Lilyfield Development Inc. v. The Queen (January 29, 2020 – 2020 TCC 16, MacPhee J.).
Précis: The Crown brought a motion to quash this appeal on the ground that the taxpayer corporation had been dissolved and did not have the capacity to pursue an appeal. The Court essentially gave the taxpayer 30 days to seek a revival and when it failed to do so granted the Crown’s motion and quashed the appeal with costs to the Crown.
Decision: Unfortunately this case seems to be one of the taxpayer not accepting the Court’s lifeline and being the author of its own predicament:
 The Appellant’s corporate status was dissolved on April 21, 2017, pursuant to paragraph 205(1)(a) of the Corporations Act of Manitoba C.C.S.M. c. C225 (the “Manitoba CA”) for a failure to file returns.
 The Notice of Appeal in this proceeding was filed on May 26, 2017. Prior to filing the Notice of Appeal, the Appellant had filed an Application to extend time to file the Notice of Appeal. This matter was commenced on December 21, 2015. An Order was provided by the Tax Court on May 26, 2017 which allowed the Application.
 As a result of the Application, the Tax Court accepted the draft Notice of Appeal, which was an Exhibit to the Application, as a filed Notice of Appeal. As mentioned above, this occurred on May 26, 2017.
 At the end of the hearing of this Motion I indicated to the parties that I would not write my decision for at least another 30 days, and if the Appellant wished to revive the corporate Appellant, and put me on notice that this step had occurred, then I would not grant the Order to quash the Appeal. I further let the parties know that if the corporate Appellant chose to take no action, then the Order requested by the Respondent would most likely be granted. I have not heard from either party since the conclusion of the hearing.
 The Appellant argues that in filing an Application in December 2015, an originating document had been filed prior to the Appellant being dissolved, and therefore the Appellant corporation may continue with the litigation. I do not accept this position. The Application filed was a separate and distinct proceeding filed under subparagraph 18.29(1)(3)(vii) of the Tax Court of Canada Act. The matter was concluded on May 26, 2017, the day the Order was issued by the Tax Court.
 As noted in 1455257, a proceeding is instituted before the Tax Court by filing “[a]n originating document” as prescribed by the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure).
 Pursuant to the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure), an originating document means a document that is filed under section 21 of the Tax Court of Canada Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. T-2 (the “TCCA”). The only document filed by the Appellant under section 21 of the TCCA was the Notice of Appeal, which was filed on May 26, 2017, a little more than a month after the corporation was dissolved.
 Therefore, the Appellant initiated an action on May 26, 2017, a time in which it was dissolved. Subsection 242(1) of the Manitoba CA does not allow a dissolved corporation to initiate a civil procedure. On that basis, I must allow the Motion and quash this Appeal.
Thus the Crown’s motion was allowed and the appeal quashed with costs to the Crown.