Gibson
J.:
These
reasons
arise
out
of
an
application
for
judicial
review
of
a
decision
on
behalf
of
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
rejecting
a
request
for
review
of
a
decision
of
the
“Fairness
Committee”
in
Revenue
Canada
which
in
turn
rejected
an
application
of
the
applicant
for
rescission
of
arrears
of
interest
and
penalty
in
respect
of
the
1986
taxation
year
of
the
applicant,
pursuant
to
“Fairness
Legislation”.
The
decision
under
review
is
dated
the
5th
of
March,
1997.
As
counsel
for
the
applicant
submitted
in
argument
before
me,
our
income
tax
system
is
a
self-assessing
system
that
places
the
initial
onus
for
estimation
of
tax
payable
on
the
taxpayer.
The
applicant,
through
its
accountant,
engaged
in
that
process,
but
on
the
face
of
the
affidavit
filed
on
behalf
of
the
applicant,
the
principal
of
the
applicant
chose
to
rely
fully
on
his
accountant
and
simply
signed
what
was
put
in
front
of
him.
When,
some
years
later,
the
accountant
for
the
applicant
provided
it
with
the
notice
of
reassessment,
it
reflected
exactly
the
amended
return
that
the
applicant
had
submitted,
signed
by
the
principal
of
the
applicant.
The
applicant,
through
its
principal,
chose
not
to
know
or
to
understand
the
basis
for
the
reassessment.
There
is
no
evidence
whatsoever
before
me
that
the
applicant’s
principal,
or
anyone
else
for
that
matter,
checked
the
applicant’s
records
or
called
the
applicant’s
accountant
and
asked,
where
did
this
reassessment
come
from
and
how
did
Revenue
Canada
get
this
number?
Counsel
for
the
applicant
spoke
of
a
balancing
of
interests
and
of
responsibilities.
The
initial
responsibility
lies
with
the
taxpayer.
This
taxpayer
chose
not
to
assume
that
responsibility.
It
attempted
to
shift
the
burden
onto
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
without
fulfilling
its
own
responsibility.
Having
attempted
to
do
so,
it
is
unfortunate
that
the
applicant
did
not
receive
a
prompt
reply
to
its
inquiry.
On
the
other
hand,
in
all
of
the
circumstances,
I
cannot
conclude
that
Revenue
Canada’s
failure
to
respond
promptly
to
the
applicant’s
inquiry
invokes
the
fairness
doctrine
in
favour
of
the
applicant
where
the
answer
to
the
inquiry
appeared
on
the
face
of
documents
signed
on
behalf
of
the
applicant
by
its
principal.
The
reply
was
in
the
applicant’s
own
hands.
The
kind
of
information
that
it
was
requesting
does
not
fall
within
paragraph
6
of
the
“Fairness”
guidelines.
It
is
not
information,
the
lack
of
which
precluded
the
applicant
from
paying
the
assessment
and
at
the
same
time
asking
why,
or
asking
its
accountant
why.
That
option
was
open
to
the
applicant.
It
chose
not
to
exercise
the
option
and
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
cannot
be
held
responsible
for
that
choice
by
the
applicant
under
any
interpretation
of
the
“Fairness”
guidelines.
I
agree
with
counsel
for
the
applicant
that
the
letters
of
explanation
eventually
provided
in
response
to
the
applicant’s
request
for
a
fairness
review
could
have
been
more
fulsome
and
could
have
provided
the
kind
of
explanation
that
counsel
for
the
respondents
provided
on
the
hearing
of
this
matter.
If
counsel
for
respondents,
on
sober
second
thought,
had
the
opportunity
to
write
the
decision
letters
that
are
often
the
subject
of
judicial
review,
each
of
them
would
be,
I
suppose,
as
perfect
as
it
would
be
possible
to
make
them.
But
I
can
find
no
grounds
on
the
basis
of
the
letters
provided
on
behalf
of
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
to
conclude
that
there
was
a
fettering
of
discretion.
In
the
circumstances,
this
application
for
judicial
review
will
be
dismissed.
There
will
be
no
order
as
to
costs.
Application
dismissed.
Email this Content