Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Tax Court quashed Mr. Xu’s application for an extension of time to object to a GST/HST assessment, finding it was filed after the 30-day jurisdictional limit.
The Tax Court quashed Mr. Amador’s application for extension of time to object because he did not file it within 30 days of the Minister’s refusal.
The appellant's application to the Minister for an extension of time was made after the one‑year statutory window set by s.304(5)(a) expired (March 16, 2016), the appellant therefore did not file a valid notice of objection and could not commence an appeal, and neither the Tax Court nor this Court has jurisdiction to waive or modify those statutory time limits; accordingly the Tax Court correctly dismissed the application.
Source excerpt
The CRA affidavit and records were unreliable and inconsistent regarding the asserted May 26, 2009 mailing date; absent reliable proof of mailing the Court must treat notification as the operative date for the limitation period; on the evidence the Applicant was notified on April 11, 2011 and the Notices of Objection filed July 7, 2011 were timely, so no extension was required under the ITA; there were no assessments under the EIA or CPP to object to.
Source excerpt
The English and French versions of s.304(5)(b) are clear but divergent; under Daoust the narrower meaning governs, and the English version does not include a separate requirement to demonstrate reasonable grounds. Parliament did not intend to impose a reasonable-grounds condition for Court-directed extensions under s.304(5). The applicant satisfied s.304(5)(b)(i),(ii) and (iii); accordingly the extension of time is granted.
Source excerpt
The application was dismissed because it was filed more than 90 days after the Minister's decision, contrary to s.166.2(1) of the Income Tax Act; additionally the applicant failed to produce evidence to discharge the statutory burden under s.166.1(7)(b), but the decisive bar was the statutory 90‑day limit.
Source excerpt
The appeal was dismissed because the taxpayer did not file an objection within the statutory 90‑day period nor obtain a timely extension within the one‑year period, and any appeal from CRA's refusal to grant an extension was not instituted within the required 90 days; accordingly the Tax Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
Source excerpt
Explore more
