Tax Court of Canada


Income tax

Administration and enforcement

Estate pleaded sufficient basis in Notice of Appeal to challenge correctness of reassessments

Estate was reassessed by Minister of National Revenue for taxation years 1992 to 1996 under Income Tax Act so as to increase taxable income and included arrears interests. Notices of reassessment were sent to daughter of late taxpayer and daughter objected to reassessments, asking that they be vacated. Minister confirmed reassessments and daughter filed appeal. Respondent brought motion for order quashing, striking out or expunging Notice of Appeal. Motion dismissed. Section 169(1) provides that where taxpayer has served notice of objection under s. 165, taxpayer may appeal to this Court to have assessment vacated or varied and s. 248(1) defines word “taxpayer” for purposes of Act as including “any person whether or not liable to pay tax”. Definition of “person” in Act was expansive definition which includes heirs, executors, liquidators of succession, administrators or other legal representatives of such person, according to law of that part of Canada to which context extends. Word “heir” contemplated by definition of “person” had to be interpreted in accordance with Civil Code of Québec (CCQ) and CCQ did not require that, to be considered “heir”, one had to administer, wind-up, control or otherwise deal in representative or fiduciary capacity with property that belonged to another person. Daughter qualified as heir of Estate and was therefore “person” and “taxpayer” as defined under s. 248(1). Accordingly, daughter could object to reassessments under s. 165 and initiate appeal under s. 169. Daughter had legal capacity to commence or continue proceeding for Estate. Estate had pleaded sufficient basis in Notice of Appeal to challenge correctness of reassessments.

Estate of Winifred Straessle v. The Queen (2018), 2018 CarswellNat 3779, 2018 TCC 144, Dominique Lafleur J. (T.C.C. [General Procedure]).

cover image


Subscribers get early and easy access to Law Times.

Law Times Poll

Law Times reports that there is no explicit rule that lawyers in Ontario must be competent in the use of technology. Do you think there should be explicit rules spelling out the expectations of lawyers’ in terms of tech use in their practice?