http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/201 ... TMgAAAAAAE
4] In this regard, Mr. Matsui has an outstanding debt for unpaid taxes in the approximate amount of $28,000.00. In April 2009, Mr. Matsui claimed business losses for the 2005 taxation year. CRA requested documents to substantiate this claim, but Mr. Matsui did not provide them. In 2007 and 2008 he sent CRA documents that he claims unilaterally extinguished his tax debt, which, of course, they did not. In 2009, he retained Demara Consulting Inc. [Demara] as his representative to the CRA; Demara’s principals were subsequently charged with tax fraud associated with claiming fraudulent expenses.
[5] In May 2012, Demara filed amended tax returns on Mr. Matsui’s behalf for the 2001 and 2005 taxation years. In them, Demara claimed additional business losses. Once again CRA wrote to Mr. Matsui and his representatives, requesting documentation to support the claimed expenses. Once again, Mr. Matsui provided nothing in reply.
So in January of this year the CRA denied the losses. Not in the least deterred Matsui went to the Federal Court of Canada demanding that the court give him an extension of time to file an application for a judicial review of the CRA's refusal to allow him to deduct expenses he refuses to show ever existed. The Federal Court was less than sympathetic. He was well out of time to request a judicial review, hence the application for an extension. However such applications must meet all parts of a four part test;
Sadly the Federal Court could not see any merit in Matsui's demands. For starters they didn't seem to like his unilateral contracts;The case law recognizes that this Court should exercise its discretion to extend this time limit only where an applicant is able to establish the following four things: first, that he or she had an ongoing intent to challenge the decision that was first developed within the thirty (30) day period and continued until the date the motion for an extension was made; second, that the applicant has a reasonable explanation for missing the deadline; third, that the applicant’s proposed judicial review application has some merit; and finally, that the respondent is not prejudiced by the delay
So the Federal Court told him to get lost.[12] Here, it was reasonable for the Minister to request supporting documentation from Mr. Matsui given the amounts claimed and the passage of time. The Minister’s decision to disallow Mr. Matsui’s request for reassessment when he failed to produce the supporting documentation is therefore entirely reasonable. Mr. Matsui has accordingly failed to establish there is any merit in his proposed application for judicial review. Moreover, his argument regarding the impact of the documents he sent CRA in 2007 and 2008 is clearly without merit and, indeed, the fact he made such arguments makes the Minister’s request for substantiation all the more reasonable.
[13] Thirdly, Mr. Matsui has not provided any reasonable explanation for his delay in pursuing this matter. While Demara’s principals may well have been enjoined from dealing with Mr. Matsui in light of the criminal charges pending against them, there was nothing to prevent Mr. Matsui from pursuing the issue on his own behalf, as he has now done, or from retaining someone else in a timely fashion to assist him.
We've met Demara Consulting before, in this discussion;
viewtopic.php?f=48&t=9136
The link below is to an article by David Baines, Vancouver's now retired investigative Journalist for the Vancouver Sun, who had this to say about Demara and its two owners;
http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Da ... story.htmlTwo principals of Vernon tax preparation firm DeMara Consulting Inc. have been charged with attempting to defraud the federal government of nearly $10 million by claiming just over $191 million in false expenses on behalf of their clients.
On Friday, Donna Marie Stancer of Vernon and her longtime partner, Deanna Lynn LaValley of Kelowna, were charged with filing false income tax returns for an unspecified number of persons between October 2010 and May 2012.
In total, they allegedly claimed $191,145,031 in false expenses in an attempt to obtain $9,925,038 in refunds they were not entitled to. (The actual amount obtained was only $52,832.)