Docket: 2008-711(IT)APP
BETWEEN:
CHANTAL BOURDAGES,
Applicant,
and
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
Respondent.
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH
TRANSLATION]
____________________________________________________________________
Application
for an order extending time heard on common evidence with the application an
order extending time made by Jean-Marie Perreault (2008-720(IT)APP) on
July 22 and November 4, 2008, at Percé, Quebec.
Before: The Honourable Justice Paul Bédard
Appearances:
|
For the Applicant:
|
The Applicant herself
|
|
Counsel for the Respondent:
|
Vlad Zolia
|
____________________________________________________________________
ORDER
The application for an order extending the
time within which an appeal may be instituted under the Income Tax Act
in respect of the 2003 taxation year is allowed, in accordance with the
attached Reasons for Judgment.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 24th day of November 2008.
“Paul Bédard”
Translation
certified true
on this 12th day
of January 2009.
Bella
Lewkowicz, Translator
Docket: 2008-720(IT)APP
BETWEEN:
JEAN-MARIE PERREAULT,
Applicant,
and
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
Respondent.
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH
TRANSLATION]
____________________________________________________________________
Application for an order extending time
heard on common evidence with the application for an order extending time made
by Chantal Bourdages (2008-711(IT)APP) on July 22 and November 4, 2008, at
Percé, Quebec.
Before: The Honourable Justice Paul Bédard
Appearances:
|
For the
Applicant:
|
The Applicant himself
|
|
Counsel for the Respondent:
|
Vlad Zolia
|
____________________________________________________________________
ORDER
The application for an order
extending the time within which an appeal may be instituted under the Income
Tax Act in respect of the 2003 taxation year is allowed, in accordance with
the attached Reasons for Judgment.
Signed at Ottawa,
Canada, this 24th day of November 2008.
“Paul Bédard”
Translation
certified true
on this 12th day
of January 2009.
Bella
Lewkowicz, Translator
Citation: 2008 TCC 623
Date: 20081124
Dockets: 2008-711(IT)APP
2008-720(IT)APP
BETWEEN:
CHANTAL BOURDAGES,
JEAN-MARIE PERREAULT,
Applicants,
and
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
Respondent.
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
REASONS FOR ORDER
Bédard J.
[1]
These are two
applications for an order extending the time within which an appeal may be
instituted with the Court from reassessments made by the Minister of National
Revenue (“Minister”) under the Income Tax Act (“Act”) against Chantal
Bourdages and Jean-Marie Perrault (“Applicants”) for the 2003 taxation year.
Both applications were heard on common evidence.
Context
[2]
On July 31, 2006, the
Minister sent each Applicant a Notice of Reassessment for the 2003 taxation
year.
[3]
On or around October
27, 2006, the Applicants served on the Minister their objection to the
reassessments made.
[4]
On January 23, 2007,
the Minister confirmed the reassessments made in regard to the Applicants. A
letter dated January 23, 2007, was sent, by regular mail (to 221, Route 132,
Bonaventure, Quebec G0C 1E0), to each Applicant informing them of the
confirmation. I would like to draw attention to the fact that neither one of
these letters was returned to the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency
(“Agency”).
[5]
In mid-May 2007, the
Minister sent each Applicant, at the address as written in paragraph 4, a
statement of account with respect to the reassessments made in their regard.
Once the statements of account were received, the Applicants contacted their
tax specialist, Gérard Parent, to try and gain an understanding of what was
occurring.
[6]
On May 18, 2007, Mr.
Parent called Yanik Vaugeois, the appeals officer responsible for making the
reassessments, to ask him why the Minister had sent statements of account to
his clients when the reassessments had not been confirmed. Mr. Parent
explained that Mr. Vaugeois informed him that on January 23, 2007, the Minister
had informed each of his clients (by regular mail to the address as written in
paragraph 4) of the confirmation of the reassessments made in their regard.
Mr. Parent testified that he then told Mr. Vaugeois that neither he nor his
clients had received the Notices of Confirmation. Mr. Parent added that he
asked Mr. Vaugeois to send him the Notices of Confirmation. Still on May 18,
2007, Mr. Parent informed his clients of his action and that the Minister had
confirmed the reassessments January 23, 2007.
