Frank S. Stopar

The Crown brought a motion to strike an application seeking repayment of penalties and interest arising from retail sales tax assessments and damages for allegedly erroneous collection conduct.

The court held the corporate applicant lacked capacity because it had been dissolved and not revived, and the individual applicant lacked standing because he had not been personally assessed.

The court further held that s. 29.1(5) of the Retail Sales Tax Act expressly barred this type of application, and that any damages claim against the Crown had to be commenced by action with statutory notice under the Proceedings Against the Crown Act.

The adjournment request was denied and the application was dismissed in its entirety.

Following an application concerning the seizure of cigarettes under the Tobacco Tax Act, the applicant succeeded on a Charter challenge under s. 8 and obtained a remedy under s. 24(1) of the Charter requiring the return of seized cigarettes or payment of their value.

However, the respondents succeeded on the statutory interpretation issues under the Tobacco Tax Act.

The court considered costs pursuant to s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Exercising its discretion to allocate costs by issue, the court declined to award costs for the statutory issues and limited recovery to the Charter portion of the proceeding.

An all‑inclusive costs award of $50,000 was ordered.

A tobacco manufacturer sought declarations that a shipment of unmarked cigarettes seized by authorities under the Tobacco Tax Act was unlawfully seized and that it had a right to possess the tobacco.

The court found that the warrantless search and seizure of a delivery vehicle violated s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms because the detention and search occurred without reasonable and probable grounds and because the authorized official improperly directed police remotely.

Although the court held that the applicant’s operations demonstrated substantial non‑compliance with the Tobacco Tax Act and its permit conditions, the Charter breach justified a remedy.

The court ordered the return of the seized cigarettes belonging to the applicant or compensation for their value if they had deteriorated.

The Minister of Finance appealed a Superior Court of Justice decision regarding the interpretation of the Retail Sales Tax Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge correctly interpreted the relevant provisions of the Act.

Costs were awarded to the respondent in the amount of $22,500.

The Minister of Finance assessed IBM Canada for payroll tax under the Employer Health Tax Act on moneys paid to expatriate employees working abroad for foreign affiliates.

The Superior Court of Justice held that while the expatriates remained employees of IBM Canada, the payments did not constitute 'remuneration paid' because the foreign affiliates reimbursed IBM Canada.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Minister's appeal, finding that the payments were made in the context of an ongoing employer/employee relationship and thus constituted 'remuneration paid' under the Act, regardless of the ultimate economic burden.

IBM Canada's cross-appeal challenging the existence of the employer/employee relationship was dismissed.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order dismissing its motions to strike, stay, or quash notices of application brought by three corporate taxpayers.

The responding parties raised preliminary objections that the order was final, not interlocutory, and that the motion for leave was out of time.

The Divisional Court held that the order was interlocutory because it dealt with procedure rather than substantive rights, and that the motion was timely because time ran from the date the order was settled.

On the merits, the court found no reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's decision that a Rule 14 application was an appropriate procedure for determining taxpayers' rights based on statutory interpretation.

The applications for leave to appeal were dismissed.

The Minister of Finance appealed a decision declaring that the locker rooms and coaches' rooms used by professional sports teams (the Blue Jays, Maple Leafs, and Raptors) during away games outside Ontario constituted 'permanent establishments' under the Employer Health Tax Act.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the teams' use of away venues was too transitory to be considered a fixed place of business.

Furthermore, the sports equipment brought to these venues did not qualify as 'substantial machinery or equipment' under the Act.