Tardif
T.C.J.:
I
must
dispose
of
the
merits
of
a
motion
submitted
by
the
respondent
asking
the
Court
to
dismiss
the
appeal
on
the
ground
that
it
lacks
jurisdiction.
I
should
first
note
that
it
would
seem
difficult
to
dismiss
an
appeal
if
the
Court
has
no
jurisdiction.
At
the
start
of
the
hearing,
the
parties
asked
that
the
content
of
paragraph
(b)
of
the
Affidavit,
alleging
that
the
appellant
had
filed
a
Notice
of
Objection
with
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
on
June
25,
1997
against
the
Notice
of
Reassessment
dated
October
15,
1996,
be
amended,
substituting
June
10,
1997
for
June
25,
1997.
In
response
to
the
Notice
of
Reassessment
dated
October
15,
1996,
the
appellant
sent
a
letter
(Exhibit
A-l)
by
registered
mail,
the
content
of
which
was
as
follows:
[TRANSLATION]
Verdun
June
10,
1997
Department
of
National
Revenue
500
Place
d’Armes
Bureau
1800
Montréal,
Quebec
H2Y
2W2
To
whom
it
may
concern:
1
wish
to
serve
notice
of
my
objection
despite
my
delay,
which
is
justified
personally
by
my
ignorance
of
the
Income
Tax
Act.
I
object
to
the
penalty
imposed
on
me
on
my
1995
taxes,
with
reference
to
$2,000
of
union
leave,
made
for
1995.
I
was
still
waiting
on
my
executive
to
give
me
a
statement
of
my
leave
and
as
it
never
did
so
I
filed
my
tax
return
without
mentioning
it.
For
reference,
my
social
insurance
number
is
233-312-396.
From
Paul
Duclos
896
De
T
Église
Verdun,
Que.
H4G
2N2
On
October
8,
1997
Revenue
Canada
replied
in
a
letter
(Exhibit
1-2)
the
content
of
which
was
as
follows:
[TRANSLATION]
TLA-4(A)
October
8,
1997
Paul
Duclos
896
Avenue
De
F
Église
Verdun,
Quebec
H4G
2N5
Montréal
District
Office
Appeals
Division
Tel.:
(514)
283-8004
Re:
Notice
of
Objection
postmarked
June
10,
1997
The
enclosed
Notice
of
Objection
cannot
be
accepted
since
it
was
not
filed
within
the
time
allowed.
The
Income
Tax
Act
requires
that
your
objection
be
served
no
later
than
the
90th
day
after
the
date
your
Notice
of
Assessment
(Notice
of
Determination)
was
mailed.
However,
you
may
request
an
extension
of
time
to
file
your
Notice
of
Objection.
How
to
Proceed
Send
the
undersigned
a
letter
giving
the
reasons
why
your
objection
was
not
filed
within
the
time
allowed.
When
Your
request
should
be
made
as
soon
as
possible,
but
no
later
than
one
year
after
the
date
on
which
you
should
have
filed
your
Notice
of
Objection.
Chief
of
Appeals
On
October
17,
1997,
only
a
few
days
after
receipt
of
the
letter
of
October
8,
1997,
the
appellant
filed
a
Notice
of
Appeal
in
this
Court
(Exhibit
I-
1)
stating
the
following:
[TRANSLATION]
October
17,
1997
Tax
Court
of
Canada
500
Place
d’Armes
Bureau
1800
Montréal,
Quebec
H2Y
2W2
(514)
283-9912
Re:
Filing
of
Notice
of
Appeal
Dear
Sir/Madam:
Further
to
the
letter
sent
on
October
8,
1997
(sent
by
Revenue
Canada)
informing
me
of
the
reply
to
my
appeal,
I
wish
to
file
in
writing
my
Notice
of
Appeal
under
the
informal
procedure
as
suggested
in
the
correspondence
I
received.
The
purpose
of
this
letter
is
therefore
to
object
to
the
fact
that
I
was
obliged
to
pay
a
fine
on
taxes
owed
in
1995.
I
work
at
the
Hôtel-Dieu
in
Montréal
and
was
a
union
representative
in
1995.
Since
that
time
the
Syndicat
national
des
Employés
généraux
was
to
bring
itself
“into
line”
so
that
union
representatives
would
pay
taxes
like
all
workers.
Proposals
to
this
effect
were
made
and
adopted
at
several
general
meetings
(Nov.
1992,
Sept.
1993,
Aug.
1995
and
May
1996),
which
means
that
the
union
executive
had
been
given
legal
instructions
to
do
so.
It
was
not
done.
It
should
also
be
noted
that
the
“parent”
of
the
Syndicat
national
des
Employés
généraux
de
T
Hôtel-Dieu,
the
CNTU,
had
also
been
instructed
to
ensure
that
all
its
unions
were
brought
into
line.
The
CNTU
also
failed
to
do
this.
I
am
thus
faced
with
a
dispute
which
has
dragged
on
for
a
long
time
and
which
should
have
been
settled
as
soon
as
possible.
