CCRA going after everything!
My father just had a 5 year proposal end and has to either put forward another, or go bankrupt. His income has reduce significantly over the last few years, partly to ill health. The penalties and interest the CCRA puts on his taxes makes it impossible to ever get ahead. He is never going to be able to retire now because of this debt load, realisticly he will live another 5 years. They have refused his latest proposal and are going after his home(which is completely in my mothers name, and has been for 15+ years), and they are going after cash value in his life insurance. My fear as that they will force him to the point where he can no longer pay his insurance premiums and the stress will kill him. They are leaving him no other choices, and say they will appeal a bankruptcy so it does not get discharged for a long time. I want him to live through this and enjoy a few years, is there anyone to appeal to, or a way to go to court and have a judge decide.

If CRA “appeals†the discharge, what happens is it goes to court. Then the registrar hears both sides of the story and determines what needs to be done for the bankrupt to be discharged. What is ruled by the registrar can vary from simply holding the person in bankruptcy for a stipulated period of time (i.e. 2 additional years) or may involve a monthly payment during this period of time, regardless of what the registrar decides CRA doesn’t get to decide when or how long this period is, they can simply present their side of the case, make requests, but ultimately it is up to the registrar.
A different issue that was raised is the equity in the principle residence. This is a very difficult issue, but case law suggests that simply having the premises registered in your mothers name is not enough to prevent CRA from accessing this equity. The reasoning behind this is that he lived in the home for the same period of time and arguable could have used his income for general upkeep of the premises and payment of the mortgage, therefore because the household was benefiting from his income, that is sufficient evidence that the house was materially a joint possession regardless of who was listed on title.