Pierre-Olivier Lemieux

The moving party sought leave to appeal the decision of Papageorgiou J. The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal and ordered that the terms directed by Matheson J. continue pending resolution of the appeal, specifically that the moving party suspend providing tax receipts for donations and the respondent not publish a notice of intention to revoke the moving party's charitable registration.

The applicant charity brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to enjoin the Minister of National Revenue from publishing a notice of revocation of its charitable status.

The applicant argued that s. 168(1) of the Income Tax Act is unconstitutional as it infringes on provincial jurisdiction over charities.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while there was a serious issue to be tried, the applicant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm with particularized evidence.

Furthermore, the balance of convenience favoured the Minister due to the strong public interest in enforcing the regulatory framework of the Income Tax Act.

The appellant claimed a non-capital loss for the 2017 taxation year after her Bitcoin investments held with the cryptocurrency exchange QuadrigaCX vanished.

The Minister denied the loss.

The Tax Court found that the appellant had expended C$473,241.74 to acquire Bitcoin and that it was more likely than not that she suffered a loss due to fraud.

Applying the test for an adventure in the nature of trade, the Court concluded that the appellant's activities were undertaken in pursuit of profit and constituted a business.

The appeal was allowed and the matter referred back to the Minister for reassessment on the basis that the appellant is entitled to a C$473,241.74 non-capital loss.

The respondent, a nursing assistant, challenged regulations requiring her to pass a French language test to obtain a professional permit, arguing they were discriminatory and contained an unauthorized subdelegation of power.

The regulations exempted candidates with three years of secondary instruction in French.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the issue was not moot despite legislative amendments, as the government had an interest in the validity of its regulations.

The Court concluded the regulations were not discriminatory under the Charter of human rights and freedoms because they did not impair the right to full equality, and the subdelegation to a testing committee was purely administrative and authorized by statute.

The appellant, a qualified plasterer, was charged with working in the construction industry without a classification certificate contrary to Regulation No. 5.

He argued the regulation was ultra vires and adversely affected his vested rights.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, upholding the Court of Appeal's finding that the regulation was valid and that the vested rights argument failed given the statutory duty imposed on the Office de la construction du Québec to adopt hiring standards.

The respondent was convicted of operating its crushing plants without an approved dust exhaust system, contrary to an order made by the Deputy Minister of Social Affairs.

The Superior Court quashed the convictions, holding that the order could only be made by the Minister in person, which the Court of Appeal affirmed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, concluding that under s. 55 of the Public Health Act, the Minister must exercise emergency powers 'himself', meaning in person, rendering the Deputy Minister's order void.