REFIND ENVIRONMENT INC., Applicant, v. HIS MAJESTY THE KING,, 2024 TCC 2

Docket: 2021-1039(GST)APP BETWEEN: REFIND ENVIRONMENT INC., Applicant, and HIS MAJESTY THE KING, Respondent . Application heard on September 11, 2023 at Toronto, Ontario with written submissions received October 5, 2023, October 30, 2023, and December 15, 2023 Before: The Honourable Justice David E.

Spiro Appearances : Counsel for the Applicant: Andrew Rogerson Counsel for the Respondent: Eric Myles JUDGMENT The application for an extension of time to file a notice of objection against assessments under the Excise Tax Act related to nine reporting periods of the Applicant beginning on December 1, 2016 and ending on August 31, 2018 and beginning on December 1, 2018 and ending on May 31, 2019 is dismissed, without costs. Signed at Toronto, Ontario, this 4th day of January 2024. “David E. Spiro” Spiro J.

Citation: 2024 TCC 2 Date: 20240104 Docket: 2021-1039(GST)APP BETWEEN: REFIND ENVIRONMENT INC., Applicant, and HIS MAJESTY THE KING, Respondent. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Spiro J. [ 1 ] This is an application for an extension of time to file a notice of objection against assessments under the Excise Tax Act (the " “ETA” " ). [ 2 ] The assessments related to nine reporting periods of the Applicant. The first set of reporting periods began on December 1, 2016 and ended on August 31, 2018. The second set began on December 1, 2018 and ended on May 31, 2019. [ 3 ] There is no dispute about two critical dates.

First, there is no dispute about the date on which the Minister of National Revenue (the " “Minister” " ) sent notices of assessment to the Applicant. That date was November 27, 2019. [ 4 ] Second, there is no dispute about the date on which the Applicant filed with the Minister an application for an extension of time to

object. That date was February 26, 2021. [ 5 ] It is also common ground that the Applicant did not file a notice of objection with the Minister within 90 days from the mailing date of the notices of assessment as required by subsection 301(1.1) of the ETA. [ 6 ] The only issue is whether the Applicant timely filed its application for an extension of time to object. Position of the Crown [ 7 ] The Crown says the Applicant filed its application with the Minister for an extension of time to object one day late.

On the Crown’s theory, the last date on which the Applicant could have filed its application with the Minister was February 25, 2021. Position of the Applicant [ 8 ] The Applicant says that the last date on which it could have filed its application with the Minister for an extension of time to object was one day later – February 26, 2021 – the date on which it actually filed its application. The Excise Tax Act [ 9 ] Subsection 301(1.1) of the ETA allows 90 days from the mailing date of the notice of assessment to file a notice of objection. If one misses that deadline, paragraph 303(7)(

a) allows an additional year to file an application with the Minister to extend time to object.

If the Minister refuses the application one may proceed to the Court to grant the application but, under paragraph 304(5)(a), the Court cannot grant the application if it was not filed with the Minister within that additional year. [ 10 ] I have reproduced the relevant provisions in their statutory context [with emphasis added]: Objection to assessment 301(1.1) Any person who has been assessed and who objects to the assessment may, within ninety days after the day notice of the assessment is sent to the person , file with the Minister a notice of objection in the prescribed form and manner setting out the reasons for the objection and all relevant facts. *** Extension of time by Minister 303(1) Where no objection to an assessment is filed under

section 301 … within the time limit otherwise provided, a person may make an application to the Minister to extend the time for filing a notice of objection … and the Minister may grant the application. *** Duties of Minister 303(5) On receipt of an application made under subsection (1), the Minister shall, with all due dispatch, consider the application and grant or refuse it, and shall thereupon notify the person of the decision by registered or certified mail. *** When order to be made 303(7) No application shall be granted under this

section unless (

a) the application is made within one year after the expiration of the time otherwise limited by this Part for objecting … ; and (

b) the person demonstrates that (

i) within the time otherwise limited by this Part for objecting, (

A) the person was unable to act or to give a mandate to act in the person’s name, or (

B) the person had a bona fide intention to object to the assessment … , (ii) given the reasons set out in the application and the circumstances of the case, it would be just and equitable to grant the application, and (iii) the application was made as soon as circumstances permitted it to be made. Extension of time by Tax Court 304(1) A person who has made an application under

section 303 may apply to the Tax Court to have the application granted after either

(

a) the Minister has refused the application, or (

b) ninety days have elapsed after service of the application under subsection 303(1) and the Minister has not notified the person of the Minister’s decision, but no application under this

section may be made after the expiration of thirty days after the day the decision has been mailed to the person under subsection 303(5). *** Powers of Court 304(4) The Tax Court may dispose of an application made under subsection (1) by (

a) dismissing it, or (

b) granting it, and in granting an application, it may impose such terms as it deems just or order that the notice of objection or the request be deemed to be a valid objection … as of the date of the order. When application to be granted 304(5) No application shall be granted under this

section unless (

a) the application was made under subsection 303(1) within one year after the expiration of the time otherwise limited by this Part for objecting … ; and (

b) the person demonstrates that (

i) within the time otherwise limited by this Act for objecting, (

A) the person was unable to act or to give a mandate to act in the person’s name, or (

B) the person had a bona fide intention to object to the assessment … , (ii) given the reasons set out in the application and the circumstances of the case, it would be just and equitable to grant the application, and (iii) the application was made under subsection 303(1) as soon as circumstances permitted it to be made. [ 11 ] Two timing questions arise for consideration. The first relates to the 90-day objection period and the second relates to the one-year application period. The 90 Day Objection Period [ 12 ] The answer to the first timing question turns on the

interpretation of subsection 301(1.1) of the ETA which sets out the 90-day deadline to file a notice of objection: 301(1.1) Any person who has been assessed and who objects to the assessment may, within ninety days after the day notice of the assessment is sent to the person , file with the Minister a notice of objection in the prescribed form and manner setting out the reasons for the objection and all relevant facts. [ 13 ] In its submissions, the Applicant places considerable emphasis on the word " “after” " in the phrase in subsection 301(1.1) of the ETA which provides that a notice of objection must be filed " within ninety days after the day that notice of the assessment is sent to the person " . [ 14 ] The Applicant contends that the word " “after” " means that the 90-day clock to file a notice of objection commences on the day after the Minister sent the notice of assessment.

