Taylor,
TCJ:—This
is
an
application
heard
in
Toronto,
Ontario,
on
December
5,
1983
to
extend
the
time
within
which
to
file
a
notice
of
objection
for
the
year
1981.
The
application,
dated
April
13,
1983,
and
attached
notice
of
objection
dated
April
8,
1983,
read
as
follows:
APPLICATION
The
taxpayer
did
not
file
an
objection
within
the
time
period
referred
to
in
section
167
to
the
1981
Notice
of
Assessment
because
she
had
filed
a
return
by
April
30,
1983
and
did
not
realize
that
there
would
be
a
late
filing
penalty.
Through
this
oversight
she
did
not
review
the
Notice
of
Assessment
in
detail
and
it
was
not
until
she
reviewed
her
account
with
a
representative
of
the
Toronto
district
office,
in
January
of
1983,
that
the
penalty
was
made
known
to
her.
NOTICE
OF
OBJECTION
STATEMENT
OF
FACTS
AND
REASONS
Due
to
a
number
of
unforeseen
difficulties,
I
was
unable
to
file
my
completed
1981
income
tax
return
by
April
30,
1982.
I
did
file
a
return
in
blank
on
April
23,
1982
and
subsequently
filed
the
final
return
in
June
of
1982.
I
was
charged
a
late
filing
penalty
of
$277.52
and
when
I
discussed
this
with
the
Toronto
district
office
on
April
7,
1983
they
said
I
should
write
to
you
to
see
if
this
charge
could
be
reversed.
The
position
of
the
respondent
was
detailed
in
the
reasons
for
opposing
the
application
for
extension
of
time
which
reads
as
follows:
1.
The
applicant
was
assessed
by
the
respondent
on
August
3,
1982.
2.
The
90th
day
following
August
3,
1982
was
November
1,
1982.
3.
This
application
for
an
order
to
extend
the
time
for
serving
a
notice
of
objection
to
the
assessment
was
brought
on
or
about
the
14th
day
of
April,
1983.
4.
The
Respondent
respectfully
submits
that
the
circumstances
are
not
such
that
could
satisfy
this
Court
that
an
objection
would
have
been
made
within
the
time
limited
by
the
Act,
as
required
by
subparagraph
167(5)(c)(i).
5.
It
is
further
respectfully
submitted
that
in
any
event
this
application
was
not
brought
as
soon
as
circumstances
permitted
it
to
be
brought,
as
required
by
subparagraph
167(5)(c)(ii).
The
applicant
readily
agreed
that
she
had
not
filed
a
notice
of
objection
within
the
original
90-day
period
provided
under
the
Act,
because
she
had
not
recognized
the
reason
for
the
assessment
was
for
late
filing,
she
merely
concluded
that
she
had
made
some
errors
and
let
it
go
at
that,
until
about
April
1983,
when
she
noted
the
basis
for
the
assessment.
The
reason
for
which
she
wishes
to
first
object
to,
and
then,
appeal
the
assessment,
is
because
she
had
filed
the
blank
return
before
April
30,
1982,
and
therefore,
sees
no
basis
for
the
“late
filing”
penalty.
It
should
first
be
noted
that
in
view
of
the
fact
that
the
Minister
has
assessed
a
late
filing
penalty,
it
can
be
assumed
that
the
Minister
does
not
consider
the
blank
return
as
fulfilling
the
filing
conditions
under
the
Act.
Counsel
for
the
Minister,
however,
did
not
propose
that
as
the
basis
for
opposing
the
application
and,
therefore,
did
not
argue
that
there
were
no
“reasonable
grounds
for
object-
ing
to
or
appealing
from
the
assessment”
(subparagraph
167(5)(c)(iii),
SC
1970-
71-72,
c
63,
as
amended).
The
Court
makes
no
further
comment
on
that
aspect
of
the
matter,
but
the
determination
of
this
issue
on
other
grounds
should
not
be
taken
to
indicate
that
the
Court
either
agrees
or
disagrees
with
the
Minister’s
position
or
perspective
on
that
point.
In
dealing
with
the
contention
of
the
applicant,
I
can
only
reach
the
conclusion
that
during
the
90-day
period
provided
for
filing
the
notice
of
objection,
the
applicant
had
no
objection.
I
would
make
reference
to
the
recent
case
of
Richmond
Country
Club
v
MNR,
[1984]
CTC
2108,
in
which
that
question
was
addressed.
It
cannot
be
said
there
was
during
that
90-day
period
even
the
intention
to
object
which
was
somehow
frustrated
—
there
was
no
such
intention.
The
application
is
dismissed.
Application
dismissed.
Email this Content