Published: June 4, 2026
Overview: CRA’s Mailing Obligations and Taxpayer Appeal Rights Under the Income Tax Act
The Tax Court of Canada’s decision in Shaker v. The King, 2026 TCC 63 provides a significant clarification of the CRA’s legal obligations when issuing notices of reassessment and the consequences of failing to properly notify taxpayers. The case highlights that valid mailing is not merely an administrative step but a statutory requirement that directly affects a taxpayer’s right to object and appeal.
Under the Income Tax Act, a taxpayer generally has 90 days after the day of sending of the notice of assessment or reassessment to file a notice of objection, and subsequently 90 days from the day notice has been sent to the taxpayer that the Minister has confirmed the assessment or reassessment to file a notice of appeal to the Tax Court of Canada. Where proper notice is not given, these limitation periods may not begin to run.
When the CRA sends Notices of Reassessment to an incorrect or incomplete address—particularly where it possesses a more accurate address—the validity of those reassessments may be challenged. Further, the purported mailing may not have triggered the legal effect of commencing the reassessment process. This decision reinforces that procedural fairness remains central to Canadian tax litigation.
Background: CRA Audit, Address Discrepancies, and Delayed Tax Objections
The taxpayer, Charles Shaker, was reassessed for his 2008 and 2009 taxation years following a CRA tax audit focused on determining his tax residence status. Two versions of his address were relevant:
- An incomplete address (the “First Address”) provided in his filed tax returns
- A complete and deliverable address (the “Second Address”), which was identical to the First Address but included the missing apartment or unit number and postal code, thereby rendering it deliverable
Despite repeatedly corresponding with Mr. Shaker using the Second Address, the CRA ultimately mailed the notices of reassessment in March 2017 to the incomplete First Address. The parties agreed that this address was undeliverable and that the notices were not received.
He only received the Notices in July 2022 when he was served the Crown’s affidavit in relation to a Federal Court proceeding. Mr. Shaker then filed notices of objections before the deadline set out in subsection 165(1). The CRA argued that the objections were statute-barred and brought a motion to quash the appeals on the basis that the Notices had been mailed to Mr. Shaker’s address of record on March 31, 2017.
Key Legal Issue: Validity of CRA Mailing and the Mpamugo Test
The central issue before the Tax Court was whether the CRA validly issued the notices of reassessment, thereby triggering the objection deadlines under the Income Tax Act subsections 165(1) to file notices of objection and 166.1(7) to apply to the Minister for an extension of time to object.
The Court applied the established steps 1 and 2 of the 4-step framework from Mpamugo v The Queen:
- The taxpayer must credibly assert that the notice was not mailed or was mailed to the wrong address through no fault of their own
- If the taxpayer has asserted that the notice was mailed to the wrong address, the CRA must prove that the notice was mailed to the address it properly had on file
This test is frequently applied in Canadian tax litigation in the context of determining whether a taxpayer filed a Notice of Objection on time or determining whether a tax year is beyond the normal reassessment period.
Tax Court Analysis: CRA Mailing Failure and Taxpayer Not at Fault
Taxpayer Not Responsible for Mailing Defect
The Court acknowledged that Mr. Shaker had been uncooperative during the CRA tax audit, particularly in responding to residency-related information requests. However, the Court made a critical distinction: non-cooperation in an audit does not equate to fault regarding mailing address obligations.
The Court found that:
- The CRA had obtained and relied on the more complete Second Address, and consistently used it in prior communications
- The Second Address was not a different location but the same address as the First Address with the addition of the apartment or unit number, making it deliverable
Notably, there was no indication from Mr. Shaker’s representative that the Second Address was incorrect, only that the letter had not been received by Mr. Shaker.
The CRA concluded that the Second Address was a more complete version of the First Address. Mr. Shaker received CRA correspondence addressed to the Second Address in 2015 and 2016, and nothing he received clearly indicated that his mailing address with the CRA needed to be updated.
