Diana Nicole Aird

The appellants restructured family trusts, incorporating "Child Corporations" and subscribing for shares without actual payment, leading to a significant tax reassessment by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) for taxable benefits.

They sought a declaration from the Superior Court that the shares were invalidly issued under the Ontario Business Corporations Act (OBCA) and an order for rectification of share registers, aiming to negate the tax assessment.

The Superior Court declined jurisdiction, deferring to the Tax Court of Canada, and also indicated it would not have granted the requested relief.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Superior Court's discretionary decision to decline jurisdiction, finding no reviewable error.

The Court emphasized that the primary dispute was between the appellants and the CRA, falling within the Tax Court's specialized expertise, and that the corporate parties did not require a binding order from the Superior Court to resolve internal corporate issues.

The applicant corporation sought to rectify a directors' resolution that declared capital dividends, after discovering its accountant had miscalculated the available balance in the capital dividend account, resulting in unintended tax consequences.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the resolution accurately recorded the parties' agreement to issue the specific dividend amounts recommended by the accountant.

Applying the Supreme Court's decision in Fairmont Hotels, the court held that rectification cannot be used to retroactively amend an agreement merely to avoid unanticipated tax liabilities, and noted the applicant had alternative remedies available.

The corporate taxpayer transitioned to a perpetual inventory tracking system, resulting in an accounting error where the cost of certain inventory was not recognized in the years it was sold (2010 and 2011).

In 2012, the taxpayer attempted to correct this by writing down the value of the inventory and deducting its cost as a compensatory adjustment.

The Minister reassessed to disallow the deduction.

The Tax Court of Canada dismissed the taxpayer's appeal, holding that under the Income Tax Act, inventory can only be written down if it is held for sale, and the cost of inventory can only be deducted in the year it is sold, regardless of whether the adjustment was consistent with GAAP.

The Appellant appealed reassessments for its 2014, 2015, and 2016 taxation years, seeking to carry back a non-capital loss from 2017.

The 2017 loss was based on a terminal loss from the disposition of Class 13 property.

The Appellant argued it could unilaterally adjust its initial capital cost allowance (CCA) claims from 1997-2003 downwards to increase the undepreciated capital cost balance and the resulting terminal loss, because the Minister had issued nil assessments for those years.

The Tax Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the Income Tax Act does not permit a taxpayer to unilaterally adjust discretionary CCA claims retroactively to avoid the expiration of non-capital losses.

The Attorney General of Canada appealed a rectification order granted by the Superior Court of Justice that allowed Slate Management Corporation to restructure a single-step amalgamation of three subsidiaries into a two-step amalgamation to obtain a tax bump under the Income Tax Act.

The Court of Appeal found the appeal moot based on the principle established in Norcan Oils Ltd. v. Fogler, as the plan of arrangement had been implemented and third parties had relied on the financial consequences of the rectification order.

The court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot appeal and quashed it, awarding costs to Slate.

This application sought a rectification order for a corporate amalgamation intended to achieve specific tax outcomes under the Income Tax Act's "tax bump rules." Due to an error, the amalgamation was performed in a single step instead of the required two steps, defeating the intended tax benefit.

The court applied the test for rectification, requiring proof of a continuing specific intention to undertake the transaction on a particular tax basis.

The court found, on a balance of probabilities, that the applicant had a continuing specific intention to utilize the tax bump rules, supported by various documents and witness testimony.

The application for rectification was granted, and costs were awarded to the applicant.

The appellant appealed a decision granting the equitable remedy of rectification to correct mistaken share redemptions that triggered unintended tax consequences.

The application judge found that the respondents had a continuing intention to carry out loan arrangements on a tax-neutral basis and that the share redemptions were a mistake.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that under the binding authority of Juliar, the critical requirement for rectification is proof of a continuing specific intention to undertake a transaction on a particular tax basis, which the respondents had established.

The applicants invested in a Ponzi scheme through their companies.

They received payments that were reported as income and paid taxes on them.

After discovering the fraud, they applied for an order rectifying their corporate and tax records to show the payments as a return of capital, and for a declaration to that effect.

The court dismissed the claim for rectification because the documents accurately reflected the applicants' intentions at the time they were prepared.

However, the court granted a declaration that the moneys were a return of capital, without prejudice to how the payments should be treated for tax purposes by the tax authorities.