Missed CRA Email Notification: Can You Still Object?

Young man in a business suit at a table in a coffee shop with laptop holding his head

Published: August 13, 2026

Contents:

Overview: Missed CRA Email Notifications Can Cause Taxpayers to Lose CRA Objection Rights
How CRA Email Notifications Trigger CRA Objection Deadlines and Tax Appeal Rights
The 90-Day CRA Objection Deadline After a Notice of Tax Assessment or Tax Reassessment
CRA Mailed Tax Assessments: When a CRA Notice of Tax Assessment Sent by Mail Is Deemed Received
CRA Electronic Notice of Tax Reassessment: When Does the 90-Day Objection Deadline Begin?
Key Issues and Findings: Can CRA’s Presumption of Receipt for Electronic Notices Be Rebutted?
Presumed vs. Deemed Receipt: A Critical Distinction in CRA Electronic Notice Cases
Can a Taxpayer Challenge a Missed CRA Email Notification and Preserve Appeal Rights?
Practical Implications for Taxpayers, Corporations, Accountants, and Tax Advisers
CRA Represent a Client Risks: Why Accountants and Lawyers May Miss Client CRA Notices
What to Do If You Discover a Missed CRA Tax Reassessment After the Objection Deadline
Immediate Steps to Take After Missing a CRA Email Notification or Reassessment
When to Contact an Experienced Canadian Tax Litigation Lawyer for a Missed CRA Tax Reassessment or Missed CRA Email Notification
Practical Consequences of Missing a CRA Tax Reassessment or CRA Email Notification
Strategic Takeaways for Challenging a CRA Tax Reassessment After a Missed Email Notice
Pro Tax Tips: Preventing Missed CRA Notices and Preserving Objection Rights
Frequently Asked Questions: Missed CRA Email Notifications, CRA Tax Reassessments, and Objection Deadlines

Overview: Missed CRA Email Notifications Can Cause Taxpayers to Lose CRA Objection Rights

A missed Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) email notification may cause Canadian taxpayers to lose CRA objection rights after a CRA tax reassessment. The CRA has moved most of its correspondence with taxpayers online. Audit proposal letters, notices of tax reassessment, and other correspondence are now typically posted electronically to a corporate taxpayer’s My Business Account or an individual’s My Account, rather than mailed on paper.

When new correspondence is posted, the CRA sends an email telling the taxpayer that they have correspondence to read in their account. The jurisprudence to date generally indicates that the CRA’s electronic notification and delivery process is sufficient to trigger applicable objection and appeal deadlines, even where the taxpayer claims not to have actually reviewed the correspondence. This approach was illustrated in DiPierdomenico v The King, 2023 TCC 146 [DiPierdomenico], where the taxpayer’s bare claim that CRA correspondence had not reached him was rejected for want of any supporting evidence.

Although the application failed on procedural grounds, the Tax Court went on to review the proof-of-electronic-delivery rule in subsection 244(6.1) and the presumption in subsection 244(14.1), expressly noting that they might become relevant in other applications, and indicated that on the CRA’s unrebutted affidavit evidence it would have found the notices of tax reassessment electronically sent on the dates the CRA asserted.

Two of the five reassessment years in issue had been sent to the taxpayer by email after he enrolled in CRA My Account, and the Tax Court found that it could not grant the extensions he sought because his application for 2011 through 2013 was made to the CRA after the one-year window in paragraph 166.1(7)(a) had closed, and for 2015 and 2016 no application to the CRA had ever been made, which under subsection 166.2(1) barred him from coming to the Tax Court at all.

A missed CRA tax reassessment can be far more damaging than many taxpayers realize. In some cases, a missed tax reassessment can result in the loss of objection rights, loss of tax appeal rights, CRA collections action, refund set-offs, garnishments, ongoing interest accrual, and, for corporate taxpayers, potential director-liability exposure. The procedural consequences often become apparent only after the CRA begins collection activity relating to a tax assessment the taxpayer did not know existed.

In an increasingly digital tax administration environment, taxpayers who fail to see a CRA email notification may unknowingly lose critical CRA objection rights before they even become aware that a notice of tax reassessment exists. This issue most commonly arises when taxpayers miss a CRA My Account notice, a CRA My Business Account notice, or another CRA electronic notice of tax assessment.

A taxpayer may never see the CRA’s email notification, may not check their online account regularly as a result, and may then miss a critical deadline, most importantly, the 90-day deadline to file a notice of objection to a notice of tax assessment. Advisers should also note that representatives who use the CRA’s Represent a Client service are not automatically notified when new correspondence is posted to a client’s account. As a result, taxpayers cannot simply rely on advisers to stay up to date on correspondence.

The Income Tax Act addresses the situation where the CRA posts a notice to a taxpayer’s My Account or My Business Account, sends an email notification, but the taxpayer never reads the email or accesses the posted correspondence until after the relevant deadline has passed. The Income Tax Act creates a presumption that the notice was sent to and received by the taxpayer when the CRA emailed the notification. Whether that presumption is rebuttable remains unsettled, as discussed below. Taxpayers who miss a deadline because they never saw the CRA email notification may therefore have arguments available in appropriate circumstances.

How CRA Email Notifications Trigger CRA Objection Deadlines and Tax Appeal Rights

For individuals who have registered an email address with the CRA and use My Account, and for corporations that use My Business Account, most CRA notices are no longer mailed on paper by default. Instead, the CRA posts the document to the taxpayer’s online account and sends a short email to the address on file advising the taxpayer that new correspondence is available.

The taxpayer, or the taxpayer’s representative, must then log in to the account to read the actual notice, such as a notice of tax assessment, notice of tax reassessment, or tax audit proposal letter (a letter setting out the CRA’s proposed changes before a formal tax reassessment is issued, usually giving the taxpayer a chance to respond first).

This approach is administratively efficient for the CRA, but it shifts a significant monitoring burden to the taxpayer to notice and act on a brief email that may be mistaken for spam, sent to an outdated address, or overlooked. The issue frequently arises during CRA tax audits. A taxpayer who misses an electronically delivered tax audit proposal letter may lose the opportunity to respond before the CRA issues a formal tax reassessment.

In many cases, taxpayers can resolve factual disputes, provide additional documentation, or challenge proposed adjustments during the audit stage. Missing a proposal letter may therefore substantially increase both tax audit risk and subsequent tax-litigation risk.

The 90-Day CRA Objection Deadline After a Notice of Tax Assessment or Tax Reassessment

If the CRA validly issues a notice of tax assessment or notice of tax reassessment, subsection 165(1) of the Income Tax Act gives the taxpayer 90 days to file a notice of objection. For individuals (other than trusts) and graduated rate estates, paragraph 165(1)(a) is more generous: the deadline is the later of one year after the filing-due date for the year and 90 days after the day the notice was sent. A taxpayer who is still inside the one-year window may therefore have considerably more time than the 90-day rule alone suggests.

