James Vlasis

Enterprise Rent-A-Car appealed four tax assessments totaling approximately $1.5 million for unremitted Ontario retail sales tax (RST) on insurance premiums.

Enterprise brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing it had collected and remitted federal Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) to the Canada Revenue Agency, not RST.

The court evaluated the credibility of Enterprise's affiant and found that Enterprise had in fact collected RST but mistakenly remitted it to the federal government.

The court granted boomerang summary judgment in favour of the Minister and dismissed the appeals.

Placement agencies that supplied temporary workers to the federal government appealed assessments requiring them to pay employer health tax under the Employer Health Tax Act.

The agencies argued they were not employers of the workers because the Government of Canada managed and directed the workers.

The appeal judge found the parties were involved in a tripartite relationship and determined the agencies were the employers because they paid remuneration to the workers, held contractual obligations to the workers, and the government's contractual documentation indicated its intention that the workers be employees of the placement agencies.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding the appeal judge undertook a comprehensive review of all circumstances and did not err in concluding the agencies were employers for tax purposes.

The Attorney General applied for the civil forfeiture of a leisure-use sailboat under the Civil Remedies Act, 2001, after the owner was charged with operating the vessel while impaired.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the general forfeiture provisions of the Act were intended to target organized crime and serious criminal offences, not leisure boating.

The Crown failed to establish that it was likely the sailboat would be used for unlawful activity in the future or that such activity would likely result in serious bodily harm.

The applicant, convicted of sixteen counts of fraud, brought an application for a mistrial alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective in her representation.

The central issue was whether the applicant or his counsel made the decision that he would not testify in his own defence.

The court found that trial counsel made the decision contrary to the applicant's express wishes and without adequately informing him that the decision to testify was ultimately his to make.

The court declared a mistrial, finding that a miscarriage of justice had occurred.

The Attorney General sought forfeiture of a leisure sailboat under the Civil Remedies Act on the basis that it had been operated while the owner was impaired by alcohol or drugs.

The owner disputed that he had been operating the vessel and was self‑represented, lacked legal training, and did not speak English.

The court identified a significant legal issue as to whether the Civil Remedies Act could extend to forfeiture of property in circumstances where the property was not alleged to be proceeds or an instrument of organized criminal activity.

Given the broader implications for forfeiture practices and the imbalance in legal resources, the court appointed amicus curiae to assist on the legal issues.

The application was scheduled to return for argument after arrangements for the amicus appointment were finalized.