Roman Miniotas (Romeo’s Plumbing & Heating) v. The Queen, 2011 DTC 1078 [at at 420], 2011 TCC 43 -- summary under Subsection 167(5)

By services, 28 November, 2015

The taxpayer's accountant sent letters on 3 and 24 October 2007, appealing an assessment. For reasons unknown, the letter was delivered to CRA rather than the TCC - in Winnipeg, they were on the same street and only a few blocks apart. The accountant died before he could explain the situation. The taxpayer himself then sent a filing extension request after the 167(1)(a) deadline. Woods J. stated at 26 that it is appropriate for the Courts to take a compassionate view to deadline extensions. Considering the 24 October 2007 letter, she stated at para. 29:

The letter ... makes reference to prior objections to the appeals court being sent within time time limit. A plausible interpretation of this statement is that the accountant was aware that the deadline had passed and he was requesting that the appeal be filed in any event. If this interpretation is correct, then the letter could reasonably be considered to be an application to extend time to appeal.

Woods J. also noted at para. 32 that the matter would not have been so far off track if CRA had forwarded the 24 October 2007 letter to the TCC. Moreover, there was no prejudice to CRA in allowing the extension, as the CRA was on notice that the taxpayer wished to appeal. She ordered that the 24 October 2007 letter be deemed a validly instituted notice of appeal.

Topics and taglines
d7 import status
Drupal 7 entity type
Node
Drupal 7 entity ID
334986
Extra import data
{
"field_legacy_header": "<strong><em>Miniotas v. The Queen</em></strong>, 2011 DTC 1078 [at 420], 2011 TCC 43",
"field_override_history": false,
"field_sid": "",
"field_topic_category": "seealso"
}