The one-year limb does not apply to every dispute, however. Where the objection relates to tax on excess TFSA or RRSP contributions, the deadline is 90 days from the day the notice of tax assessment was sent, because that tax is imposed under a different Part of the Income Tax Act than ordinary income tax. This CRA objection deadline is one of the most important procedural deadlines in Canadian tax law. A taxpayer who misses that deadline may apply for a limited extension of time under section 166.1, but only within one year after the 90-day objection deadline has expired, and even then, an extension is not guaranteed. Once both windows have closed, the taxpayer generally loses the statutory right to challenge the tax assessment through the ordinary objection-and-appeal process, effectively ending the taxpayer’s CRA tax reassessment dispute.

The sequence below sets out how the deadlines run from the day the CRA posts an electronic notice of tax reassessment.

Stage	Timing	What it means
Notice issued	Day 0	The CRA posts the notice of tax reassessment to your CRA account and sends the email notification. The notice is presumed sent and received on that day.
Objection window open	Day 1 to day 90	A notice of objection can be filed as of right under subsection 165(1). For individuals and testamentary trusts, the deadline is the later of this period and one year after the filing-due date for the year.
Objection deadline passes	Day 91	A notice of objection can no longer be filed as of right.
Extension window open	Day 91 until one year after the objection deadline	An extension application under section 166.1 remains available, but it must satisfy the statutory tests and is not granted automatically.
Both windows closed	After the extension window expires	Objection rights under the Income Tax Act are lost. Discretionary remedies such as taxpayer relief may still be available.

The Tax Court emphasized the strict nature of these statutory deadlines in Zachary v The King, 2024 TCC 8. After failing to object to several tax assessments within the prescribed time limits, the taxpayer sought relief through the extension-of-time regime under sections 166.1 and 166.2 of the Income Tax Act. Section 166.1 allows a taxpayer to apply to the CRA for an extension of time to file a notice of objection, while section 166.2 permits a subsequent application to the Tax Court in certain circumstances.

The Court held that it could not grant the requested relief because the statutory requirements governing the extension process had not been satisfied. The decision reinforces that objection deadlines and the associated extension procedures under the Income Tax Act are mandatory. A taxpayer who misses the applicable deadlines must strictly comply with the statutory extension framework, and courts have limited jurisdiction to grant relief where those requirements have not been met.

Under subsection 166.1(7), the taxpayer must show that they were unable to act, or unable to instruct someone to act for them, within the original 90-day period, or that they genuinely intended to object throughout that period.

The taxpayer must also show that granting the extension would be just and equitable, that the application was made as soon as circumstances permitted, and that there are reasonable grounds for objecting to the tax assessment. In practical terms, a taxpayer needs a credible explanation for missing the deadline, must act quickly once the problem is discovered, and must have an underlying objection with some merit. A missed CRA email notification may help explain why the taxpayer did not act within the original objection period, but it will rarely be enough on its own. A taxpayer who discovers a missed notice late will typically need to address all of these requirements, not just the fact that they never saw the CRA’s email.

Because objection and extension deadlines turn on when the CRA is treated as having sent or delivered the notice, the receipt question can determine whether any appeal right remains available.

CRA Mailed Tax Assessments: When a CRA Notice of Tax Assessment Sent by Mail Is Deemed Received

The rules for paper notices sent by ordinary mail are different. Under paragraph 248(7)(a) of the Income Tax Act, a notice of tax assessment sent by first-class mail is “deemed” to have been received on the day it was mailed. Because Parliament chose the word “deemed,” the provision creates a conclusive legal fiction: once the CRA establishes that the notice was mailed, the law treats the taxpayer as having received it regardless of what actually happened.

A useful illustration is Canada v Schafer, 2000 CanLII 16118 (FCA) [Schafer], a Federal Court of Appeal decision confirming that the statutory deeming rule for mailed tax assessments applies even where the taxpayer never actually receives the notice. Schafer was decided under the parallel mailing rule in the Excise Tax Act rather than under paragraph 248(7)(a) of the Income Tax Act, so it is persuasive rather than direct authority on the income tax provision.

In that case, a notice assessing a taxpayer for a share of a GST debt never actually reached her, and the Tax Court accepted her evidence that she did not learn of the tax assessment until years later. The Federal Court of Appeal nevertheless held that the statutory rule turned on mailing rather than actual receipt. The taxpayer’s lack of knowledge of the tax assessment, however genuine, could not override Parliament’s deeming provision.

This means that a taxpayer whose mailed notice of tax assessment is lost or delayed by Canada Post (through no fault of their own) is still treated as having received it on the mailing date for the purpose of counting the 90-day objection deadline. The taxpayer’s only real avenues to challenge this outcome are to argue that the notice was never actually mailed in the first place, or that it was not validly issued because it was sent to the wrong address (that is, an address other than the most recent address the taxpayer provided to the CRA). A taxpayer may face significant difficulty advancing this argument if they deliberately provided inaccurate contact information or intentionally failed to update their records in order to avoid receiving CRA correspondence.

CRA Electronic Notice of Tax Reassessment: When Does the 90-Day Objection Deadline Begin?

Parliament has enacted a parallel (but differently worded) rule for correspondence posted to a taxpayer’s online CRA account. Subsections 244(14.1) and 244(14.2) of the Income Tax Act address individual accounts and business accounts, respectively. Under these provisions, once a notice or other communication is posted to a taxpayer’s online account, the notice is “presumed” to have been sent to, and received by, the taxpayer on the day the CRA emails the electronic address the taxpayer most recently provided to it. Because the Income Tax Act defines “individual” to include a trust, a notice posted to My Trust Account also falls under subsection 244(14.1).

“The CRA has built a system in which the taxpayer carries the entire risk of a notification that the CRA itself concedes may never arrive. The deadline keeps running, the interest keeps accruing, and the taxpayer who never saw the email pays for a failure that was not theirs. That allocation of risk is one-sided, and it will keep producing these cases until Parliament or the courts correct it.”

David Rotfleisch, Certified Specialist in Taxation Law (Law Society of Ontario), Canadian Tax Lawyer

So far, taxpayers who argue that they never saw the CRA email notification have had little success convincing courts that the applicable deadline should not begin to run, or should be extended, because of the missed CRA email notification. Although each case turns on its own facts, the overall trend is clear: courts have generally treated the CRA email notification as sufficient to start the applicable objection, appeal, or judicial-review deadline, depending on the procedural context.

