THORSON,
P.:—This
was
an
application
on
behalf
of
the
Minister
for
an
order
quashing
the
appellant’s
appeal
against
his
income
tax
assessment
for
1951.
It
was
made
before
me
on
September
17,
1959,
at
Victoria
but
the
hearing
was
adjourned
to
October
26,
1959,
at
Ottawa.
On
its
conclusion
I
granted
the
application
and
the
appeal
was
quashed
with
costs.
The
reasons
for
my
decision
now
follow.
The
issue
in
the
application
was
a
simple
one
and
the
facts
on
which
it
was
based
were
not
in
dispute.
I
set
them
out
in
their
chronological
order.
The
notice
of
the
assessment
levied
against
the
appellant
for
1951
was
dated
March
15,
1956,
and
mailed
to
him
on
March
16,
1956.
He
objected
to
the
assessment
by
a
notice
of
objection,
dated
May
10,
1956,
which
was
received
in
the
Department
of
National
Revenue
on
or
about
that
date.
On
January
7,
1958,
the
Minister
confirmed
the
assessment
and
on
the
same
date
a
copy
of
his
notification
that
he
had
done
so
was
sent
to
the
appellant
by
prepaid
registered
mail.
There
was
no
further
step
in
the
matter
until
the
appellant
sent
a
notice
of
appeal
to
the
Income
Tax
Appeal
Board,
dated
May
26,
1958,
which
was
received
by
the
Registrar
of
the
Board
on
June
16,
1958.
The
notice
was
unsigned
and
was
sent
back
to
the
appellant
for
signature
by
him.
He
returned
it
properly
signed
on
June
21,
1958,
and
it
was
received
by
the
Registrar
on
June
23,
1958.
Then,
on
September
16,
1958,
notice
was
given
on
behalf
of
the
Minister
that
at
the
next
sitting
of
the
Income
Tax
Appeal
Board
at
Vancouver
a
motion
would
be
made
for
the
dismissal
of
the
appeal
for
want
of
jurisdiction
on
the
ground
that
it
had
not
been
filed
in
accordance
with
the
provisions
of
the
Income
Tax
Act.
At
the
sitting
of
the
Board
at
Vancouver
on
February
17,
1959,
counsel
for
the
Minister
moved
before
Mr.
R.
8S.
W.
Fordham
for
an
order
dismissing
the
appeal
for
lateness
in
filing
the
notice
of
appeal.
Mr.
Fordham
granted
the
application
and
dismissed
the
appeal
on
the
ground
that
the
appellant
had
not
filed
the
notice
of
appeal
within
90
days
after
the
date
of
the
Minister’s
notification
that
he
had
confirmed
the
appellant’s
assessment
and
that,
consequently,
the
Board
had
no
jurisdiction
in
the
matter.
On
February
18,
1959,
Mr.
Fordham
gave
his
reasons
for
his
decision
(1958-59),
21
Tax
A.B.C.
350,
and
on
April
6,
1959,
the
Registrar
of
the
Board
mailed
the
decision
to
the
appellant
and
the
Minister.
Finally,
on
August
4,
1959,
the
appellant
filed
a
notice
of
appeal
to
this
Court
from
the
decision
of
Income
Tax
Appeal
Board.
This
was
the
only
notice
of
appeal
to
this
Court.
The
nature
of
a
taxpayer’s
right
of
appeal
against
an
income
tax
assessment
is
clear.
It
is
a
substantive
right,
not
a
procedural
one,
and
it
enures
to
the
taxpayer
by
virtue
of
the
statute
by
which
it
was
granted.
It
is
a
statutory
right
that
has
no
existence
apart
from
the
statute
that
created
it
and,
as
such,
it
is
subject
to
the
conditions
prescribed
by
it.
Consequently,
it
cannot
be
exercised
unless
the
statutory
conditions
for
its
exercise
have
been
strictly
complied
with.
If,
therefore,
a
taxpayer
has
failed
to
comply
with
such
conditions
the
right
of
appeal
which
was
granted
to
him
subject
to
compliance
with
them
no
longer
exists
and
he
is
left
without
any
right
of
appeal
against
the
assessment.
On
the
argument
before
me
counsel
for
the
Minister
submitted
that
the
statutory
provisions
to
be
considered
in
determining
the
issue
in
the
present
case
were
Sections
53,
54
and
55
of
The
Income
Tax
Act,
Statutes
of
Canada
1948,
as
amended,
fre-
quently,
and
conveniently
but
erroneously,
referred
to
as
The
1948
Income
Tax
Act.
I
am
unable
to
accept
this
submission.
While
an
income
tax
assessment
must
be
made
in
accordance
with
the
law
in
force
for
the
year
for
which
it
was
made,
it
does
not
follow
that
a
taxpayer’s
right
of
appeal
against
it
is
to
be
determined
by
the
law
in
force
in
such
year.
