http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/109834/index.do 
Olumide v. The Queen (May 19, 2015 – 2015 TCC 125, Woods J.).
Précis: The taxpayer was a self-represented litigant who claimed a wide range of remedies related to a 2010 GST rebate application. His notice of objection had been filed three years late and therefore the Court had no jurisdiction to extend the time to file a notice of appeal. The application was quashed.
Decision: This decision is a bit of a smorgasbord of issues (e.g., claiming relief from costs awards made by the Federal Court, Federal Court of Appeal, etc.). Ultimately it came down to the fact that there was no valid notice of objection on which to found an appeal to the Tax Court:
[38] It is clear that Mr. Olumide’s application has no chance of success. In the particular circumstances of this case, I conclude that it is appropriate to grant the Crown’s motion to quash the application on that ground.
[39] An Order to quash the application by way of a preliminary motion rather than having a full hearing of the application is an efficient use of Court resources for this particular matter. I note in particular that Mr. Olumide issued a subpoena to the Commissioner of the CRA which required him to appear at the application. I agree with the respondent that the Commissioner’s evidence would not have a bearing on the outcome of this application. In addition, Mr. Olumide attempted to file numerous documents with the Registry after the hearing of the motion. It would be an abuse of Court resources to prolong this matter.
[40] In the result, the respondent’s motion is granted, and the application by Mr. Olumide for extensions of time and to vacate court costs is quashed. It is not necessary that I deal with the respondent’s alternative submission regarding the subpoenas.
[41] The Crown has not sought costs and none will be ordered.
The application was accordingly quashed.
TAGS: Excise Tax Act, GST Litigation, Extension of Time