Mark Grossman

The corporate appellant appealed the Minister's disallowance of scientific research and experimental development (SR&ED) expenditures and investment tax credits for the 2005 to 2009 taxation years.

The appellant claimed that 13 projects involving the processing and butchering of super frozen tuna constituted SR&ED.

The Tax Court of Canada dismissed the appeals, finding that the projects involved routine engineering and trial-and-error methods to solve subjective business problems, rather than addressing objective technological uncertainties.

The court concluded that the activities did not meet the statutory definition of SR&ED.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

She failed to notify the insurer of her intention to apply within the required seven-day period.

The insurer denied benefits and the matter proceeded to a preliminary issue hearing.

The applicant argued her delay was due to mental health issues, including anxiety and procrastination.

The Tribunal found the applicant's explanation was not credible or supported by medical evidence, noting she was able to seek treatment and work during the delay period.

The application was dismissed as the applicant was barred from proceeding.

The claimant sought compensation for injurious affection under the Expropriations Act, alleging business losses caused by the respondent municipality's road construction projects.

The Tribunal found the claimant's financial evidence unreliable and preferred the respondent's expert evidence, which showed no causal link between the construction and the alleged revenue decline.

Applying the Antrim test for private nuisance, the Tribunal concluded the claimant failed to prove the construction caused a substantial and unreasonable interference or a disproportionate burden.

The claim was dismissed.

A case management conference was held regarding a claim for compensation arising out of injurious affection.

The Tribunal ordered the substitution of the corporate claimant, 2350685 Ontario Inc., for the personal claimant, Dean Adams, on consent.

A procedural order was issued setting the dates for the hearing on the merits and establishing the pre-hearing procedural requirements.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The parties disputed the applicant's gross income in the four weeks preceding the accident, with the applicant claiming $1,500 and the insurer claiming $750.

The Tribunal reviewed payroll slips, cheques, and tax documents, finding the applicant's evidence unreliable and inconsistent.

Relying primarily on the applicant's T4 and Notice of Assessment, the Tribunal concluded on a balance of probabilities that the applicant earned $750 in the four weeks prior to the accident.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received income replacement benefits (IRBs).

The respondent insurer suspended the IRBs after the applicant failed to provide a requested Canada Pension Plan Disability (CPPD) file.

The applicant eventually provided the file, and the respondent reinstated the IRBs.

The applicant sought payment of IRBs for the period of suspension.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the respondent's request for the CPPD file was reasonably required under section 33(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule to assess ongoing entitlement.

The Tribunal also found that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay in producing the file.

The application for IRBs for the disputed period and the claim for costs were dismissed.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the liquor licence of Ruby Matilda Wright, operating as Stephanie’s Caribbean Cuisine, and to refuse the transfer of the licence to Stephanie’s Caribbean Cuisine Inc. The Board found multiple serious violations of the Liquor Licence Act, including providing false information, contracting out the sale of liquor, and financial irresponsibility.

The evidence demonstrated that the licensee allowed her daughter to effectively operate the business and failed to ensure compliance with the Act.

Concluding that the licensee lacked the ability to operate the business with honesty, integrity, and due diligence, the Board ordered the immediate revocation of the liquor licence.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the liquor licence of Ruby Wright, operating as Stephanie's Caribbean Cuisine, and to refuse the transfer of the licence to Stephanie's Caribbean Cuisine Inc. The Board found that the licensee had contracted out the operation of the establishment to her daughter, who had an extensive criminal record and could not hold a licence herself.

The Board also found violations including unlawful sale of alcohol, failure to remit retail sales tax, operating after a cease and desist order, and providing false information on the transfer application by failing to disclose the daughter's full criminal record.

The application to transfer the licence was denied, and written submissions on penalty for the disciplinary matters were requested.

The applicant sought review of an Employment Standards Officer's order requiring it to pay $7,288.90 in vacation pay to the responding employees.

The applicant argued it was neither the employer nor the purchaser of the business, having only entered into a management agreement.

The Board found the applicant fell within the broad definition of 'employer' and that the management agreement, which allowed the applicant to retain all profits and bear all losses, constituted a sale of the business under section 13 of the Employment Standards Act.

The order was affirmed, and the Board declined to return the statutory administration fee to the unsuccessful applicant.

The insured was injured in a motor vehicle accident while completing a training course for a casual driver position with UPS.

The insurer paid income replacement benefits based on his trainee wage.

The arbitrator found the insured was entitled to benefits based on the higher prospective casual driver wage under s. 4(3) of the SABS-1996.

The insurer appealed.

The Director's Delegate dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the arbitrator's interpretation that the insured was 'entitled to start work' in the new position despite already being employed as a trainee.

The Delegate also ordered a special award of $1,500 against the insurer for unreasonably delaying payment of the arbitrator's order.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident while enrolled in a job-orientation program with a prospective employer.

At the time of the accident, he was earning a training wage but had a contract to begin work as a casual driver at a higher wage upon completion of the program.

The insurer paid income replacement benefits based on the training wage.

The arbitrator held that under section 4.3 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, the applicant was entitled to benefits based on the higher wage of the prospective casual driver position, as he had a legitimate contract of employment made before the accident to start that work within one year.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought payment for a naturopathic treatment known as bovine extract under section 6 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The insurer denied the claim.

The arbitrator dismissed the claim, finding no reliable evidence that the experimental bovine therapy was reasonable or likely to benefit the applicant.

The arbitrator noted the lack of scientific support for the treatment and the applicant's failure to pursue active rehabilitation measures recommended by other assessors.

The complainant alleged that her union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by arbitrarily deciding not to refer her termination grievance to arbitration.

The union committee had concluded that the grievance lacked merit because the complainant failed to provide adequate medical documentation in a timely manner, and her explanations were inconsistent.

The Board found that the union officials directed their minds to the grievance, considered the collective agreement, and made a decision based on their experience.

The Board held that the union's conduct was not arbitrary, reckless, or grossly negligent, and dismissed the complaint.