Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The appellant's motion to be represented by her accountant in a General Procedure tax appeal was dismissed without costs.

• An earlier judicial order erroneously invited the appellant to apply for non-lawyer representation, prompting the motion.

• Section 17.1 of the Tax Court of Canada Act restricts General Procedure representation to the individual personally or licensed counsel.

• Recent amendments to the TCCA permit non-lawyer representation only for corporations and partnerships under special circumstances, not for individuals.

• Gross negligence penalties and an allegedly unreported capital gain of some $300,000 are at the heart of the underlying tax dispute.

• The Court acknowledged the accountant's familiarity with the case but noted the accountant could potentially participate as a witness rather than as an agent.

Background and facts of the case

Neonita Tanafranca filed an appeal under the General Procedure of the Tax Court of Canada (Docket 2025-207(IT)G) challenging an income tax assessment. The assessment concerned an allegedly unreported capital gain of some $300,000, along with the imposition of gross negligence penalties. Given the high amount in dispute along with the penalties, the Court noted it appears appropriate that this case is proceeding under its General Procedure.

The prior order and the resulting motion

Justice Michael U. Ezri issued an order on July 17, 2025, noting that the appellant was being represented by an accountant in a case filed under the Court's General Procedure. That order directed the appellant to either hire a lawyer or move to be represented by a non-lawyer. Acting on that direction, the appellant then moved to be represented by her accountant. Justice Ezri candidly acknowledged that his earlier order was a mistake, as the appellant now asks for relief that the Court has no power to grant. As the Justice stated, he could not correct one mistake with another.

The statutory framework under the Tax Court of Canada Act

The central legal issue turned on Section 17.1 of the Tax Court of Canada Act (TCCA). Under that provision, an individual who is a party to a General Procedure appeal may appear in person or be represented by counsel—meaning a person who may practise as a barrister, advocate, attorney, or solicitor in any of the provinces. The TCCA was amended effective June 20, 2024, to add subsection 17.1(1.1), which provides that if a party to a proceeding is not an individual, that party shall be represented by counsel unless the Court under special circumstances grants leave to be represented by a director, officer, employee, member, or partner of the party. However, this exception is narrow: leave is not routinely granted, with the granting of leave described in the jurisprudence as "exceptional," and the provision does not extend to accountants or any other class of professional acting as representatives. Justice Ezri contrasted this with Section 18.14 of the TCCA, which governs the Informal Procedure and expressly permits all parties to appear in person or be represented by counsel or an agent.

The Court's rules of procedure

The Court also considered Rule 30(1) and (2) of its General Procedure rules, which similarly require a party who is an individual to either act in person or be represented by counsel. Where a party is not an individual, that party shall be represented by counsel except with leave of the Court and on any conditions that it may determine. These rules offered no additional avenue of relief for the appellant.

The appellant's arguments and the accountant's role

The appellant submitted written representations explaining, among other things, that her accountant is familiar with the facts and circumstances and has invested considerable effort to prepare for the matter. While the Court recognized these points, it held that they did not override the legislative restriction. Justice Ezri noted, however, that it may well be the case that the accountant can tell the court about the facts and circumstances as a witness to the case without having to be the agent for the appellant—a matter to be dealt with by the judge at trial.

Ruling and outcome

On November 10, 2025, Justice Ezri dismissed the appellant's motion without costs. The Court found that Parliament has carefully considered the extent to which it is prepared to permit non-lawyers to act in the Court, and has chosen not to extend the exception in new subsection 17.1(1.1) to individuals who seek to be represented by non-lawyers for cases conducted under the General Procedure. The motion could not be granted notwithstanding that the previous order may have invited the request. As a result, the respondent, His Majesty the King, prevailed on this procedural matter. No monetary amount was awarded in this motion, as it dealt solely with the question of representation; the underlying substantive dispute involving the allegedly unreported capital gain of some $300,000 and gross negligence penalties remains to be resolved at trial.