Mark S. 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 sought entitlement to a $2,486.00 treatment plan for a pain medicine assessment following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent brought a preliminary motion to exclude late-filed evidence from the applicant's doctor.

The Tribunal admitted the late evidence but ultimately dismissed the application, finding that the applicant provided negligible submissions and failed to demonstrate that the proposed treatment plan was reasonable and necessary.

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.

The corporate appellant appealed assessments disallowing investment tax credits claimed for scientific research and experimental development (SR&ED) in its 2013 and 2014 taxation years.

The appellant sought to develop a process to remanufacture used electronic and mechanical fuel injectors.

The Tax Court of Canada dismissed the appeals, finding that the appellant failed to demonstrate technological uncertainty, did not formulate or test hypotheses according to the scientific method, and failed to keep detailed records of its testing as required by the Northwest Hydraulic criteria.

The plaintiff, Tylor D'Aoust, sued his pharmacist and pharmacy for alleged negligence in failing to warn him about the side effects of prescribed medication (oxazepam) after a motor vehicle accident.

The plaintiff, who had a history of opioid addiction and mental health issues, claimed the lack of warning contributed to his impaired driving.

The court assessed the standard of care for a community-based pharmacist, the credibility of the witnesses, and the issue of causation.

The court found that the pharmacist met the professional standard of care by providing verbal counselling, including a warning about operating a motor vehicle, to the plaintiff's authorized agent (his mother).

The court also concluded that the plaintiff failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the oxazepam caused the accident, finding that the accident was not unavoidable and was not caused by the medication.

The action 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.

This is a costs endorsement following a motion for summary judgment in a mortgage action.

The plaintiff, 1658161 Ontario Inc., sought costs after obtaining partial summary judgment, arguing the motion was necessary due to the defendant's, Dianne Marie Carroll's, failure to pay and refusal to acknowledge possession rights.

The defendant opposed, claiming she had consented to part of the judgment.

The court, applying principles from the Courts of Justice Act and Rules of Civil Procedure, determined that costs should be fixed at this stage rather than reserved for trial.

The plaintiff's costs claim was reduced by one-third for the summary judgment motion, and the defendant was ordered to pay $10,000 in costs to the plaintiff.

The corporate appellant appealed the Minister's loss determinations denying claimed scientific research and experimental development (SR&ED) expenditures for its 2012 and 2013 taxation years.

The expenditures related to the construction of a highly energy-efficient house.

The Tax Court of Canada applied the five-step Northwest Hydraulic test and found that the project did not involve technological risk or uncertainty, nor did it result in a technological advancement.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The applicant sought ongoing income replacement benefits (IRBs) more than 104 weeks after a motor vehicle accident, claiming a complete inability to work due to chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The respondent insurer terminated IRBs based on insurer examinations indicating the applicant could perform alternative employment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's condition had improved, she had reached maximum medical improvement, and she possessed transferable skills suitable for roles such as a beauty salon attendant or cashier.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to meet the post-104 week disability test.

Additionally, the applicant's claim for the cost of a chronic pain assessment was denied because it was incurred before submitting a treatment plan, contrary to section 38(2) of the Schedule.

The application was dismissed.

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 defendant brought a motion to quash a witness summons issued by the plaintiff to an independent medical assessor who had concluded the plaintiff was not totally disabled under a medical appeals process.

The plaintiff sought to use the examination transcript to defend an upcoming summary judgment motion.

The court granted the motion to quash, finding that the evidence sought was irrelevant to the summary judgment motion, which focused on whether the plaintiff had waived her right to sue.

Furthermore, the court held that the plaintiff improperly used Rule 39.03 to elicit expert opinion evidence without complying with the expert report requirements of Rule 53.03, constituting an abuse of process.

The defendant insurer, SSQ, Life Insurance Company Inc., brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action for long-term disability benefits.

SSQ argued that the plaintiff, Judith Marlen Fricke, had waived her right to sue by agreeing to a Medical Appeals Process (MAP) which resulted in a binding decision that she was not totally disabled.

The plaintiff contended that the MAP agreement was not valid or enforceable because SSQ failed to apply the correct legal test for total disability and the independent physician may have exceeded his expertise.

The court dismissed SSQ's motion for summary judgment, finding a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding whether the correct test for total disability was applied during the MAP process and the enforceability of the MAP agreement given potential issues of bias and fairness.

The plaintiff, Judith Marlen Fricke, sought leave to file a reply and to set aside a binding decision from a Medical Appeals Process (MAP) concerning her long-term disability claim against SSQ, Life Insurance Company Inc. The court dismissed both applications.

It held that a new ground of claim challenging the enforceability of the MAP process should have been raised by amending the Statement of Claim under Rule 25.06(5) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, rather than through a reply.

The court also denied leave to set aside the arbitral award, noting that Ms. Fricke had not filed proper pleadings in support of the requested relief.

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.

This ruling addresses the costs of an application where both parties acted in good faith and presented meritorious positions.

The court found that both were well-represented and neither suffered unexpected prejudice from the court's decision.

Consequently, the court directed that each party shall bear their own costs of the application.

This ruling on application addresses the equalization of net family properties and spousal support following the separation of a couple married for nearly 30 years.

The court determined the separation date as 2010, despite conflicting evidence, and proceeded to divide assets to ensure financial security for both parties.

The applicant was awarded the matrimonial home, a global support payment, and an equal share of proceeds from a Portuguese property, while the respondent retained an income-generating property.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought income replacement benefits from the insurer.

The parties disputed whether the applicant, who worked as a driving school instructor, was self-employed or an employee at the time of the accident.

The arbitrator found that the applicant was self-employed, as he engaged in his occupation as a sole proprietor, filed his taxes as such, and received payments inclusive of HST without employment deductions.

The clear definition of 'self-employed person' in section 3(1) of the Schedule was met, rendering traditional factual indicia tests unnecessary.

In an addendum to a trial judgment, the court corrected a calculation error in the damages award based on the jury's decision.

With the agreement of counsel, the court recalculated the award by applying a 20 percent reduction for contributory negligence to the pecuniary damages, and applying the statutory deductible followed by the contributory negligence reduction to the non-pecuniary damages.

The total judgment was amended to $136,483.20.

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

The applicant failed to comply with production orders and did not attend the arbitration hearing.

The arbitrator drew an adverse inference from the failure to produce documents and dismissed the claims for income replacement benefits, interest, and expenses, as the applicant failed to meet his burden of proof.