Tax Court of Canada


Income tax

Administration and enforcement

Negligence of counsel not constituting reason for granting extension of time to appeal

Five taxpayers participated in donation programme in 2002 or 2003 taxation years and claimed corresponding donation tax credits for those years. Each taxpayer was reassessed by Minister of National Revenue in respect of donation arrangement and each objected to reassessment. After considerable delay, each reassessment was confirmed by Minister and each taxpayer had 90 days from date of mailing of Notice of Confirmation within which to file Notice of Appeal but each failed to do so. Each taxpayer filed application for order extending time to file Notice of Appeal pursuant to s. 167 of Income Tax Act. Applications dismissed. Parties agreed that ss. 167(5)(a) and (b) were not in issue as each of applications was filed within one year extended time limit and there were reasonable grounds for underlying appeal of donation arrangement. Taxpayers had bona fide intention to appeal within 90-day period limited by s. 169(1). Taxpayers were not diligent in following up on efforts of P Corp. to file appeals. P Corp. was negligent in discharging its duties to its clients. Taxpayers had not adequately explained why appeals were filed beyond 90-day limit and why they were delayed beyond that time limit. Applications were not filed as soon as circumstances permitted. Negligence or carelessness of agent or counsel did not constitute just and equitable reason for granting extension of time to appeal.

Amrite v. The Queen (2018), 2018 CarswellNat 122, 2018 CarswellNat 594, 2018 TCC 11, 2018 CCI 11, Rommel G. Masse D.J. (T.C.C.).

cover image


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?