In
my
opinion,
a
taxpayer
is
entitled
to
the
right
of
appeal
against
an
income
tax
assessment
that
is
in
effect
at
the
time
of
the
assessment
to
which
he
may
wish
to
object
and
against
which
he
may
wish
to
appeal,
regardless
of
the
year
for
which
the
assessment
was
made.
He
has
no
need
for
any
right
of
appeal
prior
to
the
date
of
such
assessment.
It
is
always
within
the
competence
of
Parliament
to
determine
what
right
of
appeal,
if
any,
a
taxpayer
should
have
against
an
income
tax
assessment
made
by
the
Minister
and
to
prescribe
the
conditions
which
must
be
complied
with
before
the
right,
if
granted,
may
be
exercised,
and
it
is
not
to
be
assumed,
in
the
absence
of
clear
words
to
the
contrary,
that,
when
Parliament
has
granted
a
right
of
appeal
and
prescribed
the
conditions
for
its
exercise,
its
enactment
is
not
of
general
application.
Consequently,
I
find
that
in
the
present
case
I
should
consider
the
relevant
statutory
provisions
that
were
in
force
when
the
assessment
was
made,
that
is
to
say,
the
statutory
provisions
that
were
in
force
on
March
15,
1956.
Consequently,
the
relevant
statutory
provisions
to
be
considered
are
Sections
58,
59
and
60
of
the
Income
Tax
Act,
R.S.C.
1952,
Chapter
148.
As
a
matter
of
fact,
there
is
no
difference
in
the
present
case,
for
Sections
53,
54
and
55
of
The
Income
Tax
Act
to
which
counsel
for
the
Minister
referred
were
carried
forward
without
change
into
Sections
58.
59
and
60
respectively
of
the
Income
Tax
Act,
but
an
important
matter
of
principle
is
involved.
I
now
set
out
the
relevant
enactments.
Section
58
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
provided
as
follows
:
“58.
(1)
A
taxpayer
who
objects
to
an
assessment
under
this
Part
may,
within
60
days
from
the
day
of
mailing
of
the
notice
of
assessment,
serve
on
the
Minister
a
notice
of
objection
in
duplicate
in
prescribed
form
setting
out
the
reasons
for
the
objection
and
all
relevant
facts.
(2)
A
notice
of
objection
under
this
section
shall
be
served
by
being
sent
by
registered
mail
to
the
Deputy
Minister
of
National
Revenue
for
Taxation
at
Ottawa.
(3)
Upon
receipt
of
the
notice
of
objection,
the
Minister
shall
with
all
due
despatch
reconsider
the
assessment
and
vacate,
confirm
or
vary
the
assessment
or
re-assess
and
he
shall
thereupon
notify
the
taxpayer
of
his
action
by
registered
mail.”
It
is
interesting
to
note
that
while
it
was
provided
by
Section
58
that
a
taxpayer
who
objected
to
his
assessment
had
to
serve
his
notice
of
objection
on
the
Minister
within
60
days
from
the
day
of
mailing
of
the
notice
of
objection
there
was
no
provision
of
any
fixed
period
within
which
the
Minister
had
to
reconsider
the
assessment
other
than
that
upon
receipt
of
the
notice
of
objection
he
should
do
so
with
all
due
despatch.
Section
59
provided
for
an
appeal
to
the
Income
Tax
Appeal
Board
to
have
the
assessment
to
which
objection
had
been
taken
vacated
or
varied
and
prescribed
the
time
within
which
such
appeal
might
be
instituted,
as
follows:
‘
‘59.
(1)
Where
a
taxpayer
has
served
notice
of
objection
to
an
assessment
under
section
58,
he
may
appeal
to
the
Income
Tax
Appeal
Board
constituted
by
Division
I
to
have
the
assessment
vacated
or
varied
after
either
(a)
the
Minister
has
confirmed
the
assessment
or
re-assessed,
or
(b)
180
days
have
elapsed
after
service
of
the
notice
of
objection
and
the
Minister
has
not
notified
the
taxpayer
that
he
has
vacated
or
confirmed
the
assessment
or
re-assessed
;
but
no
appeal
under
this
section
may
be
instituted
after
the
expiration
of
90
days
from
the
day
notice
has
been
mailed
to
the
taxpayer
under
section
58
that
the
Minister
has
confirmed
the
assessment
or
re-assessed.
(2)
Service
of
a
notice
of
appeal
under
this
section
shall
be
served
and
all
other
matters
in
connection
with
an
appeal
under
this
section
shall
be
regulated
by
Division
I.”
Then
section
60
provided
for
an
appeal
to
this
Court
from
the
decision
of
the
Income
Tax
Appeal
Board
and
it
also
provided
for
an
appeal
against
the
assessment
directly
to
this
Court
instead
of
to
the
Income
Tax
Appeal
Board.
It
read
as
follows
:
“60.
(1)
The
Minister
or
the
taxpayer
may,
within
120
days
from
the
day
on
which
the
Registrar
of
the
Income
Tax
Appeal
Board
mails
the
decision
on
an
appeal
under
section
59
to
the
Minister
and
the
taxpayer,
appeal
to
the
Exchequer
Court
of
Canada.
