Bell
T.C.J.:
The
Respondent
brought
a
Notice
of
Motion
dated
April
6,
1998
for
an
Order
“that
the
Appellant’s
appeal
be
dismissed
on
the
ground
that
the
appeal
does
not
conform
with
the
statutory
requirements
in
that
the
Appellant
did
not
serve
on
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
a
Notice
of
Objection
to
the
assessment
as
required
by
section
169
of
the
Income
Tax
Act,
or
alternatively,
for
an
Order
extending
the
time
for
filing
the
Respondent’s
Reply
to
the
Notice
of
Appeal”.
No
one
appeared
on
behalf
of
the
Appellant.
Respondent’s
counsel
advised
the
Court
that
the
Notice
of
Motion
was
sent
by
double
registered
mail
to
the
Appellant
at
the
address
shown
by
the
Appellant
on
its
Notice
of
Appeal
dated
December
1,
1997.
He
advised
the
Court
that
he
had
been
informed
by
an
official
of
the
Department
of
National
Revenue
that
the
Notice
of
Motion
was
returned
to
the
Respondent
unclaimed.
At
the
Court’s
request.
Respondent’s
counsel
telephoned
the
Appellant
and
spoke
with
a
woman
who
identified
herself
as
the
wife
of
John
D.
English,
Director
and
President
of
the
Appellant.
Mr.
English
described
himself
on
the
Appellant’s
Notice
of
Appeal
as
John
D.
English,
B.A.,
LL.B.
Director
&
President
Counsel
was
advised
that
Mr.
English
had
been
out
of
town
for
a
week
and
would
not
be
back
for
a
couple
of
days.
Respondent’s
counsel
inferred
from
that
information
that
Mr.
English
had
been
available
to
accept
the
double
registered
mail
for
two
or
three
weeks
before
that
time.
The
Respondent
then
proceeded
with
its
motion.
Counsel
referred
to
the
affidavit
of
Denis
Farling,
an
officer
of
the
Department
of
National
Revenue.
He
set
out,
in
that
affidavit,
the
history
of
the
issuing
of
a
Notice
of
Assessment
for
the
1990
taxation
year,
a
subsequent
application
for
extension
of
time
to
file
a
Notice
of
Objection,
the
granting
of
such
extension
by
the
Chief
of
Appeals
at
the
Victoria
District
Office
of
that
Department
and
the
subsequent
issue
of
a
Notice
of
Reassessment
for
the
1990
taxation
year
dated
November
3,
1994.
A
Notice
of
Assessment
for
the
1994
taxation
year
was
issued
on
September
11,
1995.
The
affidavit
continued
with
the
information
that
the
affiant
was
unable
to
find
a
Notice
of
Objection
in
respect
of
either
of
the
two
years.
No
Notice
of
Appeal
having
been
filed
within
the
statutory
period
for
the
1990
taxation
year
following
the
reassessment
and
no
Notice
of
Objection
having
been
filed
respecting
the
1994
taxation
year,
the
purported
Notice
of
Appeal
in
respect
of
each
year
is
to
be
quashed.
Application
allowed.
Email this Content