Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Angélique Bouchard appealed to the Tax Court of Canada seeking a $2,032 tax refund she claimed was promised by the CRA for the 2016 tax year.

• No valid assessment or reassessment was issued on May 18, 2023 — only a collection notice (issued in error) and a refusal letter, neither of which constitutes an assessment under the Income Tax Act.

• The last reassessment for the 2016 tax year was issued on January 11, 2021 under subsection 152(4.2), which statutorily bars any notice of objection under subsection 165(1.2).

• Without a valid objection, no appeal could be filed with the Court under subsection 169(1), rendering the appellant's appeal invalid.

• The Court also lacked jurisdiction because the dispute concerned a refund promise by a CRA officer — a collection matter — rather than the validity of an assessment.

• Bouchard's cross-motion to have the appeal admitted due to the Crown's late reply was rejected, as non-compliance with procedural deadlines does not automatically result in an appeal being allowed.

The taxpayer's claim and background

Angélique Bouchard, a self-represented taxpayer residing in Anjou, Quebec, filed an appeal with the Tax Court of Canada on June 5, 2023 concerning her 2016 tax year. At the heart of her claim was a demand that the CRA pay her a tax refund of $2,032 that she alleged had been promised to her in April 2023. According to the Court's recitation of the facts, the CRA had sent the appellant a letter dated April 19, 2023 indicating that her correction request had been accepted and that a notice of reassessment would be issued to give effect to her request. The appellant sought to have this promised refund paid to her.

History of the file with the CRA

The Minister of National Revenue initially assessed Bouchard for the 2016 tax year on July 27, 2017. On January 4, 2021, Bouchard requested that the CRA take into account the working income tax benefit and the disability supplement when calculating her tax payable for the year. The CRA accepted this request and issued a reassessment on January 11, 2021 under subsection 152(4.2) of the Income Tax Act, granting her a tax refund of $530.06. Subsequently, on July 26, 2021, Bouchard made a further request asking the CRA to reclassify her reported business income as employment income. On April 19, 2023, the CRA initially indicated by letter that her correction request had been accepted and that a reassessment would follow. However, by letter dated May 18, 2023, the CRA informed Bouchard that after further review, her July 26, 2021 correction request had been refused and no new reassessment would be issued for the 2016 tax year. On the same date, the CRA erroneously sent Bouchard a collection notice showing a balance owing of $2,032.84, issued in error on the basis of the refund that would have been paid to the appellant had the CRA accepted her correction request but which was never actually issued by the CRA. This collection notice was cancelled by the CRA on that same day, May 18, 2023.

The competing motions before the Court

Two motions were before the Court. The Crown (the respondent) filed a motion on October 12, 2023 seeking to quash the appeal on the grounds that it was invalid and that the Court lacked jurisdiction, or alternatively, to obtain a 60-day extension to file a reply to the notice of appeal. Bouchard filed her own motion on November 20, 2023 requesting that the Court allow her appeal because the Crown had failed to file its reply within the prescribed deadline. She also sought $5,000 in punitive and exemplary costs based on the allegedly wrongful conduct of the CRA officer who had handled her file. The case was subject to numerous case management conferences, the last of which took place on November 4, 2025 in Bouchard's absence despite her having been duly notified. Pursuant to the Court's order dated November 5, 2025, Bouchard had until January 12, 2026 to serve and file written submissions on a peremptory basis, but she failed to do so. The Court therefore considered both motions on the basis of the written representations on the record, without an appearance by the parties.

The nature of the documents issued on May 18, 2023

The Court found that neither the CRA's refusal letter nor the collection notice dated May 18, 2023 constituted assessments within the meaning of the Income Tax Act. Under subsection 152(1), the Minister establishes an assessment by fixing the tax payable for the year along with any interest and penalties. Because the documents in question did not fix any tax payable, they could not be considered notices of assessment. Relying on the Federal Court of Appeal's decision in The Queen v. Interior Savings Credit Union, 2007 FCA 151, the Court confirmed that a taxpayer's right to object and appeal can only be exercised to have an assessment vacated or varied — and since there was no assessment, there was nothing for the Court to adjudicate.

The statutory bar on objecting to the January 2021 reassessment

The last valid reassessment for Bouchard's 2016 tax year was the one issued on January 11, 2021 under subsection 152(4.2), which permits the Minister to reassess beyond the normal reassessment period to determine a taxpayer's entitlement to a refund. The normal reassessment period for 2016 — ordinarily three years from the initial assessment date of July 27, 2017 under paragraph 152(3.1)(b) — had been extended to December 31, 2020 due to COVID-19 relief measures under the Order Amending the Time Limits and Other Periods (COVID-19) made pursuant to the Time Limits and Other Periods Act (COVID-19). Critically, subsection 165(1.2) of the Act expressly prohibits any objection to an assessment made under subsection 152(4.2). Without a valid objection, subsection 169(1) bars any appeal to the Tax Court, as the right of appeal is conditional upon a prior notice of objection having been served. The Court relied on Freitas v. The Queen, 2018 FCA 110, in support of this conclusion.

The Court's lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter

Even if a reassessment had been issued on May 18, 2023, the Court determined it would still lack jurisdiction because Bouchard's complaint did not concern the validity or correctness of an assessment. Rather, she was asking the Court to order that a refund be paid to her as promised by a CRA officer who had confirmed having accepted her request to modify the nature of her declared income for the 2016 tax year — essentially a collection or administrative matter. Citing Ereiser v. Canada, 2013 FCA 20, the Court noted that the Tax Court's mandate on appeal from an income tax assessment is limited to determining the validity and correctness of the assessment based on the applicable provisions of the Act, and the conduct of CRA officials is not relevant to that determination. The discretionary decision under subsection 152(4.2) not to issue a reassessment, as set out in the CRA's refusal letter dated May 18, 2023, likewise falls outside the Court's jurisdiction.

Disposition of the appellant's motion and the ruling

Regarding Bouchard's motion to have the appeal admitted due to the Crown's failure to file a timely reply, the Court found it moot given that the appeal itself was quashed. However, the Court noted that even if the motion had to be decided, it would have been dismissed. Under subsection 18.16(1) of the Tax Court of Canada Act, the Minister has 60 days following transmission of the notice of appeal to file a reply, with extensions possible with the appellant's consent or the Court's permission. The Minister's deadline expired on August 21, 2023 without a reply being filed. Nevertheless, under subsection 18.16(4) of the Tax Court of Canada Act, the consequence of a late reply is simply that the facts alleged in the notice of appeal are deemed true for purposes of the appeal — not that the appeal is automatically allowed. The Court also relied on subsection 21(1) of the Rules, which provides that non-compliance with the Rules does not render any proceeding void. As for the $5,000 in punitive and exemplary costs sought by Bouchard, the Court confirmed, citing Ereiser, that the conduct of a CRA officer in processing a taxpayer's file is not relevant to determining the validity and correctness of an assessment, and therefore no costs could be awarded given the circumstances of the case. Ultimately, the Honourable Justice Dominique Lafleur granted the Crown's motion, quashed Bouchard's appeal, and dismissed Bouchard's cross-motion, with no costs awarded to either party. No specific monetary amount was ordered in favour of either party, as the appeal was simply annulled without costs.