http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/109122/index.do 
Pavage St-Eustache Ltée v. Canada (Attorney General) (April 16, 2015 – 2015 FC 477, Gagné J.).
Précis: In 2004 the applicant was assessed with income tax for its 1996 taxation year. It claimed it did not receive a copy of the assessment until 2008 and applied for interest relief. Relief was granted for the period from 1999 to 2004 but not thereafter. The applicant applied for judicial review. The Court allowed the application and referred the matter back for redetermination in accordance with the reasons for judgment.
Decision: The Court accepted the applicant’s submission that CRA’s decision had not properly weighed the complex underlying facts:
[25] On the one hand, the applicant submits that it never received the notice of assessment dated May 26, 2004. It filed the affidavits of Mr. Kessiby [of CRA], Mr. Paco and Brigitte Mathers, all of whom affirm that they only learned about it at the end of 2008. On the other hand, the respondent did not submit any evidence that the notice was sent. Moreover, Form T-99A, which is an internal Agency document, and which normally precedes the issuance of a notice of assessment, is dated October 15, 2008, which is more than two years after the date of the notice of assessment. This is approximately when Ms. Vinette was trying to find it. The only explanation offered by Mr. Laporte is that the date indicated on Form T-99A could be the date it was printed rather than when it was created. With all due respect, given that one of the boxes in the notice form is reserved for the date of issuance, it would be most surprising if this date changed every time the notice is printed.
[26] Be that as it may, the respondent is prepared to acknowledge that the applicant did not receive the notice of assessment dated May 26, 2004. However, it argues that because the applicant subsequently received several statements of arrears and other documents, it was sufficiently informed about the reassessment for the fiscal year ending on December 31, 1996, and had no reason not to pay this amount in a timely manner. The respondent also argues that the Agency’s conclusion that it had not made any errors in its handling of the applicant’s file is reasonable, as is its conclusion that it was not responsible for any undue delay.
[27] With all due respect, I do not share the respondent’s opinion, and I believe that the Agency failed to take into consideration several facts that contradict its position, as well as a certain number of errors made by the Agency in its brief analysis of the applicant’s request for relief, including the following:
• the fact that Mr. Kessiby told counsel for the applicant to disregard the Statement of Arrears dated August 21, 2006, because a final reconciliation would be done to reflect the Agreement (paragraph 24 of the affidavit of Marcel Kessiby);
• the fact that the Agency issued four separate and contradictory notices of assessment regarding the Agency’s refusal to consider the farm loss, including the one of February 19, 2003—which is the first one after the Agreement—allowing the applicant the farm loss;
• the fact that it took several months to track down the notice of assessment dated May 26, 2004, and to send it to the applicant;
• the fact that Mr. Kessiby informed the applicant in writing on May 29, 2007, that the sum of $24,086.09 applied to the arrears would be corrected and the assessment adjusted (Exhibit E filed in support of the affidavit of Marcel Kessiby); and
• the fact that the notice of assessment was not sent to the applicant, or at the very least the fact that Mr. Kessiby was not informed, and that it was not sent to counsel for the applicant in accordance with the instructions.
[28] With all due respect, the Agency could not simply ignore all of these circumstances and conclude that there was no error on its part.
[29] It is possible that for the Agency, its own errors are mitigated by the fact that the applicant received some statements of arrears to which neither the applicant nor its counsel reacted. However, it must weigh all of the evidence and assess the impact of the errors it made on the applicant’s position.
[30] It is also possible that the Agency concluded that at the very least, as of September 25, 2007, the applicant could not have been unaware of the balance owed for the fiscal year ending December 31, 1996, because this balance war clearly indicated on the reconciliation summary received from Mr. Kessiby. The Agency will have to weigh all of the evidence and determine whether the applicant and Mr. Kessiby made an excusable error by only taking into consideration the last line of the second page of the document appended to the letter of September 25, 2007, from Mr. Kessiby (Exhibit G filed in support of his affidavit), which is found on the last line of paragraph 10 of these reasons.
As a result the application was allowed, with costs:
[31] In light of all the evidence, it is my opinion that it was not reasonable for the Agency to conclude that it had not made any errors in the handling of the applicant’s file without analyzing the evidence against it. For these reasons, this application for judicial review will be allowed, with costs.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT’S ORDERS AND ADJUDGES that
1. the application for judicial review is allowed;
2. the decision of the Canada Revenue Agency dated August 27, 2013, is quashed, and the file is referred back to another representative of the Agency for reconsideration of the applicant’s request for relief; and
3. costs are in favour of the applicant.
TAGS: Income Tax Act, Judicial Review, Taxpayer Relief