Brulé,
TCJ:—This
is
an
application
by
W
T
O’Greysik
made
pursuant
to
section
167
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
to
extend
the
time
within
which
a
notice
of
objection
may
be
served
on
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
in
respect
to
his
1981
taxation
year.
Facts
A
notice
of
assessment
for
the
1981
taxation
year
of
the
applicant
was
dated
September
7,
1982.
The
ninetieth
day
following
September
7,
1982,
was
December
6,
1982,
and
such
notice
of
objection
should
have
been
filed
by
this
last-mentioned
date.
The
notice
of
objection
to
the
said
assessment
and
the
subject
application
were
both
dated
August
26,
1983.
Taxpayer's
position
Mr
O’Greysik
offered
as
an
explanation
for
the
delay
in
filing
the
notice
of
objection
that
he
had
been
misled
by
representatives
of
the
Department
of
National
Revenue.
He
named
two
individuals,
E
Seamisch
and
D
Pelletier.
The
former
is
a
collection
officer
whom
Mr
O’Greysik
said
referred
him
to
Mr
Pelletier.
Mr
Pelletier
was
alleged
to
have
given
the
applicant
advice
not
to
file
a
notice
of
objection.
Apart
from
attempting
to
blame
the
employees
of
Revenue
Canada
the
applicant
had
no
argument
of
merit.
Minister's
position
Counsel
for
the
minister
argued
that
the
applicant
had
not
proven
that
Revenue
Canada
employees
had
misled
him
and
Mr
O’Greysik
admitted
under
cross-examination
that
he
knew
of
the
ninety-day
limit
for
filing
a
notice
of
objection.
The
respondent
further
pointed
out
that
the
applicant
did
not
disclose
any
reasons
why
it
was
not
possible
to
serve
a
notice
of
objection
within
the
time
limited
by
section
165
and
therefore
did
not
satisfy
the
requirements
of
section
167,
nor
within
the
same
section
did
he
bring
his
application
as
soon
as
circumstances
permitted
it
to
be
brought.
Analysis
It
would
appear
that
the
applicant
only
commenced
his
objection
when
a
Revenue
Canada
collection
officer
contacted
him.
Mr
Seamisch
was
attempting
to
collect
an
outstanding
debt
when
he
contacted
the
applicant.
By
affidavit
Mr
Seamisch
denied
receiving
any
inquiry
from
the
applicant
and
relied
on
the
records
he
was
required
to
maintain
for
this
information.
Mr
Pelletier
denied
making
any
such
statement
about
advice
as
to
not
filing
a
notice
of
objection
when
cross-examined
by
the
applicant.
Indeed
Mr
Pelletier
said
his
advice
if
any
would
be
to
file.
Based
on
the
facts,
the
feeble
argument
by
the
applicant
and
the
strong
position
of
the
respondent,
both
set
out
above,
I
find
no
difficulty
in
arriving
at
a
decision.
Application
dismissed
For
the
foregoing
reasons
this
application
is
denied.
Application
denied.
Email this Content