Vameesha Patel

The appellant purchased a pre-construction condominium in 2015 and sold it in 2018, claiming the principal residence exemption.

The Minister reassessed her under the Income Tax Act, including the gain as business income from an adventure or concern in the nature of trade, and under the Excise Tax Act, finding she was a builder required to collect GST on the sale.

The Tax Court dismissed both appeals, finding the appellant acquired the property with a speculative intent and did not occupy it as a place of residence.

The appellant appealed an assessment disallowing his application for a GST/HST New Residential Rental Property Rebate.

The Minister disallowed the application because it was filed beyond the two-year limit under the Excise Tax Act.

The appellant argued that subsection 296(2.1) compelled the Minister to accept the late application.

The Tax Court held that subsection 296(2.1) did not apply because the assessment under appeal was not an assessment of net tax or an amount payable under Part IX, but rather a simple denial of the rebate.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, MedSleep Inc., appealed GST/HST reassessments for 35 monthly reporting periods.

The Minister assessed MedSleep on the basis that it provided separate taxable administrative services to sleep physicians and failed to collect GST/HST.

MedSleep argued it provided a single compound exempt medical service to patients in tandem with the physicians, sharing the professional fees.

The Tax Court of Canada allowed the appeal, finding that MedSleep and the physicians jointly provided a single compound exempt supply of medical services to patients.

The Court also found that the physicians were not recipients of a taxable supply from MedSleep, meaning MedSleep had no obligation to collect GST/HST.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limits, as he failed to establish that a pre-existing condition or chronic pain prevented his recovery within the MIG.

However, because the respondent's initial denial of a treatment plan was non-compliant with the notice requirements under ss. 38(8) and 38(9) of the Schedule, the applicant was entitled to the costs of the treatment plan incurred during the period of non-compliance.

The claim for a special award under s. 10 of Regulation 664 was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received income replacement benefits (IRBs) from the respondent.

The applicant had long-term disability (LTD) benefits available through his employer but failed to apply for them within the required 90-day limitation period, resulting in a denial of his LTD claim.

The respondent sought to deduct the LTD benefits from the applicant's IRBs, arguing that the applicant's failure to apply on time should be treated as if he had foregone the benefits.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the applicant had an obligation to diligently pursue collateral benefits and that the accident benefits insurer is the payor of last resort.

The respondent was permitted to deduct the LTD benefits that would have been available had the applicant applied in time.

The appellant insurer appealed a License Appeal Tribunal reconsideration decision which found that the respondent's dirt bike was an 'automobile' under the Insurance Act, entitling him to statutory accident benefits.

The respondent was catastrophically injured in a motocross competition.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the LAT's interpretation that the dirt bike was not exempt from the Off-Road Vehicles Act because the closed course competition was not sponsored by a motorcycle association.

The court found no error of law in the LAT's application of the Ledcor onus test, the Adams test for automobiles, or its statutory interpretation.

On a statutory appeal from a License Appeal Tribunal reconsideration decision, the insurer challenged a ruling that an injured dirt bike rider was entitled to statutory accident benefits.

The court held there was no legal error in allocating onus to the insurer on the narrow exemption issue and no reversible error in applying the Adams framework.

Interpreting s. 2(1)5 of O. Reg. 863 purposively and contextually, the court agreed that motorcycle-association sponsorship applies to both closed course competitions and rallies, so the exemption did not apply on the record.

Although the reconsideration reasons improperly referenced a document outside the hearing record, the court found no procedural unfairness because that reference did not affect the ultimate analysis.

The appeal and the insurer’s fresh-evidence motion were dismissed, with costs to the respondent.