Blankson v. The Queen, docket 2000-5010-IT-I (Informal Procedure)

Date: 20010309

Docket: 2000-5010-IT-I

BETWEEN:

JAMES EDMUND BLANKSON,

Appellant,

and

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,

Respondent.

Reasons for order

Bell, J.T.C.C.

[1]            The Respondent brought a motion for an order dismissing the Appellant's Notice of Appeal. In the alternative, it sought an order extending the time for the Respondent to file a Reply to the Notice of Appeal.

[2]            One Vera Compton, employed as a litigation officer in the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency ("Agency") in Toronto stated in an affidavit that she had examined the records relating to the Appellant and that after "a careful examination and search of ... records" she was unable to find that any Notice of Objection to the reassessment for the 1990 taxation year was received within the time limit allowed therefor.

[3]            Respondent's counsel sought an order to the effect that the purported Notice of Appeal filed by the Appellant should be quashed on the basis that no Notice of Objection had been filed as required by section 165 of the Income Tax Act ("Act") and that pursuant to section 169 of the Act no appeal could, therefore, be launched.

[4]            The Appellant referred to a letter received from the Agency dated October 3, 2000 and stating, inter alia:

... we have reviewed your return and completed a reassessment as follows:

[5]            The Appellant mailed a letter to the Agency on October 15, 2000 respecting the Agency's October 3 letter. In that letter, the Appellant set forth a number of circumstances as he perceived them, the letter reading, in part:

While I hope this explanation may be satisfactory to you and cause you to reverse your obviously misinformed decision, I wish to state for the record that I would not hesitate to seek relief in the law courts should you not review your decision.

He telephoned the Agency a week after mailing that letter and was advised that it had been received.

[6]            The aforesaid affidavit sets forth that the Notice of Reassessment for the Appellant's 1999 taxation year was mailed to the Appellant on October 10, 2000. There can be little doubt about that Notice of Reassessment being the result of the reassessment referred to in the October 3, 2000 letter. Respondent's counsel had never seen the October 3, 2000 letter and agreed with the Court's suggestion that it be regarded as a Notice of Objection to the 1999 taxation year reassessment. Accordingly, a Notice of Objection was filed in accordance with the provisions of the Act and a Notice of Appeal, dated December 11, 2000 filed by the Appellant is valid.

[7]            Accordingly, an Order will be made to the foregoing effect and extending the time within which the Respondent may file a Reply to the Notice of Appeal.

Signed at Ottawa, Canada this 9^th day of March, 2001.

"R.D. Bell"

J.T.C.C.