Daniel Adam Sandler

The appellant taxpayer sought to challenge the Minister of National Revenue's discretionary decision under s. 247(10) of the Income Tax Act to deny a downward transfer pricing adjustment through an appeal of the associated reassessment to the Tax Court of Canada.

The majority held that the Minister's discretionary decision under s. 247(10) is qualitatively distinct from an 'assessment' within the settled meaning of that term, and falls outside the Tax Court's exclusive appellate jurisdiction; the Federal Court holds exclusive jurisdiction to judicially review such discretionary ministerial decisions pursuant to the Federal Courts Act.

Dow's argument that the decision could be appealed 'by necessary implication' as part of the assessment was rejected, as Parliament has consistently created express rights of appeal to the Tax Court where it intends that court to have jurisdiction over ministerial decisions.

The dissenters would have allowed the appeal, finding the Minister's mandatory exercise of discretion under s. 247(10) inextricably linked to the correctness of the assessment and reviewable in the Tax Court on a deferential standard.

Appeal dismissed with costs, Karakatsanis, Côté and Rowe JJ. dissenting.

This endorsement addresses a case conference and a motion regarding temporary parenting arrangements for the parties' two-year-old daughter following their separation.

After a case conference on May 15, 2020, failed to yield a consensus, the court determined that the father's request to proceed with a motion for temporary parenting arrangements during the COVID-19 pandemic constituted a 'pressing matter.' The court provided detailed procedural directions for the conduct of the motion, including timelines for material service, affidavit page limitations, and argument time.

The Children's Aid Society sought a finding that the child was in need of protection and an order for sole custody to the mother with supervised access to the father.

The court found the child in need of protection under section 74(2)(b)(i) and (ii) of the Child, Youth, and Family Services Act due to risks of physical harm arising from the paternal grandparents' long-term opioid addiction and recent cocaine use, the paternal uncle's drug issues, and the father's lack of insight into these risks and his own anger management difficulties.

The court granted sole custody to the mother and ordered weekly supervised access for the father at a third-party facility, emphasizing that unsupervised access would only be considered if the father addressed his living situation and anger management issues.

The initial finding that the child was also in need of protection under section 74(2)(h) was later corrected and removed.

A charitable foundation appealed a decision of the Minister of Revenue denying a refund of retail sales tax paid on prepared food products served at fundraising events where attendees paid a single ticket price.

The dispute concerned whether food provided at such events was supplied “without specific charge” under s. 12 of Regulation 1012 made under the Retail Sales Tax Act.

The court applied modern principles of statutory interpretation and concluded that the phrase requires a distinct charge for the food itself, not merely that food costs be embedded within a bundled event price.

Because the ticket price for the events did not itemize or separately allocate a charge for the prepared food products, the food was provided “without specific charge.” The foundation was therefore entitled to the exemption and the requested refund.