Marie-Josée Hogue

The Tax Court of Canada, on its own initiative, ordered several self-represented appellants involved in the Global Learning and Gifting Initiative (GLGI) tax scheme to file written submissions explaining why their appeals should not be struck for abuse of process.

The Court noted that the GLGI scheme has been extensively litigated and consistently dismissed for lack of donative intent.

The Court found that allowing further relitigation of the identical issues would undermine judicial economy, consistency, and finality.

A power producer sought judicial intervention to force renegotiation of a long-term fixed-price electricity contract after market changes generated large resale profits for the purchaser.

The Court held Quebec civil law did not provide a basis to imply a duty to renegotiate, to apply unforeseeability in these circumstances, or to redistribute contractual benefits through good faith or equity.

The agreement allocated price fluctuation risk and remained enforceable as written.

The appeal was dismissed, with a dissent that would have recognized a relational-contract duty to cooperate.

The appellant sought recognition in Quebec of an English judgment ordering the Republic of Iraq to pay costs arising from litigation over aircraft seized during the invasion of Kuwait.

Iraq claimed state immunity under the State Immunity Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the Act applies to applications for recognition of foreign judgments, Iraq's conduct in controlling the defence of its state-owned airline in the English commercial litigation fell within the commercial activity exception.

The Court allowed the appeal and permitted the application for recognition to proceed.

The appeal concerned a constitutional challenge to Quebec consumer protection legislation prohibiting commercial advertising directed at children under thirteen.

The Court held that the provisions were intra vires provincial jurisdiction, infringed freedom of expression under both the Canadian and Quebec Charters, but were justified as reasonable limits under s. 1 and s. 9.1.

The Court also held that the override provision had expired and that a corporation could not invoke s. 7 of the Canadian Charter.

The decision established a foundational framework for identifying protected expression and determining whether government purpose or effect limits expression.