http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/98323/index.do 
Les Monarques complexe pour retraités Inc. v. The Queen (October 28, 2014 – 2014 TCC 320) involved an application to extend the time to file a notice of objection under the Excise Tax Act:
[2] On February 5, 2014, the applicant filed with the Court an application under Part IX of the Excise Tax Act (the ETA) to extend the time to file a notice of objection in respect of the assessment dated June 3, 2013, for the period from September 1, 2010, to September 30, 2010.
[3] The issues are as follows:
− Does the presumption under subsection 334(1) of the ETA apply?
− Does the applicant meet the conditions set out in subsection 304(5) of the ETA?
The appellant’s position was that it had never received the June 3, 2013 assessment and once it became aware of the assessment it always had a bona fide intention to file a notice of objection.
The Tax Court concluded that the appellant was deemed to have received the notice of assessment by virtue of subsection 334(1) of the Excise Tax Act and rejected its evidence of a bona fide intent to file a notice of objection:
[52] I believe that Justice Favreau’s statement applies to this applicant. It is difficult to understand why the applicant did nothing, either through Ms. Forget or a member of its team, to find out the reasons why the applicant’s file had been transferred to the enforcement division, particularly in light of the request for final payment and the statement of account dated June 20, 2013, which refers to the assessment of June 3, 2013. It seems to me that if the applicant had not received the notice of assessment of June 3, 2013, as it claims, after reviewing the statement of account, it would have promptly contacted the ARQ to obtain a copy. It should be noted that when the applicant received the documents from the ARQ, including the statement of account in June 2013, and at the time of the telephone conversations between Ms. Moraga and Ms. Forget and between Ms. Moraga and Ms. Tessier, the applicant was still within the 90-day period for filing a notice of objection.
[53] Thus, in light of the evidence on the record, I am of the view that the applicant did not prove that it had a bona fide intention to object to the assessment dated June 3, 2013.
[54] As I stated at paragraph 36 of the reasons for this order, the conditions set out in subsection 304(5) of the ETA are cumulative and the applicant must meet all the conditions under that subsection to obtain an extension. Since the applicant did not prove that it met one of the conditions set out in subparagraph 304(5)(b)(i), I do not have to review the other conditions set out in subsection 304(5) of the ETA.
DISPOSITION
[55] First, I find that the presumption under subsection 334(1) of the ETA applies since the Minister proved that the assessment dated June 3, 2013, was sent.
[56] Second, since the applicant did not prove that it met all of the conditions set out in subsection 304(5) of the ETA, the application for an extension of time for filing a notice of objection in respect of the assessment dated June 3, 2013, is dismissed.