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 dismissed the appeal without costs after finding it lacked jurisdiction over the residence dispute and that the appellant had appealed to the wrong court.
The Tax Court dismissed Klaus Schwarz’s application to extend time to appeal reassessments for 2008 to 2014, finding it was filed late and sought relief beyond the Court’s jurisdiction.
On the balance of probabilities the Court found the Notice of Confirmation was mailed on October 29, 2009 based on documentary records, the appellant’s subsequent conduct and an adverse inference from his failure to file an affidavit; the 90-day appeal period expired January 27, 2010 and the Notice of Appeal filed in 2016 was out of time, so the appeal is quashed.
Source excerpt
Application dismissed because the applicant did not satisfy the cumulative statutory conditions in s.167(5): he failed to demonstrate inability to act or a bona fide intention to appeal, did not apply as soon as circumstances permitted, and did not show reasonable grounds for the appeal; the evidence showed the notice of confirmation was mailed and a copy given to counsel, and the applicant had multiple opportunities to act.
Source excerpt
The Federal Court dismissed judicial review of a CRA collection decision, holding that the 2009 reassessment remained binding despite an admitted wording error in the 2010 notice.
The Court dismissed the appeal because the appellant failed to demonstrate a palpable and overriding error in the Tax Court judge's findings on intention and delay; therefore no appellate intervention was warranted.
Source excerpt
The July 25, 2001 letter constituted a valid Notice of Confirmation under s.165(3) of the Income Tax Act, the applicant received that notice, and therefore the statutory one year and ninety day period to file a Notice of Appeal expired; the court has no jurisdiction to extend that time and the application for extension is dismissed.
Source excerpt
The application is dismissed because the one-year limitation in s.167(5)(a) expired March 10, 2009 and the applicant filed on June 25, 2009 (outside the statutory one-year period), and because the Minister had properly sent notices to the address provided pursuant to s.165(3) so the non‑receipt did not excuse the delay; consequently the Court had no jurisdiction to extend time.
Source excerpt
The court allowed the extension because the applicants credibly established they did not receive the Notices of Confirmation, acted in good faith and with reasonable promptness once circumstances permitted, intended to appeal, and satisfied the conditions of subsection 167(5) of the Income Tax Act.
Source excerpt
The respondent's motion to dismiss was dismissed because the Court found the appellant satisfied the requirements of Tax Court Rules r.18.1(3): the application was filed within one year, there was a bona fide intention to appeal, the appellant acted as soon as circumstances permitted given mailing confusion, and there were reasonable grounds; accordingly the appeal may proceed under the informal procedure and the Respondent was ordered to file its Reply within 60 days; the appellant remains able to apply for extension under Income Tax Act s.167.
Source excerpt
Explore more
