https://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/458814/index.do
Girmay v. The Queen (December 27, 2019 – 2019 TCC 288, MacPhee J.).
Précis: This was a charitable donation appeal relating to the taxpayer’s 2011 taxation year. The Minister rejected her Notice of Objection as being out of time and advised the taxpayer that she could seek to extend the time to file a Notice of Objection. She did not do so and subsequently filed a Notice of Appeal in the Tax Court. The Court quashed the appeal since no valid Notice of Objection had ever been filed by the taxpayer. There was no order as to costs since this was an informal procedure appeal.
Decision: The Court found that it had no jurisdiction to proceed without evidence of a valid Notice of Objection:
[11] For the Appellant, her Notice of Objection was due on February 2, 2014. She was only two days late filing her Notice of Objection. Unfortunately, the consequences of missing the deadline are severe. The Minister will not accept an objection that is filed late, even if only by a day or two.
[12] The Appellant had the ability, pursuant to section 166.1 of the Act, to apply to the Minister to extend the time to file the Notice of Objection. She was informed of her ability to do so in the letter from the CRA dated February 14, 2014. For reasons that were not explained to the Court, the Appellant took no further steps to rectify this error. She filed her Notice of Appeal in this matter on November 10, 2016.
[13] As a result of these facts, the Appellant now appears in Tax Court without having filed a Notice of Objection pursuant to section 165 of the Act. The law is clear on this issue. A taxpayer’s right to appeal an assessment under the Act is rooted in section 169(1). Pursuant to s. 169(1) of the Act, a taxpayer may only Appeal to the Tax Court where they have served a Notice of Objection under section 165 of the Act. That has not happened; therefore the Appeal is not properly before the Court and must be quashed.
Thus the appeal was quashed. There was no order as to costs since this was an informal procedure appeal.