Mandic – Tax Court of Canada orders the implementation of a settlement agreement notwithstanding the taxpayer’s death before the final version could be signed

Mandic reached a form of agreement with the Crown regarding a reassessment of his 2015 taxation year, and the parties signed a consent to judgment stating that the reassessment would be vacated. However, on review by a Tax Court judge, that judge directed that the agreement refer instead to referring the reassessment back to the Minister for reconsideration (not vacating it). Mandic died before the parties signed an amended consent to judgment with the corrected wording. With such death and the lack of an executor for Mandic’s estate, the Crown now refused to implement the settlement.

After referring to a degree of discretion accorded to him by the General Procedure rules, MacPhee J stated (at para. 10):

[P]ursuant to subparagraph 171(1)(b)(iii) this Court should allow the appeal by referring the assessment back to the Minister for reconsideration and reassessment in accordance with the settlement agreement, with the amendment requested by the Court.

Neal Armstrong. Summaries of Mandic Estate v. The King, 2024 TCC 91 under s. 171(1)(b)(iii) and Tax Court General Procedure Rules, s. 126(4)(e).