File: 2023-1201(IT)I
BETWEEN:
ANGÉLIQUE BOUCHARD,
Appellant,
and
HIS MAJESTY THE KING,
Respondent.
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
Motion by written representations at Ottawa, Canada
Before: The Honourable Justice Dominique Lafleur
Appearances:
For the Appellant:
The Appellant herself
Counsel for the Respondent:
Albert Brunelle
Christophe Tassé-Breault
JUDGMENT
IN VIEW OF the motion of the Respondent (the “Respondent’s Motion”) filed with the Court on October 12, 2023, seeking a judgment quashing this appeal on the grounds that it is invalid and that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of the appeal, or, in the alternative, allowing the Respondent to file the Reply to the Notice of Appeal within 60 days of this order;
IN VIEW OF the motion of the Appellant (the “Appellant’s Motion”) filed in this Court on November 20, 2023, seeking a judgment allowing the appeal because the Reply to the Notice of Appeal was not filed within the time prescribed by the Tax Court of Canada Rules (Informal Procedure) (the “Rules”);
IN VIEW OF the documents filed in the record;
IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT the Respondent’s Motion and the Appellant’s Motion must be decided in writing without the appearance of the parties;
AND UPON reading the parties’ written representations;
THE COURT ORDERS as follows:
For the attached reasons:
The Respondent’s Motion is granted and the appeal is quashed;
The Appellant’s Motion is dismissed;
Without costs.
Signed this 16th day of March 2026.
“Dominique Lafleur”
Lafleur J.
Translation certified true
on this 14th day of May 2026
Vera Roy, Senior Jurilinguist
Citation: 2026 TCC 49
Date: 20260316
File: 2023-1201(IT)I
BETWEEN:
ANGÉLIQUE BOUCHARD,
Appellant,
and
HIS MAJESTY THE KING,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Lafleur J.
I. The Parties’ Motions
[1] The Respondent has brought a motion, notice of which was filed with this Court on October 12, 2023 (the “Respondent’s Motion”), seeking a judgment quashing the present appeal by the Appellant under the Income Tax Act (RSC 1985, c 1 (5th Supp.); the “Act”) on the grounds that the appeal is invalid and that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of the appeal or, in the alternative, seeking an order allowing the Respondent to file a reply to the Notice of Appeal within 60 days of the date of the order.
[2] In addition, the Appellant has brought a motion, notice of which was filed with this Court on November 20, 2023 (the “Appellant’s Motion”), seeking a judgment allowing the appeal because the Reply to the Notice of Appeal was not filed within the time prescribed by the Tax Court of Canada Rules (Informal Procedure) (the “Rules”). The Appellant also seeks $5,000 in punitive and exemplary costs in view of the allegedly wrongful conduct of the Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”) officer who handled her file.
[3] The Appellant’s appeal has been the subject of numerous case management conferences, the last of which was held on November 4, 2025, in the Appellant’s absence, even though she had been duly notified of the conference.
[4] According to the Order of the Court dated November 5, 2025, the Appellant had until January 12, 2026, to serve on the Respondent and file with the Court written representations on the Appellant’s Motion and the Respondent’s Motion. This time limit was mandatory. In light of the Appellant’s failure to file written representations within the prescribed time, the Court considered the Respondent’s Motion and the Appellant’s Motion on the basis of the parties’ written representations on the record, without appearance of the parties.
[5] Unless otherwise indicated, any statutory provision referred to in these reasons is a provision of the Act.
II. The Appellant’s appeal and history of the file with the CRA
[6] On June 5, 2023, the Appellant filed an appeal with this Court in respect of the 2016 taxation year (attached as Appendix A to these reasons). The Appellant seeks payment of the $2,032 tax refund she was promised under the Act in April 2023.
[7] According to the affidavit of Romy Pierre-Canel, Litigation Officer at the CRA’s Montreal Tax Services Office, dated September 28, 2023 (the “Affidavit”), attached to the Respondent’s Motion, the history of the Appellant’s file with the CRA for the 2016 taxation year is as follows:
- (i) On July 27, 2017, the Minister of National Revenue (the “Minister” ) made an initial assessment.
- (ii) On January 4, 2021, the Appellant asked the CRA to consider the Canada Workers Benefit and the disability supplement in calculating her tax payable for the year.
- (iii) On January 11, 2021, the CRA agreed to consider these new elements in calculating the tax payable by the Appellant and reassessed under subsection 152(4.2) of the Act, determining that the Appellant was entitled to a tax refund of $530.06.
