Is the respondent entitled to relief under the provisions of s. 29 (2) in its Form B Reply?
Lojewski’s position regarding this issue is essentially the same as his position on the first issue. That is, he extends his argument that he is entitled to claim only disturbance damages, to the contention that MoTH may not raise anything in its pleadings that do not relate specifically and only to the issue of disturbance damages. Since I have concluded otherwise on the first position, it follows that Lojewski’s position on this second issue cannot hold either. In the course of hearing argument, however, both parties canvassed the issues raised in two decisions of the Federal Court that were also considered in the Golden Valley case — Desjardins v. National Capital Commission, (1981), 24 L. C. R. 208, and Re Pearse and the Queen (No. 2) (1980), 20 L. C. R. 113. These decisions did not arise from a claimant’s position that the board or court determining compensation lacked jurisdiction to deal with the matters raised in the pleadings, which is the way Lojewski’s Notice of Motion is f
Related Questions
- Tax Relief for Innocent Spouses Question #3: My former spouse has already filed a Form 8857, Request for Innocent Spouse Relief. Can I file one, too?
- Is the respondent entitled to relief under the provisions of s. 29 (2) in its Form B Reply?
- What Does Form 8857: Request For Innocent Spouse Relief Mean?
