Tyler Austin Alviano

The appellant appealed reassessments under subsection 160(1) of the Income Tax Act, arguing that the Minister was not entitled to assess arrears interest on the agreed amounts of liability for non-arm's length transfers.

The parties brought a Rule 58 motion to determine this question of law.

The Tax Court of Canada held that the Minister is not only entitled but required to assess arrears interest on a subsection 160(1) reassessment, as the statutory scheme incorporates the general assessment provisions and explicitly preserves liability for interest.

The appeal was dismissed without costs.

The appellant appealed an assessment denying GST/HST new housing rebates for a property purchased with a friend.

The property was bought as an investment and sold shortly after closing.

The appellant argued she should only be liable for half the rebate amount, that interest should not apply, and that the assessment was statute-barred.

The Tax Court dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant jointly and severally liable for the full overpayment, liable for interest, and that the assessment was sent to the correct address and thus not statute-barred.

The offender was convicted of dangerous driving causing bodily harm after crashing his Lamborghini while driving at excessive speeds to show off to his passenger.

The passenger suffered catastrophic, life-altering injuries, including permanent brain damage.

The Crown sought 2.5 to 3 years in a penitentiary, while the defence sought a conditional sentence or intermittent sentence.

The court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence, noting the deliberate and highly dangerous nature of the driving.

The offender was sentenced to 2.5 years in prison and a 6-year driving prohibition.

Jason Georgopoulos was charged with dangerous driving causing bodily harm after crashing his Lamborghini while attempting to pass a streetcar at high speed, seriously injuring his administrative assistant.

The defendant brought two pre-trial applications: a stay of proceedings for delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter (Jordan motion) and, alternatively, a stay for lost evidence (Infotainment unit data).

The court dismissed both applications, finding that the delay was not unreasonable after accounting for defence-caused delay and COVID-19 related exceptional circumstances, and that the alleged lost evidence either never existed or would not have impacted the trial's outcome.

The court found the defendant's testimony not credible and concluded that his driving constituted a marked departure from the standard of care of a reasonable person.