http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/site/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/65038/index.do 
Kamangar v. The Queen[1] (November 26, 2011) is a case of a taxpayer going to the well once too often. This was the taxpayer’s second application to extend the time to file a notice of appeal in the same proceeding.
Facts
[6] The Applicant’s 2005 and 2006 taxation years were reassessed on December 4, 2009 and the reassessments were confirmed by notice dated July 21, 2011. He filed an application for extension of time to file a notice of appeal on December 23, 2011. Attached to the application was a document entitled “Notice of Appeal”. The Respondent did not oppose the application and Lamarre J issued an Order dated February 1, 2012 extending the time within which an appeal may be instituted for the 2005 and 2006 taxation years. The Order was made conditional on “a proper Notice of Appeal” being filed with the Court on or before March 12, 2012. It was sent to Mr. Menzies [the Applicant’s agent] by registered mail on February 2, 2012. There is no suggestion that Mr. Menzies did not receive the Order.
[7] Mr. Menzies failed to respond to the Order and to file a proper Notice of Appeal. The Applicant’s file with the Court was closed on March 27, 2012.
[8] The Applicant explained that when he received the notice of assessment for his 2012 taxation year, he was alerted to the fact that he still owed amounts from a previous assessment. That notice of assessment was dated May 2, 2013. On June 21, 2013, Mr. Menzies wrote to the Court to inquire about the status of the Applicant’s appeal for his 2005 and 2006 taxation year and he was told that the file was closed.
[9] Both the Applicant and Mr. Menzies feel that the Applicant’s right to appeal should not be prejudiced by mistakes made by Mr. Menzies.
[10] This motion was filed with the Court on October 2, 2013.
[11] It was the Respondent’s position that the Applicant was previously granted an extension of time to file his notice of appeal and he missed the Court ordered deadline. With the present motion, the Applicant is seeking a second extension of time. This application for extension of time should be dismissed because it was not made within one year and ninety days after the day on which the notice of confirmation was mailed to the Applicant. In this case, the motion was filed with the court on October 2, 2013 and the time within which an application for extension of time to appeal could be allowed expired on October 19, 2012. Counsel relied on the decision in Moon v R, 2010 TCC 393 to state that once it is found that the application for extension of time was not made within one year and ninety days after the date on the notice of confirmation, this court does not have jurisdiction to extend that time and the question whether it would be just and equitable to grant an extension may not be raised.
The court held that the Applicant’s delay (more than 600 days) in bringing this motion was inordinate and not satisfactorily explained:
[14] At the hearing, Mr. Menzies stated that he had attached a notice of appeal to the application for extension of time. I have reviewed this document and it consists of three sentences. It contained no relevant facts and Lamarre J considered that it was not a proper Notice of Appeal. I agree with her decision.
[15] If I use subsection 18.21(3) of the TCCA as a guide, the Court will not set aside an order of dismissal if the request is brought later than one hundred and eighty days after the day the order was mailed to the appellant. In this case, the motion to have Lamarre J’s Order set aside was made on October 2, 2013 which is more than 600 days after the Order was mailed. It is my view that the delay in filing the present motion was inordinate. It was made more than one and one half years after the Order was mailed.
[16] Mr. Menzies complained that the Court closed the Applicant’s file without notifying the Applicant or him. However, it is my opinion that the Court did not have to notify the Applicant before it closed his file as he had not fulfilled a necessary condition of the Order. Mr. Menzies was made aware that a proper Notice of Appeal had to be filed with the Court. A registry officer telephoned him on February 2, 2012 to advise him of Lamarre J’s decision with respect to the application for extension of time and to advise him of the condition in the Order. The Order was sent to Mr. Menzies by registered mail on February 2, 2012. There is no dispute that Mr. Menzies received the Order.
[17] It is my view that the Applicant has not provided a satisfactory explanation that would justify setting aside the Order in question and reopening his file.
[18] The motion is dismissed.
[1] 2013 TCC 385.