Lester c. La Reine

Lester c. La Reine

The December 20, 2002 letter requesting reconsideration and setting out reasons constituted adequate notice of objection in substance under s.165 because the Minister read and acted on it (as shown by correspondence and reassessment); therefore the appeal could not be quashed for want of jurisdiction and the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2004 TCC 179
Parties
Appellant: Harold G. Lester; Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen
Court
Tax Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 February 2004
Procedural Posture
Income Tax Appeal (tax Court) / Pre Hearing Application to Quash for Want of Jurisdiction (motion Under S.165)
Outcome
Application dismissed; appeal not quashed for want of jurisdiction.
Legal Topics
Notice of Objection, Jurisdiction to Appeal, Assessment and Reassessment, Extension of Time
Source Language
en
Tax Law Administrative Law Procedural Law Notice of Objection Jurisdiction to Appeal Assessment and Reassessment Extension of Time

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Harold G. Lester

Appellant

Her Majesty the Queen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Income Tax Appeal (tax Court) / Pre Hearing Application to Quash for Want of Jurisdiction (motion Under S.165)

  1. 1 Whether the December 20, 2002 letter constituted a notice of objection under s.165(1) of the Income Tax Act
  2. 2 Whether failure to serve a formal notice of objection ousts the Court's jurisdiction to hear the appeal under s.169
  3. 3 Whether substantive compliance (Minister having considered the communication) can cure formal defects in a notice of objection

Ratio Decidendi

The December 20, 2002 letter requesting reconsideration and setting out reasons constituted adequate notice of objection in substance under s.165 because the Minister read and acted on it (as shown by correspondence and reassessment); therefore the appeal could not be quashed for want of jurisdiction and the Respondent was granted a 30-day extension to file and serve a Reply to the Notice of Appeal.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; appeal not quashed for want of jurisdiction.

Orders

  • Application by Respondent to quash the appeal dismissed.
  • Respondent granted a 30-day extension from the date of the Order to file and serve a Reply to Notice of Appeal.