In Zampieri v R, 2025 TCC 25—which is yet another limitation period case from Mr Justice Bocock—one issue was whether the CRA had sent notices of confirmation and reassessment on the dates printed on them. Mr Justice Bocock was not impressed by the “mail room” affidavit tendered by the Crown. He referred to Mpamugo v R, 2016 TCC 215 (discussed here) as the most recent leading “mail room” case, and then wrote:
[18] The gold standard of affidavit evidence usually describes a CRA officer’s familiarity with the address records, the system of mail dispatch, the recorded address, a copy of the registered mail receipt and reasons for its use corresponding to dates sent and a conclusion that all such information shows that, on balance, the NoC or NoA were sent. This would engage subsections 335(1) and (10), the analogous sections of the ETA to subsection 244(10) of the Income Tax Act: Mpamugo, supra, at paragraph 12. This kind of affidavit is invariably sworn and customarily filed with the Tax Court to obviate the repetitive need of repetitive viva voce evidence.
[19] Even if the Minister cannot provide that specific affidavit evidence, some evidence, beyond a bland assertion of actual knowledge by the taxpayer some 8 years later, is required. Cross-examination at the hearing on the relevant addresses used, Grandview, may have assisted, but that is speculative since it did not occur.
