Docket: T-3361-24
Citation: 2025 FC 1911
Toronto, Ontario, December 1, 2025
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice A. Grant
|
BETWEEN: |
|
BOBBY SHAWN ROULSTON |
|
Applicant |
|
and |
|
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA |
|
Respondent |
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
I. OVERVIEW
[1] The Applicant, Bobby Roulston, seeks judicial review of a decision by the Canada Revenue Agency [CRA] to deny his second level request for taxpayer relief.
[2] After the hearing into this matter, the Respondent provided submissions to the Court conceding that one narrow aspect of the decision under review was unreasonable and, as such, this application for judicial review should be granted on this basis alone. For the reasons that follow, I agree with the position of the Respondent, and as such, this application will be granted in part.
II. BACKGROUND
A. Facts
(1) The Applicant’s Involvement in the Global Learning Group Initiative charitable tax scheme
[3] In 2006, the Applicant’s then employer told him about a charitable donation program called the Global Learning Group Initiative [GLGI] that would allow him to receive a tax return worth more than the cash value of his donation. The Applicant decided to participate, and he claimed $25,011.94 in donations made to the GLGI on his 2006 tax filing.
[4] The GLGI was a tax shelter. Taxpayers received a licence for educational courseware in exchange for cash payments to “organization A,”
and then donated the software, valued at three times their original cash payment, to “organization B.”
Depending on the province, the “donor”
would then receive a tax deduction amounting to a 56-89% return.
[5] On August 9, 2007, the Applicant received a letter from the CRA informing him that the CRA was reviewing his charitable donation to “International Charity Association Network.”
[6] On August 31, 2007, the Applicant received another letter from the CRA informing him that they were auditing his participation in the GLGI. The letter also included a “Canada Revenue Agency Taxpayer Alert”
with information about tax shelters. This document noted that:
Taxpayers should be aware the CRA plans to audit all tax shelter arrangements. Every audit completed to date has resulted in a reassessment of tax, plus interest. In many cases the CRA has denied the “gift” completely.
[7] On October 22, 2007, the Applicant received a third letter from the CRA. This letter informed him that the CRA had completed a limited review of his 2006 return and concluded that he could claim $24,683.52 in GLGI donations for the 2006 tax year, plus a carry-forward amount of $1,239.42 for the 2007 tax year. The letter cautioned the Applicant that “the claim may be selected for a more detailed review at a later date.”
[8] On October 26, 2009, the Applicant’s 2006 and 2007 taxation years were reassessed, and the charitable donation tax credits associated with the GLGI were disallowed. As a result, the Applicant owed $13,192 for the 2006 tax year and $3,157 for the 2007 tax year.
[9] On November 3, 2009, the Applicant filed a notice of objection to these reassessments.
(2) Governmental Response to the GLGI
[10] As it turns out, the Applicant was one of thousands of Canadians who participated in the GLGI, and the CRA and the Canadian government had been investigating the scheme and working on a comprehensive response since 2006. This response included amendments to the Income Tax Act [ITA] codifying the common law principle that a gift must have “donative intent”
to be considered a charitable gift under Canadian tax law (see: Mariano v The Queen, 2015 TCC 244 at para 18 [Mariano]; Burns (Dr. FB) v The Queen, 1988 CanLII 10065, ruling upheld by the FCA in Burns (FB) v MNR, 1990 CanLII 13631). Although announced in 2010, the amendments did not receive royal assent until June 26, 2013, with retroactive effect starting December 21, 2002 (see: Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012, SC 2013, c 34, s 358(30)).
[11] Mariano v The Queen, 2015 TCC 244 was the test case for the CRA’s position that gifts to GLGI were not charitable donations. The Tax Court of Canada [TCC] ultimately agreed with the CRA, finding that people donating through the scheme lacked an “intention to make a gift.”
[12] In June 2014, the CRA sent affected taxpayers settlement offers, which gave them the choice of either: 1) receiving interest relief and a credit for their actual cash contributions to the GLGI in exchange for waiving their right to object to or appeal their tax arrears related to the GLGI, or 2) being bound by the holding of the Court in Mariano.
[13] The Applicant in this matter did not sign a settlement agreement. It is not clear, based on the record before the Court, whether the CRA sent him a settlement offer, but this likely did occur. The decision under review indicates that the Applicant “did not sign the settlement offered in his objection.”