For example, in DiPierdomenico, a case arising from a tax audit of the taxpayer’s business, the Tax Court rejected the taxpayer’s claim of non-receipt as lacking any factual foundation, noting that he had objected to the 2011 to 2013 reassessments he said had never reached him. The same approach has been applied outside the income tax context. In Web Listings Inc. v The King, 2026 TCC 101 [Web Listings], a GST/HST case in which a corporate taxpayer sought an extension of time to object to assessments reaching back to 2018, the Tax Court dismissed the application because the taxpayer had not applied to the CRA for an extension within one year after the 90-day objection period had run.

The Excise Tax Act contains an electronic-notification presumption, in subsection 335(10.1), that parallels subsections 244(14.1) and 244(14.2) of the Income Tax Act, but the Tax Court did not decide the case on that provision. It found instead that the CRA had posted the assessment notices to the taxpayer’s My Business Account and had sent email notifications to the representative who held sole access to that account, and it drew an adverse inference against the taxpayer for failing to call her as a witness.

The Tax Court added, without deciding the point, that in the absence of a copy of the notification email or evidence of its templated wording, it would have questioned whether the CRA’s affidavit established electronic sending under the version of subsection 335(10.1) then in force.

Two more recent decisions suggest that this line of cases may not be the last word. Unlike the Tax Court decisions discussed above, both arose as judicial-review applications in the Federal Court with the taxpayers challenging CRA administrative decisions rather than pursuing statutory appeals from tax assessments. This distinction between a Federal Court challenge and Tax Court appeal is significant. In Dow Chemical Canada ULC v Canada, 2024 SCC 23 and Iris Technologies Inc. v Canada (Attorney General), 2024 SCC 24, the Supreme Court of Canada reaffirmed that the Federal Court’s judicial-review jurisdiction serves a different function from the Tax Court’s statutory jurisdiction over tax appeals.

Judicial review is done in the Federal Court and generally focuses on the legality and reasonableness of CRA administrative decision-making, whereas the objection-and-appeal process addresses the correctness of tax assessments and tax reassessments in the Tax Court. Accordingly, while Federal Court judicial-review decisions such as Haddad c Canada (Procureur général), 2026 FC 614 [Haddad] and Pavlakos v Canada (Attorney General), 2026 FC 726 [Pavlakos] may illuminate how courts approach CRA electronic-notification procedures and missed deadlines, they do not directly resolve how the Tax Court may ultimately interpret the statutory presumption in subsections 244(14.1) and 244(14.2) of the Income Tax Act.

A locked CRA account is the clearest illustration. Where a taxpayer receives the notification email but cannot open the account, the correspondence is posted and presumed received even though it cannot be read. In Haddad, the taxpayer received the CRA’s email in June 2020 advising that new correspondence had been posted to his account, but the account was locked and could be unlocked only by telephone. Pandemic-era service delays, combined with his full-time work schedule, meant he never regained access in time. He did not learn until 2024 that the posted correspondence was a TFSA education letter, or that tax on his excess TFSA contributions had been quietly netted against his annual tax refunds.

The Federal Court did not hold that the statutory presumption of receipt had been rebutted. It set the CRA’s refusal aside because the CRA’s reasons never addressed his explanation for why the posted correspondence went unread, and it returned the file to a different CRA officer to decide whether that amounted to a reasonable error under subsection 207.06(1) of the Income Tax Act. The Court also observed that the taxpayer had never authorized the CRA to send his notices only through My Account, contrary to what the CRA’s decision had asserted.

Where the CRA has no evidence that a notification email was in fact sent, the analysis shifts again. A taxpayer who logs in weeks later and discovers a decision nobody told them about is in a materially different position from one who simply did not read a notification that demonstrably went out. In Pavlakos, a decision denying the taxpayer’s pandemic-benefit eligibility was posted to his CRA account in July 2025. He said that he had received no email notification and discovered the decision only when he logged into the account that September.

The Federal Court applied the settled principle that the 30-day period for commencing judicial review runs from the moment the applicant has knowledge of the decision. Because the CRA offered no evidence that the decision had been mailed or that a notification email had been sent, there was no basis to question the date the taxpayer gave, and the Court held that he needed no extension of time at all, although it went on to dismiss the application on its merits. Pavlakos did not involve a Tax Court appeal and did not interpret subsections 244(14.1) or 244(14.2) of the Income Tax Act. None of this displaces the prevailing line of authority, which generally favours the CRA’s electronic-notification regime.

It does suggest that courts will be slower to apply the statutory presumptions mechanically where the record leaves genuine doubt about whether the notification process functioned as intended, or whether the taxpayer had a meaningful opportunity to access the posted correspondence. In particular, Pavlakos indicates that where the CRA asserts that a taxpayer knew of a decision posted to an online account, the absence of any evidence that the decision was mailed or that a notification email was sent may leave the taxpayer’s own account of when they learned of it unchallenged.

Key Issues and Findings: Can CRA’s Presumption of Receipt for Electronic Notices Be Rebutted?

The cases discussed above point to a body of law that is still taking shape. Most reported decisions have supported the CRA’s position that objection and appeal deadlines begin to run once the CRA sends the notification email, regardless of whether the taxpayer actually saw it. Recent Federal Court decisions, however, suggest that courts may be willing to look behind that presumption and examine whether its factual basis actually holds up on the facts of a given case, rather than treating it as automatically conclusive. The discussion below works through what these decisions mean in practice and then turns to the specific question of whether the presumption can be rebutted.

Collectively, DiPierdomenico and Web Listings show that the Tax Court has so far disposed of these disputes on the statutory objection and extension deadlines rather than on the electronic-notice presumption, while the Federal Court judicial-review decisions in Haddad and Pavlakos demonstrate that courts may still examine whether the notification process functioned properly on the facts of a particular case.

Several findings emerge from the current jurisprudence. Courts have generally treated a CRA notification email as sufficient on its own to start the objection, appeal, or judicial-review clock, as illustrated by DiPierdomenico and Web Listings, although in both cases the Tax Court decided the matter on the missed statutory deadlines rather than on the operation of the electronic-notice presumption. The distinction between “deemed” receipt for mailed notices and “presumed” receipt for electronic notices, discussed further below, may grow more significant as CRA correspondence moves increasingly online.

Sodecia Canada Investments Inc. v Canada, 2024 FCA 216 [Sodecia] is the more directly relevant of the two remaining decisions. Sodecia appealed a 2017 notice of tax assessment; the CRA moved to quash the appeal on the basis that no notice of objection had been served within the statutory time limit, the Tax Court of Canada granted that motion, and the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Tax Court judge’s assessment of the evidence. The Federal Court of Appeal restated that a taxpayer’s right to appeal to the Tax Court of Canada is predicated on service of a valid notice of objection within the time limits set out in section 169.

