Hugessen,
J:—This
is
a
section
28
application
against
a
decision
of
St
Onge,
TCJ
by
which
he
refused
to
grant
the
applicant
relief
against
failure
to
object
to
a
reassessment
within
the
90-day
period
provided
by
section
165
of
the
Income
Tax
Act.
The
applicant
received
a
notice
of
reassessment
on
November
12,
1982.
It
showed
a
balance
of
tax
and
penalties
owing
of
over
$76,000.
Although
there
had
been
discussions
between
the
applicant
and
the
Department
prior
to
the
reassessment,
he
did
nothing
to
contact
the
Department
or
otherwise
to
object
within
the
following
90
days.
His
evidence
as
to
his
reasons
for
inaction
is
as
follows:
Well,
I
didn’t
—
wasn’t
told
that
I
could
file
an
objection
to
this.
I
didn’t
even
know
what
one
was.
We
didn’t
have
an
accountant
because,
well,
frankly,
I
couldn’t
afford
one
and
my
wife
has
always
done
the
books.
And
I
said,
well,
there
has
to
be
a
gross
mistake
here
someplace,
so
I
was
under
the
impression
that
Revenue
Canada
was
going
to
re-audit
my
books.
(Ts
App
1,
p
13,
line
22
to
p
14
line
1.)
and
again:
I
didn’t
do
anything.
I
just
assumed
it
was
a
gigantic
or
gross
mistake
and
that
it
would
be
corrected
by
Revenue
Canada.
Ts
App
1,
p
14,
line
26
to
p
15
line
1.)
It
is
clear
enough
from
the
evidence
that
it
was
only
after
the
expiry
of
the
90
days,
towards
the
end
of
February
1983,
that
the
applicant’s
accountant
contacted
the
Department
and
initiated
discussions.
Those
discussions
went
on
until
October
1983
when
a
notice
of
objection
was
finally
filed.
When
it
was
rejected,
an
application
was
made
to
the
Tax
Court
under
section
167
for
an
extension
of
time
in
which
to
object,
and
in
due
course
the
present
section
28
application
to
this
Court
followed.
Several
points
were
taken
by
applicant’s
counsel.
It
is
enough
to
say
that
none
of
them
have
persuaded
us
that
we
should
interfere
with
the
discretion
exercised
by
the
Tax
Court.
There
is,
however,
one
point,
not
taken
by
counsel,
which
has
caused
us
some
concern.
In
the
course
of
his
very
brief
oral
reasons
St
Onge
TCJ
had
this
to
say:
.
.
.
the
only
reason
given
by
the
taxpayer
in
this
case
is
ignorance
of
the
law.
This
is
not
an
excuse
and,
for
this
reason,
I
have
to
dismiss
the
application.
Section
167
permits
of
an
equitable
and
discretionary
relief.
The
maxim
“ignorance
of
the
law
is
no
excuse"
which
is
drawn
from
the
criminal
law
is
quite
simply
irrelevant
to
the
exercise
of
that
discretion
for
at
least
two
reasons:
(1)
an
excuse
by
definition
excuses;
where
there
is
an
excuse
there
is
no
need
for
any
other
relief;
(2)
section
167
is
exhaustive
of
the
conditions
which
must
be
met
in
order
to
obtain
relief;
knowledge
of
the
law
is
not
one
of
them.
But
ignorance
of
the
law
and
reckless
disregard
for
the
exercise
of
one's
rights
are
two
very
different
things,
and
the
latter
is
a
very
relevant
consid-
eration
indeed
to
the
exercise
of
a
discretion
on
just
and
equitable
grounds.
From
the
circumstances
of
this
case,
and
in
particular
from
the
evidence
of
the
applicant
himself
quoted
above,
it
is
quite
clear
that
the
learned
Tax
Court
judge
was
dealing
with
a
taxpayer
who
was
wholly
indifferent
as
to
the
proper
manner
of
exercising
his
legal
rights,
and
that
this
was
the
real
reason
that
he
refused
to
grant
the
relief
sought.
We
think
that
he
made
no
error
of
law
in
doing
so.
The
section
28
application
will
be
dismissed.
Application
dismissed.
Email this Content