http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/site/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/66594/index.do 
Higgins v. Canada (Attorney General)[1] (January 29, 2014) is a fairness application based on alleged hardship and abusive conduct by CRA. The application followed the applicant’s conviction for tax evasion:
[2] In 2007 the Applicant was assessed for unreported income for the 2001 and 2002 taxation years. The unreported amounts resulted in the assessment of gross negligence penalties in the amount of $17,101.
[3] In 2009 the Applicant pled guilty to wilfully evading payment of income taxes by failing to correctly report taxable income for the 2001 and 2002 taxation years. He was sentenced in provincial court to a fine and one year of probation.
[4] The Applicant applied for relief from penalties and arrears on the basis of financial hardship and that he had not intended to be grossly negligent in declaring his income for the 2001 and 2002 taxation years.
[5] A 1st level review denied relief. The Applicant filed what became a 2nd level review claiming mistreatment by Canada Revenue Agency [CRA] and personal hardship. A conclusion by CRA that the Applicant had been consistently late in filing his returns was ultimately corrected.
[6] The decision by the Delegate recommended partial relief of $850 as compensation for correcting the late filing conclusion of a CRA official but otherwise denying the request for relief in the range of $9,000.
The court rejected the application on the basis that the applicant had not made out a case that CRA acted unreasonably:
[14] The Federal Court of Appeal has held in Telfer v Canada (Revenue Agency), 209 FCA 23, [2009] 4 CTC 123, that the Minister’s decision is to be assessed on the reasonableness standard.
[15] I cannot find any basis whatsoever for finding that the Minister’s decision was unreasonable. The decision addresses all the relevant factors and weighs them in a manner that exhibits justification, transparency and intelligibility. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to justify granting relief to a taxpayer who had such a record of tax non-compliance and evasion where there was no evidence of significant financial hardship in meeting his tax obligations.
[16] The Applicant’s claim that he has accepted responsibility for his past is undermined by his request to avoid the consequences of his past actions.
IV. CONCLUSION
[17] Therefore, this judicial review will be dismissed with costs.
[1] 2014 FC 100.