Marta Porodko

The parties brought cross-motions to compel answers to questions refused during examinations for discovery in an appeal involving allegations of sham transactions and the general anti-avoidance rule (GAAR).

The Respondent also sought leave to amend its replies to withdraw certain factual assumptions.

The Tax Court of Canada granted both motions to compel in part, ordering further answers and productions where relevant to the objective reality of the transactions and the Minister's GAAR policy, while protecting privileged communications.

The Court also granted the Respondent leave to amend its replies, provided the amendments were made with greater clarity.

The parties brought cross-motions to compel better answers to questions posed during examinations for discovery.

The respondent also sought leave to amend its replies.

The Tax Court of Canada granted and denied the motions to compel in part, in accordance with a separate directive order, and granted the respondent leave to amend its replies subject to directions.

The Respondent brought a motion to compel unredacted copies of five documents over which the Appellants claimed solicitor-client privilege during examinations for discovery.

The Tax Court of Canada reviewed the unredacted documents and concluded that they contained legal advice and were protected by solicitor-client privilege.

The Respondent's motion for unredacted copies was denied.

The Appellant brought a motion for an order requiring the Respondent to provide answers to questions on examinations for discovery that were refused, or to which unresponsive answers were provided.

The underlying appeal concerns the application of the general anti-avoidance rule (GAAR) to deny loss carryforwards and other deductions.

The Tax Court of Canada allowed the motion in part, ordering the Respondent to provide certain sealed documents and GAAR Committee documents, subject to redactions for third-party information and claims of solicitor-client privilege, finding that these documents were relevant for the purposes of discovery as they were considered in the context of the audit of the Appellant or the decision to apply the GAAR.