[7]
On June 26, 2007, the
Applicants sent Mr. Parent the new statements of account (with regard to the
reassessments) that they had just received.
[8]
On July 5, 2007, Mr.
Parent called Alexandre Berthemeau, an Agency employee with the “Services for
Individuals”. Mr. Parent explained that neither he nor his clients had yet
received the Notices of Confirmation and he asked Mr. Berthemeau to send him
these notices.
[9]
On or around July 19,
2007, the Applicants phoned Jacynthe Papineau, a customer service agent at the
Quebec Regional Office of the Agency in Montréal, in order to obtain the
Notices of Confirmation.
[10]
On July 19, 2007, Ms.
Papineau sent both Applicants a letter (by regular mail to the address as
written in paragraph 4) to which was attached a copy of the letter dated
January 23, 2007, advising of the confirmation of the reassessment. The
Applicants testified never having received any of these letters.
[11]
At the beginning of
October 2007, Mr. Parent again spoke with an Agency customer service agent to
obtain the Notices of Confirmation.
[12]
On February 22, 2008,
each of the Applicants filed with the Court an application for an order
extending the time within which an appeal may be instituted from the
reassessment, together with a Notice of Appeal.
Position of the Applicants
[13]
The Applicants
submitted that
1)
it was impossible to
submit an application for an order extending the time under section 169 of the
Act because they never received the Notices of Confirmation, despite their
efforts and Mr. Parent’s repeated efforts to obtain them;
2)
they still intend to
file an appeal;
3)
the non-receipt of the Notices
of Confirmation explains why they submitted their application for an order
extending the time several months after finding out that the Minister had
confirmed the reassessments. I would point out that, on May 18, 2007, Mr.
Parent verbally informed the Applicants that the Minister had confirmed the
reassessments and that the applications for an order extending the time were
submitted February 22, 2008, which is approximately two months before the
expiration of the one-year period provided for in applications pursuant to
paragraph 167(5)(a) of the Act. The Applicants explained that they
waited until February 22, 2008 to submit their extension applications because
Mr. Parent had told them he needed to determine the Minister’s reasons (for
confirming the reassessments), which normally appear in the Notice of
Confirmation, so that he could properly prepare for the Notice of Appeal that
must be submitted with the extension application. The Applicants explained
that, on February 22, 2008, they made the decision to submit their extension
applications, even though they did not know the Minister’s reasons for
confirming the reassessments, because they concluded that any new initiative to
obtain the Notices of Confirmation would be as ineffective as previous initiatives
and they did not want to risk missing the deadline established pursuant to
paragraph 167(5)(a) of the Act.
Analysis and conclusion
[14]
I would like to
emphasize that the Applicants and Mr. Parent seemed to me to be straightforward
people, who were sincere and acting in good faith. The Applicants convinced me
that on January 22, 2008, they had not received their Notices of Confirmation,
even though they did not succeed in explaining why they had received their
statements of account related to the reassessments. Indeed, only the fact that
the Applicants never received their Notices of Confirmation explains their
repeated efforts and those of Mr. Parent in order to get them.
[15]
The Applicants
convinced me that they always intended to institute an appeal from
reassessments and that they were unable to do so in the time allotted under
section 167 of the Act because they only learned on May 18, 2007, that the
Minister had confirmed the reassessments on January 22, 2007.
[16]
The only thing left to
determine in the present case is if the Applicants submitted their application
for an order extending the time as soon as the circumstances allowed. Counsel
for the Respondent maintains that the Applicants should have submitted their
application as soon as they found out that reassessments were confirmed. In my
opinion, the Applicants had the right to wait for their Notices of Confirmation
in order to find out the reasons given in these notices to confirm the
reassessments, in order to be able to properly prepare the Notices of Appeal
that must accompany the application. We cannot criticize the Applicants for
waiting until the last minute under these circumstances (two months before the
expiration of the deadline provided for in paragraph 167(5)(a) of the
Act) to submit their application.
[17]
In my opinion, the
Applicants respected all the conditions in subsection 167(5) of the Act and
their applications for an order extending the time within which they may
institute an appeal from reassessments are allowed.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 24th day of
November 2008.
Translation
certified true
on this 12th day
of January 2009.
Bella
Lewkowicz, Translator
Email this Content