Sodecia therefore illustrates the consequence at the heart of this article: once the objection window has closed, the appeal is lost regardless of the merits of the underlying tax assessment. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v Canada, 2023 FCA 91 [CIBC] sits a step further removed, since it concerned the interaction of subsections 39(2) and 40(3.6) in the context of a foreign-currency loss. Neither decision addressed the specific operation of subsections 244(14.1) or 244(14.2).

Taxpayers who argue non-receipt must support that argument with objective, contemporaneous documentary evidence rather than a bare assertion. The appropriate remedy also varies with timing: a taxpayer still within the objection period, which for an individual is the later of one year after the filing-due date for the year and 90 days after the notice was sent, but is 90 days alone where the objection relates to tax on excess TFSA or RRSP contributions, should file a notice of objection; a taxpayer past that period but within the one-year window under section 166.1 should pursue an extension-of-time application; and a taxpayer challenging a discretionary CRA decision rather than a tax reassessment may need to consider judicial review instead.

The CRA’s own published terms of use for email notifications supply a point that taxpayers arguing non-receipt should not overlook. That page confirms the administrative basis for the presumption, stating that all CRA mail available in My Account or My Business Account will be presumed to have been received on the date the email notification is sent.

The same page, however, warns that CRA email notifications are sent unencrypted and unsecured, and that they could be lost or intercepted, or could be viewed or altered by others who have access to the email account. A taxpayer advancing a rebuttal argument can point to the CRA’s own acknowledgment that the delivery mechanism underlying the presumption is unreliable. That concession does not displace the statutory presumption, but it undercuts the argument that the presumption should operate as a conclusive rule rather than a starting point that evidence can displace.

“The CRA cannot describe its own notification emails as unencrypted, unsecured, and capable of being lost, and at the same time insist that delivery is beyond question. That concession sits on the CRA’s own website, and it belongs in every non-receipt argument a taxpayer makes.”

David Rotfleisch, Certified Specialist in Taxation Law (Law Society of Ontario), Canadian Tax Lawyer

No reported appellate decision appears to have directly determined whether the presumptions in subsections 244(14.1) and 244(14.2) of the Income Tax Act are rebuttable, leaving the issue unsettled. Taxpayers and advisers should treat these findings as the current state of a developing area and should structure their evidence and procedural strategy accordingly rather than assuming that any single case will resolve the issue in their favour. Because the available remedies often depend on procedural deadlines and evidentiary preservation, taxpayers who discover a tax reassessment after a missed email notification should consider consulting an experienced Canadian tax litigation lawyer immediately. Delay can eliminate extension-of-time remedies that might otherwise remain available.

Presumed vs. Deemed Receipt: A Critical Distinction in CRA Electronic Notice Cases

The distinction between “deemed” receipt and “presumed” receipt may become increasingly important as CRA correspondence moves further into online accounts. For mailed notices, paragraph 248(7)(a) of the Income Tax Act uses a deeming rule: once the CRA proves that a notice was mailed, the taxpayer is treated as having received it on the mailing date. For electronic notices, subsections 244(14.1) and 244(14.2) use different language.

They provide that the notice is presumed to have been sent and received when the CRA sends the notification email to the taxpayer’s most recent electronic address on file. Because a presumption is often rebuttable unless the statutory context shows otherwise, taxpayers may argue in appropriate cases that credible evidence of actual non-receipt should prevent the CRA from relying on the electronic-notice rule.

The distinction matters because Canadian courts have long held that when Parliament uses the word “deemed,” it is creating a conclusive legal fiction. In practical terms, that means the result is treated as true whether or not it reflects what actually happened. The leading statement of the principle is R v Verrette, [1978] 2 SCR 838 [Verrette], where the Supreme Court of Canada described a deeming provision as a statutory fiction, and held that the deeming character of such a provision does not depend on the particular words Parliament chooses to express it. The Federal Court of Appeal worked with the same idea more recently in CIBC, although that case concerned the interaction of two deeming rules in a foreign-currency loss rather than CRA notices or electronic communications.

By contrast, the word “presumed” is often used to create a rebuttable presumption, unless the statutory context indicates otherwise. In other words, the presumed fact is accepted unless evidence shows otherwise. Although evidentiary presumptions are often rebuttable, courts determine whether a particular statutory presumption is rebuttable by examining the text, context, and purpose of the legislation as a whole. That interpretive exercise is how courts analyze and apply evidentiary presumptions in tax litigation.

This distinction between “deemed” and “presumed” may prove significant in the CRA electronic-notice context. Parliament chose the word “presumed” in subsections 244(14.1) and 244(14.2), not “deemed,” raising the question of whether the CRA’s presumption of receipt can be rebutted by credible evidence that the CRA email notification was never actually received. For taxpayers who did not receive a CRA email notification, the distinction between a presumed receipt rule and a deemed receipt rule may ultimately determine whether lost CRA objection rights can still be restored.

Sodecia also carries a practical lesson for taxpayers considering a rebuttal argument in the electronic-notice context. The taxpayer there could not establish on the evidence that a notice of objection had been served within the statutory time limit, and the Federal Court of Appeal declined to interfere with that finding. The quality of the evidence matters. Courts are unlikely to be persuaded by vague recollections or bare assertions of non-receipt. Instead, taxpayers should expect to produce credible and contemporaneous documentary evidence capable of showing why the presumed fact is probably incorrect.

“Electronic communication has fundamentally changed Canadian tax procedure. A taxpayer can now lose appeal rights without ever seeing a paper notice. The legal focus increasingly shifts from whether a notice existed to whether the CRA can prove the statutory conditions necessary to trigger procedural deadlines.”
David Rotfleisch, Certified Specialist in Taxation Law (Law Society of Ontario), Canadian Tax Lawyer

Can a Taxpayer Challenge a Missed CRA Email Notification and Preserve Appeal Rights?

The unresolved issue is whether subsections 244(14.1) and 244(14.2) create an absolute rule for missed CRA email notifications or a rebuttable presumption capable of being displaced by objective evidence. Because Parliament chose “presumed” rather than “deemed” for CRA electronic notices, taxpayers may argue that the presumption can be displaced by reliable evidence that the CRA email notification was never actually received.

Examples of circumstances that may support this argument, depending on the evidence, include a technical problem that prevented the email from being delivered or other circumstances demonstrating actual non-receipt. Whether an email routed to a spam or junk folder constitutes non-receipt remains uncertain and may depend on the technical evidence and the facts of the case.

If a court accepts that the taxpayer did not actually receive the notification email, the taxpayer may argue that the CRA should not be entitled to rely on the statutory presumption in the particular procedural context, though the taxpayer would still need to satisfy any separate statutory requirements, including the conditions for an extension of time where applicable.

