Canada’s Federal Court has denied a man’s request to extend the deadline for challenging a tax decision on his tax-free savings account (TFSA). The ruling stated his nearly three-year delay demonstrated no strong intention to pursue the matter.
The case, Komarnisky v. Canada (Attorney General), involved a 2023 decision by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) to uphold taxes on the applicant’s TFSA for the 2020–21 tax year. The applicant, who represented himself, sought an extension under the Federal Courts Act to file a judicial review.
Procedural missteps and missed deadlines
The applicant first requested an extension last June, but Justice Whyte Nowak denied the motion without prejudice on July 3. The court identified two problems: the style of cause did not name the attorney general as the proper respondent, and the motion had not been served on the government. Nowak allowed the applicant 10 days to correct the errors.
On July 13, he filed an amended motion under the Federal Court Rules, again asking for more time. He explained that as someone handling the case alone, he had been carefully learning the court’s procedures and acted quickly once he recognized his mistakes. The federal attorney general opposed the motion, arguing the applicant had not shown a clear intention to pursue the case, a valid legal argument, or a reasonable excuse for the delay.
Court applies four-part test, denies extension
The Federal Court used the four-part test from Thompson v. Canada (Attorney General), a 2018 precedent, to decide whether to grant the extension. It determined the applicant failed on all four points.
First, the court found no evidence of a consistent intention to challenge the CRA’s decision. The only action taken was the recent motion—filed nearly three years after the original deadline. The length of the delay worked against him.
Related: Law firm mourns loss of partner Morrison
Second, the court saw no basis for the judicial review application. There was no indication the CRA’s decision contained a serious error that would justify overturning it.
Third, the explanations for the delay were considered vague and unreasonable. The court noted all litigants, including those without legal representation, must follow the rules. A lack of familiarity with court procedures did not excuse the delay.
The decision emphasized that enforcing deadlines serves the public interest. The extension was denied, and no costs were awarded.
A TFSA is designed to be a simple way to save without tax consequences. Disputes, however, can become complicated by legal technicalities—deadlines, service rules, and procedural requirements that create obstacles. The court’s decision shows that good intentions are not enough to bypass the rules, even for those handling their own cases.
The ruling leaves the CRA’s original decision in place. The applicant remains responsible for the TFSA taxes assessed in 2023.
The outcome highlights the challenges self-represented litigants face in legal proceedings. While the system expects compliance with procedural requirements, those without legal training often find it difficult to meet those expectations.
