Jonathan Lafrance

The appellant, a flight simulator manufacturer, brought a motion for an interim confidentiality order and sealing order to protect commercially sensitive documents prior to their disclosure during discovery.

The respondent opposed the motion, arguing it was premature and that the implied undertaking rule provided sufficient protection.

The Tax Court of Canada found that the implied undertaking rule was inadequate to protect the highly competitive strategic information and granted a sealing order for the specific documents, while adjourning the request for a permanent confidentiality order to the trial judge.

The appellant, Future Electronics Inc., brought a motion for a permanent confidentiality order to redact the names of its suppliers and clients, as well as information regarding its business model, from the trial transcripts.

The Tax Court of Canada applied the Sherman test for discretionary limits on court openness.

The Court found that the disclosure of this information posed a serious risk to important public interests, including the preservation of confidential information, commercial certainty, and fair competition.

Concluding that redaction was necessary and that the benefits of the order outweighed its negative effects, the Court granted the motion and ordered the transcripts redacted.

The Appellant brought a motion to strike portions of the Respondent's Further Amended Reply in a GAAR appeal.

The Tax Court of Canada found the pleadings deficient for failing to clearly articulate the basis for the alleged abuse, but concluded the defect was curable.

The motion was allowed in part, striking the impugned paragraphs with leave to amend.

The appellant brought a motion to strike the Minister's Reply to the Notice of Appeal, arguing it disclosed no reasonable grounds for opposing the appeal regarding a statute-barred reassessment.

The Tax Court of Canada dismissed the motion, finding that the appellant had taken fresh steps in the proceeding by exchanging documents and conducting discoveries, thereby waiving any irregularity.

Furthermore, the Court held it was not plain and obvious that the Reply disclosed no reasonable grounds, as the Minister had pleaded sufficient facts regarding the alleged misrepresentation of the appellant's corporate status.

The Minister brought a motion for leave to file an Amended Reply to advance an alternative argument under subsection 152(9) of the Income Tax Act, asserting that the appellant's earnings should be taxed as employment income rather than business income.

The Tax Court of Canada granted the motion, finding that the proposed amendments would assist in determining the real question in controversy, would not result in an injustice not compensable in costs, and satisfied the conditions in subsection 152(9).

The respondent Minister brought a motion to compel the appellant to disclose a tax-planning memorandum prepared by an accounting firm in connection with a hybrid sale of a business.

The appellant objected on the basis that the document was not relevant and contained subjective opinions.

The Tax Court of Canada granted the motion, finding that the memorandum was relevant to the application of subsection 84(2) of the Income Tax Act, as it could shed light on the circumstances surrounding the transactions and the potential involvement of a third-party facilitator.

The Respondent brought a motion for leave to amend its Reply to the Notice of Appeal to add an alternative argument based on the General Anti-Avoidance Rule (GAAR).

The Appellant opposed the motion, arguing it would suffer non-compensable prejudice because the corporate reorganization occurred 20 years ago and the non-resident shareholders who authorized it were no longer available to testify about their bona fide purposes.

The Tax Court of Canada granted the motion, finding that the amendment would assist in determining the real questions in controversy and would not result in non-compensable prejudice, as the Appellant's CEO had direct knowledge of the transactions and access to the relevant corporate records.

The appellant appealed a GST assessment for unremitted net tax on the sale of a commercial property.

The buyer was not registered for GST at the time of the sale but was later retroactively registered to the date of the sale.

The Tax Court of Canada held that the retroactive registration created a presumption of continuous registration, satisfying the exception under paragraph 221(2)(b) of the Excise Tax Act.

The appeal was allowed and the assessment vacated.

The appellant bank appealed assessments denying deductions for transaction fees paid to CDPQ and FSTQ under share subscription agreements.

The Minister argued the fees were not expenses incurred in the course of an issuance of shares, but rather discounts on the share price, or alternatively, that they were unreasonable.

The Tax Court of Canada allowed the appeal, finding that the fees were paid for financing services and were incurred in the course of an issuance of shares.

The Court also found the 4% transaction fee rate to be reasonable in the circumstances, as the Minister failed to prove otherwise.

The appellant sought rectification of transactional documents under article 1425 C.C.Q. after an implemented cross-border financing structure created unforeseen foreign accrual property income and significant federal tax liability.

The majority held that a general intention of tax neutrality, without sufficiently determinate or determinable obligations and prestations, cannot ground retroactive modification of written instruments.

The Court distinguished correction of transcription errors from retroactive alteration of agreed transactions that merely produced unintended consequences.

It concluded the parties made no expression error, but instead chose transactions that generated adverse tax results.

The appeal was dismissed with costs, with two judges dissenting in favour of broader rectification aligned with prior Quebec jurisprudence.