As a practical matter, a rebuttable presumption works by shifting the burden of proof rather than eliminating it. Where the CRA seeks to rely on the statutory presumption, it may need to produce evidence showing that a notification email was generated and transmitted to the electronic address on file.

The precise evidentiary burden may depend on the procedural context. If the CRA establishes that a notification email was generated and transmitted, the taxpayer will generally need persuasive evidence to challenge the presumed receipt of that notification. A bare assertion that “I never got it” is unlikely to be sufficient on its own; the taxpayer’s evidence needs to be specific enough (dated, documented, and consistent with the surrounding facts) to persuade a court that the presumption should not apply on the facts of the case.

The CRA is likely to resist this argument, particularly where the missed notice resulted from the taxpayer’s failure to keep CRA contact information current. Even in that scenario, however, a taxpayer’s failure to update contact information does not necessarily resolve the statutory analysis, although it may significantly weaken any discretionary request for relief and may affect how a court assesses the taxpayer’s evidence.

On one plausible reading of the provision, a taxpayer may argue that evidence of actual non-receipt should rebut the statutory presumption, though no reported appellate decision has yet accepted that argument under subsections 244(14.1) or 244(14.2). Notably, when the CRA was asked directly about this issue in the 2025 CPA Canada Provincial Questions for CRA, published in October 2025, the CRA did not address whether it views the presumption in subsection 244(14.2) as rebuttable, leaving the issue without clear administrative direction.

“Haddad and Pavlakos are genuinely useful to taxpayers, but I would not tell a client that either one is authority for rebutting the presumption. Both turn on their own facts. Run the argument where the evidence supports it, and never treat it as a substitute for meeting the deadline.”

David Rotfleisch, Certified Specialist in Taxation Law (Law Society of Ontario), Canadian Tax Lawyer

The judicial-review decisions in Haddad and Pavlakos are helpful for taxpayers, but both are distinguishable on their facts rather than direct authority for the proposition that the presumption in subsections 244(14.1) and (14.2) can be rebutted. Taxpayers and advisers should treat this as an emerging, untested argument (one worth raising where the facts support it) rather than as a guaranteed outcome.

The precise procedural remedy depends on the specific facts, and may involve a notice-of-objection extension application under section 166.1 of the Income Tax Act or judicial review of a CRA administrative decision, each of which carries distinct limitation periods, evidentiary requirements, and standards of review.

From a litigation perspective, taxpayers should approach missed-notice disputes as evidentiary disputes rather than merely administrative problems. The outcome will often turn on whether the record supports the claim of non-receipt. Important evidence may include:

CRA account-access history and CRA login-history records
Email-server logs, delivery metadata, and email-delivery failure notices
Spam or junk-folder settings, domain-filtering records, and internet-service-provider records
Screenshots showing account-lockout messages or technical-error messages
Records obtained through Access to Information requests
Correspondence documenting account-access problems
CRA records showing when notification emails were generated
Evidence showing when the taxpayer first became aware of the tax reassessment

For business taxpayers, additional evidence may include Microsoft 365 audit logs, Microsoft Defender quarantine records, Google Workspace email-delivery logs, domain-level spam-filtering records, SPF (Sender Policy Framework) validation failures, DKIM (DomainKeys Identified Mail) authentication records, and DMARC (Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance) reporting data.

These technical records may assist in determining whether a CRA notification email was blocked, quarantined, rejected, or otherwise failed to reach its intended recipient, a materially different scenario from an email that was delivered but simply went unnoticed. Businesses using enterprise email-security platforms should also consider preserving logs from Proofpoint, Mimecast, Barracuda, and similar email-filtering systems capable of showing whether CRA notification emails were blocked, quarantined, rejected, or otherwise prevented from reaching intended recipients.

Such evidence may assist in establishing actual non-receipt, although no reported appellate decision has yet determined what evidence would be sufficient to rebut the statutory presumption under subsections 244(14.1) or 244(14.2). Because these logs are often retained for only a limited period before being purged or overwritten, a business that suspects a missed CRA notification should ask its IT department or email service provider to preserve the relevant records as soon as possible, rather than waiting until an extension application or appeal is already underway.

An experienced Canadian tax litigation lawyer can help identify which records are likely to be probative in a given case, coordinate with IT personnel to ensure they are captured before they are lost, and carefully evaluate what documentary evidence is available before the taxpayer provides written explanations to the CRA, since early communications frequently become part of the evidentiary record in later proceedings. Taxpayers should assume that every factual assertion regarding non-receipt will require supporting evidence.

“The CRA’s administrative convenience cannot rewrite Parliament’s words. A deemed receipt rule and a presumed receipt rule are not the same thing. Where a taxpayer can produce credible evidence that the CRA email notification was never actually received, an experienced Canadian tax litigation lawyer for CRA disputes should carefully examine whether the presumption has been rebutted and whether the taxpayer’s CRA objection rights can still be preserved.”
David Rotfleisch.

Practical Implications for Taxpayers, Corporations, Accountants, and Tax Advisers

The shift from paper correspondence to CRA electronic notices has fundamentally altered Canadian tax procedure. Taxpayers, corporations, accountants, and legal advisers must now treat electronic communications as potential litigation-triggering events. Missed notifications can affect audit responses, objection deadlines, tax appeal rights, collections disputes, and judicial-review timelines. As more CRA correspondence migrates online, proactive monitoring of CRA accounts has become a critical component of tax-risk management.

CRA Represent a Client Risks: Why Accountants and Lawyers May Miss Client CRA Notices

The electronic notice regime creates a significant compliance risk for accountants, lawyers, and other professionals who manage CRA disputes through Represent a Client. Under the current CRA notification framework, an adviser who has been authorized through Represent a Client is generally not sent an email notification when new correspondence is posted to a client’s account.

Advisers should periodically verify current CRA administrative practices as online services continue to evolve. Advisers who rely on being notified (the way they might expect to be for their own accounts) risk missing a tax audit proposal letter or a notice of tax reassessment for a client altogether, with the same 90-day and one-year deadlines running in the background regardless.

This risk is particularly significant during a CRA tax audit. A missed proposal letter may become the foundation for a tax reassessment carrying substantial tax, penalties, and interest before the taxpayer has had a meaningful opportunity to respond. Taxpayers frequently use the proposal-letter stage to provide additional records, correct factual misunderstandings, challenge proposed assumptions, and negotiate disputed tax audit adjustments before a tax reassessment is issued.

From a tax-litigation perspective, a missed proposal letter can significantly increase both tax audit risk and litigation risk. Factual assumptions, valuation positions, and characterizations that the tax auditor treats as unchallenged at the proposal stage tend to carry forward largely unchanged into the resulting tax reassessment, since the CRA has no reason to revisit a position the taxpayer never disputed.

