http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/107909/index.do 
Robinson v. Canada (National Revenue) (January 30, 2015 – 2015 FC 117, Fothergill J.).
Précis: The taxpayer was a fitness instructor and massage therapist. Between 2000 and 2005 he did not file any income tax returns. CRA determined that he had a tax debt of $27,000 plus penalties and interest. In 2012 he had a bicycle accident that prevented him from working for several months after which his doctor advised him to only work part time. He had other debts including a child support obligation. He applied for relief of the interest and penalties on the basis of hardship. CRA granted relief on the interest but not the penalties. He sought a judicial review of that decision in the Federal Court. The Court held that CRA’s decision was not unreasonable. They took into account all of the material the taxpayer placed before the Court and the decision was transparent an intelligible. The application for judicial review was dismissed but the Court did not award costs to CRA because they twice sought extensions of time causing delay and inconvenience to the taxpayer and the Court.
Decision: This is a decision on an application for judicial review of the decision of CRA not to grant the taxpayer relief for penalties arising out of his failure to file tax returns between 2000 and 2005:
[2] The Applicant’s difficulties with the CRA have been ongoing for approximately 15 years. He conceded that between 2000 and 2005 he did not file income tax returns at all. His explanation was that he has never been good at paperwork, and his work as a fitness instructor and massage therapist did not generate a significant amount of income. Furthermore, his investments had performed badly and so he assumed that he did not owe any taxes.
[3] As a fitness instructor and massage therapist the Applicant had multiple sources of income. None of the health facilities that retained his services deducted taxes at the source, which the Applicant considers to be at the root of his problems. It was not until 2006, when the CRA informed him that he owed in excess of $100,000, that the Applicant retained an accountant to help him address the situation. Following several exchanges with the CRA, the outstanding debt was calculated to be approximately $27,000 plus interest and filing penalties.
[4] In 2012, the Applicant was involved in a serious accident. He was riding his bicycle when he was struck by a car. He was unable to work for four months, and to this day he has not fully recovered. He lost his job with GoodLife Fitness due to his inability to work full-time. He advised the Court that his doctor has recommended that he work no more than half time. The Applicant has other outstanding debts, and he also pays child support for a young son.
[5] The Applicant noted that he holds approximately $60,000 in investments. While his ability to gain access to these funds has been affected by the CRA’s enforcement measures, counsel for the Respondent advised the Court that the Applicant’s use of these funds is no longer subject to any restriction by the CRA.
[6] In 2010, the Applicant applied to the CRA for relief from interest and penalties owed on his unpaid taxes. The application was refused. The Applicant made two further requests for relief in 2012. There followed numerous exchanges between the Applicant and the CRA, which culminated in a decision by the CRA dated April 11, 2014. This is the decision that is now subject to judicial review.
…
[8] The CRA cancelled all interest owed on arrears up to the date of the decision based on the financial and medical information provided by the Applicant. This amounted to approximately $28,000. The CRA declined to waive the outstanding penalties, totalling approximately $10,000.
The standard of review was whether the decision falls “within a range of possible outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and the law” [para. [9]]. The Court concluded that the decision met that test:
[10] The Applicant did not identify any specific matter that the CRA had failed to take into account in considering his request for relief of interest and penalties. Nor did he allege that he had been denied an opportunity to present his case. On the contrary, a review of the file confirms that the Applicant provided extensive information to the CRA. The decision itself is transparent and intelligible. As noted above, the Applicant’s grounds for relief were accurately summarised within the decision, and the Applicant was ultimately successful in his request for relief from interest on outstanding arrears.
…
[13] I am therefore satisfied that the decision of the CRA to grant the applicant’s request for relief from all interest on income tax arrears, but to decline to waive the filing penalties, falls within a range of possible outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and the law. The application for judicial review is dismissed.
Accordingly the application was dismissed, but without costs because of CRA’s delays in the course of the proceeding:
[14] The Respondent has requested costs of the application. Ordinarily the Respondent would be entitled to costs. However, in this case the Respondent twice sought extensions of time in order to file and serve documents in accordance with the Federal Courts Rules, citing inadvertence. The Respondent’s non-compliance with the Rules caused delay and inconvenience to both the Applicant and the Court. In my view, this is not an appropriate case for an award of costs.