[14] After the expiry of the appeal period for Mariano on December 13, 2015, the CRA considered the court’s holding to be a binding precedent on all taxpayers who had made contributions to the GLGI and who did not enter into a settlement agreement.
(3) Events Following the Applicant’s Notice of Objection
[15] Meanwhile, the Applicant was awaiting a response to the notice of objection he had filed in 2009.
[16] From 2009 onwards, the Applicant filed annual tax returns and complied with his obligations under the ITA.
[17] For many years, there does not appear to have been specific communications from the CRA to the Applicant about his outstanding balances. This said, beginning at least with the 2014 tax year, the Applicant’s annual Notices of Assessment provided updates on the unpaid amounts arising from the dispute and reminders that interest charges would continue to accrue on the outstanding balance.
[18] The Applicant’s 2020 tax return indicated that the two disputed amounts had been reinstated to his account on May 3, 2021, and now totalled $23,275.85 and $5,593.31.
(4) Refusal of the Applicant’s Objection
[19] On May 5, 2021, the Minister sent the Applicant a Confirmation of Assessment refusing his objection and confirming the 2009 reassessment. The letter explained the TCC’s ruling in Mariano and the implications for donors to the GLGI. It also informed the Applicant that the CRA had provided him with proactive interest relief for certain periods on the grounds of undue delay by the Appeals Division when the GLGI issue was being investigated. The letter also provided information about how the Applicant could seek taxpayer relief, if needed.
[20] The CRA Collection Department called the Applicant twice in 2023 to give him legal warnings about his outstanding balance. The CRA sent legal warning letters to the Applicant shortly after each of these calls.
[21] On January 22, 2024, the CRA began garnishing the Applicant’s wages. Following the first garnishment, the Applicant’s employer loaned him $21,000 to help him pay down his outstanding balance and avoid accruing additional interest. The Applicant is currently repaying that debt through payroll deductions of $300 per pay period.
(5) First Request for Taxpayer Relief
[22] On January 29, 2024, the Applicant made his first application to the CRA to request relief from the interest arrears associated with his disallowed GLGI donations, which then amounted to $19,471.77. The grounds for his request were that the CRA had made an error. Specifically, the Applicant submitted that, because his donation tax credits had been allowed in the initial audit in 2007, he should not have been subsequently required to repay them.
[23] On May 24, 2024, the CRA denied the Applicant’s first request for relief.
B. Decision Under Review – Refusal of Second Level Request for Taxpayer Relief
[24] On June 18, 2024, the Applicant requested a second-level review of his request for relief from interest and penalties related to the disallowed GLGI donation tax credits. Parenthetically, I would note at this point that the CRA did not impose penalties on the Applicant – the amounts at issue all relate to interest arrears.
[25] The Applicant’s submissions in support of this review were somewhat more detailed. He explained that he had received notices after 2007 indicating that he owed the CRA money in connection with the GLGI tax credits, but he thought these were being sent in error because the October 2007 letter from CRA indicated that he did not owe anything in connection with the 2006 and 2007 tax years. This belief was affirmed by the fact his former employers had also contributed to the GLGI, and they received notices in 2006 that they had to repay the tax credits that they had received or face a penalty. The Applicant believed that if his own tax credits were a problem, he would have received a similar notice in 2007, instead of a notice indicating that no further amounts were owing.
[26] The Applicant continued to assume that the notices about outstanding debt to the CRA were being sent in error until 2023, when he received a phone call from the CRA notifying him that his wages could be garnished.
[27] The Applicant submitted that he disagreed with the CRA’s initial refusal of relief on the following grounds: 1) his decision to participate in the GLGI was a one-time episode of poor judgment that he learned from and has not repeated, and he has since been fully compliant with all CRA requirements, 2) it was unfair for the CRA to tell him that he had no outstanding debt in 2007 and then tell him that he owed over $20,000 in 2015, 3) he disputed the claim made by the CRA that they did not charge him penalties or interest in from 2008-2023, 4) he disputed the amount that the CRA has claimed that he owes, and 5) he argued that repaying the amount being sought by the CRA would cause significant financial hardship to his family.