Once a tax reassessment is issued, the taxpayer can no longer simply provide the tax auditor with additional records or a clarifying explanation; instead, the taxpayer must proceed through the formal notice-of-objection process and, if that does not resolve the matter, a Tax Court appeal, both of which involve substantially more cost, delay, and procedural formality than responding to a proposal letter would have.

The taxpayer also loses the practical advantage of correcting the CRA’s understanding before it hardens into the CRA’s official position, which can make an otherwise resolvable factual dispute considerably harder to unwind. Where the proposal letter is never reviewed because a notification email is overlooked, the taxpayer may lose an important opportunity to influence the CRA’s position before tax reassessment. In some cases, gross-negligence penalties, transfer-pricing adjustments, shareholder-benefit tax assessments, or GST/HST adjustments may proceed with little or no taxpayer response.

What to Do If You Discover a Missed CRA Tax Reassessment After the Objection Deadline

The practical lesson is that a missed CRA email notification does not necessarily extinguish a taxpayer’s CRA objection rights, but immediate action is often required to preserve potentially available remedies. Time is particularly important where a taxpayer discovers a missed CRA notice of tax reassessment close to the expiry of the one-year extension period under section 166.1 because the available procedural remedies narrow dramatically once that period expires. That timing pressure is sharpest for a taxpayer who intends to argue non-receipt of a CRA electronic notice, because the argument has to be raised while the section 166.1 window is still open.

Advisers handling CRA disputes should treat the presumed-versus-deemed distinction as a standard item to check whenever a client claims to have been blindsided by a tax reassessment, a tax audit proposal letter, a collections action, or correspondence that never reached them through Represent a Client.

Immediate Steps to Take After Missing a CRA Email Notification or Reassessment

A taxpayer who discovers a missed CRA tax reassessment or CRA electronic notice should treat the matter as a procedural emergency. The first step is to identify the date the CRA says the notice was posted, the date the CRA says the CRA email notification was sent, the email address used, the date the taxpayer actually discovered the tax reassessment, and whether the objection period or the one-year extension-of-time period remains available.

The taxpayer should also begin preserving evidence immediately, since records assembled after the fact carry far less weight than records created in the moment. A taxpayer should avoid sending an informal explanation to the CRA before obtaining legal advice because early explanations often become part of the record in a later extension application, judicial-review application, or tax appeal.

“In missed-notice cases, the legal argument is only as strong as the record supporting it. Taxpayers should preserve screenshots, email records, CRA account-access history, and correspondence immediately, because the evidence created in the first days after discovery may determine whether the objection rights can be saved.”
David Rotfleisch.

Where the facts are close to the line, taxpayers are well served by involving an experienced Canadian tax litigation lawyer early, since the evidentiary record built in the weeks after a missed deadline is discovered often determines whether an extension application or rebuttal argument has any realistic chance of success. Businesses that regularly deal with CRA disputes should also periodically confirm that the email address on file with the CRA is current, and that anyone authorized through Represent a Client is checking client accounts on a regular schedule. These administrative habits are often the simplest way to avoid the entire problem discussed in this article.

Procedural issues surrounding a missed electronic notice often arise only after CRA collections activity has begun. For many taxpayers, the first sign of a tax reassessment is a requirement to pay, a refund offset, a garnishment, or collection correspondence relating to an unfamiliar tax debt. By the time collections activity begins, objection deadlines may already have expired or may be close to expiring. As a result, taxpayers should treat an unexpected exercise of the CRA’s collection powers as a potential procedural emergency requiring immediate investigation.

When to Contact an Experienced Canadian Tax Litigation Lawyer for a Missed CRA Tax Reassessment or Missed CRA Email Notification

Taxpayers should consider obtaining advice from an experienced Canadian tax litigation lawyer immediately if they discover a tax reassessment after the normal objection period has expired, receive CRA collections correspondence relating to a tax assessment they do not remember receiving, believe a CRA notification email was never delivered, require an extension-of-time application under section 166.1 of the Income Tax Act, or are considering judicial review of a CRA decision.

Because the available remedies are highly procedural and strongly dependent on evidence, early advice often determines whether a viable remedy remains available through a notice of objection, extension-of-time application, or other tax appeal procedure.

Common warning signs that immediate legal assistance may be required include:

A tax reassessment discovered after the objection deadline has passed
Unexpected CRA collections action
Inability to access a CRA account
Evidence that a CRA notification email was never received
A tax reassessment involving substantial tax, penalties, or interest
Uncertainty about whether a section 166.1 extension application remains available
A representative or accounting firm that failed to detect posted CRA correspondence

Practical Consequences of Missing a CRA Tax Reassessment or CRA Email Notification

Taxpayers should not assume that their CRA objection rights or broader tax appeal rights are lost simply because the CRA says a notice was posted online. This is especially important where the missed notice follows a CRA tax audit, since the resulting tax reassessment may already reflect adjustments the taxpayer never had a chance to address at the proposal stage.

The financial exposure in these disputes tends to compound the longer the notice goes unaddressed. Interest continues to accrue on the underlying tax debt throughout the dispute regardless of who is at fault for the missed notification, and where the tax reassessment traces back to an unreviewed tax audit proposal letter, the taxpayer has also lost the earlier opportunity to negotiate adjustments before they became final. These consequences are separate from the deadline question itself, and they do not disappear even where the taxpayer later succeeds in reviving the objection or appeal right.

“A taxpayer’s first communication with the CRA after discovering a missed notice often matters more than the taxpayer realizes. An offhand email or a rushed phone call can become the very evidence used against an extension application or a rebuttal argument later on. Before saying anything to the CRA, a taxpayer should get legal advice on what to say, how to say it, and whether to say anything at all.”
David Rotfleisch.

Strategic Takeaways for Challenging a CRA Tax Reassessment After a Missed Email Notice

If you discover a CRA tax reassessment, tax audit proposal letter, or CRA electronic notice only after a deadline has passed, do not assume that all CRA objection rights have been lost. Depending on the facts, the available options may include filing a notice of objection, bringing an extension-of-time application, seeking judicial review of a CRA decision, or arguing that the statutory presumption of receipt has been rebutted.

Which of these options actually applies depends on where the file currently sits. A notice of objection is available if the objection period has not yet expired, which for an individual means the later of one year after the filing-due date for the year and 90 days after the notice was sent, or 90 days alone where the dispute concerns tax on excess TFSA or RRSP contributions. An extension-of-time application becomes the relevant route once that period has passed, but the one-year window under section 166.1 remains open. Judicial review is generally the appropriate path where the CRA has made a discretionary administrative decision rather than issued a tax reassessment.

