Sarchuk
T
.
C.J.:
This
is
an
application
by
Alfred
Skowron
(the
Applicant)
for
an
Order
extending
the
time
within
which
he
may
file
a
Notice
of
Appeal
in
respect
of
the
1991,
1992,
1993
and
1994
taxation
years
with
the
Tax
Court
of
Canada.
Since
1977,
the
Applicant
has
operated
his
business,
Foresight
Enterprises,
which
buys
and
sells
various
goods.
Foresight,
and
as
a
result
the
Applicant,
suffered
losses
in
respect
of
the
1989
and
1990
taxation
years,
respectively.
For
the
1991,
1993
and
1994
taxation
years,
the
Applicant
reported
a
profit
from
Foresight
and
carried
forward
the
losses
claimed
in
the
1989
taxation
year.
For
the
1992
taxation
year,
the
Applicant
reported
a
business
loss
from
the
operation
of
Foresight.
On
December
4,
1995,
the
Minister
reassessed
the
Applicant
in
respect
of
his
1993
and
1994
taxation
years,
accepting
his
net
business
income
as
filed,
but
disallowing
the
loss
carried
forward
on
the
basis
that
the
loss
had
not
been
established.
On
May
9,
1996,
the
Minister
reassessed
the
Applicant
in
respect
of
his
1991
taxation
year
on
the
same
basis.
On
that
same
date,
the
Minister
disallowed
the
business
loss
claimed
for
the
1992
taxation
year
on
the
grounds
that
the
Applicant’s
financial
records
were
insufficient
to
establish
the
amount
of
the
loss
claimed.
The
Applicant
through
his
accountant
duly
filed
notices
of
objection
to
the
reassessments.
On
October
22,
1997,
the
reassessments
were
confirmed
by
the
Minister.
The
90-day
period
for
the
filing
of
Notices
of
Appeal
expired
on
January
20,
1998.
Upon
receiving
the
confirmation,
the
Applicant
discussed
the
matter
with
his
accountant,
Charles
Weppler,
and
the
possibility
of
filing
an
appeal.
The
accountant
arranged
a
meeting
with
counsel,
Mr.
Frank
Lavitt,
of
the
firm
Aikins,
MacAulay
&
Thorvaldson.
The
Applicant
met
with
Weppler
and
Lavitt
on
three
occasions,
the
final
meeting
being
on
January
11,
1998.
An
appeal
was
discussed
and
the
Applicant
was
advised
that
a
retainer
in
the
amount
of
$5,000
would
be
required
in
order
to
engage
the
services
of
a
solicitor
for
the
appeal.
It
was
his
testimony
that
at
the
time
of
the
meeting
and
for
several
months
thereafter,
he
was
unable
to
commence
an
appeal
because
his
financial
circumstances
precluded
the
payment
of
any
retainer
in
virtually
any
amount.
His
testimony
was
that
his
lines
of
credit
at
the
lending
institutions
with
whom
he
had
dealt
for
many
years
had
been
used
to
their
limit
and
that
he
was
in
no
position
to
obtain
funds
from
any
other
source.
In
or
about
July
1998,
his
wife
was
able
to
borrow
funds
in
an
amount
sufficient
to
assist
him
in
commencing
these
proceedings.
The
requisite
application
for
an
extension
of
time
and
the
supporting
affidavit
were
dated
and
filed
with
the
Court
on
July
31,
1998.
The
Minister’s
position
is
essentially
that
the
Applicant
has
not
demonstrated
that
within
the
time
otherwise
limited
by
the
Act
for
serving
such
an
appeal,
he
was
unable
to
act
or
instruct
another
to
act
in
his
name
and
furthermore,
that
he
has
not
demonstrated
that
he
had
a
bona
fide
intention
to
appeal,
both
as
required
by
subparagraph
167(5)(i)
of
the
Act.
The
testimony
of
the
Applicant
has
satisfied
me
that
throughout
the
period
of
the
time
otherwise
limited
by
the
Act
for
serving
such
an
appeal,
he
had
a
bona
fide
intention
to
appeal.
I
further
accept
his
testimony
regarding
the
financial
difficulties
he
had
encountered
and
his
continuing
efforts
to
obtain
sufficient
funds
to
provide
Counsel
with
his
retainer.
While
it
might
be
argued
that
he
ought
to
have
filed
personally,
I
do
not
view
his
failure
to
do
so
given
the
complex
nature
of
the
issues
to
be
determined
sufficient
to
deprive
him
the
right
of
having
his
appeal
heard
and
determined
by
the
Court.
Last,
I
am
satisfied
that
the
application
was
made
as
soon
as
circumstances
permitted.
Accordingly,
the
time
within
which
an
appeal
may
be
instituted
with
respect
to
the
1991,
1992,
1993
and
1994
taxation
years
is
extended
to
the
date
of
herein
and
the
appeal
filed
August
17,
1998
is
deemed
to
be
a
valid
appeal.
Application
granted.