[28] On November 5, 2024, the CRA denied the Applicant’s request on the following grounds: 1) taxpayers should not expect to gain a financial benefit from charitable donations, 2) the letter from the CRA dated October 22, 2007 stated that the Applicant’s donations had been allowed based on a limited review, and that they could still be subject to a more detailed review in future, 3) the Applicant was aware of the balance owing because he objected to the reassessment on November 3, 2009, 4) the objection form indicated that collection activities are usually postponed on disputed amounts, but that interest will continue to accrue on amounts payable, and 5) the Applicant was notified of the amount owing on each Notice of Assessment and Reassessment following the objections.
[29] The CRA also concluded that, other than the periods for which the CRA had granted proactive interest relief, there was no unreasonable delay by the CRA during the audit, appeals, or taxpayer relief reviews. The periods for which the CRA granted proactive relief due to delay were:
[30] The CRA also declined to grant relief to the Applicant based on financial hardship because: 1) the Applicant’s income increased from 2016 onwards, 2) the Applicant would be eligible for a loan to cover his tax debt, and 3) the Applicant has made donations each tax year since 2008, totalling $52,000. Moreover, based on a comprehensive assessment of the Applicant’s finances, the CRA found that he has an asset surplus, although the household is currently operating on a monthly deficit.
[31] Finally, the CRA explained that it can only consider relief of arrears interest that has accrued in the 10 calendar years prior to the year of the request. Therefore, the review only pertained to the interest accrued since January 29, 2014.
III. ISSUES
[32] The core issue in this matter is whether the decision to reject the Applicant’s second request for relief was reasonable. More specifically, the issue is whether the decision-maker reasonably considered and decided on the following submissions: 1) the CRA made an error in its letter of October 22, 2007, which precludes it from collecting the outstanding debt, 2) the CRA’s delay makes it unfair to collect the outstanding debt, and 3) the Applicant’s financial hardship would make it unreasonable for the CRA to collect the outstanding debt.
IV. RELEVANT PROVISIONS
[33] The Minister of Revenue has been granted the discretionary authority to waive penalties or interest on tax debts by the ITA subsection 220(3.1):
Waiver of penalty or interest
(3.1) The Minister may, on or before the day that is ten calendar years after the end of a taxation year of a taxpayer (or in the case of a partnership, a fiscal period of the partnership) or on application by the taxpayer or partnership on or before that day, waive or cancel all or any portion of any penalty or interest otherwise payable under this Act by the taxpayer or partnership in respect of that taxation year or fiscal period, and notwithstanding subsections 152(4) to (5), any assessment of the interest and penalties payable by the taxpayer or partnership shall be made that is necessary to take into account the cancellation of the penalty or interest.
|
Renonciation aux pénalités et aux intérêts
(3.1) Le ministre peut, au plus tard le jour qui suit de dix années civiles la fin de l’année d’imposition d’un contribuable ou de l’exercice d’une société de personnes ou sur demande du contribuable ou de la société de personnes faite au plus tard ce jour-là, renoncer à tout ou partie d’un montant de pénalité ou d’intérêts payable par ailleurs par le contribuable ou la société de personnes en application de la présente loi pour cette année d’imposition ou cet exercice, ou l’annuler en tout ou en partie. Malgré les paragraphes 152(4) à (5), le ministre établit les cotisations voulues concernant les intérêts et pénalités payables par le contribuable ou la société de personnes pour tenir compte de pareille annulation.
|
[34] The CRA information circular IC07-1R1 Taxpayer Relief Provisions provides guidance for CRA decision-makers in administering the Minister’s delegated authority under ITA subsection 220(3.1). The following excerpts are particularly relevant to the matter at hand:
8. The legislation gives the CRA the ability to administer the income tax system fairly and reasonably. The CRA does this by helping taxpayers resolve issues that come up through no fault of the taxpayers and by allowing for a common-sense approach in dealing with taxpayers who, because of personal misfortune or circumstances beyond their control, could not comply with a legal requirement for income tax purposes.
…
23. The minister of national revenue may grant relief from penalties and interest where the following types of situations exist and justify a taxpayer's inability to satisfy a tax obligation or requirement:
a. extraordinary circumstances
b. actions of the CRA
c. inability to pay or financial hardship
24. The legislation does not identify specific situations for which the minister has the authority to waive or cancel penalties and interest. The guidelines in this part of the information circular are not binding in law. They do not give the minister's delegate the authority to deny a request and exclude it from proper consideration simply because the taxpayer's circumstances do not meet a guideline described in Part II of this information circular. The minister's delegate may also grant relief even if a taxpayer's circumstances do not fall within the situations stated in 23.
