Federal Appeal


Taxation

INCOME TAX
Minister was not obliged to verify whether taxpayer actually received notice

Taxpayer brought notice of objection to minister’s reassessment. Minister sent notice of ratification to taxpayer. Taxpayer failed to claim notice of ratification, and Canada Post returned notice to Canada Revenue Agency. Minister sent second notice of ratification, and taxpayer appealed minister’s notice of ratification. Minister found that taxpayer had failed to bring appeal within 90-day period and brought motion seeking dismissal of appeal on ground that taxpayer failed to institute his appeal within time prescribed. Appeal was dismissed, and judge found minister complied with its obligation to notify taxpayer in writing by sending notice of ratification via registered mail. Minister was not required to serve its decision to taxpayer personally or to prove that it was received by taxpayer. Therefore judge concluded that 90-day period to file appeal under s. 169(1) of Income Tax Act was not respected. Taxpayer appealed. Appeal dismissed. Judge did not err in his application of act to facts in dispute. Evidence was clear to effect that notice of ratification was sent to taxpayer by registered mail to address provided by taxpayer himself. Neither s. 165(3) nor s. 169 of act required notice be served or evidence be made that it was received by taxpayer. Minister was not obliged to verify whether taxpayer actually received notice that was sent by registered mail, provided he proved he sent notice to address provided by taxpayer. There was no need to distinguish between first-class mail and registered mail for purposes of this issue.

Rossi c. R. (Nov. 26, 2015, F.C.A., Gauthier J.A., Boivin J.A., and Yves de Montigny J.A., File No. A-109-15) Decision at 249 A.C.W.S. (3d) 900 was affirmed.  260 A.C.W.S. (3d) 636.

cover image

DIGITAL EDITION

Subscribers get early and easy access to Law Times.

Law Times Poll


A Law Society of Ontario tribunal has ruled that a lawyer charged with offences related to child pornography should not be subject to an interlocutory suspension. Do you agree with this decision?
RESULTS ❯