Neathly v. Canada (National Revenue)
The Tax Court lacked jurisdiction to hear appeals for 1994 and 1998 because no notices of objection were filed; the Tax Court likewise lacked jurisdiction to review the Minister's discretionary decision not to waive interest and penalties (that remedy lies by judicial review in Federal Court); and the Tax Court's...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2011 FCA 275
- Parties
- Appellant: Elaine Neathly; Respondent: Minister of National Revenue
- Court
- Federal Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 5 October 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Tax Appeal (income Tax) / Appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal — Final Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Tax Court Jurisdiction, Notices of Objection, Waiver of Interest and Penalties, Retiring Allowance, Standard of Review, Judicial Review Procedure
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Elaine Neathly
Appellant
Minister of National Revenue
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Tax Appeal (income Tax) / Appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal — Final Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Tax Court had jurisdiction to hear appeals for 1994 and 1998 where no notices of objection were filed
- 2 Whether the Tax Court can review the Minister's refusal to waive interest and late-filing penalties or whether that remedy lies by judicial review in the Federal Court
- 3 Whether the Tax Court's factual determinations concerning taxes payable for 1999-2002 should be set aside
Ratio Decidendi
The Tax Court lacked jurisdiction to hear appeals for 1994 and 1998 because no notices of objection were filed; the Tax Court likewise lacked jurisdiction to review the Minister's discretionary decision not to waive interest and penalties (that remedy lies by judicial review in Federal Court); and the Tax Court's factual conclusions on taxes payable for 1999-2002 were correct and should stand, so the appeal is dismissed.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Neathly v. Canada (National Revenue) Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2011-10-05 Neutral citation 2011 FCA 275 File numbers A-400-07 Decision Content Federal Court of Appeal Cour d'appel fédérale Date: 20111005 Docket: A-400-07 Citation: 2011 FCA 275 CORAM: SEXTON J.A. EVANS J.A. STRATAS J.A. BETWEEN: ELAINE NEATHLY Appellant and MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE Respondent Heard at Toronto, Ontario, on October 4, 2011. Judgment delivered at Toronto, Ontario, on October 5, 2011. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: STRATAS J.A. CONCURRED IN BY: SEXTON J.A. EVANS J.A. Federal Court of Appeal Cour d'appel fédérale Date: 20111005 Docket: A-400-07 Citation: 2011 FCA 275 CORAM: SEXTON J.A. EVANS J.A. STRATAS J.A. BETWEEN: ELAINE NEATHLY Appellant and MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT STRATAS J.A. [1] This is an appeal from the judgment of the Tax Court of Canada: 2007 TCC 611. [2] The Tax Court found that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the appellant’s tax appeals for the 1994 and 1998 taxation years because the appellant filed no notices of objection. The Tax Court also held that it did not have jurisdiction to review the Minister’s decision not to waive interest and late filing penalties for the 1999-2002 taxation years. Such a review is conducted in the Federal Court by way of application for judicial review. Finally, the Tax Court dismissed the appellant’s appeals concerning the taxes payable in the 1999-2002 taxation years, save for the treatment of an amount the appellant received as a retiring allowance. [3] We conclude that the Tax Court’s jurisdictional rulings are correct. Further, there is no ground for setting aside the largely factual decision made by the Tax Court concerning the taxes payable in the 1999-2002 taxation years. [4] Accordingly, we shall dismiss the appeal. "David Stratas" J.A. “I agree J. Edgar Sexton” “I agree John M. Evans” FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-400-07 APPEAL FROM AN ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE V.A. MILLER DATED AUGUST 13, 2007, DOCKET NO. 2006-3176(IT)I STYLE OF CAUSE: ELAINE NEATHLY v. MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO DATE OF HEARING: OCTOBER 4, 2011 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: STRATAS J.A. CONCURRED IN BY: SEXTON, EVANS, STRATAS JJ.A. DATED: OCTOBER 5, 2011 APPEARANCES: Elaine Neathly ON HER OWN BEHALF Brandon Siegal FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Myles J. Kirvan Deputy Attorney General of Canada FOR THE RESPONDENT