Pinard,
J.:—By
her
application
for
judicial
review
the
applicant
is
seeking
to
set
aside
a
decision
made
on
October
16,
1992
by
Kal
Malhotra,
Chief
of
Appeals,
Revenue
Canada,
in
order
to
vacate
in
part
only,
and
not
entirely,
the
interest
on
the
balance
of
her
tax
payable
for
the
1987,
1988
and
1989
taxation
years.
In
principle
a
taxpayer's
obligation
to
pay
interest
on
his
tax
payable
or
on
provisional
instalments
due
results
from
the
operation
of
the
Income
Tax
Act,
R.S.C.
1952,
c.
148
(am.
S.C.
1970-71-72,
c.
63)
(the
"Act"),
and
in
particular
subsections
161(1)
and
(2):
161
(1)
Where
at
any
time
after
the
day
on
or
before
which
a
taxpayer
is
required
to
pay
the
remainder
of
his
tax
payable
under
this
Part
for
a
taxation
year,
(a)
the
amount
of
his
tax
payable
for
the
year
under
this
Part
exceeds
(b)
the
aggregate
of
all
amounts
each
of
which
is
an
amount
paid
at
or
before
that
time
on
account
of
his
tax
payable
and
applied
as
at
that
time
by
the
Minister
against
the
taxpayer's
liability
for
an
amount
payable
under
this
Part
for
the
year,
the
person
liable
to
pay
the
tax
shall
pay
to
the
Receiver
General
interest
at
the
prescribed
rate
on
the
excess
computed
for
the
period
during
which
that
excess
is
outstanding.
(2)
Interest
on
instalments.
In
addition
to
the
interest
payable
under
subsection
(1),
where
a
taxpayer
who
is
required
by
this
Part
to
pay
a
part
or
instalment
of
tax
has
failed
to
pay
all
or
any
part
thereof
on
or
before
the
day
on
or
before
which
the
tax
or
instalment,
as
the
case
may
be,
was
required
to
be
paid,
he
shall
pay
to
the
Receiver
General
interest
at
the
prescribed
rate
on
the
amount
that
he
failed
to
pay
computed
from
the
day
on
or
before
which
the
amount
was
required
to
be
paid
to
the
day
of
payment,
or
to
the
beginning
of
the
period
in
respect
of
which
he
is
required
to
pay
interest
thereon
under
subsection
(1),
whichever
is
earlier.
Additionally,
subsection
220(3.1),
added
by
S.C.
1991,
c.
49,
subsection
181(1),
applicable
to
the
1985
and
following
taxation
years,
gives
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
the
following
discretion:
220
(3.1)
The
Minister
may
at
any
time
waive
or
cancel
all
or
any
portion
of
any
penalty
or
interest
otherwise
payable
under
this
Act
by
a
taxpayer
or
a
partnership.
In
the
case
at
bar
the
applicant,
relying
strictly
on
her
good
faith
and
ignorance
of
the
Act,
cited
subsection
220(3.1)
of
the
Act
above
in
an
effort
to
require
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
to
cancel
all
the
interest
concerned.
As
the
Court
is
here
dealing
with
an
administrative
decision
of
a
discretionary
nature
it
simply
needs
to
consider
whether,
through
his
statutory
representative,
the
Minister
fulfilled
his
duty
to
act
fairly
towards
the
applicant.
Good
faith
and
ignorance
of
the
law
may
certainly
be
relevant
considerations
in
the
exercise
of
such
a
discretion,
but
they
cannot
as
such
simply
override
the
discretion.
In
the
case
at
bar
the
Minister's
statutory
representative,
Kal
Malhotra,
cancelled
part
of
the
interest
corresponding
to
the
period
of
loss
of
the
notice
of
objection
dated
March
26,
1990;
additionally,
as
regards
inclusion
of
the
capital
gain
in
the
applicant’s
income
for
her
1987,
1988
and
1989
taxation
years
and
processing
of
her
objection
file,
the
time
periods
for
which
the
statutory
representative
refused
to
cancel
the
interest
due
were
the
results
of
the
applicant's
error
in
reporting
her
income
for
the
said
years.
In
my
opinion,
the
Minister’s
statutory
representative
duly
exercised
in
good
faith
and
as
part
of
an
adequate
decisionmaking
process
described
in
his
affidavit
the
discretion
conferred
by
subsection
220(3.1)
of
the
Act
above,
after
giving
the
applicant
several
opportunities
to
present
her
arguments
and
after
considering
all
the
relevant
facts.
As
to
guidelines
No.
92-2,
referred
to
by
the
applicant,
it
should
be
noted
that
such
general
guidelines
are
not
to
be
elevated
to
the
status
of
legislation,
thereby
limiting
the
decision-making
authority
in
the
exercise
of
the
discretion
conferred
on
it
by
an
enabling
Act
(see
Maple
Lodge
Farms
Ltd.
v.
Canada,
[1982]
2
S.C.R.
2,
137
D.L.R.
(3d)
558,
at
page
7
(D.L.R.
561).
Having
said
that,
the
decision
a
quo
seems
to
me
to
have
been
made
in
keeping
with
the
spirit
of
the
guidelines
in
question.
There
is
accordingly
no
basis
for
allowing
this
application
for
judicial
review.
Application
dismissed.
Email this Content