Search - considered

In short, even in this scenario, and even if the Letter were considered a judgment of the TCC, this appeal could not succeed because the TCC and, ultimately, this Court, lack the factual basis to assess the application. [16] In his submissions in response to this motion to dismiss the appeal, which are dated October 17, 2022, the appellant changed the scope of his notice of objection, stating that he also wanted to challenge the merits of the consent judgment rendered on March 28, 2022. ... Therefore, at least for the time being, this addition cannot be considered a valid ground of appeal before this Court. [18] I will conclude as follows. ...

The CRA Notes indicate that during the Second-Level Review, the Officer made three unsuccessful attempts to contact the Applicant to seek additional information. [7] The Officer proceeded with the Second-Level Review and considered the documents that were assessed during the First-Level Decisions; the Applicant’s letter requesting a second review dated July 20, 2023; a copy of the Applicant’s Statement documents provided on July 20, 2023; and, the information found on the CRA’s systems with respect to the Applicant’s income for the 2019, 2020, and 2021 taxation years. [8] On May 1, 2024, the Officer sent to the Applicant two letters regarding the CERB and CRB Second-Level Review. ... The reviewing court must refrain from “reweighing and reassessing the evidence considered by the decision maker” (Vavilov at para 125). ...

It has established a simple, fixed income eligibility threshold of $5,000, contrasting sharply with the complex computations required under statutes such as the Income Tax Act, RSC, 1985, c 1 (5th Supp) or the Excise Tax Act, RSC 1985, c E-15, which are not considered to be benefit-conferring legislation: Werring v R, [1997] 3 CTC 2876 (TCC) at para 8; Canadian Pacific Ltd. at para 25. ... Without explanations, the temporal mismatch cited by the Officer is largely irrelevant to the CERB eligibility period and cannot reasonably support a finding of ineligibility. [28] I further find the Respondent’s reliance on the CRA policy document “Confirming Covid-19 benefits eligibility” which cautions “… amounts in Tax returns or the Notice of Assessment are self-reported and, as such are not considered to be conclusive proof that the mounts reported were actually earned…” [emphasis added] does not cure the Officer’s analytical defect. ...

Therefore, they should not be considered on the application for judicial review: Maltais v Canada (Attorney General), 2022 FC 817 at para 21. ... In its decision, the CRA considered the Applicant’s telephone conversation with the CRA representative. ...

Although the appellant has limited the scope of the appeal, it is impossible to accept that any of these exhibits are irrelevant based on the materials before me. [20] The appellant also asserts that the Federal Court separately considered the two aspects of the CRA decision to deny her eligibility for the CRB and thus the material relating to the self-employment income is unnecessary and irrelevant. ... In these circumstances, I cannot rule out the possibility that all the material in the affidavits, including all the exhibits, was considered by the second reviewer and thus relevant to their decision concerning the PDF income: Loba at para. 5. [21] Moreover, the appeal book should include a document “if it is reasonable to suppose the appellate court may require it to gain a full appreciation of the facts”: Bojangles at para. 6. ...

I find that the Appellant’s assertion that he intended to do so is insufficient and must be considered in the context of the ongoing litigation with his siblings and the allegation that he held the Property in trust for his parents and later his mother. [32] A reading of the minutes of settlement, signed in November 2022, supports the conclusion that the Property was held in trust because in April 2023 the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ordered that it be sold and the net proceeds of sale set aside for the benefit of the Appellant’s mother. ... Therefore, the legal expenses incurred would not be deductible even if there was a source of income. [46] A final limitation needs to be considered. ...

Absent exceptional circumstances, reviewing courts must not interfere with the decision-maker’s factual findings and cannot reweigh and reassess evidence considered by the decision-maker (Vavilov at para 125). ... Once again, this analysis does not demonstrate an undue fixation on the lack of legal status; it was simply one factor considered in assessing the Applicants’ degree of financial establishment in Canada. [22] The Applicants dispute that they had taxes owing, arguing that their most recent Notices of Assessment showed that taxes were owing, but not due to be paid until after they submitted their H&C application. ...

