[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
2001-3949(IT)APP
BETWEEN:
LYNN TREMBLAY,
Applicant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
Application heard on common evidence with the
application of Michel Savard
(2001-3947(IT)APP), on May 17, 2002, at Chicoutimi,
Quebec, by
the Honourable Judge François Angers
Appearances
Agent for the
Applicant:
Michel Savard
Counsel for the
Respondent:
Anne-Marie Boutin
ORDER
Upon
application for an Order extending the time within which an
appeal from the assessment made under the Income Tax Act
(the "Act"), notice of which is dated
October 28, 1997, and which assessment was confirmed on
April 29, 1998, may be instituted;
And
whereas the instant appeals were filed after the expiry of the
time limit of one year provided for by the Act;
The
Court does not have discretion to extend the time. The
applications are therefore dismissed in accordance with the
attached Reasons for Order.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 21st day of June 2002.
J.T.C.C.
Translation certified true
on this 8th day of September 2003.
Sophie Debbané, Revisor
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
2001-3947(IT)APP
BETWEEN:
MICHEL SAVARD,
Applicant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
Application heard on common evidence with the
application of Lynn Tremblay
(2001-3949(IT)APP), on May 17, 2002, at Chicoutimi,
Quebec, by
the Honourable Judge François Angers
Appearances
For the
Applicant:
The Applicant himself
Counsel for the
Respondent:
Anne-Marie Boutin
ORDER
Upon
application for an Order extending the time within which an
appeal from the assessment made under the Income Tax Act
(the "Act"), notice of which is dated
October 28, 1997, and which assessment was confirmed on
April 29, 1998, may be instituted;
And
whereas the instant appeals were filed after the expiry of the
time limit of one year provided for by the Act;
The
Court does not have discretion to extend the time. The
applications are therefore dismissed in accordance with the
attached Reasons for Order.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 21st day of June 2002.
J.T.C.C.
Translation certified true
on this 8th day of September 2003.
Sophie Debbané, Revisor
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
Date: 20020621
Docket: 2001-3947(IT)APP
2001-3949(IT)APP
BETWEEN:
MICHEL SAVARD,
LYNN TREMBLAY,
Applicants,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR ORDER
Angers, J.T.C.C.
[1] The two applications were heard on
common evidence at Chicoutimi, Quebec, and were filed under
section 167 of the Income Tax Act (the
"Act"). The applicants asked the Court to grant
their applications for an extension of time to institute appeals
from the assessments dated October 28, 1997, and confirmed
on April 29, 1998. The applications are dated
October 31, 2001.
[2] In a document filed in evidence by
the respondent, the applicant Michel Savard admitted that,
after serving their notice of objection, he and the applicant
Lynn Tremblay received, by registered mail dated
April 29, 1998, a notice of confirmation by the Minister of
National Revenue (the "Minister") of an assessment made
on October 28, 1997. They moreover filed in evidence, as
Exhibit A-4, the objections they had sent to the chief
of appeals concerning those assessments. In that same notice of
confirmation, the applicants were informed that, if they
disagreed with the confirmation, they could institute an appeal
to this Court, which they in fact did on July 28, 1998.
[3] After filing their notice of
appeal with the Registry officer, the applicants were informed
that they had to comply with certain requirements in order that
their appeals be validated. On February 23, 1999, they were
informed by the Registry officer that their appeal file was not
open, that the documents had been placed in the general
correspondence and that no action would be taken. The applicants
did not take any further action with respect to that
correspondence or to their appeals. The instant applications to
extend the time for appeal were filed on October 31,
2001.
[4] The applicants' main argument
is that they never received official assessments from the
Minister. The applicants claim that, in the subsequent taxation
years, the Department of Revenue did not claim the amounts
purportedly assessed and that, accordingly, they were never
officially assessed. The applicants filed in evidence a series of
documents, including certain letters exchanged between the
Department and the applicants on this issue. Although there seems
to have been some confusion concerning the documentation filed on
this issue, it does not appear to have misled the applicants
because, as Michel Savard admitted, he received the notice
of confirmation from the Minister dated April 29, 1998,
which refers to an assessment of October 28, 1997. That
notice of confirmation was made in response to their objection,
and they subsequently instituted an appeal to this Court, without
however complying with the rules of procedure, and thereby
rendered their appeals null and void. Their conduct leads me to
conclude that they received official assessments, that they
objected to them, that the assessments were subsequently
confirmed and that the applicants instituted appeals after the
prescribed time had expired. They are now asking this Court to
extend the time to institute new appeals.
[5] Paragraph 167(5)(a) of
the Act reads as follows:
167(5) When order to be made. No order shall be
made under this section unless
(a) the application is made within one
year after the expiration of the time limited by section 169 for
appealing; and
. . .
Section 169 of the Act provides:
SECTION 169: Appeal.
(1) Where a taxpayer has served notice of objection to an
assessment under section 165, the taxpayer may appeal to the Tax
Court of Canada to have the assessment vacated or varied after
either
(a) the Minister has confirmed the assessment or
reassessed, or
(b) 90 days have elapsed after service of the
notice of objection and the Minister has not notified the
taxpayer that the Minister has vacated or confirmed the
assessment or reassessed,
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 165 that the Minister has confirmed the
assessment or reassessed.
[6] In the instant case, the notice of
assessment is dated October 28, 1997, and its confirmation
dated April 29, 1998. The applications are dated
October 31, 2001. The applications were thus filed after the
period of one year provided for by the Act had
expired. In a situation such as this, the Court has no discretion
to extend the time (see Lamothe v. Canada, [2002]
T.C.J. No. 95; and Carlson v. Canada, [2002]
F.C.J. No. 573). It is therefore impossible for me to grant
the applications, and they are consequently dismissed.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 21st day of June 2002.
J.T.C.C.
Translation certified true
on this 8th day of September 2003.
Sophie Debbané, Revisor
Email this Content