Lamarre
Proulx,
T.C.J.:—This
case
concerns
an
application,
under
section
167
of
the
Income
Tax
Act,
R.S.C.
1952,
c.
148
(am.
S.C.
1970-71-72,
c.
63)
(the
"Act")
for
an
extension
of
time
to
institute
an
appeal
regarding
the
1984
taxation
year.
On
February
8,
1989,
appellant
obtained
an
order
to
extend
the
time
within
which
her
notice
of
objection
could
be
served
with
regard
to
a
reassessment
by
the
respondent
for
1984.
The
respondent's
notice
of
ratification,
filed
as
Exhibit
1-2(b)
bears
the
date
of
May
4,
1989.
An
officer
of
Canada
Post
appeared
at
the
hearing
to
file
a
registration
certificate,
(Exhibit
1-3),
which
indicates
that
the
document
sent
to
the
applicant
bears
number
134.
This
same
officer
also
filed
Exhibit
1-4,
being
the
list
of
registered
items
delivered,
which
shows
that
item
134
was
delivered
on
May
5,
1989
to
the
applicant's
address
and
on
which
appear
the
initials
of
the
person
to
whom
the
item
was
delivered.
The
applicant
stated
under
oath
that
she
had
never
received
that
notice.
Her
husband
attended
and
testified
to
the
same
effect.
Because
the
applicant
had
previously
obtained
an
extension
to
file
her
notice
of
objection,
counsel
for
the
respondent
contended
that
the
appellant
was
not
entitled
to
obtain
an
order
extending
the
time
to
file
her
notice
of
appeal.
Counsel
for
the
respondent
based
her
argument
on
paragraph
167(5)(b)
of
the
Act
which
stipulates
that:
167.
(5)
No
order
shall
be
made
under
subsection
(1)
or
(4)
[.
.
.]
(b)
if
the
Tax
Court
of
Canada
or
Federal
Court
has
previously
made
an
order
extending
the
time
for
objecting
to
or
appealing
from
the
assessment;
It
is
her
position
that
the
Court
cannot,
therefore,
grant
another
extension
in
the
present
application.
Counsel
also
based
her
argument
on
subsection
167(3)
of
the
Act:
(3)
An
application
under
subsection
(1)
shall
be
made
by
filing
with
the
Registrar
of
the
Tax
Court
of
Canada
or
by
sending
by
registered
mail
addressed
to
him
at
Ottawa
three
copies
of
the
application
accompanied
by
three
copies
of
a
notice
of
objection
or
notice
of
appeal,
as
the
case
may
be.
She
interprets
this
subsection
of
the
Act
to
mean
that
a
notice
of
appeal
or
objection
is
served
or
instituted,
as
the
case
may
be,
at
the
same
time
as
the
application
for
an
extension,
and
that
consequently,
paragraph
167(5)(b)
of
the
Act
would
have
no
meaning
if
it
were
to
be
interpreted
in
any
manner
other
than
her
own.
In
my
opinion,
the
meaning
of
subsection
187(3)
of
the
Act
is
the
following:
the
notice
of
objection
or
appeal
attached
to
the
application
serves
an
informational
purpose
for
the
judge
ruling
on
the
application
for
extension,
since
subparagraph
167(5)(c)(iii)
of
the
Act
provided
that
the
judge
should
grant
this
order
if
reasonable
grounds
exist
to
object
to
an
assessment
or
to
institute
an
appeal.
The
notice
of
objection
or
appeal
is
not
attached
to
the
application
for
the
purpose
of
filing
it
with
respondent
or
the
Court.
No
such
presumption
may
be
read
into
subsection
167(3)
of
the
Act.
One
judge
may
determine,
in
an
order
of
time
extension,
that
a
notice
of
objection
or
appeal
produced
at
the
same
time
as
an
application
shall
be
considered
as
having
been
served
on
the
Minister
or
as
having
been
duly
instituted;
another
judge
may,
in
an
order,
stipulate
a
certain
time
for
the
taxpayer
to
file
these
documents.
It
is
in
this
latter
case
that,
if
the
taxpayer
does
not
produce
the
required
notice
within
the
stipulated
time,
the
judge
has
no
jurisdiction
to
grant
the
taxpayer
a
second
extension,
according
to
paragraph
167(5)(b)
of
the
Act.
I
am
therefore
of
the
opinion
that
paragraph
167(5)(b)
of
the
Act
does
not
prevent
the
applicant
from
applying
to
this
Court
for
an
extension
of
time
to
institute
an
appeal,
even
if
she
previously
obtained
an
order
extending
the
time
to
serve
her
notice
of
objection.
Consequently,
in
view
of
the
appellant's
sworn
statement,
and
that
of
her
husband,
to
the
effect
that
neither
of
them
received
the
respondent's
notice
of
ratification
(Exhibit
1-2(B)),
nor
recognizes
the
initials
of
the
person
to
whom
the
notice
was
supposedly
delivered
as
being
his
or
her
own,
those
of
the
spouse,
or
those
or
any
person
known
to
them,
given
that
the
postman
who
delivered
the
document
did
not
testify,
given
that
the
testimony
of
the
applicant
and
her
husband
were
uncontradicted,
the
application
for
an
extension
of
time
to
institute
an
appeal
is
granted
and
the
notice
of
appeal
received
with
the
application
for
extension
is
deemed
to
constitute
a
valid
appeal.
Application
granted.
Email this Content