Gordon Bourgard

The debtor company commenced CCAA proceedings and obtained a stay.

It owed unremitted GST to the Crown.

The ETA creates a deemed trust for unremitted GST, but the CCAA nullifies statutory deemed trusts in favour of the Crown.

The chambers judge ordered the GST funds segregated in the Monitor's trust account.

When reorganization failed, the debtor sought to make an assignment in bankruptcy.

The Crown sought immediate payment of the GST funds.

The Supreme Court held that the CCAA rule prevails, meaning the Crown ranks as an unsecured creditor for GST claims during CCAA proceedings.

The Court also held that the chambers judge had the discretion to partially lift the stay to allow the assignment in bankruptcy, and that no express trust was created by segregating the funds.

The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) audited the Redeemer Foundation, a registered charity, regarding its forgivable loan program.

The CRA requested and obtained donor information from the Foundation without prior judicial authorization, and subsequently used this information to reassess the donors' tax returns.

The Foundation applied for judicial review, arguing the CRA needed judicial authorization under section 231.2(2) of the Income Tax Act to obtain information about unnamed persons.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the Minister was entitled to the donor information under the broad audit powers in section 231.1(1) combined with the charity's record-keeping obligations under section 230(2)(a), and that judicial authorization was not required when the information was sought for the legitimate purpose of auditing the charity.

The appellant received a lump sum settlement of $105,000 from her disability insurer after her benefits were terminated and she sued.

The Minister of National Revenue reassessed her to include the full amount as income.

The Tax Court set aside the reassessment, but the Federal Court of Appeal held that the portion attributable to arrears was taxable.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that under the surrogatum principle, the portion of the settlement intended to replace past disability benefits was payable on a periodic basis pursuant to a disability insurance plan and was therefore taxable under s. 6(1)(f) of the Income Tax Act.

The appellant, a financial advisor, borrowed $100,000 to purchase a departing colleague's client list and sought to deduct the purchase price and the interest on the borrowed funds from his employment income.

The Minister of National Revenue denied the deductions.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that both the purchase price and the interest payments were payments 'on account of capital' and were therefore precluded from deduction under section 8(1)(f)(v) of the Income Tax Act.

The appeal was dismissed.