Pratte,
J:—This
section
28
application
is
directed
against
a
decision
of
the
Tax
Review
Board
dismissing
an
application
pursuant
to
section
167
of
the
Income
Tax
Act,
1970-71-72,
c
63,
for
an
order
extending
the
time
for
filing
notices
of
objection
against
reassessments
for
income
tax.
The
first
two
subsections
of
section
167
read
as
follows:
167.
(1)
Where
no
objection
to
an
assessment
under
section
165
or
appeal
to
the
Tax
Review
Board
under
section
169
has
been
made
or
instituted
within
the
time
limited
by
section
165
or
169,
as
the
case
may
be,
for
doing
so,
an
application
may
be
made
to
the
Tax
Review
Board
for
an
order
extending
the
time
within
which
a
notice
of
objection
may
be
served
or
an
appeal
instituted
and
the
Board
may,
if
in
its
opinion
the
circumstances
of
the
case
are
such
that
it
would
be
just
and
equitable
to
do
so,
make
an
order
extending
the
time
for
objecting
or
appealing
and
may
impose
such
terms
as
it
deems
just.
(2)
The
application
referred
to
in
subsection
(1)
shall
set
forth
the
reasons
why
it
was
not
possible
to
serve
the
notice
of
objection
or
institute
the
appeal
to
the
Board
within
the
time
otherwise
limited
by
this
Act
for
so
doing.
As
I
read
the
decision
under
attack,
the
member
of
the
Board
refused
to
grant
the
extension
of
time
sought
by
the
applicant
because,
as
the
evidence
did
not
disclose
that
it
had
been
impossible
for
the
applicant
to
serve
the
notice
of
objection
within
the
time
limit,
he
considered
that
he
was
precluded
by
subsection
167(2)
from
exercising
the
discretion
conferred
on
him
by
subsection
167(1).
This
decision
is,
in
my
view,
founded
on
an
error
of
law
and
must,
for
that
reason,
be
set
aside.
The
circumstances
in
which
the
Board
is
authorized,
subject
to
the
requirements
of
subsection
167(5),
to
exercise
its
discretion
to
extend
the
time
within
which
a
notice
of
objection
may
be
served
are
described
in
subsection
167(1)
which
does
not
require
that
it
should
have
been
impossible
for
the
taxpayer
to
serve
the
notice
within
the
time
limit.
Subsection
167(2)
is
a
procedural
provision
which
merely
requires,
in
my
view,
that
the
applicant
set
forth
in
his
application
for
an
extension
of
time
the
reasons
why
the
notice
was
not
served
within
the
time
prescribed.
I
would,
for
this
reason,
grant
the
application,
set
aside
the
decision
under
attack
and
refer
the
matter
back
to
the
Board
for
decision
after
a
new
hearing
before
another
member
of
the
Board
on
the
basis
that
subsection
167(2)
must
be
interpreted
as
merely
requiring
the
applicant
to
state
in
his
application
for
an
extension
of
time
the
reasons
why
the
notice
of
objection
was
not
served
within
the
time
prescribed
by
the
Act.
Application
granted.
Email this Content