http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/71809/index.do 
O’Byrne v. The Queen (May 12, 2014 – 2014 TCC 136) was a very sympathetic case. Mrs. O’Byrne had unpaid taxes from the period 1986 to 1997 which CRA set off against her current CPP income. She filed a taxpayer relief application in 2012 which was unsuccessful. She then filed an application with the Tax Court to appeal the 1986 to 1997 years. The court was forced to dismiss her application since it was well outside the one year plus 90 day time limitation applicable to such an application. In substance she was arguing that the 10 year collection restriction under section 222 of the Income Tax Act should prevent the set off.
[4] Ms. O’Byrne’s complaint is that she was unaware of the existence of these tax debts of more than 15 years ago, which total more than $40,000, until she more recently made a Canada Pension Plan application. She had apparently received a letter in 2005 from CRA that no collection steps would be taken by CRA beyond set off of her old tax debts against future tax refunds or similar entitlements. She believes that does not properly or fully reflect the impact of the 10 year limitation period for collection actions in section 222 of the Act. She seeks a remedy akin to a declaration from the Court that CRA can not set off her old tax debts against her CPP and similar entitlements, and/or a direction from the Court to CRA to return any amounts already set off.
[5] The Tax Court of Canada simply does not have the jurisdiction or power to grant such remedies. These concerns of Ms. O’Byrne may need to be pursued by her with the CRA and perhaps the Federal Court as appropriate. Based upon the materials she filed with this Court or referred to at the hearing, the precise nature of her concerns may not have been very clear to them.
…
[7] Ms. O’Byrne also explained in her filed materials and at the hearing that she apparently understood and believed that these old tax debts of hers had long ago been settled by her late ex-husband, either under the terms of their separation agreement, a court order issued in their civil family dispute, or perhaps as part of a voluntary disclosure made to CRA by him. As explained to Ms. O’Byrne, this Court does not have any jurisdiction to deal with the enforcement or breach of a separation agreement or a court order issued by the court of a province in family law matters. Any recourse would have to be to the courts of the relevant province (whether Saskatchewan, Manitoba or Ontario). Neither the scope of, nor interpretation or enforcement of CRA’s voluntary disclosure program or voluntary disclosure agreements are generally subject to review by the Tax Court of Canada. Such matters may be reviewable by the Federal Court.
As a result the application was dismissed, but without costs.