http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/71804/index.do 
Chiasson v. The Queen (May 20, 2014 – 2014 TCC 158) was an appeal of the taxpayer’s 2011 taxation year in which she had been assessed a gross negligence penalty for failure to report employment income. It was not her first failure to report income:
[4] Ms. Chiasson failed to report income for her 2007, 2009 and 2011 taxation years. For 2007, she omitted to report $5,011 of employment income. For 2009, she omitted to report $9,832 of employment income. For 2011, she omitted to report $67,599 as employment income and $4,216 as a retiring allowance.
The taxpayer argued that she had behaved with due diligence. She testified that she gave her tax information to her husband who gave them to their accountant. The accountant then give the returns back to her husband to review. The court did not accept her due diligence argument:
[38] In light of the evidence and the admissions made by Mr. Chiasson and Ms. Chiasson regarding the 2011 taxation year, I would have to dismiss the appeal. Mr. Chiasson, who was acting on behalf of Ms. Chiasson, stated during argument that his spouse had not been diligent in reporting her income for her 2011 taxation year. Ms. Chiasson, for her part, testified that, if she had read what her accountant had prepared with respect to her 2011 taxation year, she would have noticed that her employment income was much higher than $11,440. It goes without saying that the test enunciated in Sault Ste. Marie with regard to the due diligence defence has not been met.
…
[45] I am aware of the harshness of the penalty under subsection 163(1) of the Act and I understand that Ms. Chiasson’s failure to report her income was not deliberate, but as Justice Woods stated in
Morgan v The Queen, 2013 TCC 232, 2013 DTC 1188, at paragraph 27: “Despite the harshness, it is not up to courts to rewrite the law. Parliament has seen fit to enact the penalty under subsection 163(1) and it is the duty of the courts to apply it.”
[46] In my opinion, Ms. Chiasson did not establish that she exercised due diligence with respect to either her 2009 or her 2011 taxation year. Consequently, the imposition of the penalty under subsection 163(1) of the Act is justified and the appeal is dismissed.