Nancy Josee Arnold

Jayco, Inc. appealed the dismissal of its action against the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada.

Jayco sought recovery of legal costs and interest incurred while successfully contesting a GST/HST assessment.

The claims were based on theories of common law indemnity (as a statutory agent under the Excise Tax Act) and private law duty of care (negligence) owed by the CRA during an audit.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that no common law right to indemnity exists for statutory agents in this context, nor does the CRA owe a private law duty of care to taxpayers during administrative audits, distinguishing such audits from criminal investigations.

Self-represented appellants appealed the dismissal of their application in which they claimed a right under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to choose their relationship with Canada and to be exempt from federal and provincial laws without their consent.

The appellants argued they could distinguish between the geographic landmass of Canada and the "Juristic Federal Unit Canada" and that they were not bound by tax legislation or other laws of general application.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that residents of Canada are subject to federal and provincial laws that apply to residents, and that the appellants' arguments were based on selective and improper interpretations of the Charter and international covenants.

The appellants appealed the trial judge's award of costs in favour of the respondents following an unsuccessful trial.

The appellants had brought a claim for misfeasance in public office but discontinued it midway through trial after the trial judge identified that they lacked evidence for an essential element.

They sought to reopen the claim based on fresh evidence, which the trial judge rejected.

The appellants argued that no costs should be awarded due to the respondents' conduct, but this argument was based on the same evidence that had already been rejected in the misfeasance claim.

The Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal costs, finding that the trial judge had properly considered the respondents' conduct and reduced the costs award accordingly.

The plaintiff participated in a charitable donation tax shelter, claiming substantial tax refunds which were later disallowed by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA).

The plaintiff brought a claim in Superior Court alleging CRA and its employees owed a duty to police the registration of the charity associated with the scheme and to warn the public.

The defendants moved to strike the statement of claim.

The court allowed the motion, finding no duty of care owed by CRA to warn taxpayers about unsuccessful tax schemes, that the Charter claim was bald and untenable, and that claims against individual employees were an abuse of process.

The court also struck damages related to the lost tax deduction as being within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tax Court.