http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/119975/index.do
Anderson v. The Queen (September 22, 2015 – 2015 TCC 229, V. Miller J.).
Précis: Mr. Anderson applied for an extension of the time to file notices of objection for his 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009 taxation years. His original time to file such notices of objection with the Minister expired anywhere from 2007 to 2010, depending on the taxation year in question. His time to apply to the Minister for an extension to file such notices of objection also expired anywhere from 2008 to 2011, again depending on the taxation year in question. He applied to the Minister for an extension for all of these taxation years in 2013, which the Minister refused by letter dated September 27, 2013. He then applied to the Tax Court for an extension for the same years on April 23, 2015.
The Tax Court dismissed his application since it had no jurisdiction to grant an extension so long after the fact.
Decision: This was simply a case of a hopeless application:
[8] Mr. Anderson’s representative stated that her client did not understand the meaning and the significance of the notices of assessment.
[9] As I explained to Mr. Anderson and his representative, the time limits in the Act are strict and this Court cannot alter them. This was confirmed by the Federal Court of Appeal in Canada v Carlson, 2002 FCA 145 where Nadon, J.A. stated:
As this Court has held on numerous occasions, when a taxpayer is unable to meet the deadline prescribed by the Act, even by reason of a failure of the postal system, neither the Minister nor the TCC can come to his help. (See Schafer v. R., [2000] F.C.J. No. 1480 (Fed. C.A.) ; Bowen v. Minister of National Revenue (1991), [1992] 1 F.C. 311 (Fed. C.A.) ). Hence, if a postal failure cannot save a taxpayer, he will not be saved by his failure to grasp the significance of a notice of assessment served on him.