Benjamin Joseph Chamberland

The appellant participated in the Global Learning and Gifting Initiative donation program.

The Court issued an order requiring the appellant to show cause why her appeal should not be struck for abusing the Court's process due to a lack of donative intent.

The appellant's written submissions failed to raise any new facts or arguments to overcome the donative intent issue.

The Court struck the appeal without leave to amend.

The Minister reassessed the appellant beyond the normal reassessment period for the 2009 to 2012 taxation years using the net worth method, adding unreported business income and assessing gross negligence penalties.

The appellant argued the discrepancy was due to loans and gifts from family and friends.

The Tax Court found the Minister met the burden to reassess beyond the normal period and to assess penalties, as the appellant made misrepresentations attributable to wilful default.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part, referring the matter back to the Minister to adjust the net worth calculations for certain proven loans, deposits, and business expenses.

The appellant appealed reassessments for his 2016 and 2017 taxation years that denied certain claimed business expenses related to his used car sales business.

The appellant claimed expenses for purchasing, shipping, and storing a vehicle in Jamaica, but failed to provide sufficient documentation for most of the expenses.

The Tax Court of Canada found that the Minister had already accounted for the proven 2016 expenses in the appellant's closing inventory, and no receipts were submitted for 2017.

The appeals were dismissed without costs.

Jayco, Inc. appealed the dismissal of its action against the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada.

Jayco sought recovery of legal costs and interest incurred while successfully contesting a GST/HST assessment.

The claims were based on theories of common law indemnity (as a statutory agent under the Excise Tax Act) and private law duty of care (negligence) owed by the CRA during an audit.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that no common law right to indemnity exists for statutory agents in this context, nor does the CRA owe a private law duty of care to taxpayers during administrative audits, distinguishing such audits from criminal investigations.

The respondent brought a motion to strike portions of the appellant's Notice of Appeal relating to the Minister's conduct, the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, and the Charter.

The Tax Court granted the motion, finding that the impugned paragraphs disclosed no reasonable grounds for appeal and could not be cured by amendment, as the Minister's conduct and administrative policies are irrelevant to the validity of an income tax reassessment.