4 total
Costs fixed at $273,000 after court finds successful defendants' claimed hours excessive and duplicative.
Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' action against the Canada Revenue Agency and others, the successful defendants sought costs of $766,325.50 on a partial indemnity basis.
The court found the hours docketed by the defendants' counsel to be excessive and duplicative, noting the involvement of multiple senior counsel.
Applying the principle of reasonableness and proportionality, the court fixed the costs payable by the plaintiffs at $273,000, inclusive of disbursements and taxes.
Action against CRA for negligent investigation and Charter breaches dismissed; audit and investigation were conducted reasonably.
The plaintiffs, including a software partnership and its investors, brought an action against the Canada Revenue Agency and its agents for negligent investigation, misfeasance in public office, and Charter breaches arising from a tax audit and subsequent criminal investigation into a suspected tax shelter fraud.
The court dismissed the action, finding that the auditor did not cross the line into a criminal investigation improperly, and that the investigators met the standard of care.
The court concluded there was substantial evidence supporting the CRA's belief that the enterprise was a fraudulent tax scheme, and no actionable wrongs were committed by the defendants.
Transcripts of a deceased witness from a prior preliminary inquiry admitted in civil trial under hearsay exception.
During an abbreviated civil trial for negligent investigation against the Canada Revenue Agency, the defendants sought to introduce transcripts of testimony given by a now-deceased CRA auditor during a prior criminal preliminary inquiry.
The plaintiffs objected on the basis of hearsay.
The court applied the principled exception to the hearsay rule, finding that the necessity criterion was met due to the auditor's death, and the reliability criterion was satisfied because the auditor had been rigorously cross-examined on relevant issues during the preliminary inquiry.
The transcripts were ruled admissible.
Appeal of property division and time-limited spousal support dismissed; Divisional Court jurisdiction confirmed based on net order.
The appellant husband appealed a trial judgment regarding the equalization of net family property and time-limited spousal support.
The Divisional Court first determined it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal under s. 19(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, as the net payment ordered by the trial judge was under $25,000, despite the amount in dispute being much higher.
On the merits, the court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's property division was supported by evidence and that time-limited spousal support was appropriate given the husband's failure to rehabilitate himself and his persistent prescription drug abuse.
