Laura Jochimski

The appellant taxpayer sought to challenge the Minister of National Revenue's discretionary decision under s. 247(10) of the Income Tax Act to deny a downward transfer pricing adjustment through an appeal of the associated reassessment to the Tax Court of Canada.

The majority held that the Minister's discretionary decision under s. 247(10) is qualitatively distinct from an 'assessment' within the settled meaning of that term, and falls outside the Tax Court's exclusive appellate jurisdiction; the Federal Court holds exclusive jurisdiction to judicially review such discretionary ministerial decisions pursuant to the Federal Courts Act.

Dow's argument that the decision could be appealed 'by necessary implication' as part of the assessment was rejected, as Parliament has consistently created express rights of appeal to the Tax Court where it intends that court to have jurisdiction over ministerial decisions.

The dissenters would have allowed the appeal, finding the Minister's mandatory exercise of discretion under s. 247(10) inextricably linked to the correctness of the assessment and reviewable in the Tax Court on a deferential standard.

Appeal dismissed with costs, Karakatsanis, Côté and Rowe JJ. dissenting.

The appellant appealed an assessment for director's liability under the Excise Tax Act for unremitted GST/HST of a corporation.

The appellant argued a due diligence defence based on his diminished mental health during the relevant period.

The Tax Court of Canada allowed the appeal in part, finding the appellant not liable for periods after he ceased to be a director, but liable for the earlier periods because he failed to take positive steps to prevent the failure to remit despite his mental health challenges.

The Appellant operated a casino and received revenue in connection with white label ATMs located on its premises.

The Minister reassessed the Appellant for uncollected GST on this revenue, arguing the Appellant made taxable supplies.

The Appellant argued it made exempt supplies of financial services.

The Tax Court found that the Appellant made a single compound supply of a licence to place and operate ATMs, which is a taxable supply of property.

However, the appeals were allowed in part to give effect to a concession by the Minister regarding net tax erroneously reassessed on cash call fees.