The rebuttal argument based on the presumed-versus-deemed distinction can support any of the other three, but it is not a standalone remedy. Taxpayers facing this situation should speak with an experienced Canadian tax lawyer to identify which of these remedies actually fits the facts before taking any further step.

Taxpayer Relief and Other Options After CRA Objection Rights Are Lost

Losing the right to object does not always mean losing every remedy. Subsection 220(3.1) of the Income Tax Act gives the CRA discretion to cancel or waive penalties and interest, and relief is generally limited to penalties and interest relating to the ten calendar years before the year in which the request is made. Relief under this provision does not reopen the underlying tax. It addresses only the penalty and interest layered on top, which in a long-running missed-notice case can be a substantial part of the balance.

A second route matters for individuals and graduated rate estates. Subsection 152(4.2) allows the CRA, on request, to reassess beyond the normal reassessment period to give a refund or reduce tax payable, within ten calendar years after the end of the taxation year. That is discretionary rather than a right, and it is not a substitute for a timely notice of objection, but it can produce a practical correction where the tax reassessment was simply wrong on the facts and the objection windows have closed.

A taxpayer whose relief request is refused is not automatically out of options either. A refusal is a discretionary CRA decision, which means it can be challenged by judicial review in the Federal Court on the basis that the decision was unreasonable or that the process was unfair. The court will not substitute its own view of the merits, and the usual outcome of a successful application is a fresh review by a different CRA officer.

Because these remedies are discretionary and evidence-driven, a taxpayer who has already missed the objection and extension windows should have an experienced Canadian tax lawyer frame the request rather than submitting it unaided.

Pro Tax Tips: Preventing Missed CRA Notices and Preserving Objection Rights

Taxpayers, accountants, and lawyers should approach CRA electronic correspondence as though every CRA email notification could affect CRA objection rights, appeal rights, collections remedies, or tax audit-related deadlines. The routine practice of relying exclusively on CRA email notifications is increasingly risky because technical problems, outdated contact information, account-access issues, and overlooked messages can all lead to missed deadlines.

Taxpayers and advisers should treat CRA electronic notices as deadline-sensitive legal documents, not routine portal messages. Log into My Account or My Business Account regularly, even if no CRA email notification has been received, because important deadlines may run from the date correspondence is posted or electronically notified. Confirm that the CRA has the current email address on file, update that address immediately after any change, and periodically check spam or junk-folder settings.

A stale email address or ignored online account will not necessarily eliminate every argument, but it will make any extension or rebuttal position harder to advance. If you use Represent a Client to manage a client’s tax affairs, do not assume you will be notified of new correspondence; no automatic CRA email notification is sent to representatives, so log in and check each client’s account directly on a regular schedule.

If you discover a CRA notice well after it was posted, particularly after a CRA objection deadline has apparently passed, immediately preserve the evidentiary record: screenshots from My Account or My Business Account, the email address shown in the CRA profile, spam or junk-folder settings, account-access history, correspondence with the CRA, and any records showing when you actually discovered the notice. Evidence created immediately after discovery is far more persuasive than an explanation reconstructed months or years later.

Consider promptly seeking advice on whether an extension of time under section 166.1 may still be available, and on whether the presumption of receipt can be challenged on the facts. If you believe you have already missed a deadline because you never saw a CRA email notification, speak with an experienced Canadian tax lawyer as soon as possible, as the options available to you narrow considerably with time.

Frequently Asked Questions: Missed CRA Email Notifications, CRA Tax Reassessments, and Objection Deadlines

If I never saw the CRA email notification telling me I had new correspondence, does that mean the CRA objection deadline never started running?

Not automatically. Courts have generally treated taxpayers who did not see a CRA email notification as having received the underlying CRA electronic notice regardless, because subsections 244(14.1) and (14.2) create a presumption of receipt tied to the date the CRA sends the CRA email notification. However, because the Act uses the word “presumed” rather than “deemed,” taxpayers may argue that the presumption is rebuttable, although no appellate court has yet decided whether such an argument can succeed under subsections 244(14.1) or 244(14.2). A CRA email notification that was routed to a spam or junk folder is unlikely, by itself, to be enough to rebut that presumption; the stronger argument usually requires objective evidence that the notification was not delivered, was blocked, or was quarantined before reaching the taxpayer’s inbox, since the distinction between an email that was delivered but overlooked and one that was never technically delivered may prove important.

If a CRA notice is sent to me electronically, is the presumption of receipt the same as it would be for a notice sent to me by mail?

No. A notice of tax assessment sent by ordinary mail is “deemed” received on the day it is mailed, which the courts have consistently treated as a conclusive legal fiction that cannot be disproven, as Schafer illustrates. By contrast, a CRA electronic notice is described as being “presumed” to have been received. Elsewhere in tax law (for example, in the rebuttable-presumption line of cases discussed above), courts have often treated presumptions as capable of being rebutted on credible evidence in other statutory contexts. Whether that reasoning applies to subsections 244(14.1) and (14.2) remains unsettled. The difference in wording may matter a great deal in practice, even though most reported decisions involving CRA electronic notices have not yet turned on this distinction.

What should I do if I believe the CRA tax reassessed me but I missed the CRA objection deadline because I never saw the CRA email notification?

Act immediately. Gather evidence that supports your explanation for not receiving the CRA email notification, such as records showing a changed email address, evidence of a technical problem, or documentation of when you actually discovered the correspondence.

You should also consider applying for an extension of time under section 166.1 of the Income Tax Act as soon as possible, since that application must itself be made within one year after the original objection deadline expired. Before assuming that deadline has passed, confirm which one applies to you: an individual (other than a trust) or a graduated rate estate has until the later of one year after the filing-due date for the year and 90 days after the day the notice was sent, so you may still be inside the objection period itself. Taxpayers should consult an experienced Canadian tax litigation lawyer for CRA disputes as soon as the missed notice is discovered.

My accountant never told me that the CRA had posted a notice to my account. Does that extend the objection deadline?

Not automatically. The CRA does not send a notification email to a representative using Represent a Client when new correspondence is posted to a client’s account. Representatives must log in and check the account directly to see new correspondence, and clients should confirm with their representative how often the account is being monitored.

As an accountant or lawyer authorized through the CRA’s Represent a Client service, what practical steps can I take to avoid missing a client’s CRA notice?

Build a fixed schedule for logging in to each client’s account rather than waiting for a client to raise the issue, since the CRA does not prompt the representative when new correspondence is posted. A monthly or biweekly login routine, set out in the engagement letter and documented in the file, gives the representative a defensible record that the account was being monitored on a reasonable schedule. Where more than one adviser or staff member has access to a client’s account through Represent a Client, confirm who is responsible for checking it, since shared access without a clear assignment of responsibility is a common way a posted notice goes unreviewed until a deadline has already passed.

