Erin Strashin

The Respondent brought a motion to quash the Estate's appeal, arguing that Notices of Penalty Reassessments were mailed on March 17, 2023, and the Estate failed to serve valid Notices of Objection within the statutory timelines.

The Estate contended the notices were not mailed until March 2025.

Evaluating CRA processes and evidence, the Tax Court found it more likely than not that the notices were not mailed prior to March 3, 2025.

The Respondent's motion to quash the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed reassessments disallowing rental losses claimed for the 2015, 2016, and 2017 taxation years.

The appellant had rented a property to his mother at below-market rates while undertaking extensive renovations.

The Tax Court of Canada applied the Stewart test and concluded the arrangement was a personal endeavour rather than a commercial venture undertaken in pursuit of profit.

As there was no source of income, the expenses were not deductible.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant trusts appealed income tax reassessments for the 2006 and 2007 taxation years, arguing they were resident in Alberta and subject to Alberta provincial tax.

The Minister of Finance reassessed the trusts as residents of Ontario.

The court applied the central management and control test to determine trust residency.

The court found that the trustees in Alberta performed primarily administrative functions, while the actual management and control of the trust property was exercised by a beneficiary and professional advisors in Ontario.

The appeals were dismissed.

The appellant, a mining services corporation, appealed reassessments disallowing its claim for the Ontario Manufacturing and Processing Profits (MPP) tax credit for the 2007 and 2008 taxation years.

The central issue was whether the appellant had "mining profits" as defined by the Corporations Tax Act, specifically whether its income was from a mineral resource "operated by it" or from "processing of ore." The court applied a textual, contextual, and purposive analysis to the terms "operated" and "processing." It found that the appellant, as a contractor providing mine infrastructure services, did not "operate" the mineral resources (which were controlled by Vale) nor did its income derive from "processing" ore, as its work was related to the production of ore rather than its transformation.

Consequently, the appellant did not qualify for the tax credit, and its appeal was dismissed.

The Minister of Revenue reassessed two trusts, the Herman Grad 2000 Family Trust and the Marya Grad Spousal Trust, for provincial taxes on the basis that they were resident in Ontario, not Alberta, during the 2006 to 2009 taxation years.

The trusts appealed, arguing their trustees resided in Alberta and exercised management and control there.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeals, finding that the central management and control of both trusts was actually exercised by the settlor and his financial advisor, both resident in Ontario, who directed the trusts' investment and distribution decisions.