Molly Luu

The appellant trusts appealed income tax reassessments for the 2006 and 2007 taxation years, arguing they were resident in Alberta and subject to Alberta provincial tax.

The Minister of Finance reassessed the trusts as residents of Ontario.

The court applied the central management and control test to determine trust residency.

The court found that the trustees in Alberta performed primarily administrative functions, while the actual management and control of the trust property was exercised by a beneficiary and professional advisors in Ontario.

The appeals were dismissed.

Following a motion where the plaintiff obtained some relief on consent but had other relief dismissed, both parties sought costs.

The defendants claimed $9,500 on a partial indemnity basis, while the plaintiff sought $7,700, arguing success was divided and relying on offers to settle.

The court noted the bitter and tactical nature of the dispute and found that, given the mixed success and the plaintiff's settlement efforts, it was not fair and reasonable to award costs to either party.

No order as to costs was made.

The plaintiff contractor brought a motion for interlocutory relief under the Construction Lien Act, seeking an order requiring the defendant owners to pay a holdback amount into court, a stay of the action pending arbitration, and the appointment of an arbitrator.

The court granted the stay on consent but dismissed the requests for payment into court and the appointment of an arbitrator.

The court found that the holdback was no longer necessary to protect subcontractors as the lien period had expired, and the plaintiff already had a lien on the property.

The request to appoint an arbitrator was deemed premature as the parties had agreed to mediate first.

The plaintiff sought leave to appeal procedural orders that adjourned her motion for default judgment and directed the defendants to bring a motion to set aside the noting in default.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the procedural orders were appropriate case management directions and the plaintiff failed to meet the strict test under Rule 62.02(4)(b).

Costs of $1,000 were awarded to the defendants.