Nathalie Zeina Hamam

The plaintiff, a U.S. business registered to collect HST, successfully appealed a $14 million CRA tax assessment but incurred over $1.4 million in interest and professional fees.

The plaintiff sued the government for indemnity and negligence, alleging the CRA acted in bad faith during the audit.

The defendants moved to strike the statement of claim.

The Superior Court of Justice granted the motion, finding that neither the common law nor the Excise Tax Act provides a right to indemnity for such costs, and that the CRA does not owe a private law duty of care to taxpayers or tax collection agents during an audit.

The applicants, employees of the Canada Revenue Agency, moved to discharge a financing statement registered against them under the Personal Property Security Act by the respondent.

The respondent registered the statements in retaliation for a tax audit decision.

The court found the respondent had no security interest or reasonable basis for the registrations.

The court ordered the discharge of the remaining registration and awarded the mandatory $500 statutory penalty per applicant, along with substantial indemnity costs.

The Attorney General of Canada and the Joint Committee representing Class Members brought competing applications regarding the allocation of approximately $236 million in excess capital held in the trust fund established by the 1986-1990 Hepatitis C Settlement Agreement.

Canada argued the excess capital should be returned to it, while the Joint Committee sought to allocate the funds to increase benefits for Class Members.

The court dismissed Canada's application, finding that the excess capital allocation provision was intended to provide an opportunity to bridge compensatory gaps for Class Members.

The court approved seven of the Joint Committee's nine recommendations for allocating the funds, including increases to fixed payments and loss of services compensation, to be implemented by way of special distribution.

A bankrupt sought a discharge where the majority of the proven claims consisted of a large personal income tax assessment filed by the Canada Revenue Agency.

The creditor opposed the discharge and argued that the court was required under s. 172.1 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to impose a significant payment condition because the bankruptcy was tax-driven.

The court noted that the only evidence before it suggested the tax liability may have arisen from corporate activities and that no supporting evidence was presented by the opposing creditor to justify the assessment or the opposition.

Considering the statutory factors under s. 172.1(4), including the circumstances of the debt, efforts to pay, and the bankrupt’s financial prospects, the court concluded that imposing a payment condition would be inappropriate.

The discharge was therefore suspended for one day only, after which the bankrupt would be discharged without conditions.