Docket: 2006-1271(GST)APP
BETWEEN:
OFFICE MUNICIPAL D'HABITATION
DE SAINTE-EUSTACHE,
Applicant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH
TRANSLATION]
____________________________________________________________________
Application
heard on July 10, 2006, at Montréal,
Quebec.
Before: The Honourable
Justice Alain Tardif
Appearances:
|
Counsel for the Applicant:
|
Louis-Frédérick
Côté
|
|
Counsel for the Respondent:
|
Mario
Laprise
|
____________________________________________________________________
ORDER
The application for an extension of the time in
which to serve the notice of objection to the assessment dated
December 24, 2004, and made under the Excise Tax Act, for
the period of March 1, 2004, to March 31, 2004, is dismissed in
accordance with the attached Reasons for Order.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this
25th day of July 2006.
"Alain Tardif"
Translation
certified true
on this 5th day of
July 2007.
Brian McCordick,
Translator
Citation: 2006TCC428
Date: 20060725
Docket: 2006-1271(GST)APP
BETWEEN:
OFFICE MUNICIPAL D'HABITATION
DE SAINTE-EUSTACHE,
Applicant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH
TRANSLATION]
REASONS FOR ORDER
Tardif J.
[1] This is an
application for an extension of the time for filing a notice of objection. The
Applicant called Nicole Carignan Lefebvre, Monique Ross, Marie‑Christine Tétreault
and Chantal Longtin as witnesses. The four witnesses discussed at length the
facts and circumstances that arose as the file progressed.
[2] On December 24,
2004, the Respondent, acting through the Minister of Revenue of Québec (hereinafter "the Minister"),
assessed the Applicant for the period from March 1, 2004, to
March 31, 2004.
[3] Under subsection 301(1.1)
of the Excise Tax Act ("the Act"), the Applicant had 90
days after the date that the notice of assessment was sent to him, to file his
notice of objection to the assessment which, in this instance, was dated
December 24, 2004. The application for an extension was filed on
September 27, 2005.
[4] Thus, the time for
filing the notice of objection expired on March 24, 2005. The notice
of objection and the application for an extension of time were filed on
September 27, 2005, more than six months after the expiry of the 90‑day
period.
[5] The relevant
statutory provisions are paragraphs 304(5)(b)(i) and (iii) of the
Act, which read:
(5) No
application shall be granted under this section unless
. . .
(b) the person demonstrates
that
(i) within the time
otherwise limited by this Act for objecting
(A) the person was unable
to act or to give a mandate to act in the person's name, or
(B) the person had a bona
fide intention to object to the assessment or make the request,
(ii)
. . . and,
(iii) the application
was made under subsection 303(1) as soon as circumstances permitted it to be
made.
(Emphasis
added.)
[6] The evidence
adduced by the Applicant covered a litany of facts and considerations that were
of little or no relevance.
[7] However, I note the
following excerpt from Ms. Tétreault's testimony, which is very material
to the disposition of this application. I am referring to the testimony of Marie‑Christine Tétreault,
who identified herself as a chartered accountant intern and was therefore a
qualified person.
Pages 50 to 53 of
the transcript states:
[TRANSLATION]
Marie-Christine Tétreault, cross-examined by Mario
Laprise:
I have just one or two brief questions.
Q. Did you know that . . . did you read the
notice of assessment dated December 24, 2004, which is at tab 2…
A. Yes.
Q. ... of the book, on the reverse side, where
it is clearly stated that a notice of objection must be filed within ninety
(90) days after the date on which the notice of reassessment was issued. Were
you aware of the existence of this ninety (90) day time limit?
A. Yes. However, if I might add, upon learning
about the file, we tried to move things forward, or at least manage to sit down
with her, because there was no one at the Office who could do so. So we tried
to meet with her again. And eventually, the time limit elapsed.
HIS HONOUR: Pardon me! This is very important.
Q. You were aware of the notice which
clearly states ninety (90) days?
A. Yes.
Q. Were you still within the time limit
when you became aware of it, or had it elapsed?
A. It was toward the end, but it was...
Q. Still within the time limit?
A. Yes.
Q. So you thought it would be appropriate to
have a discussion instead of preparing a notice as stated on the reverse of the
document?
A. Yes, because the . . . How could I phrase this?
We did not object to the assessment, the self‑assessment, because
it is true that it had to be done. So all we were asking was, at the same
time as your self‑assessment, could you kindly include the rebate as
provided by law, because these were credits that we were entitled to. So, we
were only asking that the rebate be provided as well, which would probably have
cancelled a lot of interest and penalties, but would not have netted us funds. So
it is what was not ours. The rebate simply cancelled the self-assessment. But
at least it would not have resulted in a $100,000 debt of the kind that we have
here.
Q. Why did you not actually send a … say that
you were notifying us that you intended to object?
A. Because we were corresponding frequently
with the Ministère. Basically, no, we were objecting, but we were trying, of
course, to get explanations about the assessment, because we were pretty much
in agreement, but also about the rebate. Essentially, we were just trying to
get both — to get both steps done at the same time as is usually done with
other organizations, in order to avoid, well, a big assessment like that … a
liability that we basically did not owe.
Q. But the self-assessment that you are
referring to is the basis of the assessment?
A. Yes.
Q. And you had no objections to that?
A. No.
Q. You simply wanted your right to apply the
corresponding rebates to be recognized.
Okay. Do you have any other questions?
. . .
[8] Based on the tenor
of this testimony, it is clear that the conditions set out in paragraphs 304(5)(b)(i)
and (iii) were not met. Accordingly, the application must be dismissed.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 25th day of July 2006.
"Alain Tardif"
Translation
certified true
on this 5th day of
July 2007.
Brian McCordick,
Translator
Email this Content