Darren Prevost

The appellant brought a motion to strike portions of the respondent's Replies regarding transfer pricing adjustments for the 2007-2015 taxation years, arguing failure to disclose arm's length terms and issue estoppel based on prior litigation.

The Tax Court dismissed the motion to strike and the request for judgment under Rule 170.1, but ordered the respondent to provide particulars regarding the arm's length prices and terms relied upon.

The Minister of National Revenue brought a motion to strike three affidavits filed by Gold Line Telemanagement Inc. in opposition to an application under section 311 of the Excise Tax Act.

The Court struck portions of the expert affidavit of Timo Vainionpaa that directly challenged the CRA's analysis of call detail records, finding them irrelevant to the preliminary stages of the application.

However, the Court declined to strike the balance of the Vainionpaa affidavit or the factual affidavits of Joel Bowers and Alexei Tretiakov, finding they provided necessary technical background and foundational evidence.

The applicant applied for an extension of time to file a notice of objection regarding a GST/HST reassessment.

The Minister rejected the request because it was filed after the maximum statutory deadline.

The Tax Court dismissed the application, finding that both the request to the Minister and the subsequent application to the Court were filed beyond the mandatory statutory time limits, leaving the Court with no discretion to grant the extension.

The appellant mining company appealed a reassessment including a $28.2 million commitment fee and a $73.3 million non-completion fee in its income for the 1996 taxation year.

The fees were received following a failed merger attempt to acquire a target company with a significant nickel deposit.

The Tax Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding that the break fees were inextricably linked to the appellant's ordinary business operations of acquiring mineral deposits and were therefore taxable as income from a business.

The Minister of National Revenue moved to appeal a prothonotary's order refusing to strike a judicial review application filed by Iris Technologies Inc. The Federal Court found no error in the prothonotary's determination that the application raised administrative law issues regarding procedural fairness, which were within the Court's jurisdiction, and was not plainly bereft of any chance of success.

The Minister of National Revenue brought a motion to appeal a Prothonotary's order compelling the production of a certified tribunal record under Rule 317.

The underlying application for judicial review sought mandamus to compel the assessment and payment of net tax refunds.

The Minister argued that Rule 317 did not apply because the application sought mandamus for a decision not yet made.

The Federal Court dismissed the motion, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Prothonotary's conclusion that the application also challenged a decision already made by the Minister to withhold the refunds pending an audit.

The Minister appealed a Prothonotary's decision dismissing a motion to strike a judicial review application by an employer regarding the denial of CEWS benefits.

The Federal Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Prothonotary's refusal to admit an affidavit under s. 244(9) of the ITA, nor any error of law in finding the application challenged discretionary administrative conduct rather than an issue falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tax Court.

The appellants, two individuals and their respective restaurant corporations, appealed reassessments for unreported sales, shareholder benefits, and gross negligence penalties.

The Minister used arbitrary assessment methods after discovering that the restaurants' point-of-sale systems had been manipulated to delete cash sales.

The Tax Court of Canada upheld the assessments, finding that the Minister's methodology was sound and that the appellants failed to demolish the Minister's assumptions.

The Court also upheld the shareholder benefits and gross negligence penalties, concluding that the individual appellants knowingly participated in the suppression of sales data and appropriation of corporate cash.

Applicants sought rectification of a restated and amended trust deed governing an employee trust that held voting shares in a Canadian research and development corporation.

The wording of the deed permitted directions to the trustee from the CEO or President of the settlor, which the tax authority interpreted as giving a non-resident effective voting control and disqualifying the corporation from Canadian-controlled private corporation status under the Income Tax Act.

The applicants argued that the clause was mistakenly drafted and that the true intention was that only the board of directors would authorize directions to the trustee.

The court applied the rectification test from Performance Industries Ltd v Sylvan Lake Golf and Tennis Club Ltd and found that the parties had a consistent intention to preserve Canadian-controlled private corporation status to maintain eligibility for research tax credits.

The court concluded that the wording error misexpressed that intention and that the proposed amendment accurately reflected the original agreement.

The applicant settlor applied to rectify a 1992 family trust indenture, claiming it failed to reflect his original intention to allow for a tax-deferred transfer of assets to his children due to a drafting mistake by his lawyers.

The court dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to establish his specific tax-planning intention and the alleged mistake on a balance of probabilities.

The court noted the lack of corroborating evidence from the legal advisors who drafted the trust and the ambiguity of contemporaneous documents.