http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/108560/index.do 
Hughes v. The Queen (March 10, 2015 – 2015 TCC 59, Bocock J.).
Précis: Mr. Hughes sought in 2013 to file notices of objection to GST assessments issued in 2002 and 2004. He did not dispute that he had received the assessments. Paragraph 310(7)(a) of the
Excise Tax Act (the “ETA”) provides that extension applications must be made within one year of the expiration of the time otherwise limited by the ETA for filing notices of objection, i.e., 90 days after the day the notice of assessment was sent to the taxpayer. The Court held that it had no jurisdiction to grant extensions under the circumstances. The application was dismissed.
Decision: Mr. Hughes filed an application in 2013 to extend the time to file notices of objection to GST assessments dating back to 2002 and 2004:
[1] Mr. Hughes applies to extend the period to file notices of objection for assessments issued by the Minister under the
Excise Tax Act, RSC, 1985, c. E-15 (the “ETA”). The two assessments were issued on August 13, 2002 in respect of the reporting period January 1, 1999 to May 31, 2002, and on July 8, 2004 in respect of the reporting period June 1, 2002 to August 31, 2002. Mr. Hughes filed his notices of objection and application to extend time, some 9 years later on May 28, 2013 with the Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”) and, subsequently, with the Tax Court of Canada on May 30, 2013. The Minister refused to accept the notices of objection and to grant the application on the basis they were not filed within the time described in the ETA.
The operative provision was paragraph 310(7)(a) of the ETA:
303. (7) No application shall be granted under this section unless
(a) the application is made within one year after the expiration of the time otherwise limited by this Part for objecting or making a request under subsection 274(6), as the case may be; and
Thus no application could be made more than one year after 90 days from the day the notice of assessment was sent to the taxpayer. The Court did not find Mr. Hughes’ evidence persuasive:
[4] Mr. Hughes explained his failure to file a notice of objection prior to May 28, 2013. He indicates that he was in constant communication with the officials during the 2002 period and that many “appeals” were in fact made to, in his words, “the Ministry of Finance”. Mr. Hughes provides no evidence of a written notice of objection, nor does he say he did not receive the Notices of Assessment received on August 13, 2002 and July 8, 2004, respectively. Mr. Hughes states that the Minister failed to return Mr. Hughes’ original documents related to the period 2002 – 2003. Mr. Hughes does not state how or why that retained information would prove that his notice of objection had been filed prior to the date of acknowledged receipt.
He did not however dispute that he had received the notices of assessment:
[7] The unchallenged facts within the Respondent’s filed affidavit show that the CRA sent the notices of assessment on the dates indicated. Moreover, Mr. Hughes does not dispute that the notices of assessment had been sent on the dates indicated by the Minister in the Amended Reply, the supporting affidavit, or in the application. Mr. Hughes does not dispute that he had received the notices of assessment shortly after those particular dates. Instead, he contends he submitted many “appeals” in response. No evidence was produced to suggest this and, as stated, the CRA has no record of these.
The Court held that the evidence that the notices of objection were sent to Mr. Hughes was sufficient to resolve the matter. Since his application was filed well beyond the one year period set by paragraph 301(7)(a) of the ETA the Court held that it had no jurisdiction to grant his application:
[8] While the jurisprudence within
Carlson references the
Income Tax Act, jurisprudence of this Court and the Federal Court of Appeal has developed which concludes that the same rules apply to the ETA. Evidence that the notice of assessment was sent is sufficient. Similarly, the misunderstanding of the import of a notice of assessment, its potential non-receipt by mail interruption, or the delay through inadvertence on the part of a taxpayer to file an objection does not extend the time:
Chomatas v. Her Majesty The Queen, 2013 TCC 319 at paragraph 10;
Grunwald v. Her Majesty The Queen, 2005 FCA 421 at paragraphs 43 and 44; and,
Sahibi v. Her Majesty The Queen, 2014 TCC 79 at paragraphs 25 and 26.
[9] Cumulatively, such legal authorities, the evidence provided by the Respondent that the notices of assessment were sent and the absence of any evidence as to why Mr. Hughes may not have received the notices (i.e. an incorrect address) are conclusive. Therefore, this Court lacks any jurisdiction under section 304 of the ETA to grant the application for an extension of time to file notices of objection in respect of the assessments because Mr. Hughes is deemed to have received the notices of assessment in 2002 and 2004. Accordingly, this application brought in 2013 is dismissed.