Tremblay,
T.C.J.:—
This
application
for
extension
of
time
was
heard
on
August
23,
1985
in
the
city
of
Toronto,
Ontario.
1.
The
Point
at
Issue
This
issue
is
whether
the
applicant
is
correct
in
requesting
an
order
extending
the
time
within
which
a
notice
of
objection
may
be
served.
The
applicant
contends
he
made
an
error
in
instituting
an
appeal
concerning
the
assessment
of
the
year
1982
rather
than
1983
and
then
he
had
to
file
a
notice
of
objection
for
1982.
2.
The
Burden
of
Proof
The
burden
of
proving
the
facts
of
the
request
rests
on
the
applicant’s
shoulders.
The
applicant
has
to
give
a
reasonable
explanation
for
not
filing
the
notice
of
objection
on
time
and
in
addition,
must
prove
that
the
application
was
brought
as
soon
as
circumstances
permitted
it
to
be
brought.
Moreover,
the
applicant
must
prove
that
there
are
reasonable
grounds
for
objecting
to
the
assessment
(subsection
167(5)
of
the
Act).
3.
The
Facts
3.01
A
notice
of
assessment
with
respect
to
the
applicant’s
1983
taxation
year
was
mailed
to
the
applicant
on
August
27,
1984.
3.02
A
notice
of
objection
to
the
said
assessment
was
served
on
July
26,
1985.
3.03
The
application
to
extend
time
to
file
the
notice
of
objection
reads
as
follows:
REASONS:
1.
Attached
is
the
notice
of
assessment
for
1983
dated
August
27,
1984.
2.
On
September
12,
1984
an
appeal
to
the
Tax
Court
was
made
concerning
the
taxpayer's
1982
tax
return,
appeal
#84
1930(IT).
On
December
14,
1984
a
Reply
to
Notice
of
Appeal
was
issued
in
which
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
submitted,
among
other
things,
that
the
“‘loss
if
any,
was
not
suffered
by
the
Appellant
(Aspinall)
in
his
1982
taxation,
but,
did
not
occur
until
his
resignation
in
1983.”
It
was
not
clear
until
December
14,
1984
that
the
timing
of
this
loss
might
be
an
issue
in
the
1982
appeal
and
by
that
time
the
90
day
period
had
elapsed.
The
evidence
given
in
Court
confirms
the
facts
alleged
above.
The
basis
of
the
notice
of
objection
concerns
the
application
of
a
loss
from
employment.
This
loss
originates,
according
to
the
applicant,
from
a
loss
of
a
right
to
receive
a
benefit
from
the
Employee
Profit
Sharing
Plan
of
Texaco
Canada
Inc.
4.
Law
Analysis
4.01
Law
The
main
provisions
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
(the
Act)
involved
are
subsections
167(1)
and
(5).
They
read
as
follows:
167.
(1)
Where
no
objection
to
an
assessment
under
section
165
or
appeal
to
the
Tax
Court
of
Canada
under
section
169
has
been
made
or
instituted
within
the
time
limited
by
section
165
or
169,
as
the
case
may
be,
for
doing
so,
an
application
may
be
made
to
the
Tax
Court
of
Canada
for
an
order
extending
the
time
within
which
a
notice
of
objection
may
be
served
or
an
appeal
instituted
and
the
Court
may,
if
in
its
opinion
the
circumstances
of
the
case
are
such
that
it
would
be
just
and
equitable
to
do
so,
make
an
order
extending
the
time
for
objecting
or
appealing
and
may
impose
such
terms
as
it
deems
just.
(5)
No
order
shall
be
made
under
subsection
(1)
or
(4)
(a)
unless
the
application
to
extend
the
time
for
objecting
or
appealing
is
made
within
one
year
after
the
expiration
of
the
time
otherwise
limited
by
this
Act
for
objecting
to
or
appealing
from
the
assessment
in
respect
of
which
the
application
is
made;
(b)
if
the
Tax
Court
of
Canada
or
Federal
Court
has
previously
made
an
order
extending
the
time
for
objecting
to
or
appealing
from
the
assessment;
and
(c)
unless
the
Tax
Court
of
Canada
or
Federal
Court
is
satisfied
that,
(i)
but
for
the
circumstances
mentioned
in
subsection
(1)
or
(4),
as
the
case
may
be,
an
objection
or
appeal
would
have
been
made
or
taken
within
the
time
otherwise
limited
by
this
Act
for
so
doing,
(ii)
the
application
was
brought
as
soon
as
circumstances
permitted
it
to
be
brought,
and
(iii)
there
are
reasonable
grounds
for
objecting
to
or
appealing
from
the
assessment.
4.02
Analysis
4.02.1
No
evidence
was
given
but
that
it
was
realized
in
the
middle
of
December
1984
that
a
possible
error
was
made
in
objecting
and
appealing
for
1982
rather
than
for
1983
for
the
loss
of
employment
of
$13,535
(para.
3.03).
The
application
for
extension
of
time
was
filed
on
July
26,
1985,
i.e.
over
seven
months
after
the
possible
error
was
realized.
It
is
obvious
that
the
application
was
not
“brought
as
soon
as
circumstances
permitted
it
to
be
brought"
as
provided
in
subparagraph
167(5)(c)(ii)
quoted
above.
4.02.2
Moreover,
subparagraph
167(5)(c)(iii)
requires
that
“there
are
reasonable
grounds
for
objecting
to
or
appealing
from
the
assessment.”
For
the
reasons
given
in
appeal
No.
84-1930(IT)
([1986]/1
C.T.C.
2350),
I
cannot
arrive
at
the
conclusion
that
this
requirement
was
met.
4.03.3
In
my
opinion,
the
circumstances
of
the
case
are
not
such
that
it
would
be
just
and
equitable
to
make
an
order
extending
the
time
for
objecting
as
provided
in
subsection
167(1)
quoted
above.
5.
Conclusion
The
application
is
dismissed
in
accordance
with
the
reasons
given
above.
Application
dismissed.
Email this Content