Clearwater Seafoods Holding Trust v. Canada, 2013 FCA 180 (2013)

Parts:Clearwater Seafoods Holding Trust v. Canada
Reporting Judge:SHARLOW J.A.
Docket Number:A-342-12
 
FREE EXCERPT

Federal Court of Appeal - Clearwater Seafoods Holding Trust v. Canada [Anonymoused]

Source: http://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/en/2013/2013fca180/2013fca180.html

Date: 20130708

Docket: A-342-12

Citation: 2013 FCA 180

CORAM: SHARLOW J.A.

DAWSON J.A.

STRATAS J.A.

BETWEEN:

CLEARWATER SEAFOODS HOLDINGS TRUST

Appellant and

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Respondent

Heard at Halifax, Nova Scotia, on June 25, 2013.

Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on July 8, 2013.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: SHARLOW J.A.

CONCURRED IN BY: DAWSON J.A.

STRATAS J.A.

Date: 20130708

Docket: A-342-12

Citation: 2013 FCA 180

CORAM: SHARLOW J.A.

DAWSON J.A.

STRATAS J.A.

BETWEEN:

CLEARWATER SEAFOODS HOLDINGS TRUST

Appellant and

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

SHARLOW J.A.

[1] In 2011, the appellant Clearwater Seafoods Holdings Trust (the “Taxpayer Trust”) appealed an income tax assessment to the Tax Court of Canada. The trust was terminated in 2012 upon the disposition of all of its property. In order to obtain directions as to the continuation of the income tax appeal, a motion was made pursuant to Rule 29 of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure) , SOR/90‑688. The motion was dismissed on June 1, 2012. The order dismissing the motion has been appealed to this Court. For the reasons that follow, I would allow the appeal.

[2] Prior to the hearing of the appeal, the Court directed the parties to consider certain issues not dealt with in their written submissions, and to consider whether it would be appropriate to adjourn the appeal to permit an alternative motion to be submitted to the Tax Court. An adjournment motion was filed on behalf of the Taxpayer Trust, and it was opposed by the Crown. The Court heard submissions on the motion and the appeal, and reserved its decision on both.

[3] For the purposes of this appeal and the Rule 29 motion, the facts are undisputed and may be summarized as follows. In 2012, as part of a series of transactions intended to achieve a permitted tax result, all of the property of the Taxpayer Trust was transferred to another trust named Clearwater Seafoods Income Fund (the “Fund”), which was then the holder of all units in the Taxpayer Trust. The same property was immediately transferred to a corporation named Clearwater Seafoods Incorporated (the “Corporation”), which was then the holder of all units in the Fund.

[4] It is common ground that the Taxpayer Trust ceased to exist when it ceased to own any property. However, the transactions described above did not automatically put an end to the Taxpayer Trust’s income tax appeal. To facilitate the continuation of that appeal despite the termination of the Taxpayer Trust, counsel for the Taxpayer Trust filed a motion in the Tax Court seeking directions under Rule 29, which reads as follows:
29. (1) Where at any stage of a proceeding the interest or liability of a person who is a party to a proceeding in the Court is transferred or transmitted to another person by assignment, bankruptcy, death or other means, no other proceedings shall be instituted...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR FREE TRIAL