Julien Dubé-Senécal

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 brought a motion for the production of documents he considered essential to his appeal of reassessments for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 taxation years.

The appeal concerned whether the reassessments correctly implemented a prior settlement agreement.

The Tax Court of Canada allowed the motion in part, ordering the respondent to provide only two specific documents that had already been disclosed, and dismissed the motion with respect to the remaining documents, finding them irrelevant to the current dispute.

The appellant appealed reassessments for the 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2012 taxation years regarding the characterization of profits from the sale of shares and losses from the expiration of stock options, as well as the deductibility of interest expenses.

The Tax Court of Canada found that the appellant was engaged in an adventure or concern in the nature of trade, meaning the profit from the sale of shares and the losses from the stock options were on income account.

The Court also disallowed the interest deduction as the appellant failed to prove the borrowed funds were used to earn income from a business or property.

The Appellant appealed a reassessment denying a deduction and investment tax credit for scientific research and experimental development (SRED) expenditures related to a software development project.

The Minister conceded a portion of the expenditures at the hearing.

The remaining issue was whether the payroll expenditures for a specific subproject qualified as SRED.

The Tax Court of Canada found that the Appellant faced a technological uncertainty in combining four software tools to achieve adequate performance, which could not be resolved by routine engineering.

The Court concluded that the Appellant's activities met the five criteria for SRED established in Northwest Hydraulic.

The appeal was allowed with costs, and the reassessment was referred back to the Minister to allow the additional SRED expenditures.

The Respondent brought motions for leave to file Amended Replies to the Notices of Appeal in two appeals concerning whether certain projects qualified as scientific research and experimental development under the Income Tax Act.

The Appellant opposed the amendments, arguing they would deprive it of the right to rely on the specific approach taken by the auditors.

The Tax Court of Canada granted the motions, finding that the proposed amendments added factual allegations in support of the existing basis of assessment and did not constitute a new basis of assessment.

The Court held that the amendments would assist in determining the real questions in controversy without causing non-compensable prejudice to the Appellant.

The appellants appealed reassessments disallowing the deduction of travel expenses and licence fees in computing the corporate appellant's business income, and including the disallowed travel expenses in the individual appellants' incomes as shareholder or employee benefits.

The Tax Court of Canada dismissed the appeals, finding that the appellants failed to adduce credible evidence to demolish the Minister's assumptions that the travel expenses were personal in nature and not incurred for business purposes, and that the licence fees were not incurred by the corporation.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Minister of National Revenue determining that she did not hold insurable employment as a mortgage consultant with the Fédération des Caisses Desjardins du Québec.

The Tax Court of Canada analyzed the relationship under the Civil Code of Québec and found that the parties intended to enter into a contract for services.

The Court concluded that the appellant operated as an independent contractor, noting she controlled her schedule, covered her own expenses, and had the opportunity for profit.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a section 160 assessment holding him liable for the tax debt of a corporation of which he was a 50% shareholder and director.

The corporation had paid him dividends at a time when it owed tax.

The Tax Court of Canada found that the appellant and the corporation were not dealing at arm's length in fact, as the appellant and the other shareholder acted in concert and without separate interests in deciding to declare the dividends.

The appeal was dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiffs' application for judicial review concerning decisions about their employment insurance eligibility as mortgage representatives for Desjardins.

The motion was granted in part.

The Court struck the claims for damages and costs incurred in other proceedings, as the Federal Court cannot award damages on judicial review.

However, the Court refused to strike the remainder of the application, finding it was not completely bereft of any chance of success, particularly regarding allegations of interference with the independence of decision-makers.

The appellant corporation appealed reassessments for its 2012 and 2013 taxation years, which added unreported income, disallowed various business expenses, and imposed gross negligence penalties.

The Minister relied on an indirect verification of income and expenses due to the appellant's inadequate books and records.

The Tax Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to discharge its burden of proof to demolish the Minister's assumptions, largely due to a lack of supporting documentation and corroborating witnesses for significant cash transactions.

The Court upheld the gross negligence penalties, concluding that the appellant's failure to keep adequate records and report all income demonstrated an indifference tantamount to gross negligence.

The appellant, a trucking company, appealed a decision by the Minister of National Revenue determining that three truck drivers were engaged in insurable employment.

The appellant argued the drivers were independent contractors.

Applying the Civil Code of Quebec and common law tests from Wiebe Door and Sagaz, the Tax Court of Canada found that despite the parties' intention to create an independent contractor relationship, the drivers were subordinate to the appellant.

The appellant controlled their routes, owned the trucks, and bore the financial risks.

The appeal was dismissed, confirming the drivers were employees engaged in insurable employment.

The appellant corporation appealed the Minister's determinations that two workers, who were family members of the corporation's shareholders, held insurable employment.

The workers were building managers with significant autonomy, no set schedules, and were paid above-market salaries.

The Tax Court of Canada allowed the appeals, finding that the Minister failed to properly consider the family context and the fact that the workers were beneficiaries of a family trust intended to take over the business.

The Court concluded that the corporation would not have entered into a substantially similar contract of employment with an unrelated person, and therefore the employment was not insurable.