(2)
Where
a
taxpayer
has
served
a
notice
of
objection
to
an
assessment
under
section
58,
he
may,
in
place
of
appealing
to
the
Income
Tax
Appeal
Board
under
section
59,
appeal
to
the
Exchequer
Court
of
Canada
at
a
time
when,
under
section
59,
he
could
have
appealed
to
the
Income
Tax
Appeal
Board.
(3)
All
matters
in
connection
with
an
appeal
under
this
section
shall
be
regulated
by
Division
J.’’
It
was
an
essential
condition
of
the
right
of
appeal
to
the
Income
Tax
Appeal
Board
provided
by
Section
59
and
of
the
right
of
appeal
directly
to
this
Court
provided
by
Section
60
that
the
taxpayer
should
have
served
on
the
Minister
a
notice
of
objection
under
Section
58
within
the
prescribed
period
of
60
days
from
the
day
of
mailing
of
the
notice
of
assessment.
The
facts
established
that
the
appellant
had
complied
with
this
condition.
The
notice
of
assessment
was
mailed
on
March
16,
1956,
and
the
notice
of
objection
was
given
on
May
10,
1956,
and
received
by
the
Minister’s
Department
on
or
about
that
date.
But
it
was
also
an
essential
condition
of
the
right
of
appeal
to
either
the
Income
Tax
Appeal
Board
or
to
this
Court
that
it
should
have
been
instituted
within
90
days
from
the
day
notice
was
mailed
to
the
taxpayer
under
Section
58
that
the
Minister
had
confirmed
the
assessment
or
re-assessed.
The
facts
established
that
the
appellant
had
not
complied
with
this
condition.
The
Minister
notified
the
appellant
on
January
7,
1958,
that
he
had
confirmed
the
assessment
to
which
the
appellant
had
objected
but
the
appellant’s
notice
of
appeal
was
dated
May
26,
1958.
The
last
day
on
which
he
could
have
validly
instituted
an
appeal
to
vacate
or
vary
the
assessment
was
April
7,
1958,
which
was
90
days
from
the
day
notice
had
been
mailed
to
him
that
the
Minister
had
confirmed
the
assessment.
Section
59
declared
specifically
that
after
the
expiration
of
that
period
no
appeal
under
the
section
might
be
instituted.
Consequently,
the
appellant,
after
April
7,
1958,
no
longer
had
any
right
of
appeal
and
his
purported
appeal
to
the
Income
Tax
Appeal
Board,
of
which
he
gave
the
notice,
dated
May
26,
1958,
was
unauthorized
by
law
and
should
have
been
quashed
by
Mr.
Fordham
as
a
nullity.
Indeed,
his
dismissal
of
it
for
want
of
jurisdiction
to
entertain
it
was,
in
effect,
a
quashing
of
it
and
it
was
clearly
right.
That
was
a
complete
disposal
of
the
matter.
Since
the
appellant
allowed
the
period
of
90
days
referred
to
in
Section
59
to
expire
without
instituting
an
appeal
to
the
Income
Tax
Appeal
Board
or
to
this
Court
he
ceased
to
have
any
right
of
appeal
from
the
assessment
and
his
purported
appeal
to
the
Income
Tax
Appeal
Board
was,
as
already
stated,
a
nullity.
Consequently,
he
did
not
have
any
right
to
appeal
to
this
Court.
While
Section
60(1)
provided
for
an
appeal
to
this
Court
within
120
days
from
the
day
on
which
the
Registrar
of
the
Income
Tax
Appeal
Board
mailed
the
decision
of
the
Board
on
an
appeal
under
Section
59
to
the
Minister
and
the
taxpayer,
it
is
clear
that
it
did
not
apply
to
the
facts
in
the
present
case.
The
section
contemplated
as
a
condition
precedent
to
there
being
an
appeal
to
this
Court
that
there
should
have
been
an
appeal
under
Section
59,
that
is
to
say,
an
appeal
that
was
permitted
by
it.
There
was
no
such
appeal
under
Section
59
in
the
present
case.
Section
59
specifically
enacted
that
no
appeal
under
the
section
might
be
instituted
after
the
expiration
of
the
90
days
referred
to
and
it
would
be
absurd
to
interpret
Section
60(1)
as
contemplating
a
right
of
appeal
to
this
Court
from
a
decision
in
an
appeal
that
was
prohibited
from
institution
under
the
section,
such
as
that
attempted
by
the
appellant.
His
purported
appeal
to
the
Income
Tax
Appeal
Board
was,
therefore,
not
‘an
appeal
under
Section
59’’,
within
the
meaning
of
Section
60(1),
and
the
section
has
no
application
to
the
present
case.
It
followed
that
the
appeal
which
the
appellant
sought
to
institute
by
his
notice
of
appeal
of
August
4,
1959,
was
unauthorized
by
law.
I,
therefore,
granted
the
application
for
an
order
quashing
it
and
it
was
quashed
accordingly.