Docket: 2013-804(GST)APP
BETWEEN:
JOSÉE LEGAULT,
Applicant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH
TRANSLATION]
____________________________________________________________________
Application
heard on August 26, 2013, at Ottawa, Canada
Before: The Honourable
Justice Paul Bédard
Appearances:
|
For the applicant:
|
The applicant herself
|
|
Counsel for the respondent:
|
Nicolas C. Ammerlaan
|
____________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
Considering the application for an order
extending the time to appeal from a reassessment made under the Excise Tax
Act, the notice of which is dated September 9, 2010;
And considering the parties' claims;
The application is dismissed, in accordance
with the attached Reasons for Judgment.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 2nd day
of October 2013.
"Paul Bédard"
Translation certified true
on this 29th day of October 2013.
Elizabeth Tan,
Translator
Citation: 2013 TCC 313
Date: 20131002
Docket: 2013-804(GST)APP
BETWEEN:
JOSÉE LEGAULT,
Applicant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH
TRANSLATION]
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Bédard J.
[1]
On or around May 20, 2010,
the applicant applied for a Goods and Services Tax (GST) New Housing Rebate. In
a reassessment dated September 9, 2010, the respondent rendered a decision on
the objection confirming the September 9, 2010, reassessment. The applicant did
not appeal within the 90-day time period (which, in this case, expired on May
22, 2012) as provided under section 306 of the Excise Tax Act (ETA). On
February 18, 2013 (nearly 9 months after the prescribed deadline to appeal) the
applicant submitted an application to extend the time allowed to appeal.
[2]
The respondent objects,
indicating that
(i)
the applicant was not
unable to act within the meaning of subparagraph 305(5)(b)(i) of
the ETA;
(ii)
knowing the time limit
for acting, the applicant did not intend to appeal from the September 9, 2010,
assessment;
(iii)
the applicant did not
submit her application as soon as circumstances allowed;
(iv)
the applicant did not
show that there are reasonable grounds for the appeal.
[3]
The applicant's
testimony indicates that
(i)
she knew about the
90-day time limit to appeal;
(ii)
when she received the
notice of confirmation on February 22, 2012, she was [translation] "in shock" and felt unable to make a
decision regarding the September 9, 2010, assessment;
(iii)
at the end of March
2012, she sent a letter to Marie‑Ève Godin (who was in charge of the
applicant's objection file) for explanations about the denial of her GST
rebate. I note that the applicant did not present any documentary evidence of
this. Additionally, I note that her testimony was contradicted by Ms. Godin's
sworn statement (see Exhibit I‑1) that she never received [translation] "any verbal or written
communications from Ms. Legault after February 9, 2012";
(iv)
on or around April 11,
2013, the director of her department (cheque printing centre for the Government
of Canada) announced that her job would eventually be abolished (in this case, in
April 2016) after the closure of the printing centre where she worked. After
this announcement and considering the responsibilities related to her job, she
had to continually manage crises. In addition to her work, which concerned her
intensely, she also had to take care of her farm and the construction of her
residence. In all, the applicant explained that because she was [translation] "in shock" after
receiving the notice of confirmation and she was very busy considering her
personal and professional obligations, it was impossible for her to appeal
within the prescribed time;
(v)
in October 2012, the
applicant consulted a legal clinic to find out what her chances were of winning
an appeal;
(vi)
in February 2013, the
applicant finally decided to apply for an extension of the time prescribed to
appeal.
Analysis and conclusion
[4]
The relevant provisions
of the ETA state:
Extension of time to appeal
305.
(1) Where no appeal to the Tax Court under section 306 has been
instituted within the time limited by that provision for doing so, a person may
make an application to the Tax
Court for an order extending the time within which an appeal may be instituted,
and the Court may make an order extending the time for appealing and may impose
such terms as it deems just.
...
When order to be made
(5)
No order shall be made under this section unless
(a) the application is made within one year after the expiration of the
time otherwise limited by this Part for appealing; and
(b) the person demonstrates that
(i)
within the time otherwise limited by this Part
for appealing,
(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 appeal,
(ii) given the reasons set out in the application and the circumstances
of the case, it would be just and equitable to grant the application,
(iii) the application was made as soon as circumstances permitted it to be
made, and
(iv) there are reasonable grounds for appealing from the assessment.
Was the appellant unable to act within the
time prescribed to appeal?
[5]
The applicant
essentially claims that she was unable to act within the time prescribed to
appeal because she was [translation]
"in shock" after the respondent's refusal of her GST New Housing Rebate
application and after the news that the printing centre was closing close and
because she was too busy elsewhere (see paragraph 3).
[6]
The applicant's reason
for not acting, that she was [translation]
"in shock", does not seem very credible to me. For one, shock only
lasts for a certain time. Unless there is medical proof, shock could not have
had the effect of preventing the applicant from acting for almost eight months.
However, this is exactly the amount of time that passed from February 2012 and
October 2012, when she consulted professionals for the first time to learn what
her rights were. At any rate, it is difficult to explain how the applicant, who
claims to have been [translation]
"in shock", was able to adequately perform the very demanding tasks
related to her job and her equally demanding personal duties. I feel that the
applicant instead chose to not act within the time limit to appeal.
Did the appellant truly have the intention
to appeal within the time provided to appeal?
[7]
I also feel that the
applicant did not have the intention to appeal within the time provided to
appeal as the evidence shows that her intention to appeal only manifested
itself for first time in October 2012 when she consulted professionals to learn
what her rights were.
Was the application made as soon as circumstances
permitted?
[8]
I recall that the
applicant explained that starting in October 2012, the situation settled down
and that was when she consulted the professionals. However, it was only four
months later that she filed her application for an extension. Considering the
applicant did not present any evidence to explain the circumstances that
prevented her from filing her application in October 2012, I feel that the
applicant did not meet her burden of proof, which was to establish that the
circumstances prevented her from making her application for an extension before
February 18, 2013.
Did the applicant show that there are
reasonable grounds for the appeal?
[9]
Considering the
applicant did not make any submissions on this, I also feel that her application
for an extension must be dismissed.
[10]
For these reasons, the
application for an extension must be dismissed.
Signed at Ottawa,
Canada, this 2nd day of October 2013.
"Paul Bédard"
Translation
certified true
on this 29th day
of October 2013.
Elizabeth Tan,
Translator
Email this Content