http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/site/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/64490/index.do 
Stein v. The Queen[1] (October 30, 2013) involved the Crown failing to withhold taxes from the salary of an Employment Insurance claims examiner:
[3] In 2008 the employer failed to take any source deductions from Ms. Stein’s remuneration. She testified that she did not notice the error until she received a T4 slip for the year. Ms. Stein immediately took the issue up with her employer who informed her that a clerical error had been made.
[4] Ms. Stein’s submits that she should not bear the tax that should have been withheld because it was her employer’s error.
The Crown took a very hard line that the Tax Court had no jurisdiction over the matter and the court had little choice but to concur:
[12] I have difficulty with several of the arguments raised by the Crown, but I am of the view that this application to extend time should not be granted because Ms. Stein’s appeal to this Court clearly will not succeed. There is no point in approving an application to extend time if the appeal is ultimately bound to fail.
[13] This Court’s jurisdiction is limited to determining whether the Minister has correctly determined the amount of the tax payable by Ms. Stein. Writing off a tax debt is a different matter altogether which is not within this Court’s mandate.
[14] Under the Act, a taxpayer who has earned income is liable to pay tax on that income. That liability is not negated simply because an employer failed to make the appropriate source deductions. This is fatal to Ms. Stein’s appeal.
[15] In addition, it is well established that this Court cannot grant relief on grounds of equity or fairness. The fact that the employer made a mistake in handling the source deductions, and problems that Ms. Stein had with the CRA during the objection stage, are not grounds that this Court can take into account in considering an appeal from an assessment (
Chaya v The Queen, 2004 FCA 327).
[16] Ms. Stein’s circumstances are sympathetic, but the application will have to be dismissed.
Comment: Sometimes in cases such as this the court recommends a remission order (whether as to principal, interest, penalties or a combination of them) under the Financial Administration Act.[2] Such recommendations are not binding but they do carry significant moral weight.
[1] 2013 TCC 345.
[2] R.S.C. 1985, c. F-11.