Experimental feature warning
The hosting of judicial decisions on Tax Interpretations is in Beta. We do not guarantee the accuracy of this text.
The text-formatting is also in development. The final version will be more polished than what you see here.
Citation: 2003 FC 1346
JOAN BARBARA HEELS
- and -
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
and CANADA CUSTOMS AND
REASONS FOR ORDER
 The Applicant has applied for judicial review of a decision of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (the "CCRA") dated May 1, 2002, denying her request for a review of an earlier decision refusing her relief from interest and late filing penalties imposed due to the late filing of her income tax returns for the 1995, 1998 and 1999 taxation years.
 In spite of repeated demands and reminders, the Applicant's 1995 return was filed on April 11, 2000, her 1998 return was filed on April 3, 2001, and her 1999 return was filed on June 13, 2001.
 The amounts at issue are approximately $12,900 in penalties and interest charges of $8,200. However, this calculation is based on the material filed which is now presumably somewhat out of date.
 The initial negative decision was communicated to the Applicant in a letter dated December 10, 2001. Thereafter, the Applicant requested a review and the second negative decision is found in a letter dated May 1, 2002. The decisions were made pursuant to section 220(3.1) of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.) which gives the Minister discretion to cancel or waive penalties and interest. The CCRA has issued Information Circular 92-2 to provide taxpayers with guidance about the implementation of section 220(3.1) and the Applicant says that her case falls under the provision for relief in cases of "serious illness".
 The illness on which the Applicant relies is that of her mother who, having lived with the Applicant while she was ill (with caregivers hired so the Applicant could work), entered a nursing home in October 1998 and passed away in May 2000. The Applicant says that her mother's illness created circumstances beyond her control and that, when she was not working or sleeping, she devoted herself to caring for and visiting her mother.
 The Applicant is a singing teacher and operates a studio where she gives lessons. She is also employed by the Royal Conservatory of Music in Toronto to conduct examinations. She owns two rental properties in Hamilton and one in the Carribean. She receives the rent and pays the expenses for these properties. In order to prepare to file her income tax returns she organizes the receipts for the expenses associated with her various undertakings and sends them to her accountant who prepares the return.
 The Applicant acknowledged that she is "a bit of a procrastinator". She also stated that, although her returns had been filed late every year from 1987 to 1994, she had always paid the tax and any penalties without protest.
 The Applicant identified two errors. She said that her late filing history was irrelevant and that she was not "managing" her rental properties in any time-consuming sense. She employed property managers who looked after repairs and tenant complaints for all the units.
 I do not have the jurisdiction to substitute my decision for that of the decision-maker simply because I might have decided the matter differently.
 The decision can only be set aside if I conclude that it was "patently unreasonable" and I cannot so conclude. Through her mother's illness the Applicant continued to operate her studio and deal with the income and expenditures related to her rental properties.
 In my view, the Applicant's past history of late filing was relevant as it suggested that her late filings between the 1995 and 1999 taxation years were part of a long-established pattern and not due to her mother's illness.
 I have concluded that the Respondent did err in a material way when it determined that she "managed" her rental properties. The word "managed" suggests regular contact with tenants and responding to their concerns. She did not play that role. However, looking at the decision as a whole, I have concluded that this error was not significant because the crux of the decision was that matters were not outside her control. Although she cared for her mother while her mother was at her home and visited her in the nursing home, the Applicant made time for her work and chose not to give priority to the preparation of her overdue income tax returns. This state of affairs continued after her mother's death.
 I have found no basis for concluding that the decision was patently unreasonable.
(Sgd.) "Sandra J. Simpson"
November 14, 2003
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
STYLE OF CAUSE: JOAN BARBARA HEELS
- and -
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA ET AL.
PLACE OF HEARING: Vancouver, B.C.
DATE OF HEARING: November 12, 2003
REASONS FOR ORDER: SIMPSON J.
DATED: November 14, 2003
Ms. Joan Barbara Heels on own behalf
Ms. P. Tamara Sugunasiri For RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Mr. Morris Rosenberg FOR RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada