Amit Ummat

The Minister of National Revenue brought a motion to strike three affidavits filed by Gold Line Telemanagement Inc. in opposition to an application under section 311 of the Excise Tax Act.

The Court struck portions of the expert affidavit of Timo Vainionpaa that directly challenged the CRA's analysis of call detail records, finding them irrelevant to the preliminary stages of the application.

However, the Court declined to strike the balance of the Vainionpaa affidavit or the factual affidavits of Joel Bowers and Alexei Tretiakov, finding they provided necessary technical background and foundational evidence.

The appellant, a business providing autism treatment services, appealed a Minister's decision finding that an instructional therapist was an employee rather than an independent contractor for the purposes of the Employment Insurance Act and Canada Pension Plan.

The Tax Court of Canada applied the Sagaz and Wiebe Door factors, finding that the appellant exercised significant control over the worker, provided the necessary tools and premises, and that the worker had no chance of profit or risk of loss.

The Court concluded the worker was an employee and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant, a private school offering an academic program and a school day hockey program, appealed a reassessment denying input tax credits for two reporting periods in 2016.

The appellant argued the hockey program was a separate commercial activity.

The Tax Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding that even if the programs were separate supplies, both constituted exempt supplies of educational services or extra-curricular activities under Part III of Schedule V to the Excise Tax Act.