Calum MacLeod

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittal on 14 counts of failing to file corporate tax returns under s. 238(1) of the Income Tax Act.

The trial judge had acquitted the respondent based on the defence of due diligence.

On appeal, the Crown sought to introduce fresh evidence showing that the respondent had still not filed the returns months after the trial, contradicting his trial testimony.

The Superior Court admitted the fresh evidence and found the trial judge erred by failing to consider the respondent's prior knowledge of his obligations and the continuing nature of the duty to file.

The appeal was allowed, the acquittals were set aside, and a new trial was ordered on the issue of due diligence.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment for unpaid consulting fees related to the development of solar energy projects under the Feed-in Tariff program.

The defendants admitted liability for a portion of the fees but disputed the remainder, raising issues of contract interpretation, milestone definitions, and the inclusion of certain projects.

The court granted partial summary judgment for the admitted debt of $184,688 and ordered a trial for the remaining issues, finding that the contract's interpretation required a deeper understanding of the factual matrix that could not be resolved on the summary judgment record.

The moving party (former husband) brought a motion to change a final order for spousal support, alleging a material change in circumstances due to job loss and medical inability to work full-time.

The court found the moving party failed to provide sufficient evidence that his reduction in income was genuine or that his health had materially worsened since the trial.

The court dismissed the motion to reduce support, ordered the discharge of a Certificate of Pending Litigation on the responding party's property, and directed that the spousal support arrears be set off against an outstanding equalization payment owed by the responding party.

The applicant brought a motion to change child support and arrears.

A trial of an issue was ordered to determine where the parties' son was living between September 2010 and September 2013.

The court heard evidence from several witnesses and concluded that the son lived primarily with the respondent mother from September 2010 to November 2011, spent equal time with both parents from November 2011 to April 2012, and resided with his sister and the applicant from April 2012 to September 2013.

These findings will form the factual basis for the motion to change.

The applicants sought an order requiring the Canada Revenue Agency to return funds seized from a tax debtor and pay them into court pending the outcome of a related proceeding.

The applicants alleged the tax debtor had misappropriated the funds from an estate.

The court dismissed the application, finding that even if it had jurisdiction to make the order, there was no need to do so because the funds were secure in the hands of the Receiver General and did not require preservation by payment into court.

At a status hearing pursuant to Rule 48, the plaintiff sought to explain a delay in prosecuting an action for out-of-country medical coverage by arguing he had not yet been pursued for the medical bill.

The court found this explanation insufficient, distinguishing the case from situations where liability depends on an underlying action.

Applying the test from Khan v. Sun Life, the court concluded the plaintiff failed to meet the onus of explaining the delay and addressing prejudice to the defendants.

The action was dismissed for delay.

The defendant developer brought a motion under s. 46 of the Construction Lien Act to declare that the plaintiff's construction lien had expired under s. 37 because the plaintiff's specific action was not set down for trial within two years.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that another lien claimant's action, which arose from the same improvement, had been set down for trial within the two-year period.

Under the Act, an action commenced by one lien claimant is an action in which all other liens may be enforced, thus protecting the plaintiff's lien from expiry.