As the Minister sent notices of assessment to the Applicant on November 27, 2019, we should count the 90 days commencing on November 28, 2019. [ 15 ] In support of its position, the Applicant refers to subsections 27(4) and 27(5) of the

Interpretation Act : 27(4) Where a time is expressed to begin after … a specified day, the time does not include that day. 27(5) Where anything is to be done within a time after … a specified day, the time does not include that day. [1] [ 16 ] The Crown agrees with that proposition. [2] I am satisfied that this reading of subsection 301(1.1) of the ETA reflects its proper

interpretation. [ 17 ] The Applicant then argues that because the 90-day clock commenced on November 28, 2019 (the day after the mailing of the notices of assessment), the 90 th day fell on February 26, 2020. [3] Under the Applicant’s theory, the last day for filing a notice of objection would have been February 26, 2020.

[ 18 ] The Applicant’s computation of the 90-day objection period is wrong. If we start counting on the day after the mailing date of the notices of assessment, namely, on November 28, 2019, the 90 th day actually fell on February 25, 2020. Because the notice of objection had to be filed " within " those 90 days, the deadline to file a notice of objection fell on February 25, 2020. That was the last day on which the Applicant could have filed a notice of objection without having to apply for an extension of time. [ 19 ] Based on subsections 27(4) and 27(5) of the

Interpretation Act , I am satisfied that February 25, 2020 was the last day on which the Applicant could have filed a notice of objection with the Minister. [ 20 ] Now that we have established that date, how do we compute the one-year period to apply for an extension of time? The One Year Application Period [ 21 ] The answer to the second timing question turns on the

interpretation of paragraphs 303(7)(

a) and 304(5)(

a) of the ETA which set out the one year period for filing an application to extend time to object: 303(7) No application shall be granted [by the Minister] under this

section unless (

a) the application is made within one year after the expiration of the time otherwise limited by this Part for objecting … ; *** 304(5) No application shall be granted [by the Tax Court] under this

section unless (

a) the application was made under subsection 303(1) within one year after the expiration of the time otherwise limited by this Part for objecting … ; [ 22 ] We have already established that the last day on which the Applicant could have filed a notice of objection with the Minister was February 25, 2020. [ 23 ] The Applicant argues that the one-year application period should be counted starting the day after February 25, 2020. In that regard, it relies once again on subsections 27(4) and 27(5) of the

Interpretation Act . [ 24 ] If the Applicant’s theory is correct, the last day to file its application was February 26, 2021 – the day on which it was actually filed. [ 25 ] The Applicant’s approach to the computation of the one-year application period is wrong. I agree with the Crown that February 25, 2021 was the last day on which an application to extend time to object could have been filed with the Minister. [ 26 ] The flaw in the Applicant’s argument arises from conflating units of time. The provision dealing with the objection period uses the unit of a day to compute time.

The provisions dealing with the application period use the unit of a year to compute time. [ 27 ] Subsection 37(1) of the

Interpretation Act is the relevant provision where the benchmark is a year – not subsections 27(4) or 27(5). Subsection 37(1) of the

Interpretation Act simply tells us that the expression " “year” " means any period of twelve consecutive months. [4] [ 28 ] We now return to the provisions at issue: 303(7) No application shall be granted [by the Minister] under this

section unless (

a) the application is made within one year after the expiration of the time otherwise limited by this Part for objecting … ; *** 304(5) No application shall be granted [by the Tax Court] under this

section unless (

a) the application was made under subsection 303(1) within one year after the expiration of the time otherwise limited by this Part for objecting … ; [ 29 ] The expression " “within one year after the expiration of the time” " means exactly that – within one year after the expiration of the 90 days. The last date that falls within one year after February 25, 2020 is February 25, 2021. Conclusion [ 30 ] The Applicant did not file its application with the Minister for an extension of time to object within the time required by paragraph 303(7)(

a) of the ETA. I must, therefore, dismiss the Applicant’s application and shall do so without costs. Finally, I am grateful to both counsel for their thorough oral and written submissions. Signed at Toronto, Ontario, this 4th day of January 2024. “David E. Spiro” Spiro J.

CITATION: 2024 TCC 2 COURT FILE NO.: 2021-1039(GST)APP STYLE OF CAUSE: Refind Environment Inc. v. His Majesty the King PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario DATE OF HEARING: September 11, 2023 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: The Honourable Justice David E. Spiro DATE OF JUDGMENT: January 4, 2024 APPEARANCES: Counsel for the Applicant: Andrew Rogerson Counsel for the Respondent: Eric Myles COUNSEL OF RECORD: For the Applicant: Name: Andrew Rogerson Firm: Rogerson Law Group LLP Toronto, Ontario For the Respondent: Shalene Curtis-Micallef Deputy Attorney General of Canada Ottawa, Canada