Steven Raphael

The appellant appealed reassessments under Part IX of the Excise Tax Act for reporting periods between December 1, 2008 and December 31, 2011.

The core issue was the proper valuation methodology to determine the fair market value of leased apartments registered as condominium units in a residential complex subject to the self-supply rules in section 191 of the Excise Tax Act.

The appellant self-assessed GST/HST based on the fair market value of the entire building using a cost plus 6% method.

The Minister reassessed the appellant based on the fair market value determined using the direct comparison method applied to the individual condominium units.

The Tax Court of Canada dismissed the appeal for the reporting periods between December 1, 2008 and June 30, 2009, finding that the direct comparison method was the most appropriate method to determine the value of the condominium units and that the Minister's appraiser selected appropriate comparables and made appropriate adjustments.

The applicant, a pedestrian struck by a vehicle, sought Income Replacement Benefits (IRBs) and funding for psychological and chronic pain assessments.

The insurer terminated IRBs after six months and denied the assessments, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guidelines (MIG).

The Tribunal found the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform his essential tasks for the first 104 weeks, nor a complete inability to engage in employment thereafter, relying on surveillance evidence showing him working and medical reports indicating symptom magnification.

The Tribunal also concluded the applicant's injuries were minor, dismissing the claims for the assessments.

The appellant appealed a jury award of zero damages and a trial judge's ruling that her claim for non-pecuniary loss did not meet the statutory threshold under the Insurance Act following a motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued the jury verdict was perverse and the trial judge erred in his threshold analysis.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding it was open to the jury to conclude the appellant's post-accident difficulties were inevitable due to pre-existing osteoarthritis, and there was ample evidence supporting the trial judge's threshold ruling.