The taxpayer, who was poorly educated, received a transfer of registered title (but not beneficial ownership) of property from an individual with an unpaid income tax liability. He received an assessment under s. 160 with no accompanying letter of explanation, spoke to a Revenue Canada official who told him that he would look into the matter and then did not hear anything more on the matter for five years.
Before going on to apply the discoverability rule that had been developed by the Supreme Court of Canada to find that a notice of objection that the taxpayer filed within 90 days of the time over five years later when Revenue Canada finally made a demand, was a valid notice of objection, Porter D.J. stated (at p. 2562):
The Supreme Court appreciated and dealt with the need to bring some finality to legal situations. Nonetheless, where there was legitimate reason for the non-appreciation of their rights to institute some legal action, the Court clearly provided that time should only start running under limitation periods in the statutes in question (albeit statutes of limitation) once the incapacity to appreciate the situation had reasonably come to an end.