Joanna Hill

The Appellants, registered charities operating alternative Christian programs in public schools, applied under Rule 58 to determine whether program fees paid by parents were voluntary and whether parents received a benefit in return.

The Minister had levied penalties under s. 188.1(7) of the Income Tax Act, arguing the fees were not gifts and donation receipts should not have been issued.

The Tax Court held that the payment of fees was not voluntary, as it was a contractual condition of enrolment.

Furthermore, the parents received a benefit or consideration in return for the fees, as the payments secured the desired Christian education program for their children.

Following a trial where the Crown successfully defended against the plaintiff's claims for restitution and declaratory relief, the parties could not agree on costs.

The Federal Court rejected the plaintiff's argument for divided success, finding the Crown entirely successful on the primary issues.

The Court ordered lump sum costs, concluding the Tariff would be inadequate, and awarded the Crown 20% of its legal fees ($1,263,623.13) plus most of its disbursements ($371,951.95), totaling $1,635,575.08.

The Canadian Pacific Railway Company sought recovery of Income Tax, Large Corporations Tax, and Fuel Tax, arguing that Clause 16 of the 1880 Contract between CPRC and the federal government exempted it from these taxes.

The Court determined that Clause 16 has statutory and contractual force, but no constitutional force.

Applying contractual interpretation principles, the Court held that Clause 16 applies to the Large Corporations Tax, but not to Income Tax or Fuel Tax.

However, the Court found that the Kingstreet restitutionary remedy did not apply, as the taxes were not levied under an unconstitutional statute.

Consequently, CPRC's claim for recovery and declaratory relief was dismissed.

The appellant corporation, originally resident in the Netherlands, appealed a reassessment of a capital gain realized on the sale of a partnership interest in 2009.

The Federal Court of Appeal had previously affirmed the Tax Court's finding that the appellant was a resident of Canada in 2009 but remitted the matter for reconsideration of the application of subsection 128.1(1) of the Income Tax Act and the Canada-Netherlands Income Tax Convention.

On redetermination, the Tax Court held that the appellant became a resident of Canada in 1998, before acquiring the partnership interest, meaning subsection 128.1(1) did not apply to step up its cost base.

The Court also held that the appellant failed to prove it was subject to comprehensive taxation in the Netherlands, and thus the treaty exemption for capital gains did not apply.

The appeal was dismissed.

La demanderesse, un organisme de bienfaisance enregistré, a contesté l'interprétation et l'application par l'Agence du revenu du Canada (ARC) du paragraphe 149.1(6.2) de la Loi de l'impôt sur le revenu.

L'ARC limitait à 10 % les ressources qu'un organisme pouvait consacrer à des activités politiques non partisanes.

La Cour a conclu que cette restriction portait atteinte à la liberté d'expression garantie par l'alinéa 2b) de la Charte, car elle empêchait la demanderesse de poursuivre ses fins de bienfaisance par la défense d'intérêts publics.

L'atteinte n'était pas justifiée au regard de l'article premier de la Charte.

La Cour a déclaré que les activités politiques non partisanes contribuant aux fins de bienfaisance doivent être considérées comme des activités de bienfaisance sans restriction de pourcentage.

The applicant, a registered charity focused on poverty relief through public advocacy, challenged the Canada Revenue Agency's (CRA) interpretation and enforcement of section 149.1(6.2) of the Income Tax Act.

This section limits non-partisan political activities to "substantially all" of a charity's resources, which the CRA interpreted as 90% or more, effectively capping political activities at 10%.

The applicant argued this restriction infringed its freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found that the CRA's 10% rule and the distinction between charitable and non-partisan political activities were unconstitutional, as they burdened the applicant's effective pursuit of its charitable purpose through advocacy.