http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/71345/index.do 
Breathe E-Z Homes Ltd. v. M.N.R. (April 25, 2014 – 2014 TCC 122) was an application by the taxpayer for an extension of the time to file notices of appeal in the Tax Court with respect to EI and CPP assessments. The court concluded that the taxpayer’s counsel had made a number of errors resulting in this proceeding:
[4] In summary, the following mistakes were made by Applicant’s counsel:
a) failing to notice that the June 13, 2013, confirmation letter of the Minister responded to a previously filed notice of objection;
b) missing the “as of right” deadline of September 11, 2014, to file a Notice of Appeal (or for that matter even a notice of objection);
c) erroneously filing a request for extension to file an objection with the CRA received on October 24, 2013, rather than filing an extension and notice of appeal with the Tax Court of Canada.
d) failing to heed the gratuitous phone call to legal counsel’s office from the CRA employee on October 30, 2013;
e) missing the “discretionary extension” deadline of December 10, 2013; and lastly,
f) failing to report to the Applicant the various actions, filings and, regrettably, omissions along the way the reporting of which may have led to additional warnings by the Applicant regarding the above-noted mistakes.
The question before the court was whether the taxpayer was able to rely upon the mistakes of its counsel in obtaining an extension. The court held that the taxpayer should be entitled to an extension:
[25] The following factual particularities based upon the authorities referenced above, will afford the present Applicant its day in Court in order to present the merits of its appeals:
a) the taxpayer at every step in the process, when acting without faulty direction and assistance, did what it reasonably could to object to and appeal the re-assessments: directing its accountants, retaining tax lawyers, executing the appropriate consents, confirming all advices received directly from the CRA and taking all such foregoing steps within the 90 day “as of right” appeal period following the Decision:
b) in retaining professional advisors, as opposed to having its director or officer conduct the appeal, the Applicant picked an advertised, self-proclaimed firm of tax lawyers;
c) at no time was the taxpayer obstructionist with the CRA, lax in instructing counsel nor anything other than forthright before this Court;
d) when requested by counsel, the Applicant responded forthwith;
e) when under the reasonably held misapprehension all was proceeding according to right and rite, it awaited a reasonably short amount of time for its court date; and,
f) by comparison to some taxpayers before this Court, the Applicant was diligent and mindful of the deadlines and time frames of which it was made aware.
In a rather unique twist the court ordered costs payable to the Respondent personally by the Applicant’s counsel:
[30] Costs ought to be awarded, but the Court is mindful that this application relates to CPP and EI Act matters where there is no authority to order costs relative to the result of an appeal. Also, the Applicant seems to have been a victim of befuddled counsel and bad circumstance. However, given the number of missteps and omissions committed, costs thrown away should be ordered against Applicant’s counsel personally for a fixed amount. The Court may do so by virtue of the inherent jurisdiction as a superior court of record to regulate its own processes; such a cost order reflects procedural delay rather than a results oriented award at disposition of the matter. The Court will allow some time for submissions by counsel after which time it will render a decision and fix such costs in favour of the Respondent to be paid by Applicant’s counsel personally. Also, the Respondent shall have 60 days after the issuance of the cost order to file a Reply. As mentioned above, this is a factually unique application. For the sake of taxpayers who retain and pay good money for tax counsel to prosecute appeals, hopefully it remains so.