Leonard Angus David Joeyun Gilbert

The appellant, a non-resident trust with a resident contributor in Quebec, was deemed resident in Canada under the Income Tax Act and deemed resident in Quebec under the Quebec Taxation Act.

The Minister assessed a federal surtax and denied a Quebec abatement on the basis that the appellant did not factually reside in Quebec on the last day of the taxation year as required by Regulation 2601(1).

The Tax Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the deeming provision in the provincial legislation could not be used to satisfy the factual residency requirement in the federal regulation.

The plaintiff moved to strike the defendants' statement of defence due to their persistent non-compliance with multiple prior court orders, including payment of costs totaling $4,727.25 and the corporate defendant's failure to retain counsel or seek leave for alternative representation.

The defendants, represented by Jiajun Xu, offered unsubstantiated claims of financial hardship and proposed no remedial steps.

The court issued a final conditional order, granting the motion to strike unless the defendants remitted the outstanding costs and proposed a date for corporate counsel to go on record by August 21, 2020.

The plaintiff purchaser sought specific performance of an agreement of purchase and sale for a residential property.

The transaction failed to close because the defendant vendor's parents registered a caution on title, claiming the vendor held the property in trust for them.

The court found that the parents had gifted the property to the vendor, rebutting the presumption of resulting trust.

Alternatively, the court held that under the Land Titles Act, the registered owner had the right to sell the property to a bona fide purchaser for value regardless of any unregistered trust interest.

The parents' claim was dismissed and the cautions were ordered deleted.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking specific performance of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for a residential property.

The transaction failed to close because the registered owner's parents claimed they were the true beneficial owners of the property under a resulting trust.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that significant credibility issues and conflicting evidence regarding the beneficial ownership of the property created a genuine issue requiring a trial.