…
26. Penalties and interest may also be waived or cancelled if they resulted mainly because of actions of the CRA, such as:
a. processing delays that result in the taxpayer not being informed, within a reasonable time, that an amount was owing
b. errors in material available to the public, which led taxpayers to file returns or make payments based on incorrect information
c. incorrect information provided to a taxpayer
d. errors in processing
e. delays in providing information, such as when a taxpayer could not make the appropriate instalment or arrears payments because the necessary information was not available
f. undue delays in resolving an objection or an appeal, or in completing an audit
…
33. Where circumstances beyond a taxpayer's control, actions of the CRA, inability to pay, or financial hardship has prevented the taxpayer from complying with the act, the following factors will be considered when determining if the minister's delegate will cancel or waive penalties and interest:
a. whether the taxpayer has a history of compliance with tax obligations
b. whether the taxpayer has knowingly allowed a balance to exist on which arrears interest has accrued
c. whether the taxpayer has exercised a reasonable amount of care and has not been negligent or careless in conducting their affairs under the self-assessment system
d. whether the taxpayer has acted quickly to remedy any delay or omission
[emphasis added].
V. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES
A. Submissions of the Applicant
[35] In his application, the Applicant seeks a review of all his payments to the CRA in connection with the reassessed GLGI tax credits. However, the decision under review here is the refusal of the second request for taxpayer relief. Therefore, the only issue that the Court may consider in this matter is the outstanding interest arrears.
[36] The Applicant’s memorandum does not squarely address the reasonableness of the decision under review. However, given that the Applicant is self-represented, I have carefully assessed the arguments that he raised in his request for relief, which the Respondent has also addressed in their submissions on this judicial review (see para 27 above).
B. Submissions of the Respondent
[37] The Respondent interprets the Applicant’s first argument as alleging that the CRA made an error in sending the letter in 2007, or in later revisiting the representations contained in that letter. In response, the Respondent submits that this is not a basis to overturn the decision because the letter clearly stated that it was based on a limited review and the Applicant’s tax liabilities could be reassessed more fully at a later date, which is precisely what happened. The Respondent also submitted (at least initially) that there was no unreasonable delay by the CRA, other than during the periods for which the Applicant was granted proactive relief. The Respondent further argues that the CRA clearly justified their finding that the Applicant would not be subject to undue hardship if required to repay his interest arrears, based on a robust review of his finances.
[38] As alluded to above, however, following the hearing into this matter, the Respondent’s position changed. The Respondent now concedes that the CRA did not adequately justify its decision not to provide proactive interest relief for the period of May 13, 2016, to April 14, 2019. As such, the Respondent concedes that the decision under review was unreasonable on this basis alone.
VI. STANDARD OF REVIEW and FEDERAL COURT JURISDICTION
[39] The standard of review on the substance of the CRA’s decision is reasonableness. This means that I may only interfere with the CRA’s decision if I find that it was unreasonable. The mere fact that a party may disagree with a decision does not, on its own, mean that the decision is unreasonable. Similarly, a decision need not be perfect to be reasonable: Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 [Vavilov].
[40] If a court finds that a government body’s decision was unreasonable, the result will almost always be that the matter is sent back to that body (although usually to a different decision-maker) for redetermination. Only in very rare cases will the court making a finding on what the outcome of the underlying request or application should be.
[41] Another important aspect of judicial review is that the court can only consider the specific decision under review. In this case, this means that the Court can only review the decision made by the CRA on the second request for taxpayer relief. The payments that were already made with respect to the principal amount owing from the reassessed tax credits are outside the scope of this hearing.
[42] Finally, the Applicant challenges the CRA’s calculations as to the amount he owes. This issue is outside the scope of judicial review at the Federal Court. Challenges to the quantum of taxes owed must go through the CRA’s internal appeal processes and, if not resolved there, on to the TCC.
VII. ANALYSIS
A. Preliminary Issue: Style of Cause
[43] The Respondent submits that the style of cause in this matter should be amended to list the Attorney General of Canada as the proper Respondent. I agree, and the style of cause will be amended accordingly.
B. Reasonable Aspects of the CRA Decision
[44] As indicated above, I have found that the CRA’s decision was largely reasonable, save for its failure to consider and justify the imposition of interest during one specific period.
