Bell
T.C.J.:
In
this
unusual
case,
the
Appellant
devotes
his
entire
Notice
of
Appeal
to
the
fact
that
he
did
not
receive
the
Notice
of
Reassessment
dated
August
6,
1991
respecting
his
1987
year.
He
stated
that
he
had
received
a
letter
from
the
Tax
Avoidance
Section
of
the
Calgary
District
Office
of
the
Department
of
National
Revenue
(“Department”)
dated
July
18,
1991
advising
of
a
pending
reassessment
for
his
1987
taxation
year.
He
said
that
he
phoned
the
author
of
that
letter
on
November
1,
1991
to
enquire
about
the
reassessment.
He
was
advised,
during
that
conversation,
that
a
Notice
of
Reasssessment
was
mailed
on
August
6,
1991
and
that
the
90
day
period
for
filing
a
Notice
of
Objection
was
about
to
expire.
He
filed
a
Notice
of
Objection
and
continued
with
the
appeal
procedure.
The
evidence
indicated
that
a
Notice
of
Reassessment
of
the
Appellant’s
1987
taxation
year
was
dated
August
6,
1991.
The
Appellant
had
asked
the
Department
for
a
copy
of
the
Notice
of
Reassessment
and
was
told
that
the
Department
could
not
provide
a
copy.
He
did
not
receive
a
copy
of
the
original
Notice
of
Reassessment
until
the
day
of
the
hearing
of
his
appeal.
The
evidence
also
indicated
that
counsel
for
the
Respondent
found
the
Notice
of
Reassessment
on
the
Department’s
Gowland
file
stapled
to
an
envelope
bearing
the
heading
“Revenue
Canada
Taxation”
and
bearing
a
postal
stamp
indicating
the
document
was
mailed
on
August
8,
1991.
The
window
envelope
bore
a
stamp
mark
evidently
made
by
the
post
office.
This
stamp
mark,
headed
“RETURN
TO
SENDER”,
was
mostly
over
the
window
and
no
imprint
of
that
portion
of
the
stamp
appears
on
the
window
portion
of
the
envelope.
It
is
not
necessary
to
examine
the
sections
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
(“Act”)
and
the
authorities
respecting
the
mailing
of
documents
such
as
this
Notice
of
Reassessment
because
the
appeal
can
be
disposed
of
for
another
reason.
However,
it
must
be
recorded
that
the
Department
obviously
acted
in
a
sloppy
and
uncaring
fashion,
not
having
examined
its
Gowland
file
carefully
enough
to
discover
the
Notice
of
Reassessment
having
been
returned
and
languishing
on
that
file.
The
preponderance
of
evidence
leads
me
to
the
conclusion
that
it
was
mailed
to
the
Appellant
because
the
name
which
would
have
been
displayed
in
the
window
of
the
envelope
was
followed
by
the
address
where
the
Appellant
used
to
live,
which
address
was
given
to
the
Department
by
him.
In
any
event,
a
Notice
of
Appeal
was
filed
in
timely
fashion.
It
in
no
way
deals
with
the
matters
contained
in
the
Notice
of
Reassessment,
whatever
those
matters
may
be.
It
is
a
typical
Notice
of
Reassessment
which
is
virtually
incomprehensible
without
an
explanation
of
what
it
purports
to
achieve.
It
is
not
sufficient
for
the
Department
to
say
that
a
taxpayer
is
aware
of
the
details
of
a
change.
These
should
be
clearly
stated
in
the
Notice
of
Reassessment
or
in
a
document
attached
to
or
enclosed
with
it.
A
Notice
of
Appeal
having
been
filed
and
no
evidence
having
been
given
and
no
argument
having
been
made
with
respect
to
the
changes
in
the
Notice
of
Reassessment,
the
Appellant
has
failed
to
discharge
the
onus
upon
him
to
demolish
the
assessment.
Accordingly,
the
appeal
is
dismissed.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content