Élisabeth Robichaud

The appellant carried out a corporate reorganization involving the immigration of a US subsidiary to Canada and its subsequent wind-up, realizing a capital loss.

The Minister applied the general anti-avoidance rule (GAAR) to deny the capital loss carryover for the 2018 taxation year and to reduce the capital loss balance for the 2007 taxation year, arguing the transactions circumvented the dividend stop-loss rules in subsections 93(2) and (2.01) of the Income Tax Act.

The Tax Court of Canada dismissed the appeals, finding that the avoidance transactions were abusive as they frustrated the object, spirit, and purpose of the dividend stop-loss rules, which aim to prevent the artificial creation of losses through tax-free dividends.

The applicant sought an order of confidentiality and a permanent publication ban on certain financial and third-party information contained in the common evidentiary record for a judicial review application regarding Canada Revenue Agency requests for administrative assistance from foreign authorities.

The Federal Court partially granted the motion, ordering the redaction of personal identifiers such as social insurance numbers, medical information, and names of minor children.

However, the Court refused to order the confidentiality of the applicant's financial information and third-party information, finding that the open court principle outweighed the privacy interests in this case and that the information was necessary for the underlying proceeding.

The parties filed a joint motion under Rule 58 of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure) seeking the determination of questions of law prior to the hearing.

The questions concerned the legal effect of an agreement between the trustees and beneficiaries and whether it constituted an invalid delegation of powers under the Civil Code of Québec.

The Tax Court dismissed the motion, finding that the questions involved material facts in dispute regarding the purpose and intent of the agreement, which would require testimony and credibility assessments better suited for a full trial.

The applicant brought a motion seeking further responses to undertakings given by an auditor during cross-examination on an affidavit.

The applicant argued that the documents provided in response referenced other undisclosed documents.

The Court dismissed the motion, finding that the provided documents were self-contained, fulfilled the specific undertakings given, and the auditor had not undertaken to produce every referenced document.