http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/71779/index.do 
Yevzeroff v. The Queen (May 13, 2014 – 2014 TCC 145) was a GST appeal by a taxpayer who allegedly carried on a business of tax representation. Most of the underlying issues had been the subject of a prior unsuccessful appeal by the taxpayer with respect to another GST period. In dismissing the taxpayer’s appeal the court was, to say the least, clearly unimpressed with his evidence:
[8] Further, there are credibility concerns with the taxpayer and his documents. He denied he was the Ben Yevzeroff in a fax header, or that he had a fax machine, until it was pointed out to him that this same header appears on the Notice of Appeal he filed. Several documents misspell Yonge Street in the same manner as he did in his Notice of Appeal.
[9] Further, it would be entirely inappropriate for me to allow the same Beaches Paralegal claim, and the same Canada Post claims, to be relitigated, much less to be decided in the taxpayer’s favour. Mr. Yevzeroff’s attempt to do so is an abuse of the process of this Court.
[10] Further, the vehicle expense claim is entirely based upon a CRA published ITC allowance for those receiving tax free vehicle allowances. Mr. Yevzeroff is not such a person; he did not receive such an allowance. He used his own vehicle in his activity, he kept logs to the very kilometre, but he did not tell the Court what his vehicle expenses were.
[11] Further, his ITC claim for a vehicle expense suggests he drove almost 40,000 kilometres in the two years for tax representation activities, and his input vehicle expenses were many times the approximately $2,500 of gross revenue generated by his tax representation activities in those periods.
The court was sufficiently put off by the taxpayer’s conduct that it took the unusual step of awarding costs against him in an informal procedure appeal and advised him that he could face treatment as the Tax Court equivalent of a vexatious litigant if he tried to litigate the same issues in a future appeal:
[13] For all of these reasons, Mr. Yevzeroff’s appeal is dismissed. This is an informal appeal, however the Court is entitled to regulate its processes, including curtailing abuses of process, and awarding costs against those who seek to abuse our processes.
[14] In the circumstances, I am awarding costs against Mr. Yevzeroff of $1,000 payable to the Respondent within 45 days.
[15] Further, Mr. Yevzeroff, please be aware that if you try to relitigate this yet again, this Court has the power to bar you from filing anything further in this Court without leave of the Court.