http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/146004/index.do
Lemieux v. Canada (National Revenue) (July 13, 2016 – 2016 FC 798, Barnes J.).
Précis: The taxpayer applied for relief of late filing penalties for his 2007 to 2011 taxation years based on evidence of depression stemming from the deaths of his wife, brother and sister-in-law. The application was allowed by CRA for the 2007 to 2010 taxation years but denied for 2011. Mr. Lemieux applied to the Federal Court for judicial review. The Court found a contradiction in the record as to whether Mr. Lemieux had submitted medical evidence with respect to 2011; moreover the evidence in dispute had been destroyed by CRA. The Court quashed the decision and remitted it back to CRA for redetermination by another decision-maker. There was no order as to costs.
Decision: Mr. Lemieux applied to CRA for relief from late filing penalties for his 2007 to 2011 taxation years. In aid of his application he submitted a 2013 letter from his physician:
[2] The record discloses that the Respondent granted relief from penalties and interest imposed in connection with Mr. Lemieux’s late filing of his 2007 to 2010 tax returns but declined to do so for his 2011 return. The partial grant of relief was based on a history of personal tragedy including the death of Mr. Lemieux’s wife by suicide following a lengthy period of depression. This event was compounded by the death of Mr. Lemieux’s brother at the age of 59 and of his sister-in-law.
[3] The record discloses that Mr. Lemieux sought medical attention in 2009 at which point a diagnosis of anxiety, depression and extended grief reaction was noted. This was followed in May 2013 by a medical report authored by Mr. Lemieux’s family physician, Dr. Henderson, following a medical assessment at that time. The record suggests that Dr. Henderson did not offer a current diagnosis but related the earlier difficulties Mr. Lemieux had experienced in preparing and filing his tax returns.
While the record disclosed that the decision-maker was initially going to allow the application for all 4 years ultimately the application for 2011 was refused. The 2013 report of Dr. Henderson was somehow destroyed by CRA and was therefore not before the Court. The Court found that there was a contradiction in the records before it:
[8] Dr. Henderson’s medical report is material to the decision under review and it should have been included in the Certified Tribunal Record. Its absence from the record prevents the Court from conducting a proper review of the decision denying relief for the 2011 tax year. In these circumstances, I am faced with a contradiction in the record about whether Dr. Henderson’s opinion extended to Mr. Lemieux’s failure to file a tax return for 2011. If it did, the reviewer’s contrary statement is wrong and the decision would be unreasonable on that basis. Without this evidence the benefit of doubt must be given to Mr. Lemieux.
As a result the Court quashed the decision and remitted it back to CRA for redetermination by another decision-maker. There was no order as to costs.