Federal Court Dismisses Claimant’s Application for Judicial Review Against CRA Decision

OUTCOME: Dismissed

Date: 20260601 Docket: T-4867-25 Citation: 2026 FC 714 Vancouver, British Columbia, June 1, 2026 PRESENT: Mr. [NAME]: [APPELLANT] Applicant and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT [ 1 ] Ms. [APPELLANT] is seeking judicial review of a decision of the Canada Revenue Agency [[NAME]] to deny her request for relief from penalties and interest. I am dismissing her application because she failed to show that the [NAME]’s decision is unreasonable.

I. Background [ 2 ] Ms. [APPELLANT] filed her 2021 income tax return in early March 2022. She failed to include two T5 slips from [NAME] and [COMPANY] that she says she received only after she filed her return. Upon detecting this omission, the [NAME] reassessed her but did not impose a penalty. [ 3 ] A similar situation arose in 2023. Ms. [APPELLANT] filed her 2022 income tax return in late March 2023 but did not include T5 slips from [NAME]. If I understand correctly, she says the slips were not available on the [NAME]’s auto-fill service when she used commercial software to prepare her return. This time, the undeclared income was over $23,000. She was reassessed in October 2023, and a penalty of $2,925 was levied against her, plus $636 in interest. [ 4 ] She then applied for relief from the penalty and interest pursuant to section 220(3.1) of the Income Tax Act , RSC 1985, c 1 (5th Suppl). Three successive decisions were made, denying her request. She sought judicial review of the second decision, but the matter was settled and was sent back to the [NAME] for redetermination. This judicial review targets the third decision. [ 5 ] In this third decision, the [NAME] noted the following: a) The [NAME] received the omitted slips before the end of February and processed them before the end of April so that they would have been available to Ms. [APPELLANT] before the deadline to file her income tax return. b) About six months elapsed between the moment the slips were available and the [NAME]’s reassessment. Ms. [APPELLANT] did not seek to correct the omission during that period. This was not a situation beyond her control, especially because she communicated multiple times with the [NAME] to ask for other adjustments to be made to her return during this period. c) If Ms. [APPELLANT] did not receive the slips before April 30, she should have estimated her income based on year end statements from her [NAME]. [ 6 ] For these reasons, the [NAME] denied Ms. [APPELLANT]’s request. She is now seeking judicial review.

II. Analysis [ 7 ] It must be emphasized at the outset that the Court plays a limited role on an application for judicial review. [ADDRESS] cannot change the [NAME]’s decision merely because it disagrees with it. Rather, the Court can only intervene if the applicant shows that the decision is unreasonable, according to the guidelines provided by the Supreme Court in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v [NAME] , 2019 SCC 65, [2019] 4 SCR 653. This is especially relevant where the decision at issue is a discretionary decision, as in the present case. A discretionary decision is based on the weighing of several factors. No rigid algorithm determines the outcome. When reviewing a discretionary decision, the Court does not reweigh the relevant factors. It simply makes sure that the decision maker turned their mind to the relevant factors and issued a decision that bears the hallmarks of justification, transparency and intelligibility. [ 8 ] In her written and oral submissions before this Court, Ms. [APPELLANT] largely repeated the submissions she made in support of her request for relief. She stated that she acted diligently and in good faith, that her omission to declare income was due to the fault of her [NAME]’s failure to transmit T5 slips in time, that [NAME] are not notified when new information becomes available on the [NAME]’s auto-fill service and that, more generally, [NAME] do not receive adequate information. [ 9 ] These factors were all considered by the [NAME] when making the decision at issue, but the officer found that more weighty countervailing factors, including the magnitude of the amount omitted and the fact that this was happening for the second time, tipped the scales in favour of denying relief. It is for the officer, not the Court, to perform this weighing exercise. While I appreciate that Ms. [APPELLANT] disagrees with the outcome, she failed to persuade me that the decision is unreasonable. [ 10 ] In particular, I emphasize that the officer found that in reality, the [NAME] provided the T5 slips before the February 28 deadline. According to the officer’s notes at page 19 of the respondent’s record, this was done on February 23, 2023. Ms. [APPELLANT] did not show that this finding of fact was mistaken. It logically follows that the T5 slips would have been available to her on the [NAME]’s portal by the end of February, even though they appeared on the [NAME]’s auto-fill feature only in mid-April. This significantly undercuts Ms. [APPELLANT]’s assertion that the situation was beyond her control or due to the [NAME]’s failure to meet its deadlines. [ 11 ] More generally, it is always the responsibility of the taxpayer to file an accurate income tax return: [NAME] v Canada ([NAME]) , 2016 FC 953 at paragraph 20. Even if they use commercial software or the [NAME]’s auto-fill feature, [NAME] must ensure that all their income is declared. It is reasonable to expect [NAME] to have knowledge of their sources of income.

III. Disposition [ 12 ] As Ms. [APPELLANT] failed to persuade me that the [NAME]’s decision denying her relief is unreasonable, I must dismiss her application for judicial review. [ 13 ] There is no reason to depart from the usual rule according to which the successful party is entitled to its costs. In the circumstances, an amount of $250 is just and appropriate.

JUDGMENT in T-4867-25 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that : The application for judicial review is dismissed. The applicant is condemned to pay $250 to the respondent in relation to costs, inclusive of taxes and disbursements. "[NAME]" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD Docket: T-4867-25 STYLE OF CAUSE: [APPELLANT] v ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA PLACE OF HEARING: VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA DATE OF HEARING: May 28, 2026

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT: [NAME] J. DATED: june 1, 2026 APPEARANCES : [APPELLANT] (self-represented) For The Applicant [APPELLANT]. [APPELLANT] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Attorney General of Canada Vancouver, British Columbia For The Respondent