Federal Court


Income tax
Explanation by decision-maker contained interpretive errors

Plaintiff, having no income tax product for 2009 fiscal year, was subject of first arbitrary tax assessment. Canada Revenue Agency has taken recovery action against plaintiff for 2009 and 2010 years. In 2013, plaintiff’s accountant tried to send tax return electronically but during attempt he received error message. In response to plaintiff’s complaint as to deceptive nature of error message, Canada Revenue Agency sent letter maintaining position of not accepting statement submitted for 2009 fiscal year. Plaintiff brought application for judicial review against decision by Canada Revenue Agency not to accept statement. Prothonotary found that there was no jurisdiction to grant remedy sought as it would force Canada Revenue Agency to act in contravention of law. Plaintiff brought motion to quash order of prothonotary ordering cancellation of judicial review application. Motion granted in part. Motion dismissed as related to decision of prothonotary to strike paragraphs of notice of application concluding that minister could reassess in respect to statement of claim after three-year limitation period when it was not permitted by law. Motion granted as related relation to striking of paragraphs related to electronic issues. It was not plain and obvious that plaintiff’s notice of application did not disclose cause of action in relation to error message. It was unclear under what legal authority electronic statement, which was produced within limitation period of three years, was dismissed. Explanation by decision-maker contained interpretive errors with regard to what constituted statement.

6075240 Canada Inc. c. Ministre du Revenu national (June 27, 2016, F.C., Peter Annis J., T-387-16) 268 A.C.W.S. (3d) 684.

cover image


Subscribers get early and easy access to Law Times.

Law Times Poll

Law Times reports that there is the highest number of lawyer candidates in the upcoming Law Society of Ontario Bencher election since 1995, but turn-out is declining. Do you think voting should be mandatory for all lawyers and paralegals in this election?