The appellant brought a motion to strike the respondent's Reply to the Notice of Appeal in its entirety.
The appellant argued the Reply contained overreaching denials, assumptions of mixed fact and law, conclusions of law, repetitive and colorful language, and improperly pleaded evidence.
The Tax Court of Canada agreed that the Reply contained numerous defects, including the improper pleading of evidence in the schedules and conclusions of law such as 'sham'.
The Court struck the Reply in its entirety but granted the respondent leave to file a fresh reply.
