http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/110971/index.do 
Apic v. The Queen (July 29, 2015 – 2015 TCC 192, Woods J.).
Précis: Mr. Apic applied for an extension of the time to file a notice of appeal in respect of his 2007 and 2008 taxation years. The only witness called was his bookkeeper, Ms. Clark, who testified that they formed an intention to appeal early on but were delayed and unfamiliar with the procedure.
Although the Court found the Ms. Clark’s evidence not entirely satisfactory it essentially gave the taxpayer the benefit of the doubt and allowed the application to extend the time to file a notice of appeal.
Decision: The Court was very forgiving of the taxpayer’s lapses in this matter:
[4] I am generally loath to deny an application to extend time on the grounds set out in clauses (b)(i) and (iii) unless non-compliance is clear. These conditions concern appeal procedure. It is often difficult for taxpayers to navigate appeal procedures, and the penalty for non-compliance with any of the conditions in s. 167(5) is extremely harsh. Parliament has enacted this legislation and it must be applied, however, it is not appropriate to set the bar too high as it concerns clauses (b)(i) and (iii) in particular.
[5] The only witness who testified at the hearing was the applicant’s bookkeeper, Biserka Clark. She also represented the applicant at the hearing. I will comment first on the reliability of Ms. Clark’s testimony.
[6] Ms. Clark testified that the applicant formed an intention to appeal the reassessments shortly after they were received. She said they did not get around to the paperwork until about six months later because they thought there was an 18 month deadline. The deadline is actually 90 days.
[7] Ms. Clark testified that their understanding of the deadline came from viewing the Court’s website and from calling Court staff on two or three occasions. It was only when the respondent’s Reply was received in June, Ms. Clark stated, that they realized that the deadline was missed.
[8] Counsel for the respondent submits that Ms. Clark’s testimony is not reliable in certain respects. I agree with this. The testimony was very brief and at times it was not believable.
[9] For example, Ms. Clark testified that, until the Reply was received, they believed that the applicant had 18 months to file an appeal. This testimony does not make sense. The applicant had earlier applied for an extension of time, and provided a reason for requesting the extension. It makes no sense to do this if the applicant believed that he was within the appeal period. Overall, this testimony was simply not credible.
[10] Although Ms. Clark’s testimony does not have a complete ring of truth, I do find that she and the applicant likely thought that there was no problem with their filing procedure. I would note that the excerpt from the Court’s website that was introduced into evidence makes no mention of the conditions in s. 167(5). Similarly, the Court’s form for the extension application does not mention them. In these circumstances, it makes sense that Ms. Clark and the applicant were surprised when they received the Reply and saw the conditions that must be satisfied. The applicant likely knew that he needed an extension of time, but before receiving the Reply he also likely thought that this would be non controversial.
…
[19] Further, I accept that the applicant was relying on the Court’s website to understand the filing procedure. This is reasonable. The applicant provided an excerpt from the website that was relied on. It does not alert the reader to the specific requirements in s. 167(5), and in particular the requirement that the application for an extension of time be filed as soon as circumstances permit. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, but clause (b)(iii) itself requires that the circumstances be taken into account. I find that it was reasonable for the application to be filed about six months after the new reassessments were issued. This is “as soon as circumstances permitted” as required by the legislation.
[20] I have concluded that the application should be granted. Although I have difficulty with some of Ms. Clark’s testimony, there is sufficient reliable evidence to justify granting the application. I would also note that the respondent concedes that the grounds in the notice of appeal are not frivolous. It is just and equitable that the application be granted.
Under the circumstances the Court ordered that both sides bear their own costs.