Date: 19980403
Docket: 96-4659-IT-I
BETWEEN:
ALAN R. ONRAET,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
Reasons for Judgment
Bell, J.T.C.C.
[1] At the hearing of the Appellant's appeal for his 1993 taxation year, this being a "base taxation year" as described in section 122.6 of the Income Tax Act ("Act") I determined that the Appellant was an "eligible individual" within the meaning of that section for the months of August and September, 1993.
[2] The Respondent, in paragraph 3 of the Reply to the Notice of Appeal, says,
By way of Child Tax Benefit Notice dated March 20, 1995, the Minister of National Revenue (the "Minister") advised the Appellant that he was in receipt of a Child Tax Benefit (hereinafter referred to as the "CTB") overpayment in the amount of $1,519.75 for the base taxation year 1993.
[3] The copy of a document bearing date "Mar. 20, 1995" and being entitled "CHILD TAX BENEFIT NOTICE" forwarded by the Respondent to this Court with a letter dated February 11, 1997 bears the endorsement
RECONSTRUCTED
RECONSTITUÉ
[4] It does not refer to any amount of overpayment of benefit. Evidently, there is another document which should have been forwarded to the Court or the reconstructed Child Tax Benefit Notice is not the same as the Notice forwarded to the Appellant. I have commented in previous Reasons for Judgment on the inappropriate behaviour of the Respondent in failing to meet his obligation clearly set forth in subsection 170(2) of the Act, namely,
Forthwith after receiving notice under subsection (1) of an appeal, the Deputy Minister of National Revenue shall forward to the Tax Court of Canada copies of all returns, notices of assessment, notices of objection and notification, if any, that are relevant to the appeal.
[5] Obviously, this was not done. Reconstituted documents are not "copies" of the original documents. In this case, the Court, in order to dispose of the appeal, must assume[1] that the amount stated by the Respondent in it's Reply is accurate. That is an amount, Respondent's counsel advised the Court, that relates to the last six months of 1993. No amount having been set forth in respect of each month, I have concluded that the only way to give the Appellant the relief to which he is entitled is to allow his appeal with respect to one-third (being two of the six months) of the sum of $1,519.75.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada this 3rd day of April, 1998.
"R.D. Bell"
J.T.C.C.