The taxpayers were six family members, each of whom owned a small percentage of some properties in Canada, which were sold at a loss over two years. The Minister assessed penalties under 162(7), which amounted to $10,000 each.
Roy J upheld the Minister's rejection of the taxpayers' applications for relief, but urged the Minister to provide relief anyway. The decisions to deny each of the six (essentially identical) applications were reasonable, as there were no extraordinary circumstances, there had been procedural fairness, and the decision-makers had not fettered their discretion.
Roy J nevertheless urged the Minister to consider relief, given the combined effect of all six penalties, which would have been just one $10,000 fine if the properties had been held by just one person. As the properties were sold at a loss, some measure of relief would clearly be just.
Roy J noted in particular that the situation was not analogous to the Court of Appeal's "volume discount" analysis in Stemijon, where each taxpayer independently entered the arrangement giving rise to penalties. In the present situation, five of the family members were essentially uninvolved in the decision-making (para. 41).