http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/71677/index.do 
Sullivan v. Canada (May 21, 2014 – 2014 FC 486) was an application for judicial review of the Minister’s decision to grant only partial relief to the taxpayer on a “fairness” review. The background is that Mr. Sullivan was reassessed for unreported T4A income for 2002 and 2003. A subsequent review determined that it was employment income and his employer issued T4s for those two years replacing the T4As. As a result the Minister denied the expenses claimed by the taxpayer. The taxpayer unsuccessfully objected. He then filed an appeal to the Tax Court which he subsequently withdrew. This proceeding arose out of T1 adjustment requests which he then filed for the 2002 and 2003 taxation years. The Minister treated those requests as taxpayer relief requests pursuant to subsection 152(4.2) of the Act. While the Minister granted some of the relief sought he did not allow the employment expenses claimed or a GST rebate claim for 2002.
The court found Mr. Sullivan’s evidence on the relief application unreliable:
[10] During the third administrative review of the applicant’s taxpayer relief request conducted by the Minister, the following facts were considered:
1. On his Rev99 form, the applicant indicated that Steelmatic did not require him to have his own office away from the employer’s premises, contrary to subsection 8(13) of the Act which requires either that the taxpayer principally performs the duties of office or employment in the home office, or that the home office is used on a regular and continuous basis to meet with customers or clients;
2. On the same form, the applicant stated he was reimbursed for expenses upon submitting expense sheets;
3. The T2200 form (Declaration of Employment) submitted by the applicant has not been completed and signed by an authorized officer of Steelmatic, but rather by the applicant himself; and
4. The information provided on the T2200 form was inconsistent with what the applicant himself had represented in his description of his conditions of employment on the Rev99 form. For example, on the T2200 form the applicant indicated that he was normally required to work away from the employer’s place of business. However, on the Rev99 form, the applicant stated that he was working 5 days a week from 8:30 am to 5:00 pm at the employer’s office.
The court found that the Minister had not acted unreasonably in denying the relief at issue:
[20] As an employee, the applicant had to file the T2200 Declaration of Employment duly signed by an authorized representative of Steelmatic, along with the Rev99 form, in order to convince the Minister that his general expenses and home office expenses met the requirements set out in paragraphs 8(1)(h) and 8(1)(h.1) and subsection 8(13) of the Act.
[21] The applicant invokes the fact that, by that time, his relation with Steelmatic had deteriorated to such an extent that it justified him signing the T2200 Declaration of Employment in lieu of Steelmatic’s representative. Even if the Minister’s delegate knew of the difficulties encountered by the applicant in obtaining a T2200 Declaration of Employment signed by his former employer, it was reasonable for him not to accept an incomplete document.
[22] It was also reasonable for the Minister, considering all of the contradictions and inconsistencies between the T2200 form (Declaration of Employment) and the Rev99 form, to find that the applicant’s conditions of employment did not include the obligation for him to pay for his claimed expenses or to use part of his residence as his main office. The Minister’s exercise of his discretion was reasonable, particularly considering the fact that the applicant withdrew his appeal before the Tax Court of Canada, and the fact that he had had several occasions to provide convincing and consistent evidence that he met the requirements of the Act.
As a result the application for judicial review was dismissed with costs to the respondent.