The respondent only vaguely raised this point in her argument by saying that, because she was not informed by the appellant in her notice of appeal that she intended to contest this point, the respondent was not required to prove it.
 Whether or not this argument is raised in the notice of appeal, the burden remains on the respondent to show (1) that there was a misstatement of fact and (2) that this resulted from neglect, carelessness or voluntary omission (Dao c. La Reine, 2010 CCI 84).
That is a somewhat surprising statement from the court since, generally, the purpose of the pleadings is to state the issues of fact and law that lie between the parties, so that the proceedings can be efficient.
[My translation from the French.]
Also noteworthy, in this case where so much of the appellant's evidence seemed lies, was the court's rejection of gross negligence penalties on the basis that the standard for the Crown is high and that the benefit of the doubt should go to the taxpayer. (See paragraphs 93 to 98.) Because it seemed equally likely that the unreported income belonged to the appellant's husband, who ran a carwash business, the court concluded that the appellant was quite possibly not the one who underreported income; her husband did. So the Crown had not met its onus of proof against the appellant.
Kawkab Yunus c. La Reine 2015 CCI 272 (Lamarre ACJ)