Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Karima Alarakhia, a self-represented applicant, sought an extension of time to file an appeal in respect to the CRA's disallowance of her GST/HST New Housing Rebate application for $25,963.80, which resulted in a balance owing of $26,632.42.

• CRA mailed the Notice of Re-Assessment to the applicant's address of record after she had sold the property and moved, and she claims she never received it.

• Two affidavits — from a CRA litigation officer and a CRA mailing manager — established that the Notice was posted to the only address on file with the Agency.

• Under sections 335(10) and 335(11) of the Excise Tax Act, once the Minister proves the Notice was sent, it is presumed sent on the date stated in the Notice and deemed received on that date.

• The applicant admitted she did not notify the CRA of her change of address prior to April 2024, despite having sold the property in February 2020.

• Application was dismissed without costs as the Court lacked jurisdiction, given the mandatory filing deadlines had expired.

Background and facts of the case

Karima Alarakhia resided at a property located at 10 Park Lawn Road, Unit 1910, in Toronto, where she had what she described as an "interim occupancy" during 2018 and "full occupancy" from September 2018 until she sold the property in February 2020. On November 27, 2018, she submitted a GST/HST New Housing Rebate application to the Canada Revenue Agency. The CRA subsequently requested documentation to support her claim, but Ms. Alarakhia did not respond. As she maintained throughout the proceedings, she never received the correspondence because it was mailed to the property address after she had already sold it and moved. Her New Housing Rebate application for $25,963.80 was ultimately disallowed because she had not responded to the Agency's requests for more information.

The reassessment and the applicant's discovery

The Notice of Re-Assessment is dated September 20, 2020, and resulted in a balance owing of $26,632.42. According to the affidavit of CRA appeals officer Benny Bui, the Notice of Re-Assessment was released on September 26, 2020. Ms. Alarakhia remained unaware of this reassessment until May 16th, when her bank accounts were frozen. At that time, she was travelling in Europe on vacation. Upon contacting her bank, she was directed to contact a CRA officer, which was the first time she learned of the disallowed rebate and the outstanding balance.

The applicant's efforts to seek redress

Once aware of the issue, Ms. Alarakhia took steps to challenge the reassessment. She filed an Application for an Extension of Time to serve a Notice of Objection on May 27, 2024. The Agency took the position that the relevant deadline was December 29, 2021. By way of correspondence dated August 9, 2024, the Minister notified the applicant that her request for an extension of time to file a Notice of Objection could not be granted as it was filed after the deadline. She then brought the matter before the Tax Court of Canada, appearing as a self-represented party, seeking an Order granting her an extension of time within which to file an appeal.

The respondent's evidentiary position

Counsel for the Respondent, Redwan Majumder, relied on two affidavits to support the Crown's position. The first, from Benny Bui, an officer in the appeals branch of the Canada Revenue Agency, confirmed key details: the rebate application was submitted on November 27, 2018; the Notice of Re-Assessment was released on September 26, 2020; the applicant's address of record between December 3, 2018, and April 11, 2024, was the Toronto Park Lawn property; and no Application for Extension of Time was filed prior to September 9, 2024. Mr. Bui's affidavit also confirmed that the Minister had not further reassessed the applicant. The second affidavit, the mailing affidavit of Mr. Johnson, demonstrated that the Agency had mailed the relevant document to the only address it had knowledge of. The Court noted that what Respondent's counsel described echoed what Justice MacPhee described in the case of Ng v. The King, 2025 TCC 172, starting at paragraph 13, with particular emphasis at paragraph 17 regarding the mailing affidavit.

Applicable legal framework

The Respondent submitted that the applicant did not request an extension of time to object within the time required by the Excise Tax Act. As set out in section 335(10) of the Excise Tax Act, if the Minister can prove that the Notice of Re-Assessment was sent, the sending is presumed to have occurred on the date set out in the Notice. Pursuant to section 335(11) of the Excise Tax Act, once the sending date is established, the Notice of Re-Assessment is deemed to have been received on that date. Counsel for the Respondent also submitted, correctly in the Court's view, that paragraph 8 of Carvalho v. The Minister of National Revenue, 2007 TCC 709, holds that it is the responsibility of the taxpayer to ensure that their correct address is known to the tax authorities at all times, failing which, they must accept responsibility for the consequences of non-communication or incorrect communication. Additionally, as recorded at paragraphs 22 to 23 of Ng v. The King, 2025 TCC 172, even if an applicant is deemed to be a truthful witness and they testified that they did not receive a Notice of Re-Assessment, the Notice is deemed received on the date it was mailed, if the evidence establishes on a balance of probabilities that it was posted by the Agency to the correct address listed in their records.

The ruling and outcome

Deputy Judge Gilles Renaud found that the Court must dismiss the application as the applicant failed to inform the Agency of her new address upon moving and the Agency did post the required Notice of Re-Assessment to the correct address as set out in the affidavit material. The Court found as a fact that the applicant was credible and reliable in testifying that the Agency's letter was never received by her and no information was provided to alert her to the transmission of the document. The Court also found, on a balance of probabilities, that the Agency did in fact mail the Notice to the only known and correct address as set out in the affidavits and described by the Respondent's counsel. Consequently, the Court concluded that it lacked any jurisdiction to make an Order that the appeal be set down for hearing and dismissed the application as being without foundation, without costs. The successful party was the Respondent, His Majesty the King. No specific monetary award was ordered in favour of either party; however, the reassessment balance owing of $26,632.42 against Ms. Alarakhia was not disturbed by the Court's decision.