[2016] 3 F.C.R. D-5
Income Tax
Reassessment
Notice of objection — Judicial review of respondent’s refusal under Income Tax Act, R.S.C., 1985 (5th Supp.), c. 1, s. 220(2.1) to waive obligation to serve notice of objection — Applicant alleging not having received copy of reassessment, thus not filing notice of objection within applicable time limit — Requesting respondent waive obligation to serve notice of objection pursuant to Act, s. 220(2.1) — Respondent denying request, stating, inter alia, s. 220(2.1) general provision not overriding Act, ss. 165(1), 166.1(7), use of words “serve” in s. 165(1), “file” in s. 220(2.1), “may” in s. 165(1), “requires” in s. 220(2.1), intended to be distinguished — Main issue whether respondent erred in deciding not having authority under Act, s. 220(2.1) to waive service of notice of objection — Respondent having jurisdiction under s. 220(2.1) to waive requirement for notice of objection — Subtle difference appearing between English, French version of s. 220(2.1) — In English version, initial portion of sentence indicating prescribed forms those contained in current Act, regulations — First possible interpretation of French version indicating relevant documents those defined by current Act, regulations — Second possible interpretation such that respondent can only renounce demanding certain documents in line with current Act, associated regulations — Two-step test in R. v. Daoust, 2004 SCC 6, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 217 to reconcile differences between versions applied — First interpretation of French version having common meaning with English version, adopted — Shared meaning consistent with Parliament’s intent to define forms, receipts, other documents, filing of which can be waived by respondent — Fact notice of objection may be served not preventing s. 220(2.1) from applying to notices of objection — S. 220(2.1) should be read, interpreted in large, liberal manner rather than in narrow, restrictive way — Purpose of s. 220(2.1) to blunt unfairness sometimes arising by strict application of filing, notice requirements in Act — Respondent’s discretionary power under s. 220(2.1) should not be unduly limited or fettered through unduly narrow interpretation — Not reasonable for respondent to determine not having authority or jurisdiction under s. 220(2.1) to waive service of notice of objection — Notice of objection “other document” contemplated by s. 220(2.1) — Application allowed.
ConocoPhillips Canada Resources Corp. v. Canada (National Revenue) (T-1811-12, 2016 FC 98, Boswell J., judgment dated January 27, 2016, 31 pp.)