Carly Jessica Fidler

The respondent Crown brought a motion to compel the appellant to provide responsive answers to 14 discovery questions and to replace its discovery nominee.

The appellant had reclassified over $180 million in expenses from capital to current, and its initial nominee lacked personal knowledge of the reclassification process.

The Tax Court of Canada allowed the motion in part, ordering the appellant to answer several specific questions regarding its internal review and criteria for reclassification.

The Court also ordered the appellant to appoint the employee who led the reclassification initiative as its replacement discovery nominee.

The appellant brought a motion seeking an order to compel the respondent to provide more complete answers to certain discovery examination questions.

The underlying appeal concerned whether disputed expenses should be classified as capital or current.

The respondent had refused to answer several questions, often stating they were taken "under advisement" or that they sought legal argument.

The Court allowed the motion in part, ordering the respondent to further answer questions that sought factual clarification of pleaded assumptions, while upholding refusals for questions that improperly sought legal reasoning or interpretation.

The appellant bank appealed reassessments under the Excise Tax Act for the 2006, 2007, and 2008 reporting periods.

The central issue was whether interchange services supplied by the appellant to a non-resident merchant acquirer were zero-rated or exempt supplies.

The Tax Court of Canada held that the interchange services related to debts arising from the lending of money primarily for use in Canada, making them exempt supplies.

However, the Court allowed the appeals for the 2006 and 2007 periods to vacate the assessed penalties, finding the appellant had exercised due diligence.

The appeal for the 2008 period was dismissed.

This endorsement from a case conference provides updates on the progress of multiple consolidated actions.

Key discussions included the status of document production between Carillion and the City of Toronto, scheduled motions by the City against subcontractors for document production, and a hearing for construction lien matters.

The endorsement also addressed NORR Limited's statement of claim against the City, the participation of various subcontractors in mediation, and Metrolinx's contemplation of motions for particulars and to strike against the City's third-party claim.

The court set a timeline for Metrolinx to decide on its participation in the upcoming mediation, contingent on the outcome of its motion for particulars.

This case conference endorsement outlines procedural progress in a complex, multi-party construction litigation involving Carillion Construction Inc., the City of Toronto, and NORR Limited, among others.

The court addressed the schedule for executive discoveries, ruling that they must proceed as planned, contrary to the City's submission.

It also confirmed the mediation schedule for March-April 2019, involving various claimants and insurers.

Further directions were given regarding documentary production by subcontractors and the City's amended third-party claim against Metrolinx, setting deadlines for Metrolinx's response or motion.