[45] The starting point for assessing the reasonableness of this decision is to recognize that the ITA grants the CRA exceedingly broad discretion in granting relief under ITA subsection 220(3.1). The provision states simply that the Minister “may grant”
relief, without listing any restrictions on how or why the Minister may choose to exercise this power.
[46] This high level of discretion means that the Court must show a correspondingly high level of deference to decisions made under this provision.
(1) October 2007 Letter
[47] There is no merit to the Applicant’s submission that the October 2007 letter bound the CRA or provided any indication that its subsequent correspondence was in error. Once again, the letter stated that the Applicant’s “claim may be selected for a more detailed review at a later date.”
There is no ambiguity in this statement and, as such, there was no reasonable basis for the Applicant to assume that the CRA’s 2009 reassessment was sent in error. Put somewhat differently, it was entirely reasonable for the CRA to find that the Applicant ought to have recognized that the 2009 reassessment was not an error.
[48] Moreover, as noted by the CRA in the decision under review, even under ordinary circumstances the ITA allows the CRA to review and reassess a tax return within three years of the original assessment date. The 2009 reassessment in this case falls squarely within this timeline. In other words, the 2007 letter is largely irrelevant to the analysis – the CRA was entitled to reassess the Applicant’s claim, which it did.
[49] The Applicant asserts that he was genuinely confused by the 2009 reassessment. Respectfully, however, there was no reasonable basis for his confusion. The Applicant had known since 2006 that his employers were required to repay the GLGI tax credits that they had received. He knew, or ought to have known, that the CRA may reassess tax claims in subsequent years, particularly since he was explicitly instructed of this possibility. If, despite these facts, the Applicant was genuinely confused by the situation, it was reasonable, as the CRA found, to expect him to take greater measures to clarify the situation.
[50] Additionally, as the CRA noted in its decision, the objection form indicates that, while collection activities may be postponed on amounts that are in dispute, interest will continue to accrue. This means that the Applicant was given notice that interest would accumulate while he waited for an answer. Beyond this, the Applicant was also instructed as follows in his yearly Notices of Assessment, which provided updated balances on amounts owing: “You can reduce or avoid interest charges by making a payment on your account. The Canada Revenue Agency will pay interest on any amount refunded to you.”
In other words, the Applicant could have paid the assessed amounts owing while maintaining his objection, and if that objection was successful, he would have earned interest, rather than having interest accrue on his amounts owing, as in fact happened.
[51] There is simply no argument to be made that the CRA acted improperly in reassessing the Applicant’s GLGI contributions, or that it failed to inform him of his options for challenging that reassessment. The Applicant chose to dispute the reassessment, and he chose not to pay the assessed amounts owing, pending a resolution of his objection. He was certainly entitled to make those choices, but they came with risks, namely that if the CRA confirmed the 2009 reassessment, he would incur interest costs on the amount outstanding.
[52] As a result of the above, I have concluded that the Applicant has failed to identify any error in the CRA’s assessment of the October 2007 letter.
(2) Financial Hardship
[53] The evidence before the court is that the CRA conducted a very thorough analysis of the Applicant’s finances based on considerable supporting evidence. While I have no doubt that Mr. Roulston has experienced real financial difficulties, the CRA’s conclusions were reasonable.
[54] In its refusal letter, the CRA indicated as follows, in respect of the financial hardship issue:
For your information, we see financial hardship as the prolonged inability to afford basic necessities such as food, clothing, and shelter and reasonable non-essentials. We determine an individual's ability to pay by looking at factors such as household income, basic living expenses, and the capacity to borrow.
[55] The Applicant has not specifically disputed this understanding of financial hardship as it is deployed in the context of applications under subsection 220(3.1) of the ITA.
[56] While I am sympathetic to the Applicant’s challenges, including his 2018 job loss and the rising cost of living, the evidence shows that the Applicant was able to pay his debt, even if, in his own words, he had to “scramble”
to do so.
C. Unreasonable Aspect of the CRA Decision
(1) Delay
[57] On the issue of delay, the key question is whether it was reasonable for the CRA to conclude that (aside from the periods for which relief was granted) the delays in this case were either reasonable or outside the CRA’s control.