I only discovered the tax reassessment after the CRA started collections action. Is it too late to do anything?

Not necessarily. Many taxpayers first learn about a CRA tax reassessment only after receiving a collections letter, discovering that a tax refund has been applied against an outstanding balance, or becoming aware of another CRA collections action. The fact that collections activity has started does not automatically mean that all objection or appeal rights have been lost.

The critical issues are when the CRA issued the tax assessment or tax reassessment, when the relevant objection deadline expired, whether an extension-of-time application remains available under section 166.1 of the Income Tax Act, and whether there is evidence supporting an argument that the taxpayer never received the CRA’s notification email or otherwise did not become aware of the tax reassessment.

Because both collections action and objection deadlines can involve strict statutory timelines, taxpayers should act immediately after discovering the tax reassessment. Obtaining copies of the CRA correspondence, confirming relevant dates, preserving evidence, and seeking advice from an experienced Canadian tax litigation lawyer for CRA disputes can significantly improve the likelihood of preserving available tax appeal rights.

I received the CRA email notification, but my CRA account was locked and I could not access the correspondence. What should I do?

A locked CRA account may create a very different situation from simply overlooking a CRA email notification. If a taxpayer receives a CRA email notification advising that correspondence is available but is unable to access the account despite reasonable efforts, those facts may be relevant when considering an extension-of-time application or another procedural remedy. Courts may be concerned where a taxpayer took genuine steps to access the account but was prevented from doing so because of technical or administrative barriers.

Taxpayers in this situation should preserve records of account-access problems, communications with the CRA, screenshots of error messages, and evidence showing when access was restored and when the correspondence was ultimately discovered. Because CRA objection rights may continue to be affected while access issues are being addressed, taxpayers should act promptly and seek advice as soon as they become aware of the problem.

What evidence should I keep if I plan to argue that I never received a CRA email notification?

Keep anything that documents the gap between when the CRA says it sent the CRA email notification and when you actually became aware of the correspondence: for example, records showing a change of email address, screenshots of a spam or junk folder, technical-error messages, account-access records, internet-service-provider records, information-technology reports, or correspondence with your email provider. The more contemporaneous and specific this evidence is, the stronger the argument that the statutory presumption should be rebutted on the actual facts; bare assertions of non-receipt are generally much less persuasive than objective, contemporaneous records.

What do I need to show to get an extension of time to file a late notice of objection?

Under subsection 166.1(7) of the Income Tax Act, you generally need to satisfy four conditions: that you were unable to act, or had a genuine intention to object, within the original objection period (for an individual other than a trust, or a graduated rate estate, the later of one year after the filing-due date for the year and 90 days after the day the notice was sent); that granting the extension would be just and equitable; that you applied as soon as circumstances permitted after discovering the missed deadline; and that you have reasonable grounds for objecting to the tax assessment in the first place. A missed CRA email notification can help explain why you were unable to act within the original period, but it does not, on its own, satisfy the other three conditions.

I changed my email address but forgot to update it with the CRA. Can I still challenge a tax reassessment I discovered later?

Possibly. A taxpayer who changes an email address without updating the CRA faces a more difficult argument than a taxpayer affected by a technical problem outside their control. The fact that the CRA sent a notification email to the address on file may be highly damaging to the taxpayer’s position, but it does not necessarily end the analysis if the taxpayer can produce credible evidence and a viable procedural route remains open.

The taxpayer’s failure to update CRA records may weaken an extension-of-time application because the CRA could argue that the missed deadline resulted from the taxpayer’s own inattention. However, depending on the facts, the taxpayer may still be able to argue that the statutory presumption of receipt should not apply or that an extension of time to object should be granted. The outcome will often depend on the quality of the evidence, when the tax reassessment was discovered, and whether the statutory extension period remains available.

Taxpayers who discover a tax reassessment after changing email addresses should immediately preserve evidence showing when the address changed, when the tax reassessment was discovered, and whether any objection or extension deadlines remain available.

Can I ask the CRA to keep sending me paper notices by mail?

Yes, in most cases. A taxpayer who has been moved to electronic correspondence can generally ask the CRA to revert to paper mail, and the statutory presumption of electronic delivery under subsections 244(14.1) and 244(14.2) does not apply where the taxpayer has requested notices and communications by mail. The request should be made and confirmed before a dispute arises, because switching back does not retroactively undo a notice that was already posted electronically. Taxpayers who rely on paper should still check their CRA account periodically, since a change of delivery preference does not stop the objection clock if a notice was validly issued earlier.

What happens to interest and collections while my extension application is pending?

Arrears interest continues to accrue on the assessed amount while a section 166.1 extension application is outstanding. Filing the application does not stop interest and does not automatically stop collections, although the CRA’s collections powers are restricted in some circumstances once a valid notice of objection is filed. A taxpayer who is worried about interest can pay the disputed amount, or part of it, while continuing to dispute the tax reassessment, which stops further interest from accumulating on the amount paid and is refundable with interest if the objection succeeds.

Can a corporation argue non-receipt if the notification email reached an employee who never passed it on?

This is difficult. The presumption operates on the delivery of the notification to the address the corporation gave the CRA, not on whether the right person inside the corporation read it. Where the email reached the corporate mailbox and was simply not actioned, the corporation is generally arguing internal breakdown rather than non-receipt, which is a weaker position. The stronger corporate cases involve technical failure, such as quarantine, spam filtering, or authentication failure, where the message never reached the mailbox at all. This is a distinction worth reviewing with an experienced Canadian tax lawyer before an extension application is filed.

How can I find out whether the CRA actually sent me an email notification?

Start with the correspondence history in your CRA account, which shows what was posted and when. That record shows the posting date rather than proving that a notification email was generated and delivered, so a taxpayer who needs the underlying detail can make an Access to Information request for the CRA’s records of the notification. On the taxpayer’s side, email-server logs, quarantine records, and delivery-failure reports from the relevant period should be preserved quickly, because many providers purge these logs within weeks.

DISCLAIMER: This article provides broad information. It is only accurate as of the posting date. It has not been updated and may be out-of-date. It does not give legal advice and should not be relied on as tax advice. Every tax scenario is unique to its circumstances and will differ from the instances described in the article. If you have specific legal questions, you should seek the advice of a Canadian tax lawyer.

About the Author

David J. Rotfleisch

David J. Rotfleisch, a leading Canadian tax lawyer, is not only a certified specialist in taxation but also a chartered professional accountant. Most recently, David is a pioneer in Canadian crypto taxation.

As of April 2020, he was one of 12 Ontario Certified Specialists In Taxation™.

Learn more about David J. Rotfleisch

Missed CRA Email Notification After a Reassessment: Can You Still File a CRA Objection?