Thomas – Federal Court allows the provision of new evidence on an application for judicial review

The taxpayer’s request for waiver of interest and penalties regarding her late filing of T1135 forms, based on the medical situation of her and her husband, was denied (at two levels) on the grounds that such situation did not prevent her from filing those forms on time.

O’Reilly J found that it was appropriate for him to consider new evidence provided by the taxpayer, namely, that her parallel request for relief regarding late GST filings had been accepted by CRA, and correspondence showing that “she acted fairly promptly” in seeking to address her late filings, notwithstanding the findings of the CRA decision makers to the contrary. He applied the finding in Association of Universities (2012 FCA 22) that new evidence was admissible “when the evidence shows that there was an absence of evidence before the decision-maker on a particular point.”

O’Reilly J found that the departure from the reverse decision on the GST side “was the result of faulty inferences from the evidence that rendered the conclusion unreasonable”, and allowed the request for judicial review.

Neal Armstrong. Summary of Thomas v. Canada (Attorney General), 2023 FC 1110 under s. 220(3.1).