Sarah Mackenzie

The respondent sought to rectify corporate resolutions after an accounting error resulted in an unintended tax liability under Part III of the Income Tax Act.

The application judge granted rectification, finding that the objective was to pay a tax-free capital dividend.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that rectification is not available to correct an agreement that failed to achieve an intended fiscal objective, as the executed documents accurately reflected the parties' agreement to pay a $1.4 million dividend.

The Minister of National Revenue moved to strike the plaintiffs' statement of claim, which alleged that the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) illegally imputed excessive taxable income and instituted wrongful collection measures, causing the principal plaintiff emotional distress and physical harm.

The Superior Court of Justice granted the motion, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to review tax assessments or federal administrative collection measures, which fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tax Court of Canada and the Federal Court.

Furthermore, the court held that the pleadings failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action for intentional infliction of mental distress or misfeasance in public office.

The action was dismissed without leave to amend, and costs were awarded to the defendant.

The applicant, Pyxis Real Estate Equities Inc., sought an order to rectify corporate documents to correct a mistake made by its accountants.

The mistake resulted in an unintended tax consequence related to a series of inter-corporate capital dividends, which were intended to provide a tax-free dividend of $1,400,000 to a shareholder.

The respondent, Attorney General of Canada, argued that rectification was inappropriate as the facts did not meet the legal requirements and that it constituted retroactive tax planning.

The court granted the application, finding that the true intention of the transaction was to achieve a tax-free dividend, and the documents failed to reflect this due to a transcription error, not a flaw in the tax structure itself.

The court emphasized viewing the transaction holistically to give it business efficacy.

This endorsement concerns the costs arising from successful anti-SLAPP motions brought by the Crown Defendants and the Better Business Bureau of Central Ontario Inc. (BBB) against A&H Asset Auctions Inc. The court considered the presumption of full indemnity costs under s. 137.1(7) of the Courts of Justice Act.

It found that the indicia of a SLAPP suit were not present, and therefore, an award of full indemnity costs was not appropriate.

The court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis to both the Crown Defendants and BBB, fixing the amounts at $150,416 and $87,122.55 respectively.

The plaintiff, an auction business, brought an action for defamation against the Crown Defendants and the Better Business Bureau (BBB) regarding statements made about the plaintiff's relationship with the federal government in selling seized gemstones.

The defendants brought motions to dismiss the action under the anti-SLAPP provisions of s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court found that the statements related to matters of public interest.

The court concluded that the plaintiff failed to show its claims had substantial merit against the Crown Defendants, failed to show the defendants had no valid defences (including qualified privilege and justification), and failed to establish that the harm it suffered outweighed the public interest in protecting the defendants' expressions.

The motions were granted and the action was dismissed.

The self-represented plaintiff filed a $3 million claim against the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), alleging the CRA negligently permitted her ex-husband to use her identity to obtain an EFILE number.

The CRA brought a motion to strike the statement of claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The plaintiff evaded service and failed to attend the hearing.

The court proceeded in her absence, struck the statement of claim in its entirety without leave to amend, finding that the CRA owed no duty of care or fiduciary duty to the plaintiff, and that the claims of malfeasance, conspiracy, and other torts lacked material facts.

Costs of $14,500 were awarded to the CRA.