Andrée-Anne Lavoie

The respondent brought a motion to compel the appellant to provide further and better answers to written examination for discovery questions.

The underlying appeal concerned whether the appellant's services constituted an exempt supply of a financial service or a taxable supply for GST/HST purposes.

The Tax Court of Canada granted the motion in part, ordering the appellant to provide factual bases for its legal positions and to make further inquiries of former employees regarding the services provided, while finding certain repetitive questions did not require further answers.

The Applicant, President’s Choice Bank, brought a motion under Rule 58 of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure) for a stage-one determination of a question of mixed law and fact before the hearing of its appeal.

The appeal concerned the Applicant's entitlement to notional input tax credits under subsection 181(5) of the Excise Tax Act for its 2013 to 2015 reporting periods.

The Applicant argued that a prior Federal Court of Appeal decision involving the same issue for earlier reporting periods rendered a full trial unnecessary.

The Tax Court dismissed the motion, finding that a Rule 58 hearing is not intended to be a substitute for a trial, especially where material facts may be in dispute and the discovery process was not yet complete.

The appellants appealed reassessments and redeterminations for the 2005, 2006, and 2007 taxation years.

The first appellant challenged the computation of capital cost allowance for a vehicle and penalties under subsection 163(2) of the Income Tax Act following a prior judgment.

The second appellant challenged the computation of the Canada Child Tax Benefit, arguing shared custody was not considered.

The Tax Court of Canada found that the Minister correctly computed the depreciation and minimum penalties, and properly accounted for shared custody.

The appeals were dismissed without costs.

The Appellant appealed reassessments denying input tax credits (ITCs) and imposing gross negligence penalties for GST/HST paid to independent contractors.

The Tax Court of Canada allowed the appeal, finding that while the Appellant was not entitled to ITCs for payments to unregistered subcontractors due to missing registration numbers, it was entitled to have the amounts applied as a rebate to reduce its net tax.

The Court also found the 2010-2012 reassessments were statute-barred as there was no misrepresentation attributable to neglect, carelessness, or wilful default, and cancelled the section 285 penalties for 2009 as the Appellant did not act knowingly or with gross negligence.