http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/97997/index.do 
Fung v. Canada (Attorney General) (October 1, 2014 – 2014 FC 934) was an application for judicial review of the Minister’s refusal to grant relief from a late filing penalty and interest:
[1] Yuet Yi Fung seeks judicial review of a second-level decision of the Canada Revenue Agency. In that decision, a Minister’s Delegate refused to grant relief to Ms. Fung from penalties and interest assessed as a result of her failure to file a T-1135 Foreign Income Verification Statement with respect to her 2011 taxation year by the June 15, 2012 deadline.
[2] By way of background, having failed to file the T-1135 return by the deadline, Ms. Fung was assessed a late-filing penalty of $2,500, and arrears interest of $106.82. She paid the monies owing on April 23, 2013, but, in the meantime, she sought relief under the “tax fairness” provisions contained in subsection 220(3.1) of the Income Tax Act.
[3] In her first-level submissions, Ms. Fung asserted that she was pregnant in 2011, and that her daughter was born earlier than expected. In her request for tax relief, Ms. Fung stated that because she had had to take care of a premature baby and her four-year-old child, it was very difficult for her to have what she described as “focused time” to organize her income tax receipts, with the result that she was unable to file for the 2011 taxation year until October of 2012. Ms. Fung also stated that she was unaware that she had to file a T-1135 form by the June 15 deadline, even if she did not owe any tax for the 2011 taxation year.
In a nutshell the court held that Ms. Fund simply had not provided any evidentiary basis to justify the court’s intervention and dismissed the application:
[11] It was up to Ms. Fung to provide evidence to support her request for relief to the Minister’s Delegate. It was not up to the Minister’s Delegate to tell Ms. Fung what kind of evidence she had to provide to support her request. Ms. Fung did not provide any information as to the type of care that was required by her child, nor did she explain why she was unable to obtain the services of a tax professional in a timely manner, even though it appears that she had used the services of a tax professional in the past to prepare her tax filings, and she ultimately retained a tax professional to prepare her 2011 T-1135.
[12] Indeed, Ms. Fung has not provided any evidence as to any efforts that she may have made during the relevant period to comply with her tax obligations in 2011-2012. In the circumstances, it was entirely reasonable for the Minister’s Delegate to conclude that Ms. Fung had not demonstrated the existence of circumstances that would justify the granting of relief from the penalties and interest that had been assessed against her.