Mahyar Makki

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside a registrar's order dismissing its action for delay.

The underlying action concerned an insurance claim for an equipment failure.

The court applied a contextual approach, noting that while some periods of delay were unexplained, the plaintiff did not intend to abandon the action, moved promptly to set aside the dismissal once discovered, and the defendants suffered no actual prejudice.

The motion was granted, the dismissal order was set aside, and a timetable was established for mediation and setting the action down for trial.

The defendants moved to compel the plaintiff to complete his examination for discovery, arguing that as three separate defendants, they were entitled to 7 hours each for a total of 21 hours under Rule 31.05.1(1).

The plaintiff, who had already been examined for 5.3 hours, agreed to submit to a total of 9 hours.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that a mechanical application of the rule would be disproportionate because the defendants shared an identical interest, filed a joint defence, and were represented by one lawyer.

The court held that 9 hours was reasonably required and reserved costs of $3,500 to the trial judge.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of the lower court judge.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal, with costs reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.

The respondent, Asif Qadar, successfully moved to dismiss an application brought by Jose Zepeda.

Qadar argued Zepeda lacked legal capacity and improperly sought corporate remedies in a personal capacity, circumventing derivative action requirements under the Business Corporations Act.

The court found that most of the relief sought by Zepeda, despite being framed as oppression, was properly for the corporation, not Zepeda personally.

Consequently, the application was dismissed due to procedural impropriety and Zepeda's lack of capacity to pursue corporate claims in a personal action.

The appellant appealed the Minister's disallowance of its claims for scientific research and experimental development (SR&ED) investment tax credits for the 2014 and 2015 taxation years.

The Minister had disallowed the claims on the basis that the air quality monitoring work did not constitute SR&ED.

The Tax Court of Canada found that the appellant had satisfied its evidentiary burden for four of the six projects, demonstrating that the work was undertaken to resolve technical uncertainties for the purpose of achieving technological advancement.

The appeal was allowed and the matter referred back to the Minister for reconsideration and reassessment.