Brulé,
T.C.J.:—This
is
an
application
for
an
order
extending
the
time
within
which
notices
of
objection
may
be
served
with
respect
to
the
applicant's
1982,
1983
and
1984
taxation
years.
At
the
outset
of
the
hearing
the
representative
of
the
Minister
announced
that
there
was
no
objection
to
the
extension
being
granted
for
the
1984
taxation
year.
As
to
the
1982
and
1983
taxation
years
an
affidavit
was
filed
on
behalf
of
the
Minister
setting
out
the
deadlines
for
filing
notices
of
objection,
being
November
9,
1984
as
to
the
1982
taxation
year
and
October
1,1985
as
to
the
1983
taxation
year.
These
dates
are
the
extended
provisions
set
out
in
paragraph
167(5)(a)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act.
No
objections
were
filed
by
these
dates.
Applicant's
Position
Counsel
for
the
applicant
admitted
that
the
required
time
period
for
consideration
by
this
Court
had
ostensibly
expired
but
he
put
before
the
Court
for
consideration
the
case
of
City
of
Kamloops
v.
Nielsen
et
al.,
[1984]
2
S.C.R.
2;
10
D.L.R.
(4th)
641.
Among
other
matters
the
Court
held
that
provisions
of
the
British
Columbia
Limitations
Act
postponed
the
running
of
time
until
the
acquisition
of
knowledge
or
means
of
knowledge
of
the
facts
giving
rise
to
the
cause
of
action.
In
the
present
case,
the
applicant
was
described
as
being
unskilled
in
financial
matters
and
did
not
become
aware
of
a
problem
with
his
assessments
until
he
consulted
a
Mr.
Morton
Grover
in
1985.
This
was
suggested
by
counsel
as
the
time
that
the
provisions
for
filing
a
notice
of
objection
should
commence.
Subsequently,
and
beyond
the
time
limits
set
out
in
the
statute,
notices
of
objection
were
filed
in
1986
within
the
time
period
if
the
argument
was
accepted.
Minister's
Position
As
to
the
denial
of
the
application
the
representative
of
the
Minister
pointed
out
that
the
applicant
being
unfamiliar
with
financial
matters
was
of
no
significance
and
besides
no
evidence
of
this
was
presented
to
the
Court.
The
case
of
Peter
Howard
Clifford
Mitchell
v.
M.N.R.,
[1986]
1
C.T.C.
2010;
85
D.T.C.
761
was
cited
wherein
at
2011
(D.T.C.
763)
Taylor,
T.C.J.
said:
As
I
see
it,
this
Court
does
not
have
a
right
under
any
circumstances
to
reinstate
the
right
of
appeal
for
a
taxpayer
after
that
right
has
expired.
Analysis
There
is
no
doubt
that
the
pronouncement
in
the
Mitchell
case
(supra)
has
been
accepted
as
being
correct.
If,
however,
as
in
the
Kamloops
case
(supra),
a
limitation
period
may
be
adjusted
as
to
when
it
commences
based
on
the
facts,
this
must
be
considered.
The
applicant’s
counsel
suggested
that
the
time
for
filing
a
notice
of
objection
should
not
commence
until
the
taxpayer
became
aware
of
a
problem.
The
Supreme
Court,
per
Wilson,
J.,
said
that
the
acquisition
of
knowledge
of
the
problem
could
be
the
basis
of
a
postponement.
In
the
present
case
upon
receipt
of
the
assessment
notices
in
the
years
in
question
the
applicant
had
the
knowledge
or
means
of
knowledge
of
the
problem.
The
fact
that
he
did
not
perhaps
realize
this
until
a
later
date
is
no
excuse.
In
addition
it
is
patently
clear
on
the
assessment
notice
(reserve
side)
that
there
is
a
limitation
period
for
filing
a
notice
of
objection.
The
Kamloops
case
(supra)
can
readily
be
distinguished
on
the
facts
wherein
no
knowledge
of
the
facts
giving
rise
to
a
cause
of
action
were
determinable
at
the
time
the
limitation
period
might
otherwise
commence.
This
is
not
so
here.
The
result
is
that
this
application
is
dismissed
with
respect
to
the
1982
and
1983
taxation
years
of
the
applicant
and
allowed
for
the
1984
taxation
year.
Application
allowed
in
part.
Email this Content