Whether the taxpayer had timely filed his application for the Ontario component of the new housing rebate pursuant to s. 256.21(1) for the home of him and his spouse turned on when the substantial renovation of that home was substantially completed (which started the running pursuant to s. 46(6)(a) of the New Harmonized Value Added Tax System Regulations, No. 2 of the two year period for filing the application) and on when the application was filed (which, pursuant to s. 334(1) was deemed to be the mailing date).
CRA considered that the substantial completion date was January 13, 2020, being the date that the local town conducted its final inspection of the property. The taxpayer argued for January 25, 2000 (the date on which the couple moved back into the home), pointing to the resumption of phone and gas services on that date, and the installation of a concrete driveway pad over six months later. In concluding in favour of the Crown’s position, Yuan J noted (at para. 18) that “the nature of the work completed after January 13, 2020 was not critical to occupancy of the Property.”
Regarding the application’s mailing date, the CRA evidence was that the application had been stamped with January 31, 2022 by the CRA mailroom and that the CRA policy was to treat incoming mail as having been sent five business days before its receipt by the CRA mailroom. Yuan J was not satisfied that the application was actually received by the CRA mailroom on the date of stamping, and also noted that in a January 7, 2022 press release, Canada Post advised that customers may experience COVID-related service delays.
Yuan J preferred the evidence of the taxpayer’s accountant, who testified that she had mailed various client related items on December 31, 2021 and who provided a Canada post receipt dated December 31, 2021 for two items which showed that a piece of letter mail had been sent to the Sudbury TSO. Before allowing the taxpayers appeal, Yuan J, stated (at para. 41):
I have difficulty imagining what better evidence the CRA could reasonably expect an applicant to produce as proof of filing where the application was submitted by regular mail … .