|
Fairness - Misrepresentation. Siam v. Canada
In Siam v. Canada (Fed CA, 2026) the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal, here brought against "a decision of the Tax Court of Canada (2025 TCC 69) that granted the respondent’s motion to quash Mohamed Siam’s appeal of a notice of reassessment".
Here the court considers a taxpayer's procedural fairness argument based on findings that he "was given incorrect information regarding a right to object", which the court dismissed since upholding it would result in "a substantive right to appeal that is prohibited by statute":[10] Finally, Mr. Siam argues that he was denied procedural fairness in that the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) Officer in charge of his case and the 2023 Reassessment itself both indicated that he could object to the reassessment, and hence he had a legitimate expectation that he could appeal the 2023 Reassessment before the Tax Court. This argument cannot succeed. The doctrine of legitimate expectations can affect only procedural rights: Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1999 CanLII 699 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817 at para. 26, Agraira v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2013 SCC 36, [2013] 2 S.C.R. 559 at para. 97; Moreau-Bérubé v. New Brunswick (Judicial Council), 2002 SCC 11, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 249 at para. 78. It is unfortunate that Mr. Siam was given incorrect information regarding a right to object, and the CRA would be well advised to review its practices in this regard, but such an indication cannot give Mr. Siam a substantive right to appeal that is prohibited by statute. This is essentially what he seeks.
|