- (iv) On July 26, 2021, the Appellant made another request to the CRA, asking it to change the nature of the reported income, that is, to correct the business income reported to employment income instead.
- (v) In a letter dated April 19, 2023, the CRA advised the Appellant that her request for correction was granted and that a Notice of Reassessment would be issued at a later date to give effect to her request.
- (vi) In a letter dated May 18, 2023, the CRA advised the Appellant that, upon further review, her request for correction of July 26, 2021, was denied and that the 2016 taxation year would not be reassessed.
- (vii) On May 18, 2026, the CRA sent a Notice of Collection to the Appellant indicating a balance owing of $2,032.84. This notice was sent in error and was based on the refund that would have been paid to the Appellant had the CRA agreed to the correction that she requested on July 26, 2021, but that the CRA never made.
- (viii) The Notice of Collection was cancelled by the CRA on the same date, May 18, 2023.
III. Respondent’s Motion
[8] The Respondent’s Motion seeks a judgment quashing this appeal on the grounds that it is invalid and that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of the appeal or, in the alternative, a judgment allowing the Respondent to file the reply to the Notice of Appeal within 60 days of the order.
A. Respondent’s position
[9] The Minister’s last assessment for the 2016 taxation year was dated January 11, 2021, under subsection 152(4.2). The Notice of Reassessment dated January 11, 2021, stems from the Appellant’s request that the Canada Workers Benefit and the disability supplement be considered. That request was made after the normal reassessment period for the 2016 taxation year had expired. Subsection 165(1.2) provides that no objection may be made to an assessment under subsection 152(4.2).
[10] Therefore, given the lack of validly made objection, no appeal may be bought against the Court under subsection 169(1).
[11] For these reasons, the Respondent asks that the appeal be dismissed.
[12] The Respondent further submits that no assessment was made by the Minister following the Appellant’s second request on July 26, 2021. The Notice of Appeal states that the assessment is dated May 18, 2023. However, the only documents issued by the CRA on that date are a Notice of Collection and a letter refusing to reassess the 2016 taxation year.
[13] The right of appeal to this Court is subject to the existence of an assessment (subsections 169(1) and 171(1) and section 12 of the Tax Court of Canada Act (RSC, 1985 c T-2)). A notice of collection is not an assessment. In addition, the decision not to reassess under subsection 152(4.2) results from the exercise of discretion by the Minister, which is not within the Court’s jurisdiction.
[14] Accordingly, the Court does not have the jurisdiction to hear the appeal, and the appeal must also be quashed for these reasons.
B. The Appellant’s position
[15] As noted above, the Appellant submitted no representations on the Respondent’s Motion.
C. Analysis
[16] For the reasons that follow, the Respondent’s Motion is granted, without costs, and the appeal is quashed.
(1) Letter of refusal and Notice of Collection dated May 18, 2023, and Notice of Reassessment dated January 11, 2021
[17] The Notice of Appeal refers to a reassessment dated May 18, 2023. However, the Minister made no assessment or reassessment on May 18, 2023. The evidence has established that the Appellant’s last Notice of Reassessment for 2016 is dated January 11, 2021. The CRA’s letter dated May 18, 2023, refusing a reassessment and the Notice of Collection issued on that same date are not notices of assessment within the meaning of the Act.
[18] The Act provides that subsection 152(1) requires the Minister to assess the tax payable for the year, as well as the interest and penalties payable. Because the letter of refusal from the CRA dated May 18, 2023, and the Notice of Collection of the same date do not determine the tax payable for the year or the interest and penalties, these documents are not reassessments for the purposes of the Act.
[19] It is well established that a taxpayer’s right to object to an assessment under subsection 165(1) and to appeal to the Court may be exercised only to vacate or vary an assessment.
[20] Accordingly, the Appellant may not appeal to the Court against a notice of collection or a letter refusing to assess, since these documents are not assessments within the meaning of the Act.
[21] In Canada v. Interior Savings Credit Union, 2007 FCA 151, the Federal Court of Appeal set out this principle as follows:
[15] In my respectful view, the Tax Court Judge erred in dismissing the Crown’s Motion to strike. The Minister’s power and duty under subsection 152(1) of the Act is to “. . . assess the tax for the year, the interest and penalties, if any, . . .”. The taxpayer’s right to object (ss 165(1)) and to appeal to the Tax Court of Canada (ss 169(1)) can only be exercised in order “. . . to have the assessment vacated or varied . . .”. It follows that unless the taxpayer challenges the taxes interest or penalties assessed for the year, there is nothing to appeal and indeed no relief which the Tax Court can provide (Chagnon v. Norman, (1989) 16 SCR 661 at 662).
