Minister’s review was selective and made without regard to some of information before her

Taxpayer was 70-year-old registered nurse who received pension and who looked after her husband and daughter, both of whom were persons living with disabilities. In 2012, taxpayer filed her taxes late and did not include her “T4A – Statement of Pension, Retirement Annuity and Other Income” when filing. Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) reassessed taxpayer’s 2012 return to include unreported income for that year and levied penalties. Taxpayer applied for cancellation of penalties. Taxpayer’s wages began to be garnished in order to recover debt. On first-level review, request for taxpayer relief was rejected and taxpayer’s reapplication for relief was later rejected. Taxpayer paid balance of $13,962.02 owing on her account in full. Taxpayer requested review of Minister’s decision to deny request for taxpayer relief. Request granted. Minister’s review was selective and made without regard to some of information before her. Second-level report did not appear to take into account that taxpayer cleared her entire debt to CRA and said nothing of taxpayer’s hardship submissions. Had Minister considered totality of taxpayer’s evidence, it was possible that she could have arrived at different conclusion. Minister committed reviewable error that should be rectified upon redetermination.

Shantakumar v. Canada (Attorney General) (2018), 2018 CarswellNat 3665, 2018 CarswellNat 3737, 2018 FC 677, 2018 CF 677, Shirzad Ahmed J. (F.C.).