Canada (Minister of National Revenue) v. Desgagné

Canada (Minister of National Revenue) v. Desgagné

Extension denied because the applicant failed to demonstrate that the review application was made as soon as practicable and failed to establish an arguable case; counsels need for additional time and vacations do not justify the delay under s.225.2(9).

Citation
2001 FCT 846
Parties
Judgment Creditor: Canada (Minister of National Revenue); Judgment Debtor: Nadine Desgagné
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
31 July 2001
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time to Bring a Review Under the Income Tax Act / Motion for Extension of Time Under S.225.2(9) Following Seizure and Authorization for Immediate Execution
Outcome
Motion for extension of time dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Limitation Period, Review of Authorization for Immediate Execution, Income Tax Act S.225.2
Source Language
English
Tax Law Procedural Law Administrative Law Extension of Time Limitation Period Review of Authorization for Immediate Execution Income Tax Act S.225.2

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Canada (Minister of National Revenue)

Judgment Creditor

Nadine Desgagné

Judgment Debtor

Procedural Posture

Application for Extension of Time to Bring a Review Under the Income Tax Act / Motion for Extension of Time Under S.225.2(9) Following Seizure and Authorization for Immediate Execution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an extension of time should be granted under s.225.2(9) of the Income Tax Act
  2. 2 Whether the applicant demonstrated that the review application was made as soon as practicable
  3. 3 Whether the applicant demonstrated an arguable case to justify an extension

Ratio Decidendi

Extension denied because the applicant failed to demonstrate that the review application was made as soon as practicable and failed to establish an arguable case; counsels need for additional time and vacations do not justify the delay under s.225.2(9).

Court Disposition

Motion for extension of time dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Motion for extension of time dismissed
  • Costs awarded to the judgment creditor