Kalev Anniko

The appellant, a dentist, sold her dental practice and received $124,000 from her professional corporation on closing.

She was subsequently assessed under section 160 of the Income Tax Act for a tax debt of the corporation.

The appellant argued that the funds were transferred to her solely to facilitate the efficient repayment of patient 'in trust' amounts and corporate creditors, which she promptly did.

The Tax Court of Canada allowed the appeal, finding that the appellant bound herself to use the funds for this purpose, which constituted full consideration for the transfer.

As the corporation received full consideration, section 160 did not apply.

The defendants brought a motion to set aside their noting in default, to strike the statement of claim for failing to plead material facts, and to transfer the action to the ordinary procedure.

The court set aside the noting in default on consent.

The court dismissed the motion to strike, finding the pleading sufficient when read generously, as the basic elements of the claim for unpaid materials were pleaded and particulars had been provided.

The court granted the request to transfer the action to the ordinary procedure, as the declaratory and mandatory relief sought brought the proceeding outside the ambit of the simplified procedure.

The applicant sought to rectify a deferred payment formula in a limited partnership agreement related to the sale of its business to the respondent.

The applicant argued that the formula should match the one contained in a prior non-binding letter of intent, alleging unilateral mistake.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant and its counsel had the opportunity to review the draft agreement, which clearly contained a different formula, and failed to establish that the respondent knew or ought to have known of the applicant's mistake and took advantage of it.

The defendant solicitor brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing a negligence action arising from his representation of a corporation in an injunction proceeding.

The plaintiff cross-moved to amend the statement of claim to add the corporation as a plaintiff after the limitation period had expired, arguing the omission was a misnomer.

The court held that the omission was a deliberate decision rather than a misnaming and therefore could not be corrected after the limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

On the summary judgment motion, the court found no evidence that the plaintiff personally suffered damages and held that claims relating to corporate losses belonged to the corporation.

Summary judgment was granted and the action was dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought motions to set aside registrar's orders dismissing their construction dispute actions for delay.

The delay was largely unexplained and attributed to the plaintiffs' former counsel, who suffered from health issues and subsequently passed away.

Although the plaintiffs failed to meet three of the four Reid factors, the court found they successfully rebutted the presumption of prejudice.

The defendants' conduct, including their willingness to schedule discoveries after the dismissal, indicated no actual prejudice.

The motions were granted and the dismissal orders were set aside.