(2) Notice of Reassessment dated January 11, 2021
[22] As noted above, the evidence has established that the Appellant was reassessed for the 2016 taxation year for the last time on January 11, 2021. The Notice of Reassessment dated January 11, 2021, results from the CRA’s granting of the Appellant’s request to consider the Canada Workers Benefit and the disability supplement in calculating her tax payable for the year. Under this Notice of Reassessment, the Appellant was entitled to a tax refund of $530.06.
[23] According to the Affidavit, the Notice of Reassessment dated January 11, 2021, was issued in accordance with subsection 152(4.2).
[24] Subsection 154(4.2) provides:
152(4.2) Notwithstanding subsections (4), (4.1) and (5), for the purpose of determining—at any time after the end of the normal reassessment period, of a taxpayer who is an individual (other than a trust) or a graduated rate estate, in respect of a taxation year—the amount of any refund to which the taxpayer is entitled at that time for the year, or a reduction of an amount payable under this Part by the taxpayer for the year, the Minister may, if the taxpayer makes an application for that determination on or before the day that is 10 calendar years after the end of that taxation year,
(a) reassess tax, interest or penalties payable under this Part by the taxpayer in respect of that year; and
(b) redetermine the amount, if any, deemed by any of subsections 120(2) or (2.2), 122.5(3) to (3.005), 122.51(2), 122.7(2) or (3), 122.8(4), 122.9(2), 122.91(1), 127.1(1), 127.41(3) or 210.2(3) or (4) to be paid on account of the taxpayer’s tax payable under this Part for the year or deemed by subsection 122.61(1) to be an overpayment on account of the taxpayer’s liability under this Part for the year
[Emphasis added.]
[25] The Court agrees that the Notice of Reassessment of January 11, 2021, was issued under subsection 152(4.2), because it was issued after the normal reassessment period for the 2016 taxation year had expired and because it redetermined the tax deemed for the purposes of the Canada Workers Benefit and the disability supplement. Under this reassessment, the Appellant obtained a refund of the income tax payable for that year.
[26] The reassessment period for the 2016 taxation year—which, under the normal rules, should have expired on July 27, 2020, since the Act provides that the normal reassessment period is three years from the date of the initial assessment of July 27, 2017 (subsection 152(3.1))—expired on December 31, 2020, given the relief measures established by the federal government during the COVID-19 pandemic.
[27] Paragraph 2(1)(d) of the Order Respecting Time Limits and Other Periods under the Income Tax Act (COVID-19), as permitted by the Time Limits and Other Periods Act (COVID-19) (SC 2020 c. 11, s. 11), reads as follows:
2(1) Subject to subsection (2), the following time limits and periods are extended by six months or until December 31, 2020 if that day is before the end of those six months:
(d) the period of three years set out in paragraph 152(3.1)(b) of the Act;
[28] Subsection 152(3.1) provides:
152(3.1) For the purposes of subsections (4), (4.01), (4.2), (4.3), (4.31), (5) and (9), the normal reassessment period for a taxpayer in respect of a taxation year is
(a) ...;
(b) in any other case, the period that ends three years after the earlier of the day of sending of a notice of an original assessment under this Part in respect of the taxpayer for the year and the day of sending of an original notification that no tax is payable by the taxpayer for the year.
[Emphasis added.]
[29] However, under subsection 165(1.2), no objection may be made to the Notice of Reassessment dated January 11, 2021, because the reassessment was made under subsection 152(4.2). Subsection 165(1.2) provides:
165(1.2) Notwithstanding subsections (1) and (1.1), no objection may be made by a taxpayer to an assessment made under subsection 118.1(11), 152(4.2), 169(3) or 220(3.1) nor, for greater certainty, in respect of an issue for which the right of objection has been waived in writing by the taxpayer.
[Emphasis added.]
