Case information

Taxation — Assessment — Statutory interpretation — Prescription — Notice of assessment against applicant as director of his company — Applicant contesting assessment on basis of prescription period — Lower courts dismissing contestation and appeal — Whether prescription periods provided for in s. 1010 of Quebec’s Taxation Act are applicable, with necessary modifications, in case of assessment made under s. 24.0.1 of Tax Administration Act (“TAA”) — Whether two-year period specified in s. 24.0.2 of TAA is prescription period or term for forfeiture — Tax Administration Act, CQLR, c. A-6.002, ss. 24.0.1, 24.0.2 — Taxation Act, CQLR, c. I-3, s. 1010(2)(a).

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

The applicant was the sole director of his company until November 23, 2018. On April 6, 2017, the Agence du revenu du Québec (“ARQ”) issued an assessment against the company for unpaid taxes. When the company failed to pay that sum, the ARQ issued a notice of assessment against the individual applicant on November 19, 2020, relying on his solidary liability as the company’s director during the years in question, pursuant to s. 24.0.1 of the Tax Administration Act, CQLR, c. A-6.002 (“TAA”). On September 2, 2021, the ARQ granted in part a contestation by the applicant, reduced the amount of the assessment and issued a new notice of assessment with the revised amount.

The applicant contested the assessment issued against him on November 19, 2020, arguing that it exceeded the time limit, set out in s. 1010 of the Taxation Act, CQLR, c. I-3, and incorporated into s. 24.0.1 of the TAA, of three years from the original assessment issued against the company (dated April 6, 2017). The Court of Québec dismissed the applicant’s contestation, referring instead to the period, set out in s. 24.0.2 of the TAA, of two years from the date of ceasing to act as a director (November 23, 2018); the Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal.