Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The Appellant sought leave under section 17.1(1) of the Tax Court of Canada Act and Rule 30 to have a non-lawyer, Harry Stinson, represent it in a General Procedure tax appeal.
   
• Financial impediment could not be assessed because no affidavit or supporting financial documentation was filed.
   
• Deficient motion materials, including the absence of written submissions or authorities, raised doubts about the proposed representative's capability.
   
• Concerns arose over Mr. Stinson potentially acting as both advocate and witness given his central role in the underlying facts.
   
• Strategic complexity, including a statute-barred reassessment argument and gross negligence penalties, weighed against allowing non-lawyer representation.
   
• Ultimately, the Court dismissed the motion without costs, finding the onus for non-lawyer representation unmet.
   

Facts of the case

Stinson School Inc. appealed reassessments for its 2015 and 2016 taxation years, involving adjustments approaching $7 million, alleging the reassessments were issued outside the normal reassessment period and disputing associated gross negligence penalties. The notice of appeal was filed June 17, 2024, with the Respondent's reply following on September 3, 2024. After the Appellant's counsel resigned and timetable obligations went unfulfilled, the Appellant brought a motion, filed August 5, 2025, seeking leave for Harry Stinson—described variously as the Appellant's manager, sole director, or president and "controlling mind"—to represent the corporation as a non-lawyer. Stinson is not a lawyer and has no legal education; his daughter Scarlet is the Appellant's sole officer and director, and his common-law spouse, Linda Panning, is the sole shareholder. The Respondent objected, noting the motion lacked supporting affidavit evidence and failed to address the relevant factors for allowing non-lawyer representation. The motion was heard on June 30, 2026, before Justice Sorensen.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

Section 17.1 of the Tax Court of Canada Act generally requires that a corporate party be represented by counsel unless the Court, under special circumstances, grants leave for representation by a director, officer, employee, member, or partner. Rule 30 of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure) similarly requires counsel for non-individual parties absent leave of the Court. Two lines of authority inform the "special circumstances" analysis: the three-part test from 684761 BC Ltd v The King, 2025 TCC 45, considering financial impediment, the representative's capacity to act in that role, and their capacity to prepare the appellant for trial; and the four-part test from White Star Copper Mines Limited v The Queen, 2007 TCC 669, which also considers whether the representative would need to act as both advocate and witness, the complexity of the issues, and whether the matter could proceed expeditiously.

Reasoning and analysis

Justice Sorensen found the financial impediment criterion could not be adjudicated, as Mr. Stinson's claims of impecuniosity were unsupported by any financial documentation or affidavit evidence. Even setting that aside, the Court concluded the remaining criteria were not met. Mr. Stinson filed only a bare notice of motion, without affidavit, written submissions, or authorities, which the Court treated as evidence that he was not equipped to handle the more demanding aspects of litigation ahead, including discovery, trial preparation, and oral advocacy. The Court also flagged the risk of Mr. Stinson serving as both advocate and witness, given his central knowledge of the facts, and the added difficulty of potentially examining or cross-examining his spouse or daughter. Compounding these concerns, the underlying appeal involves layered issues—multiple bases for reassessment, a statute-barred argument, and gross negligence penalties—that the Court considered too complex for effective handling by a non-lawyer representative.

Ruling and overall outcome

The Court dismissed the Appellant's motion for leave to have Harry Stinson represent it, finding that the Appellant had not met its onus to establish the criteria for non-lawyer representation in the General Procedure. The Respondent, His Majesty the King, was the successful party. The motion was dismissed without costs, meaning no monetary award was made against either party. The Court further ordered that the Appellant appoint counsel of record by September 1, 2026, with a related motion to amend the existing timetable order to follow by October 2, 2026, and noted that failure to appoint counsel could result in a show cause hearing at which the appeal itself might be dismissed.