Jerome A.C.J.:
1 The applicant seeks judicial review of a an unfavourable decision by the respondent's Fairness Committee. When I first heard submissions in this matter, I suggested that the parties await my decision in a similar, but unrelated matter Barron v. Minister of National Revenue (1996), 110 F.T.R. 315 (Fed. T.D.). My judgment in the Barron matter was filed March 29, 1996. The appeal by the Minister to the Federal Court of Appeal was heard Tuesday, February 4, 1997 [reported(1997), 209 N.R. 392 (Fed. C.A.)] and decided from the Bench the same date.
2 That judgment confirms the very limited scope of this kind of proceeding. It is not a review of a taxpayer's liability for tax, but is confined strictly to a review of the deliberations of the Fairness Committee which is established pursuant to section 220(3.1). The purpose of subsection 220(3.1) is to allow Revenue Canada, Taxation to administer the tax system more fairly, and to allow for common sense in dealing with taxpayers who, because of personal misfortune or circumstances beyond their control, are unable to meet deadlines or comply with rules under the tax system. In this case, the Fairness Committee considered all the relevant factors and granted the taxpayer some relief, but not all the relief he was seeking.
3 There is therefore no evidence of failure by the Fairness Committee to observe the standard of fairness required of it especially given the very wide discretion of the Minister to cancel interest.
4 Accordingly, the application for judicial review must be dismissed.
Email this Content