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 struck specified paragraphs of the Amended Notice of Appeal, holding they alleged CRA misconduct, Charter breaches, and relief outside its jurisdiction.
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.
The proposed notice of appeal, on its face, does not demonstrate reasonable grounds for appeal within the meaning of s.167(5); because reasonable grounds is a jurisdictional condition the Court cannot grant an extension absent such grounds, therefore the matter will proceed to a hearing to determine whether the statutory conditions are satisfied.
Source excerpt
The application is granted because the applicant presented potentially distinguishable, untried facts (the necessity of an off-Reserve safe refuge for Reserve women) that require a trial judge’s fact-specific assessment under the connective factors test, thereby constituting reasonable grounds under s.167(5) to extend time; the applicant must file an amended Notice of Appeal and the respondent may file a Reply.
Source excerpt
The Court found the applicant established a bona fide intention to appeal and that his health, personal circumstances and related priorities rendered him unable to act and justified the delay; the application was filed as soon as circumstances permitted and it was just and equitable to grant the extension, so the extension was allowed and the appeal timetable set.
Source excerpt
Applications dismissed because (1) Keshane's applications for 1999–2002 assessments were filed beyond the statutory deadline in para.167(5)(a) and the Court lacks discretion to waive that deadline; and (2) none of the applicants satisfied para.167(5)(b)(iv) by showing reasonable grounds for their appeals in light of controlling precedents (Shilling; Horn), so extensions were not just and equitable and would waste judicial resources.
Source excerpt
The judge found that applicants met the statutory prerequisites for an extension under s.167(5) (timeliness, bona fide intention, arguable grounds and that it would be just and equitable) and that the right to be heard and the absence of prejudice (consolidation with other scheduled NLS appeals) warranted extension despite uncertain prospects of success; accordingly extensions were granted and the Notices of Appeal were deemed valid.
Source excerpt
The application is dismissed because the applicant did not comply with s.305(3) filing requirements and failed to demonstrate reasonable grounds for appeal under s.305(5)(b)(iv); estoppel and the Minister's 'fairness' provisions do not constitute reasonable grounds to overturn or impede assessments and the Tax Court cannot substitute its judgment for the Minister's discretionary relief under s.281.1.
Source excerpt
The application for an extension of time under s.305 was allowed because the applicant satisfied all requirements of s.305(5): the application was within the one‑year limit, there was a bona fide intention to appeal, it was just and equitable to grant the extension, the application was filed as soon as circumstances permitted and there were reasonable grounds to appeal.
Source excerpt
Explore more
