Crystal Choi

The appellants, spouses who constructed a large residential property, appealed GST assessments on the basis that they built the home as their primary residence and were not "builders" under the Excise Tax Act.

The Tax Court of Canada applied the Happy Valley factors and found that the appellants engaged in an adventure in the nature of trade.

The Court noted the property's size, the appellants' history of frequent real estate transactions, and the lack of evidence of permanent occupation.

The Court concluded the appellants were builders and did not qualify for the primary residence exemption.

The appeals were dismissed without costs.

The Appellant moved to strike portions of the Respondent's reply that referenced past tax evasion charges and convictions of the Appellant's directors relating to a different company and earlier taxation years.

The Tax Court granted the motion, finding the allegations irrelevant to the current tax dispute and highly prejudicial as they invited propensity reasoning.

The appellant society appealed decisions confirming that a caregiver was in insurable and pensionable employment under the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Pension Plan.

The appellant argued the caregiver was an independent contractor for his night shifts.

Applying the Wiebe Door factors, the Tax Court found that the parties lacked a shared intention for an independent contractor relationship and that the objective factors, particularly control, indicated an employer-employee relationship.

The appeals were dismissed.

The appellant, an ordained clergyman, appealed the Minister's assessment denying his claim for a $22,000 Clergy Residence Deduction for the 2021 taxation year.

The Minister denied the deduction on the basis that the appellant did not earn income from an office or employment, but rather as an independent contractor providing chaplaincy services to the RCMP through a charitable foundation.

The Tax Court of Canada applied the Wiebe Door and Connor Homes tests to determine the nature of the relationship.

The Court found that the subjective intent of the parties was an employer-employee relationship, and the objective reality—considering control, equipment, chance of profit, and risk of loss—supported this conclusion.

The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was entitled to the deduction.