Antoine Lamarre

The respondent brought a motion to strike certain parts of the appellant's Notice of Appeal without leave to amend.

The impugned parts related to the appellant's request for a reduction in interest and allegations that the reassessments violated sections 7 and 8 of the Charter and sections 231.1 and 231.2 of the Income Tax Act because evidence was obtained during a criminal investigation.

The Tax Court of Canada granted the motion, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to reduce interest under subsection 220(3.1) of the Act.

The Court also held that the Minister was entitled to use investigative powers and information requests to determine tax liability even while a criminal investigation was underway, and that no prior judicial authorization was required in these circumstances.

The appellants appealed assessments holding them jointly and severally liable as directors for the unremitted GST/HST of their corporation.

They argued the assessments were statute-barred because they had resigned as directors more than two years prior.

The Tax Court of Canada found that the alleged letters of resignation were not validly communicated to the corporation and the appellants remained registered as directors in the corporate registry.

The appeals were dismissed.

The appellant and respondent brought cross-motions regarding a settlement agreement in a GST appeal.

The appellant argued a binding agreement was reached in March 2019 for a global settlement of $550,000, while the respondent sought to enforce a written Settlement Agreement signed in April 2019 based on specific ITC adjustments.

The Tax Court of Canada found the April 2019 Settlement Agreement was the only valid agreement between the parties.

The appellant's motion was dismissed and the respondent's motion to confirm the reassessments and dismiss the appeal was allowed.

The appellant trustee challenged a formal demand for information and documents issued by the Quebec tax authority (ARQ) to an out-of-province bank branch as beyond the ARQ's territorial jurisdiction.

The ARQ had sent the demand to a Calgary branch of the National Bank of Canada pursuant to s. 462(2) of the Bank Act, which requires notifications pertaining to bank customers to be sent to the branch of account.

The Court unanimously dismissed the appeal, holding that s. 462(2) — not s. 462(1) — applied to the demand, that the Bank Act does not treat a branch as a distinct entity from the bank for purposes of such a demand, and that complying with s. 462(2)'s procedural requirements did not render the ARQ's actions extraterritorial or ultra vires, since enforcement could only be effected in Quebec against a bank operating within the province.