http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/67153/index.do 
Patterson Dental Canada Inc. v. The Queen[1] (March 4, 2014) was an application to extend the time to file a GST notice of objection. The taxpayer had been led to believe that a drug sold as part of its business was subject to GST but later became aware of a Tax Court decision that suggested it was not taxable. It then sought expert scientific advice on the point and, having received that advice, sought to file a notice of objection. The Minister rejected that application and the taxpayer appealed to the Tax Court. In the interim, the taxpayer was successful in a related application before the Cour du Québec. The taxpayer succeeded both on the basis that it had acted promptly and on the basis of judicial comity:
Was the application made as soon as the circumstances permitted?
[34] Pursuant to subparagraph 304(5)(b)(iii), the Application must be made as soon as circumstances permit it to be made. In this regard, the timeline of events is an important consideration. As pointed out in the Applicant’s written argument, the chronology of events is as follows:
a) March 16, 2010: Notice of Assessment;
b) June 14, 2010: Deadline for Objection;
c) December 2010: mandate given to Ryan LLC;
d) March 2011: Applicant advised by Ryan LLC of the existence of the Tax Court of Canada decision in
Le Gardeur. The Applicant then refers the matter to a dental expert for a scientific opinion on the issue of whether epinephrine is the essential element in its anaesthetic solutions;
e) April 21, 2011: affirmative opinion received from dental expert;
f) April 27, 2011: application for extension of time made to the Minister; and
g) June 14, 2011: deadline for application to the Minister.
[35] The total period of time that has elapsed is admittedly quite long. However, context and circumstances are everything. It is clear that, pursuant to subsection 303(3), the Application to the Minister must be accompanied by a copy of the Notice of Objection. The Notice of Objection must set out the reasons for the objection and all relevant facts in support of the objection. Consequently in order to prepare a Notice of Objection the Applicant must be possessed not only of the intention to file a Notice of Objection, but also should put forth cogent reasons in support of its challenge to the Assessment. In the case at bar, the Applicant was not possessed of sufficient information upon which to base a Notice of Objection until it became aware of the decision of the Tax Court of Canada in
Le Gardeur; this was early in 2011. It was then necessary to obtain an expert opinion to determine whether or not epinephrine was an essential ingredient of its anaesthetic solutions. It was only after it obtained such an opinion that the Applicant could make an informed decision of whether or not it could be argued that the test set out in
Le Gardeur was applicable to the Applicant’s anaesthetic solutions containing epinephrine. This expert opinion only became available on April 21, 2011. After that date, the Applicant acted with due dispatch and presented its Application to the Minister only six days later.
[36] Upon the consideration of the full chronology of events I come to the conclusion that the Application to the Minister was made as soon as circumstances permitted it to be made within the meaning of subparagraph 303(5)(b)(iii).
…
The principle of judicial comity
…
[45] I am in total agreement with Justice Boyle. For this Court to now render a decision that is contrary to that arrived at by the Cour du Québec involving essentially the same parties and the same facts would, in my opinion, bring the administration of justice into disrepute in the eyes of the informed citizen.
[1] *.