Kempo,
TCJ:—This
is
an
application
by
the
applicant
made
pursuant
to
section
167
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
(the
“Act”)
to
extend
the
time
within
which
an
appeal
may
be
instituted
in
repect
of
his
1978
and
1979
taxation
years.
A
notice
of
reassessment
for
the
said
taxation
years
of
the
applicant
were
each
dated
August
24,
1981.
Notices
of
objection
in
respect
of
these
reassessments
were
dated
November
20,
1981
and
filed.
Extensive
follow-up
ensued
thereafter
between
officials
of
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
and
a
chartered
accountant
experienced
in
tax
matters
and
whose
fees
were
paid
for
by
the
applicant’s
employer
due
to
the
applicant’s
very
limited
and
strained
financial
resources.
The
chartered
accountant
had
been
retained
through
the
applicant’s
employer
to
attempt
to
reach
an
agreement
through
negotiations.
A
notice
of
reassessment
in
respect
of
the
issues
for
the
said
taxation
years
was
dated
August
19,
1982
by
which
a
part
of
the
entitlement
to
the
medical
deductions
claimed
were
allowed
but
these
amounts
did
not
represent
the
total
amounts
claimed
by
the
applicant
taxpayer.
It
was
admittedly
common
ground
that
the
fiscal
matters
involved
in
the
applicant’s
case
are
complex,
involve
a
legal
interpretation
surrounding
the
provisions
of
subparagraph
110(l)(c)(viii.
1)
and
subsection
110(1.1)
of
the
Act
and
that
the
applicant
has
reasonable
grounds
for
appealing.
The
essence
of
the
facts
in
this
application
are
that,
during
the
ninety
days
following
August
18,
1982:
(a)
the
applicant
was
told
by
the
chartered
accountant
that
that
was
as
far
as
he
could
reasonably
go
and
that
because
the
matter
involved
legal
complexities
he
would
not
undertake
the
responsibilities
of
instituting
an
appeal
and
that
a
lawyer
should
be
retained
to
do
a
proper
job;
(b)
the
applicant
thereby
held
the
subjective
opinion
and
belief
that
he
could
not
or
should
not
do
the
appeal
on
his
own;
(c)
the
applicant
nonetheless
was
not
prepared
to
let
the
matter
go
and
therefore
made
inquiries
as
to
the
legal
costs
of
an
appeal
which
he
discovered
could
be
“devastating”
and
entirely
beyond
his
own
resources
and
capabilities;
and
(d)
the
applicant
actively
sought
out
funding
resources
and
financial
support,
including
the
national
and
provincial
bodies
of
the
Institute
for
Mental
Retardation
in
response
to
the
interest
shown
by
that
organization
and
a
cursory
opinion
of
their
counsel
that
the
applicant
may
have
a
good
case.
Tentative
funding,
in
principle,
was
approved
at
a
Board
meeting
of
the
provincial
organization
in
December
of
1982
and
an
amount
was
allocated
for
the
legal
costs
of
this
application
which
was
brought
within
a
reasonable
time
thereafter.
I
am
cognizant
of
the
principles
propounded
in
the
wealth
of
jurisprudence
in
this
area.
I
am
also
cognizant
of
the
fact
that
each
case
is
to
be
decided
on
its
own
facts
and
merits,
having
overall
regard
to
the
legal
principles.
In
the
case
at
bar
it
is
my
opinion
that
the
totality
of
the
applicant’s
circumstances
are
somewhat
exceptional
and
it
is
my
finding
and
decision
that
it
would
be
just
and
equitable
to
make
the
order
applied
for
in
that
the
provisions
of
subparagraphs
(ii)
and
(iii)
of
paragraph
167(5)(c)
of
the
Act
have
admittedly
been
satisfied,
that
the
applicant
was
not
shown
to
have
been
negligent
or
indifferent
in
his
perception
of
the
case
or
remiss
in
his
conduct
in
relation
thereto,
that
the
applicant
would
have
taken
an
appeal
within
the
time
otherwise
limited
by
the
Act
for
so
doing
but
for
his
circumstances
and
therefore
the
provisions
of
subparagraph
(i)
of
paragraph
167(5)(c)
have
also
been
fulfilled.
Accordingly
the
time
within
which
an
appeal
may
be
instituted
with
respect
to
the
1978
and
1979
taxation
years
of
the
applicant
is
hereby
extended
to
the
date
hereof
and
the
notice
of
appeal
received
by
the
Tax
Court
of
Canada
is
hereby
deemed
to
be
a
valid
notice
of
appeal.
Application
granted.
Email this Content