straightforward because it would proceed on the record from TAC. Nonetheless, the Court emphasized that the analysis does not end with the raw length of delay. Under the framework articulated in cases like Parkinson and Ali, once delay is inordinate and inexcusable, a presumption arises that the moving party has suffered significant prejudice. That presumption is not absolute; it can be rebutted if the respondent to the motion shows, on a balance of probabilities, that despite the delay, such prejudice has not in fact occurred. The judge therefore examined the totality of the circumstances, including the subject matter and complexity of the litigation, the nature of the application, what transpired after adjournment to a date to be fixed, and the specific events on which the respondent relied as prejudice. On complexity, the Court agreed with both parties that the appeal was not complex; it would be decided on the TAC record, which had already been filed, and the respondent had always known the case she had to meet. Nonetheless, the judge treated this as cutting both ways: on the one hand, a non-complex case should not languish; on the other, the lack of complexity and the closed record meant there was no evidentiary prejudice from the delay. On events after adjournment, the Court accepted that it was open to the DMF to move the matter forward but noted that both parties engaged in settlement discussions over an extended period and that the respondent made partial payments toward the potential tax indebtedness. While there was no express agreement not to set a hearing date, the Court inferred that both sides derived some benefit from the ongoing negotiations, even if they ultimately failed, and that this context mitigated the harshness of viewing the delay as entirely one-sided. Regarding the lien, the Court acknowledged the respondent’s understandable alarm when a lien was registered against her property despite her success at TAC. However, the judge attached significant weight to the fact that the lien was filed in error, promptly acknowledged, and promptly removed. Beyond the initial shock, the Court found that the error did not create lasting legal or practical prejudice. On the broader question of living under the threat of a large potential tax debt for several years, the Court accepted that this uncertainty could be concerning, but stressed that there was no evidentiary foundation for finding actual prejudice. There was no evidence that she had been denied loans, that her business had failed, or that she had otherwise suffered identifiable financial or litigation disadvantage caused by the delay. Moreover, because the appeal would be decided on a closed record from TAC, there was no loss of evidence or deterioration of the evidentiary foundation. In light of these factors, the Court concluded that, while the delay was inordinate and on its face inexcusable, the applicant had successfully rebutted the presumption of significant prejudice on a balance of probabilities.

Decision, policy terms, and overall outcome

The decision under review is not an insurance or contractual policy dispute; it arises from a statutory tax regime under TAMTA. As such, there are no insurance “policy terms” or clauses in issue in the conventional sense. Instead, the legal framework consists of the provisions of TAMTA governing tax assessments and appeals, and the Court of King’s Bench Rules governing civil procedure and delay. The Court did not in this ruling construe specific TAMTA sections in detail; rather, it accepted that section 58 provides a statutory appeal mechanism and that established case law characterizes that mechanism as akin to judicial review on the record, with correctness and palpable and overriding error standards. The operative rules discussed in depth were KBR 38.12 (dismissal of applications for delay) and, by analogy, former KBR 24.01 (dismissal of actions for long delay), particularly their approach to inordinate and inexcusable delay, the presumption of prejudice, and the ability of a responding party to rebut that presumption. Applying this framework, the Court dismissed Ms. Proutt’s motion to strike the DMF’s application for delay. It held that, although the four-and-a-half-year delay was serious, the specific circumstances—ongoing settlement discussions, preserved evidence, absence of proven financial harm, and the prompt correction of the erroneous lien—meant that the respondent had not established actual or unrebutted presumed prejudice sufficient to justify the severe remedy of dismissal. The statutory appeal from TAC therefore remains alive and will proceed at a later date to determine whether the transaction was a taxable bulk sale or a secured loan and, consequently, whether the reassessed tax liability is valid. On this motion, the successful party was the Deputy Minister of Finance as applicant, because its appeal was allowed to continue. However, the Court exercised its discretion not to award costs to the DMF “given all the circumstances herein.” No damages, costs, or tax amounts were ordered payable in this decision, and the total monetary award in favour of the successful party cannot be determined because none was granted at this stage.