Muhammad Abbas

The appellant corporation renovated and sold two residential properties.

The Minister reassessed the appellant for GST/HST on the basis that the properties were 'substantially renovated' under subsection 123(1) of the Excise Tax Act, making the sales taxable supplies.

The Tax Court of Canada found that while the properties were significantly renovated, they did not meet the 90% threshold required to be considered 'substantially renovated' or 'gutted'.

The appeal was allowed and the reassessments were referred back to the Minister for reconsideration on the basis that the properties were not substantially renovated.

The plaintiff moved to set aside a registrar's order dismissing her action for delay.

The court granted the motion, finding a reasonable explanation for the delay, that the deadline was missed through inadvertence, and that the defendants would not suffer significant actual prejudice.

However, the plaintiff was ordered to pay costs to the defendants due to unresponsiveness and failure to promptly address the dismissal order.

The appellant appealed an acquittal on a charge of failing to comply with an Order to Comply issued under the Building Code Act.

The respondent, a property owner, had leased commercial premises to a tenant who performed unauthorized construction.

The respondent received an order to comply but argued it did not apply to them as the landlord.

The trial court acquitted the respondent based on lack of collateral attack and due diligence.

On appeal, the court found the respondent was engaged in an impermissible collateral attack but upheld the acquittal based on the trial court's finding of due diligence, which was reasonably supported by the evidence.