Missing a CRA notice is not an excuse: Tax Court reinforces strict deadlines to GST objections

David J Rotfleisch, CPA, JD is the founding tax lawyer of Taxpage.com and Rotfleisch & Samulovitch P.C., a Toronto-based boutique tax law corporate law firm.

A reassessment sent to an old address still triggers the 90-day objection period

In Ng v. The King (2025 TCC 172), the Tax Court of Canada addressed a recurring and often frustrating scenario for taxpayers: the CRA reassesses a file and mails the Notice of Reassessment to an address previously provided by the taxpayer, yet the taxpayer never receives the correspondence and later attempts to challenge the tax reassessment when it becomes known. The case illustrates that the objection deadlines under the Excise Tax Act are strict, inflexible, and triggered by the sending of the reassessment — not the taxpayer's actual receipt or awareness of it. This principle is not unique to GST/HST matters: parallel rules and jurisprudence apply under the Income Tax Act. The distinction is critically important. A taxpayer can be completely unaware of a tax reassessment and still lose every administrative or judicial avenue to dispute it.

The reassessment arose from a GST/HST New Housing Rebate claim involving a Toronto condominium that the taxpayer initially declared as her principal residence. Shortly after closing, however, she moved to a different Toronto address without notifying the CRA, and years later relocated to London, England. The CRA mailed the Notice of Reassessment in November 2019 to the condominium address she initially provided. Because her former roommate did not forward the mail, she only learned of the reassessment in 2024, by which time both the initial 90-day objection period and the additional one-year extension period had expired. Although the Court found her to be a credible and organized witness who acted quickly once aware of the reassessment, the Court emphasized that the legal test is not whether a taxpayer actually receives CRA mail, but whether the CRA can prove it sent the reassessment to the address on file.

This decision reinforces a difficult truth: even where hardship, honest mistake, or misplaced mail is to blame, taxpayers can still be barred from disputing a tax reassessment if deadlines are missed.

The story behind the dispute: A new condo, a rebate claim, and a missed reassessment

The taxpayer Christine Ng entered into an agreement in 2014 to purchase a new condominium unit in the Yonge and Eglinton area of Toronto. She moved into the unit on August 28, 2017, and the purchase transaction closed on April 5, 2018. One day before closing, she signed and submitted the GST/HST New Housing Rebate application, declaring the condo as her principal residence and listing the condo itself as her mailing address for CRA purposes.

On July 15, 2018, Ms. Ng relocated to a different rental unit in Toronto but did not update her address with the CRA. She kept receiving forwarded mail from her former roommate, who continued living in the condo.

On November 4, 2019, the CRA issued and mailed a Notice of Reassessment to the same condo address provided initially. The CRA later produced affidavits and internal mailing records confirming that the Notice of Reassessment was generated correctly, processed, and delivered to Canada Post in accordance with standard procedures. No notice of objection was filed within 90 days of that mailing date, and no extension request was submitted within the additional one-year statutory window.

In 2023, Ms. Ng moved to London, England. Only in 2024 — when contacted by the CRA regarding the outstanding balance — did she first learn of the reassessment. She acted quickly and submitted a request to the CRA to extend the deadline to object, claiming she had never received the Notice of Reassessment and therefore could not have challenged it earlier. Representing herself before the Tax Court, she testified that she would have responded immediately if she had known about the reassessment.

The four-step legal test in Ng v. The King: How courts determine whether a notice was properly "sent"

The Tax Court reaffirmed in Ng v. The King (2025 TCC 172) that when a taxpayer claims non-receipt of a Notice of Reassessment, the Court applies a structured four-step framework — based on established jurisprudence under both the Excise Tax Act and the Income Tax Act — to determine whether the CRA "sent" the notice and whether the statutory objection deadlines have expired. This analytical matrix was previously summarized in Dasilva v. HMQ, 2018 TCC 74:

Step 1 — The taxpayer must credibly assert non-sending

The taxpayer must credibly assert either:

• non-receipt of the notice and therefore an absence of mailing, or
• mailing to an incorrect address through no fault of the taxpayer.

If this assertion is not credible, the analysis concludes that the objection is out of time. To successfully challenge this step, a taxpayer must demonstrate diligence and provide reliable indicators that proper mailing would have resulted in receipt or forwarding.

Step 2 — The CRA must prove proper mailing

If Step 1 is satisfied, the CRA must prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the notice was mailed to the address on the taxpayer's file. This is typically established through internal mailing records and affidavits from print-to-mail officials. Taxpayers may contest this step by pointing to procedural errors, addressing inaccuracies, incomplete CRA records, or questionable reliability of mailing practices.

Step 3 — Mailing determines the commencement of objection timelines

Once the CRA establishes proper mailing, the date reflected on the notice is presumed to be the mailing date for the purpose of calculating the ninety-day objection deadline under the Excise Tax Act. This presumption may be rebutted only through credible evidence that the notice could not have been mailed on the printed date.

Step 4 — The notice is deemed received even if never opened

Once mailing is established, the assessment is deemed made and received by the taxpayer on the mailing date. These deeming provisions are not rebuttable; actual non-receipt is legally irrelevant. If the CRA succeeds at this stage, the timelines are final, and the Tax Court lacks jurisdiction to grant relief.

Therefore, a taxpayer's only effective way to retain objection rights is to prevent the Tax Court from ruling that proper mailing occurred at Step 2 or that the statutory presumption applies in Step 3.

The court's decision: Credibility does not override statutory deadlines

Although the Court accepted that Ms. Ng never actually received the Notice of Reassessment and acted promptly once she became aware of it, the legal framework under the Excise Tax Act leaves no room for equitable relief once proper mailing is established. The CRA demonstrated that the tax reassessment was sent to the last-known address on record, and the statutory deadlines to object had long expired. The Tax Court therefore dismissed the application for an extension of time, confirming that actual receipt of CRA correspondence is irrelevant once mailing has been proven.

The decision in Ng v. The King highlights that taxpayers can permanently lose their right to dispute a reassessment even when they never actually receive it. A change of residence, temporary relocation, or international move does not automatically update your address. Taxpayers should promptly update their address through CRA My Account or by written notice — especially after filing a GST/HST New Housing Rebate or claiming residence-based benefits.

David J Rotfleisch, CPA, JD is the founding tax lawyer of Taxpage.com and Rotfleisch & Samulovitch P.C., a Toronto-based boutique tax law corporate law firm and is a Certified Specialist in Taxation Law who has completed the CICA in-depth tax planning course. He appears regularly in print, radio and TV and blogs extensively.  

With over 30 years of experience as both a lawyer and chartered professional accountant, he has helped start-up businesses, cryptocurrency traders, resident and non-resident business owners and corporations with their tax planning, with will and estate planning, voluntary disclosures and tax dispute resolution including tax audit representation and tax litigation. Visit www.Taxpage.com and email David at david@taxpage.com.

Read the original article in full on Goods Services Tax. Author photo courtesy Rotfleisch & Samulovitch P.C. Title image: The Connaught Building on Sussex Drive in downtown Ottawa, Canada houses the national headquarters of the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), iStock ID 1228140971.