[30] In the absence of a validly made objection to an assessment, no appeal from that assessment may be brought before the Court. Subsection 169(1) provides that the right to appeal to the Court is subject to prior service of a notice of objection:
169 (1) Where a taxpayer has served notice of objection to an assessment under section 165, the taxpayer may appeal to the Tax Court of Canada to have the assessment vacated or varied after either
(a) the Minister has confirmed the assessment or reassessed, or
(b) 90 days have elapsed after service of the notice of objection and the Minister has not notified the taxpayer that the Minister has vacated or confirmed the assessment or reassessed,
but no appeal under this section may be instituted after the expiration of 90 days from the day notice has been sent to the taxpayer under section 165 that the Minister has confirmed the assessment or reassessed.
[Emphasis added.]
[31] Since the last Notice of Reassessment for 2016 was issued under subsection 152(4.2) and no objection to such a notice can be served, it follows that no appeal can be made to this Court from that Notice of Reassessment dated January 11, 2021 (Freitas v. The Queen, 2018 FCA 110 at paras. 9 and 14).
[32] For all these reasons, the Respondent’s Motion is granted, without costs, and the appeal is quashed.
(3) Lack of jurisdiction of the Court
[33] The appeal filed by the Appellant may also be quashed on the grounds that the Court does not have the jurisdiction to hear the dispute. In her Notice of Appeal, the Appellant seeks payment of a tax refund she was promised by a CRA officer who confirmed to her that her request to modify the nature of her reported income for the 2016 taxation year had been granted.
[34] Even if the Court had found that there was a reassessment on May 18, 2023—which is not the case, for the reasons stated above—the Court would not have the jurisdiction to hear the dispute because it does not concern the validity or correctness of an assessment. The Appellant seeks payment of a tax refund promised by a CRA officer. The dispute does not concern the validity or correctness of an assessment; rather, it is a matter concerning collections, which is not within this Court’s jurisdiction.
[35] As the Federal Court of Appeal stated in Ereiser v. Canada, 2013 FCA 20 [Ereiser]:
[31] . . .this Court has held that the role of the Tax Court of Canada in an appeal of an income tax assessment is to determine the validity and correctness of the assessment based on the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act and the facts giving rise to the taxpayer’s statutory liability. Logically, the conduct of a tax official who authorizes an assessment is not relevant to the determination of that statutory liability. It is axiomatic that the wrongful conduct by an income tax official is not relevant to the determination of the validity or correctness of an assessment. This is explained in Roitman (cited above) at paragraph 21:
[21] It is also settled law that the Tax Court of Canada does not have jurisdiction to set aside an assessment on the basis of abuse of process or abuse of power (see Main Rehabilitation Co. Ltd. v. The Queen, [2004] F.C.J. No. 2030, 2004 FCA 403, at paragraph 6; Obonsawin v. The Queen, 2004 G.T.C. 131 (T.C.C.); Burrows v. Canada, [2005] T.C.J. No. 614, 2005 TCC 761; Hardtke v. Canada, [2005] T.C.J. No. 188, 2005 TCC 263).
[32] Statements to the same effect were made in Main Rehabilitation at paragraphs 6 to 8:
[6] In any event, it is also plain and obvious that the Tax Court does not have the jurisdiction to set aside an assessment on the basis of an abuse of process at common law or in breach of section 7 of the Charter.
[7] As the Tax Court Judge properly notes in her reasons, although the Tax Court has authority to stay proceedings that are an abuse of its own process (see for instance Yacyshyn v. Canada, 1999 D.T.C. 5133 (F.C.A.)), Courts have consistently held that the actions of the CCRA cannot be taken into account in an appeal against assessments.
[8] This is because what is in issue in an appeal pursuant to section 169 is the validity of the assessment and not the process by which it is established (see for instance the Queen v. the Consumers’ Gas Company Ltd., 1986 CanLII 6796 (FCTAD), 87 D.T.C. 5008 (F.C.A.) at p. 5012). Put another way, the question is not whether the CCRA officials exercised their powers properly, but whether the amounts assessed can be shown to be properly owing under the Act (Ludco Enterprises Ltd. v. R., 1994 CanLII 19486 (FCTAD), [1996] 3 C.T.C. 74 (F.C.A.) at p. 84).
[33] In light of this jurisprudence, it is plain and obvious that the Tax Court of Canada will not vacate the reassessments under appeal in this case solely on the basis of the wrongful conduct of a tax official in authorizing them. ...
[36] Similarly, the decision not to reassess under subsection 152(4.2) as stated in the CRA’s letter of refusal dated May 18, 2023, results from the Minister’s exercise of discretion (Canada (Attorney General) v. Abraham, 2012 FCA 266 at paras. 9 and 26), which is outside the Court’s jurisdiction.
