Pilgrim v. The Queen (November 18, 2015 – 2015 TCC 302, Sommerfeldt J.).
Précis: The taxpayer’s reassessments for 2009 and 2010 and his assessment for 2011 were mailed in 2012 to a large residential complex where he lived but they did not specify the unit number. He claimed that he had never received them. He brought an application in the Tax Court to extend the time to file notices of objection. The Court held that his notice of objection was timely since he had never actually been mailed the reassessments and assessment in question. Thus the application was dismissed but Mr. Pilgrim got an order declaring that his notices of objection were timely.
There was no order as to costs.
Decision: The Court accepted that the reassessments and assessment at issue were not properly addressed:
 During the hearing, it was counsel for the Respondent who first noticed that the address to which the CRA had mailed the Notices was not the complete address of Mr. Pilgrim. At that point, counsel for the Respondent graciously acknowledged that the CRA had not mailed the Notices to Mr. Pilgrim’s correct address.
As a result the Court held that Mr. Pilgrim’s notices of objection were timely:
 As observed above, from September 15, 2011 to May 8, 2014, the CRA was using an incomplete address for Mr. Pilgrim. In particular, the address did not show the number of his unit in Riverview Terrace. During this period, at least three items purportedly sent by the CRA to Mr. Pilgrim were returned to the CRA as undelivered, with the result that the CRA should have been on notice that it did not have an appropriate address for him.
 No evidence was presented at the hearing as to how the CRA came to have an incomplete address for Mr. Pilgrim or how it came to learn his complete address on or about May 8, 2014. It is possible that Mr. Pilgrim provided an incomplete address to the CRA, and it is also possible that he provided the complete address but the CRA incorrectly entered it into its computer. For the purposes of this Application, I am prepared to give the benefit of the doubt to Mr. Pilgrim.
 Accordingly, I find that the CRA did not send the Notices to Mr. Pilgrim. Therefore, the limitation period contemplated by subparagraph 165(1)(a)(ii) of the ITA did not begin to run, with the result that Mr. Pilgrim’s Notice of Objection was served on the Minister within the time limited by paragraph 165(1)(a) of the ITA.
 Hence, there is no need for Mr. Pilgrim to apply to extend the time for serving the Notice of Objection. Thus, the issue of whether Mr. Pilgrim’s application under subsection 166.1(1) of the ITA was made on or before the deadline contemplated by paragraphs 166.1(7)(a) and 166.2(5)(a) of the ITA is moot.
The application was accordingly dismissed but Mr. Pilgrim got a declaration that his notices of objection were timely. There was no order as to costs.