(I will start using a fancier copy/paste method to include links in my quotes) (Also I added linebreaks and subquotes for readability in this specific comment.)

[38] The Appellant suggested that the general obligation to withhold and remit should be interpreted as providing for a defence of due diligence as has been recognized in the case law for the interpretation of some penalty provisions. I agree that the case law has consistently held that a taxpayer can present a due diligence defence with respect to some penalty provisions but I do not agree that a due diligence defence can be mounted with respect to the obligation to withhold and remit pursuant to subsection 215(6).

Support can be found in Justice Hogan’s decision in J.K. Reed Engineering Ltd v R, 2014 TCC 309 at para 17 wherein he stated:

“Subsection 215(6) of the Act is a charging provision that makes the payer liable for the payee's tax if the payer fails to deduct or withhold at the time of payment tax that is payable by the payee. In contrast, subsection 227(8) of the Act is a penalty provision. A due diligence defence can be mounted against the latter but not the former.”

It is worth reiterating that subsection 227(8) of the Act is an actual penalty provision for failure to withhold and remit any amount as required by section 215, added to support the collection of taxes imposed by the charging provision.

I would add that, in any event, in this case, there is no suggestion nor evidence of due diligence on the part of the Appellant.