CRA Did Not Mail to Proper Address on File
The Court further concluded that the CRA failed to meet its burden of proof under the second step of the Mpamugo test. Although the First Address originated from the taxpayer, it was not the address the CRA “properly had on file” at the relevant time.
The Court emphasized that:
- The CRA had knowledge of a more accurate and deliverable version of the same address
- It had used that complete address consistently during the audit process
- It reverted to an incomplete and undeliverable version without sufficient justification
This inconsistency was determinative. The Court expressed concern that the CRA abandoned a reliable address when issuing documents with serious legal consequences for the taxpayer’s appeal rights.
Implications for Canadian Tax Litigation and CRA Disputes
This decision has meaningful implications for taxpayers, accountants, and experienced Canadian tax litigation lawyers handling CRA disputes:
- The validity of a notice of reassessment depends on proper mailing, not merely issuance
- The 90-day objection deadline only begins upon the proper mailing or sending of a validly issued notice
- The 90-day deadline to appeal to the Tax Court of Canada similarly depends on the proper mailing or sending following the objection stage
- An invalid mailing or sending of a notice may nullify the issuance of the Notice of Assessment or Notice of Reassessment
- The CRA’s internal conduct and address records can be scrutinized in litigation
- Taxpayer non-cooperation does not eliminate the CRA’s statutory obligations
- Evidence of consistent prior correspondence can be decisive in challenging reassessments
For taxpayers facing a CRA assessment or reassessment, this case demonstrates the importance of examining procedural defects—particularly with the guidance of an experienced tax lawyer—especially where limitation periods are at issue.
Conclusion: Tax Court Prioritizes Procedural Fairness in CRA Reassessments
The Tax Court of Canada dismissed the CRA’s motion to quash Mr. Shaker’s appeals, allowing the objections to proceed despite being filed years after the reassessments were issued. The decision confirms that where the CRA fails to meet its mailing obligations, it cannot rely on statutory deadlines to deny a taxpayer’s right to challenge a tax reassessment.
This case reinforces a fundamental principle in Canadian tax litigation: the integrity of the process, including proper notice, is essential to the validity of CRA actions.
Pro Tax Tips
Taxpayers should ensure that their mailing address is accurate and consistently updated with the CRA; however, where the CRA has independently obtained and relied upon a more complete version of the same address, such as by adding a missing apartment number, it may be difficult for the CRA to justify reverting to an incomplete version when issuing reassessments.
In disputes involving late-filed objections or appeals, careful attention should be paid to whether the statutory 90-day deadlines were ever properly triggered, and even whether the issuance of the notices was properly effected. In cases like this, an invalid mailing may result in the notices being invalidly issued and may further result in the CRA being statute-barred from reassessing the taxpayer for the taxation years at issue.
A detailed review of CRA correspondence practices and internal records can reveal procedural defects that preserve appeal rights, and engaging an experienced Canadian tax litigation lawyer for CRA disputes can be essential in advancing these arguments effectively.
FAQs
What is the deadline to file a notice of objection in Canada?
A taxpayer generally has 90 days after the day of sending of the notice of assessment or reassessment to file a notice of objection.
What is the deadline to appeal to the Tax Court of Canada?
A taxpayer typically has 90 days to the taxpayer that the Minister has confirmed the assessment or reassessment to file a notice of appeal.
What happens if the CRA sends a notice of reassessment to the wrong address?
If the notice is not properly mailed, it may be considered invalid, and the statutory deadlines may not begin to run. It may also result in the notice being treated as not properly issued.
Is a taxpayer responsible for keeping their address updated with the CRA?
Yes, taxpayers have that obligation, but where the CRA uses a more accurate version of the same address, the analysis becomes more nuanced.
Does failing to cooperate with a CRA tax audit affect appeal rights?
Not necessarily. As confirmed in this case, non-cooperation does not eliminate the CRA’s obligation to properly notify the taxpayer.
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 an experienced Canadian tax lawyer.
About the Author
