Date: 20021010
Docket: A-335-00
Ottawa, Ontario, October 10, 2002
CORAM: RICHARD C.J.
DÉCARY J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
BETWEEN:
ANDRÉ MAHEU
Plaintiff
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Defendant
JUDGMENT
The application for judicial review is dismissed without costs.
|
|
"J. Richard"
Chief Justice
|
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, C. Tr., LL.L.
Date: 20021010
Docket: A-335-00
Neutral citation: 2002 FCA 383
CORAM: RICHARD C.J.
DÉCARY J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
BETWEEN:
ANDRÉ MAHEU
Plaintiff
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Defendant
Hearing held at Ottawa, Ontario, on October 9, 2002.
Judgment rendered at Ottawa, Ontario, on October 10, 2002.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT: DÉCARY J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY: RICHARD C.J.
PELLETIER J.A.
Date: 20021010
Docket: A-335-00
Neutral citation: 2002 FCA 383
CORAM: RICHARD C.J.
DÉCARY J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
BETWEEN:
ANDRÉ MAHEU
Plaintiff
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Defendant
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
DÉCARY J.A.
[1] An application by the plaintiff for an extension of time to object to a notice of assessment was denied first by the Minister of National Revenue and then by a judge of the Tax Court of Canada.
[2] Sections 166.1(7)(b) and 166.2(5)(b) of the Income Tax Act require a taxpayer applying for an extension of time to show that within the ninety-day deadline imposed by s. 165 for serving a notice of objection "he was unable to act or to instruct another to act in [his] name, or . . . had a bona fide intention to object to the assessment . . . ".
[3] In the case at bar, the notice of reassessment dated from February 26, 1998. The ninety-day deadline accordingly expired on May 27, 1998. The plaintiff himself admitted that it was not until March 2, 1999, at a seminar apparently sponsored by Revenue Canada, that he discovered he could have claimed a farming loss deduction. It is thus clear that the plaintiff did not have a "bona fide intention" to object on May 27, 1998.
[4] This is the only argument made before the Tax Court of Canada judge. In this Court, the plaintiff contended that he could not "act or instruct another to act in his name" within the ninety-day deadline because, he said, he was undergoing physiotherapy treatment at the time. This argument, and the evidence on which it was based, are of course inadmissible since they cannot be made in this Court for the first time.
[5] The plaintiff complained of some confusion which allegedly resulted from an exchange of correspondence with Revenue Canada beginning on March 4, 1999. If there was any confusion, it was not relevant as it is well established that on the cutoff date of May 27, 1998, the plaintiff did not meet the requirements of the Act.
[6] I would dismiss the application for judicial review without costs.
|
|
"Robert Décary"
Judge
|
"I concur.
J. Richard C.J."
"I concur.
J.D. Denis Pelletier J.A."
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, C. Tr., LL.L.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
APPEAL DIVISION
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
FILE: A-335-00
STYLE OF CAUSE: ANDRÉ MAHEU v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: October 9, 2002
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT: Décary J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY: Richard C.J.
Pelletier J.A.
DATE OF REASONS: October 10, 2002
APPEARANCES:
André Maheu FOR HIMSELF
Jade Boucher FOR THE RESPONDENT
Richard Gobeil
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
André Maheu FOR HIMSELF
L'Ange Gardien, Quebec
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario
Email this Content