Taxpayer continued to refuse to provide basic information as required by legislation

Taxpayer applied for Employment Insurance (EI) benefits and was asked by Canadian Employment Insurance Commission (commission) to attend in-person interview to provide information. Taxpayer attended, but refused to provide information, as result, his claim for EI was canceled, taxpayer appealed to Social Security Tribunal General Division (SST), SST sent letter asking that taxpayer attend interview, which he did not do, SST maintained cancellation and taxpayer appealed. Taxpayer also applied for Old Age Security Benefits (OAS) and in similar vein as EI benefits, refused to provide information, so that his claim for OAS and GIS benefits were suspended. Taxpayer brought motion seeking plethora of relief; taxpayer brought application for judicial review. Motion dismissed; application dismissed. Motion that taxpayer brought before court and underlying application for judicial review were both premature. Neither SST General Division nor SST Appeal Division have heard or decided taxpayer’s pending appeals or motions, and there was simply no SST decision rendered by either division to judicially review and same was true of pending motions. Taxpayer sought and continued to seek different remedies through multiple fora, but has continued to refuse to provide basic information as required by legislation.

Potomski v. Canada (Attorney General) (2019), 2019 CarswellNat 2218, 2019 CarswellNat 3078, 2019 FC 763, 2019 CF 763, Alan S. Diner J. (F.C.).

Case Law is a weekly summary of notable civil and criminal court decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada, the Federal Court of Canada and all Ontario courts. These cases may be found online in WestlawNext Canada. To subscribe, please visit store.thomsonreuters.ca