Unfortunately,
the
union
executive
of
the
Hôtel-Dieu
de
Montréal
and
the
CNTU
have
not
done
their
duty
and
I
am
left
to
suffer
the
consequences.
This
letter
therefore
means
that
the
fine
which
I
have
to
pay
should
be
imposed
on
those
really
responsible,
the
Syndicat
national
des
Employés
généraux
and
the
CNTU.
Please
note
that
I
am
prepared
to
pay
my
tax
assessments
for
these
years.
However,
I
dispute
the
fine
which
has
been
unfairly
imposed.
I
therefore
feel
I
have
been
unfairly
treated
by
everything
that
has
happened
and
unfortunately
it
is
always
the
victim
who
has
to
pay...
I
remain
available
to
answer
your
questions
at
any
time.
Yours
truly,
Paul
Duclos
SIN:
The
appellant
testified
and
explained
the
circumstances
surrounding
the
progress
of
his
case.
From
his
testimony
I
concluded
that
he
did
fully
intend
to
use
and
to
exhaust
all
the
means
at
his
disposal
to
assert
the
validity
of
his
arguments.
It
was
also
plain
from
his
testimony
that
he
was
not
familiar
with
the
procedure
and
that
he
had
relied
on
representatives
of
his
union
confederation.
It
would
certainly
have
been
better
for
him
to
consult
someone
in
a
position
to
give
him
proper
information
by
fully
explaining
the
procedure
to
be
followed.
Although
relatively
straightforward,
I
think
that
it
might
be
difficult
for
a
lay
person,
especially
as
this
is
a
rather
unusual
procedure.
Doubtless
partly
for
these
reasons,
Parliament
sought
to
make
the
procedure
as
easy
as
possible
so
that
taxpayers
could
assert
their
rights.
In
the
instant
case,
the
content
of
the
appellant’s
letter,
though
imperfect
and
possibly
incomplete,
clearly
set
out
his
intention
to
have
his
case
re-
viewed,
after
attempting
to
justify
his
delay
on
grounds
of
ignorance.
That
is
how
I
read
the
following
passage
from
Exhibit
A-l:
[TRANSLATION]
To
whom
it
may
concern:
I
wish
to
serve
notice
of
my
objection
despite
my
delay,
which
is
justified
personally
by
my
ignorance
of
the
Income
Tax
Act.
The
respondent
had
a
duty
to
decide
on
the
merits
of
the
application,
namely
whether
it
met
the
requirements
of
the
Act,
but
in
the
circumstances
she
could
not
dispose
of
the
case
by
concluding
that
it
was
not
a
request
for
a
review.
Accepting
the
respondent’s
reasoning
would
amount
to
saying
that
the
respondent
could
deprive
a
taxpayer
of
his
or
her
right
of
appeal
by
a
decision
ruling
that
the
application
was
not
made
in
proper
form.
I
consider
that
the
content
of
the
handwritten
letter
signed
by
the
appellant
was
certainly
not
a
model
of
clarity;
nevertheless,
it
expressed
a
very
clear
intention
to
obtain
a
decision
on
the
merits,
after
pleading
ignorance
as
the
reason
for
his
delay.
In
the
circumstances,
I
consider
that
the
respondent
had
authority
to
decide
to
deny
him
an
extension
on
the
ground
that
ignorance
is
no
excuse;
however,
she
could
not
decide
that
the
request
was
not
a
request
for
an
extension.
By
reaching
this
conclusion
the
respondent
made
the
situation
still
more
complicated
for
the
appellant.
Although
procedure
is
fundamental,
I
think
that
it
should
facilitate
the
assertion
of
rights,
not
impede
it.
The
respondent
should
simply
have
concluded
that
she
was
not
granting
an
extension,
thereby
clearly
indicating
to
the
appellant
that
he
could
appeal
the
decision.
The
respondent
criticized
the
appellant
for
what
she
herself
had
employed:
ambiguity.
In
my
opinion,
the
ambiguity
of
the
Department’s
letter
explains
the
content
of
the
appellant’s
letter
of
October
17.
In
the
circumstances,
I
conclude
that
the
letter
signed
by
the
appellant
on
October
17
was
a
request
for
review
of
the
respondent’s
decision
communicated
by
letter
dated
October
8,
1997
(Exhibit
I-2),
the
effect
of
which
was
to
deny
the
extension
requested.
The
content
of
the
Department’s
letter
is
ambiguous.
The
ambiguity
may
explain,
and
indeed
justify,
the
fact
that
the
appellant’s
notice
had
to
do
with
the
merits
rather
than
the
right
to
a
review.
Consequently,
I
dismiss
the
respondent’s
motion
to
quash
the
appeal
and
allow
the
appellant’s
oral
motion
for
an
extension
to
entitle
him
to
a
review
of
his
case.
Consequently,
the
Court
allows
him
60
days
to
assert
his
rights
to
the
review
office.
Motion
dismissed.
Email this Content