Ian MacGregor

The appellant received strike pay from his union equivalent to his normal net take-home pay while on strike.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the strike pay did not fall within the definition of 'income from a source' under section 3 of the Income Tax Act.

The Court applied the principle that in cases of doubt, the benefit must go to the taxpayer.

The appellant corporation financed a plant in the Philippines using foreign currency to comply with Philippine law.

To minimize risks of devaluation and currency controls, the appellant made U.S. dollar deposits with commercial banks, which then made peso loans to the appellant's Philippine branch.

The appellant claimed a dividend refund under the Income Tax Act, including the interest from the U.S. dollar deposits as 'foreign investment income'.

The Minister reassessed the return, characterizing the interest as income from property used or held in the course of carrying on a business.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the property was employed and risked in the taxpayer's business to fulfill a mandatory condition precedent to trade, and thus was not foreign investment income.

The corporate taxpayer was forced to sell its broadcasting division and invested the proceeds in short-term securities while seeking a new business to purchase.

The taxpayer actively managed this investment portfolio and claimed the interest earned as income from an active business to calculate its Canadian manufacturing and processing profits deduction.

The Minister reassessed the income as property income.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the taxpayer's appeal, applying a rebuttable presumption that income earned by a corporation in pursuit of its corporate objects is business income, and finding that the taxpayer's extensive investment activities constituted an active business.

The Crown appealed a decision regarding the applicable tax rate for the respondent corporation, which depended on whether it was controlled by another company, Validor Limited, under s. 39(4) of the Income Tax Act.

Following a corporate reorganization, voting rights were split equally between Validor and a minority shareholder group, but Validor retained the right to wind up the company and receive the majority of the assets.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that control in the real sense was not surrendered by Validor, as it retained the critical right to terminate the corporate existence and distribute the assets in its favour.

The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development appealed a Federal Court of Appeal decision dismissing an application to review a county court judge's order under the Indian Act.

The county court judge had reversed the Registrar's decision to delete the respondents from a Band List.

The Federal Court of Appeal held it lacked jurisdiction because the county court judge was acting qua judge, not as persona designata, and was therefore excluded from the definition of a federal board, commission or other tribunal under the Federal Court Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, explicitly rejecting the concept of persona designata and holding that whenever a statutory power is conferred upon a s. 96 judge, the power is deemed exercisable in an official capacity unless expressly provided otherwise.