http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/site/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/63271/index.do 
Kotel v. AG (Can.)[1] (October 8, 2013) is a decision of the Federal Court on a judicial review application in connection with the taxpayer’s 1999 to 2002 taxation years:
[1] This order concerns an application for judicial review of a decision made by Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), Director of the Ottawa Tax Services Office, Janet de Kergommeaux, dated June 16, 2011, where she denied the Applicant further relief from interest and penalties pursuant to subsection 220(3.1) of the Income Tax Act, RSC 1985, c 1 (5th Supp) (ITA).
The taxpayer first applied for relief in January of 2008 and was partially successful. This application concerns his second application in December of 2008 based on extraordinary circumstances, CRA error and delay, inability to pay and his medical condition:
[12] On December 4, 2008, the Applicant made another request for taxpayer relief for each of the years 1999 to 2002 on the basis of extraordinary circumstances, CRA error, CRA delay and financial hardship. The request included medical information concerning his February 2008 diagnosis with sinus cancer.
That second application was unsuccessful.
The decision goes through a detailed review of the administrative record of CRA and the applicable law. In the end the court concluded that there was no basis for judicial intervention:
[78] The taxpayer had cancellation [on his first application to the Minister] of the following arrears of interest for:
• The taxation years 1999 (Cancellation of interest for the period November 17, 2004 to November 13, 2007);
• Year 2000 (Cancellation of interest for the period November 17, 2004 to November 13, 2007);
• 2001 (Cancellation of arrears interest November 27, 2004 to November 13, 2007;
• 2002 (Cancellation of arrears interest assessed November 17, 2004 to February 1, 2008).
[79] This amounted to interest cancelled in the amount of $39,886.55. The late filing penalties were for T1 Returns not filed within the legislated time period for the taxation years 2000, 2001 however remained.
[80] Though this may not have been the decision that I reached, but on judicial review, where the process and the outcome fit comfortably within the principles of justification, transparency and intelligibility, it is not open to me as a reviewing judge to substitute my own view of the preferred outcome (Khosa, above, at para 59).
[81] Here the decision maker followed a transparent process and the reasons are clear and detailed. While the Applicant may not agree with the decision maker, he has been given justification as to why the decision maker decided that way.
[82] Applying the reasonableness standard, I find that the decision amounts to a reasonable exercise of discretion. Consequently, I will dismiss this application.
[1] 2013 FC 1015.