Carrie D'Elia

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.