[58] In calculating the interest arrears owed by the Applicant, CRA granted various periods of “proactive interest relief”
due to its own acknowledgment of unreasonable delay. As noted above, these periods were as follows:
• January 1, 2014 to August 13, 2014
• December 1, 2015 to May 12, 2016
• April 15, 2019 to March 15, 2020
[59] Beyond these periods, CRA also granted periods of interest relief due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
[60] There were likely other delays that occurred prior to 2014 related, for example, to amendments to relevant provisions in the ITA, to ongoing litigation over GLGI contributions, and to the sheer number of individuals who had participated in the scheme. However, while subsection 220(3.1) of the ITA provides some opportunity for relief, this relief is limited to interest accrued within 10 years prior to the taxpayer’s request.
[61] This means that the Applicant can only be granted relief for interest accrued after January 29, 2014, even if there would arguably be some grounds for issuing relief for periods prior to that time: Bozzer v Canada (National Revenue), 2011 FCA 186.
[62] In assessing the decision under review, including the periods for which interest relief was granted, I conclude that the CRA’s assessment as to when to grant relief was, for the most part, reasonable and justified.
[63] However, in my review of the record, there was a period of almost three years – from May 13, 2016, to April 14, 2019 – during which interest accrued, and for which little explanation was provided. It appears that the CRA considered this to be a reasonable period of time to issue Notices of Confirmation to impacted taxpayers after the Mariano case was resolved. However, there was essentially nothing in the record to justify this assertion.
[64] It was for this reason that, over the course of the hearing in this matter, I asked counsel for the Respondent if there was any explanation or justification in the record to support the contention that this period of delay was reasonable. I also provided counsel with an opportunity to review the record and to provide submissions in response to this question. In the submissions that followed, the Respondent confirmed that the record contains no explanation or justification for this delay.
[65] The Respondent went on to submit the following:
The respondent’s record provides a brief explanation for the above three periods where proactive relief was granted.2 However, the respondent concedes that the record does not provide reasoning for why proactive relief was not granted for the period of May 13, 2016, to April 14, 2019. Since the record lacks this justification, the respondent concedes the decision was unreasonable on this basis alone.
The respondent does not take the position that proactive relief should be provided for the above noted period but rather the decision was unreasonable as it lacked justification for not granting proactive relief for that specific period.
[66] While conceding that this one aspect of the decision-maker’s reasons was deficient, the Respondent continues to argue that the remainder of the decision was reasonable, and as such, the redetermination of this matter should be confined to this issue.
[67] In his response to the above submissions, Mr. Roulston requested various things that are plainly beyond the scope of this judicial review. He lamented that, in its submissions, the Respondent did not provide an explanation for the delay in question. At root, however, what Mr. Roulston really wants is for this Court to grant his application and substitute its own decision that would enable him to recover the money that he paid to settle his outstanding CRA balance. Understandably, Mr. Roulston is not keen on remitting this matter for a new determination that will only prolong an already protracted and difficult situation for him.
[68] As I explained in the hearing, however, it is not for this Court to issue the kind of decision that Mr. Roulston feels the CRA should have made. Parliament has entrusted this function to the CRA, and the role of the Court is limited to ensuring that CRA performs this function reasonably and fairly.
[69] Furthermore, this is not a situation in which the outcome of the redetermination is a certainty: Vavilov at para 142. In these circumstances, it would be inappropriate for the Court to substitute its own decision for that of the CRA.
[70] The result of the above analysis is the following: 1) I agree with the Respondent’s concession that the CRA decision was unreasonable in assessing delays that may have arisen in the May 13, 2016-April 14, 2019 period; and 2) this is the only unreasonable aspect of the CRA’s decision and, as such, judicial review will be granted on this basis only.
VIII. CONCLUSION
[71] For these reasons, I will grant this request for judicial review, but only on the issue of whether the processing delay between May 13, 2016 and April 14, 2019 was reasonable. That issue is ordered to be remitted to a different decision-maker for reconsideration. To further clarify, these reasons should not be understood as an indication that interest relief should be provided for this period, but rather, as a direction to reconsider this period and justify any determination as to whether it warrants further interest relief.
[72] Crucially, this decision does not displace the CRA’s findings on any other issue in the request for relief, including but not limited to: the October 2007 letter to the Applicant, the other periods of delay, and the issue of financial hardship.
[73] Due to the mixed success of each party in this application, no costs will be awarded.
Email this Content