[37] Therefore, for these reasons as well, the appeal must be quashed.
IV. The Appellant’s Motion
[38] In her motion, the Appellant asks that the Court render judgment allowing the appeal for 2016, given the Respondent’s failure to file a reply to the Notice of Appeal within the prescribed time. As noted above, the Appellant also seeks costs in the amount of $5,000.
[39] Given that the Respondent’s Motion is granted and the appeal quashed, there is no need for the Court to determine whether the Appellant’s Motion has merit. On that basis, therefore, the Appellant’s Motion is moot and must be set aside, and no costs are awarded.
[40] However, even if the Court had found that the Appellant’s Motion must be decided, which is not the case, it would have dismissed it.
[41] In this case, the Notice of Appeal was served on the Respondent on June 20, 2023. To this day, the Respondent has not filed a reply to the Notice of Appeal. The Respondent did file the Respondent’s Motion, however, on October 12, 2023, seeking in the alternative an extension of the time to file a reply to the Notice of Appeal.
[42] The TCC Act sets out the time limit within which a reply to a notice of appeal must be filed. Subsection 18.16(1) of the TCC Act reads as follows:
18.16(1) The Minister of National Revenue shall file a reply to a notice of appeal within sixty days after the day on which the Registry of the Court transmits to that Minister the notice of appeal unless the Appellant consents, before or after the expiration of the sixty day period, to the filing of that reply after the sixty day period or the Court allows the Minister, on application made before or after the expiration of the sixty day period, to file the reply after that period.
[Emphasis added.]
[43] Thus, under subsection 18.16(1) of the TCC Act, the Minister has sixty days after the notice of appeal is sent to reply to it, unless the appellant consents to or the Court allows its filing after that period.
[44] In this appeal, the Minister had until August 21, 2023, to file a reply to the Notice of Appeal. This was not done. Moreover, the Appellant did not consent to the filing of the reply after that date, and so far the Court has not allowed the reply to the Notice of Appeal to be filed late.
[45] Nevertheless, even if the Court does not allow the Respondent to file a reply to the Notice of Appeal late, the request as set out in the Appellant’s Motion to allow the appeal cannot be granted.
[46] The TCC Act provides for the consequences of the Respondent’s failure to file a reply to the Notice of Appeal within the prescribed time period. Where the Respondent fails to file a reply to the Notice of Appeal within the prescribed time period, the facts alleged in the Notice of Appeal are presumed to be true for the purposes of the appeal.
[47] Subsection 18.16(4) of the TCC Act provides the following:
18.16(4) The Minister of National Revenue may file a reply to a notice of appeal after the period limited under subsection (1) ... or, as the case may be, and where that Minister files the reply after that period or after the extension of time consented to by the appellant or granted by the Court, the allegations of fact contained in the notice of appeal are presumed to be true for the purposes of the appeal.
[Emphasis added.]
[48] At the same time, the Court relies on Subrule 21(1) of the Rules, according to which a failure to comply with the Rules does not render a proceeding a nullity. It would be entirely unjustified for the Court to allow the appeal solely because the reply to the Notice of Appeal was not filed within the time prescribed by the Rules.
[49] For these reasons, had it been necessary to decide the Appellant’s Motion, it would have been dismissed.
[50] The Appellant also seeks exemplary and punitive costs of $5,000, given the alleged wrongdoing of the CRA officer who dealt with her file. However, as the Federal Court of Appeal stated in Ereiser, the conduct of a CRA officer who reviewed a taxpayer’s file is not relevant to determining the validity and the correctness of an assessment. Therefore, no costs may be awarded in the circumstances of this case.
Signed this 16th day of March 2026.
“Dominique Lafleur”
Lafleur J.
Translation certified true
on this 14th day of May 2026
Vera Roy, Senior Jurilinguist
APPENDIX A
COURT FILE NO.:
2023-1201(IT)I
STYLE OF CAUSE:
ANGÉLIQUE BOUCHARD v. HIS MAJESTY THE KING
DATE OF FILING OF MOTIONS:
October 12, 2023, and November 20, 2023
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:
The Honourable Justice Dominique Lafleur
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
March 16, 2026
APPEARANCES:
For the Appellant:
The Appellant herself
Counsel for the Respondent:
Albert Brunelle
Christophe Tassé-Breault
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For the Appellant:
Name:
N/A
Firm:
N/A
For the Respondent:
Marie-Josée Hogue
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Canada