Minister probably did not intend to concede rebate issue, but what mattered was what was done, not what was intended

Two issues arose from reassessment of taxpayer. First issue, whether Minister erred in denying employment expenses claimed by taxpayer, was dismissed. Second issue, whether taxpayer was entitled to claimed GST/HST rebate was allowed on basis that Minister conceded issue. Application by Minister to vary judgment on basis that Minister did not concede issue. Application dismissed. Taxpayer claimed expenses that were not challenged by Minister. It was accepted that Minister probably did not intend to concede rebate issue, but what mattered was what was done, not what was intended. Rebate issue was not overlooked and was properly adjudicated, accordingly, application had to fail , because this was not situation that fell within recognized exceptions to finality of judgments.

Chao v. The Queen (2018), 2018 CarswellNat 6121, 2018 CarswellNat 6525, 2018 TCC 202, 2018 CCI 202, Gaston Jorré D.J. (T.C.C. [Informal Procedure]); affirmed (2018), 2018 CarswellNat 2086, 2018 TCC 72, Gaston Jorré D.J. (T.C.C. [Informal Procedure]).