Tax Law - ONSCDC

The applicant corporation sought judicial review of a decision by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), acting as agent for the Minister of Finance for Ontario, refusing to take further action under an intergovernmental Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to resolve a double taxation issue with Revenu Québec.

The double taxation arose because the applicant filed inconsistent tax returns in Ontario and Quebec for the 2011 taxation year.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the CRA's interpretation of the MOU—that it only applies when a tax authority proposes to change a taxpayer's allocation formula, not when the taxpayer files inconsistently—was reasonable.

The court also found no breach of procedural fairness.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Minister of Finance's decision denying her relief from the Non-Resident Speculation Tax under s. 20 of the Land Transfer Tax Act.

The applicant missed the four-year deadline to obtain permanent residency by 10 days due to COVID-19 pandemic delays, which disqualified her from a $510,000 tax rebate.

The Divisional Court found the Minister's decision unreasonable because it failed to properly consider the pandemic as a 'special circumstance' that caused the delay.

The decision was quashed and remitted to the Minister for a fresh review.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Assessment Review Board decision denying a municipal tax refund for a hotel property that was shut down for construction.

The applicant claimed relief under the demolition and vacant property provisions of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board reasonably concluded that the applicant failed to properly appeal the 2016 demolition decision and that the 2017 claim failed because the demolition occurred in the prior year.

The court also found no breach of procedural fairness.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Media Development Corporation (OMDC) denying a film tax credit on the basis that its production, Reflections, was not a 'documentary'.

The applicant argued the OMDC's interpretation was unreasonable and fettered by anti-evangelical Christian bias.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard from Vavilov and found the OMDC's interpretation of 'documentary' and its application to the production were reasonable.

The court also dismissed the allegations of bias and procedural unfairness.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant, a First Nation person operating a tobacco distribution business on a reserve, sought judicial review of the Minister's direction requiring wholesalers to pre-collect provincial tobacco tax from her.

She argued this violated her tax exemption rights under section 87 of the Indian Act and the Tobacco Tax Act regulations.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the statutory exemption for 'exclusive use' does not apply to tobacco purchased for resale.

The court also held that the provincial pre-collection scheme is constitutional, does not conflict with the Indian Act under the paramountcy doctrine, and does not impair core federal jurisdiction under the interjurisdictional immunity doctrine.

The court held a case management teleconference to schedule an application for judicial review.

The hearing was scheduled for November 25, 2020, via ZOOM videoconference.

The court provided detailed directions for the electronic filing of materials, including factums, compendiums, and authorities.

The respondent indicated it would raise a substantive defence that the matter is not properly before the Divisional Court and should be pursued through an Objection Officer and appealed to a single judge of the Superior Court.

The appellant appealed a retail sales tax assessment on returnable wooden pallets for the period of 1997 to 2000, arguing that the tax was imposed retroactively by 2001 amendments and therefore interest should not be payable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that returnable containers were subject to tax throughout the relevant period under the general taxing provisions and did not fall within the manufacturers' exemption, even prior to the clarifying amendments.

The Minister of Finance appealed a decision discharging a tax assessment against a vendor operating 25-cent single-coin vending machines.

The vendor argued it was impossible to collect and remit retail sales tax because the machines could not accept more than 25 cents or give change.

The Divisional Court held that compliance was possible if the vendor had applied for and used tax-included pricing under the Retail Sales Tax Act.

However, because the vendor was not actually using tax-included pricing during the relevant period, the Minister was not entitled to issue the assessment under section 18(3) of the Act.

The appeal was allowed in part to vary the judgment below, but otherwise dismissed.

The Minister of Finance appealed an order granting the respondent an extension of time to file a notice of appeal regarding a tax assessment.

The respondent had filed his notice of appeal 37 days after the 90-day limitation period prescribed by the Retail Sales Tax Act.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the court has no jurisdiction to extend the express limitation period set out in the Act, and that the Minister was not estopped from relying on the limitation period.

The Minister of Finance appealed a decision vacating a land transfer tax assessment against Upper Valley Dodge Chrysler Limited.

The sole shareholder of the corporation had transferred land to the corporation and claimed an exemption under s. 3(1) of Regulation 697, which applies to transfers from an 'individual' to a 'family business corporation'.

The Minister argued the corporation could not be an 'individual' or 'operator' under the strict wording of the regulation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, applying a purposive approach to statutory interpretation to find that the transfer fell within the intended scope of the family business exemption.

The Minister of Revenue appealed a trial decision that allowed an automobile dealership to exclude its wholesale financial liabilities for new vehicles from its paid-up capital as 'current accounts payable' under the Corporations Tax Act.

The Minister also appealed the trial judge's award of solicitor and client costs to the dealership.

The Divisional Court dismissed the tax appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's interpretation of the legislation or assessment of expert accounting evidence.

However, the Court allowed the costs appeal, reducing the award to a party and party scale because there was no finding of reprehensible conduct by the Minister to justify solicitor and client costs.