The new evidence will not be considered. B. Legislative Framework [19] The relevant statutory provisions of the Income Tax Act, RSC 1985, c 1 (5th Supp) (the “Act”) are as follows: 162 (1) Every person who fails to file a return of income for a taxation year as and when required by subsection 150(1) is liable to a penalty equal to the total of (a) an amount equal to 5% of the person’s tax payable under this Part for the year that was unpaid when the return was required to be filed, and (b) the product obtained when 1% of the person’s tax payable under this Part for the year that was unpaid when the return was required to be filed is multiplied by the number of complete months, not exceeding 12, from the date on which the return was required to be filed to the date on which the return was filed. 162 (1) Toute personne qui ne produit pas de déclaration de revenu pour une année d’imposition selon les modalités et dans le délai prévus au paragraphe 150(1) est passible d’une pénalité égale au total des montants suivants: a) 5 % de l’impôt payable pour l’année en vertu de la présente partie qui était impayé à la date où, au plus tard, la déclaration devait être produite b) le produit de 1 % de cet impôt impayé par le nombre de mois entiers, jusqu’à concurrence de 12, compris dans la période commençant à la date où, au plus tard, la déclaration devait être produite et se terminant le jour où la déclaration est effectivement produite. 161 (1) Where at any time after a taxpayer’s balance-due day for a taxation year (a) the total of the taxpayer’s taxes payable under this Part and Parts I.3, VI, VI.1 and VI.2 (determined in accordance with subsection 191.5(9)) for the yearexceeds (b) the total of all amounts each of which is an amount paid at or before that time on account of the taxpayer’s tax payable and applied as at that time by the Minister against the taxpayer’s liability for an amount payable under this Part or Part I.3, VI, VI.1 or VI.2 for the year the taxpayer shall pay to the Receiver General interest at the prescribed rate on the excess, computed for the period during which that excess is outstanding. 161 (1) Dans le cas où le total visé à l’alinéa a) excède le total visé à l’alinéa b) à un moment postérieur à la date d’exigibilité du solde qui est applicable à un contribuable pour une année d’imposition, le contribuable est tenu de verser au receveur général des intérêts sur l’excédent, calculés au taux prescrit pour la période au cours de laquelle cet excédent est impayé: a) le total des impôts payables par le contribuable pour l’année en vertu de la présente partie et des parties I.3, VI, VI.1 et VI.2 (calculé conformément au paragraphe 191.5(9)); b) le total des montants représentant chacun un montant payé au plus tard à ce moment au titre de l’impôt payable par le contribuable et imputé par le ministre, à compter de ce moment, sur le montant dont le contribuable est redevable pour l’année en vertu de la présente partie ou des parties I.3, VI, VI.1 ou VI.2.   162 (1) Every person who fails to file a return of income for a taxation year as and when required by subsection 150(1) is liable to a penalty equal to the total of (a) an amount equal to 5% of the person’s tax payable under this Part for the year that was unpaid when the return was required to be filed, and (b) the product obtained when 1% of the person’s tax payable under this Part for the year that was unpaid when the return was required to be filed is multiplied by the number of complete months, not exceeding 12, from the date on which the return was required to be filed to the date on which the return was filed.   162 (1) Toute personne qui ne produit pas de déclaration de revenu pour une année d’imposition selon les modalités et dans le délai prévus au paragraphe 150(1) est passible d’une pénalité égale au total des montants suivants: a) 5 % de l’impôt payable pour l’année en vertu de la présente partie qui était impayé à la date où, au plus tard, la déclaration devait être produite; b) le produit de 1 % de cet impôt impayé par le nombre de mois entiers, jusqu’à concurrence de 12, compris dans la période commençant à la date où, au plus tard, la déclaration devait être produite et se terminant le jour où la déclaration est effectivement produite.   220(3.1) The Minister may, on or before the day that is ten calendar years after the end of a taxation year of a taxpayer (or in the case of a partnership, a fiscal period of the partnership) or on application by the taxpayer or partnership on or before that day, waive or cancel all or any portion of any penalty or interest otherwise payable under this Act by the taxpayer or partnership in respect of that taxation year or fiscal period, and notwithstanding subsections 152(4) to (5), any assessment of the interest and penalties payable by the taxpayer or partnership shall be made that is necessary to take into account the cancellation of the penalty or interest. 220 (3.1) Le ministre peut, au plus tard le jour qui suit de dix années civiles la fin de l’année d’imposition d’un contribuable ou de l’exercice d’une société de personnes ou sur demande du contribuable ou de la société de personnes faite au plus tard ce jour-là, renoncer à tout ou partie d’un montant de pénalité ou d’intérêts payable par ailleurs par le contribuable ou la société de personnes en application de la présente loi pour cette année d’imposition ou cet exercice, ou l’annuler en tout ou en partie. ... Finally, given the history of late filed returns and payment, there was no evidence that she acted quickly to remedy any delays and omissions. [26] Additionally, I agree with the Respondent that the Applicant’s assertion of financial hardship, which is now supported by the new evidence submitted on this application and not considered, was not before the Second Reviewer and does not render the Decision unreasonable (Telfer at para 31). [27] The Applicant has not established exceptional circumstances beyond her control that explain her non-compliance with the Act (Stemijon at para 50). ...

CRA considered the two Reasons together to determine whether the applicant was “prevented from making the … installment payments on a timely basis”. The same two-pronged finding is found in the Taxpayer Relief Fact Sheet for the second review, which in part considered whether the applicant was unable to meet her obligation to make the quarterly payments. [26] In the circumstances, the absence of a factual foundation in the record for one of the two reasons provided by CRA for its conclusion rendered the Second Review Decision unreasonable. [27] It is beyond this Court’s role on this application to consider whether the applicant’s circumstances constituted financial hardship as that term is used in CRA’s publications, or to assess either party’s submissions on “double taxation”. ...

In comparable contexts to HSW decisions, the procedural fairness required has been considered to be at the low end of the spectrum (Gumtang v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 758 at para 17). ... Officers are presumed to have considered all the material before them (Hashem v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 41 at para 2). ...