Tax Court (Canada)

[1] Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation (the “Appellant”) is a Canadian mining company that operates nine high-grade iron ore projects, including the Mary River Mine located on Baffin Island in Nunavut, Canada (the “Mary River Mine”).

[1] The Appellant, Mr. Mohamed Siam, instituted an appeal on May 17, 2024, under the Income Tax Act[1] and the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure)[2] in respect of a reassessment made for his 2016 taxation year and confirmed by notice of reassessment dated August 18, 2023 (2023 Reassessment). The issue in this appeal concerns the results of an arbitrary assessment by the Canada Revenue...

[1] MedSleep Inc. (“MedSleep”) operates sleep clinics in various provinces throughout Canada through which it, in tandem with various physicians specializing in sleep disorders (“Sleep Physicians”), provides diagnostic sleep studies to patients.

[1] The issue in this appeal is whether the Appellant, Mr. Charles Lienaux, was carrying on business in 2019, the taxation year in which he claimed $15,436 as deductible business expenses. On reassessment, the deduction of those expenses was disallowed. It was for the Appellant to show that those expenses were incurred for the purpose of gaining or producing income under paragraph 18(1)(a) of the

[1] The Minister of National Revenue (the “Minister”) reassessed Burraq Employment Services Ltd. (“Burraq” or the “Appellant”) under Part IX of the Excise Tax Act (RSC 1985, c. E-15) (the “ETA”) by notices of reassessment dated February 23, 2018, for the reporting periods from April 1, 2014, to March 31, 2017 (the “Relevant Periods”).

[1] My June 7, 2024 judgment allowed the appeal numbered 2012-3780(IT)G, as conceded by the respondent, quashed the appeal numbered 2012-3782(IT)G, and dismissed the remaining five appeals with costs. I amended my judgment on July 18, 2024 because two appeal numbers were omitted from the style of cause in the June 7th version of the reasons.

[1] The appellant has filed eight separate appeals under the informal procedure in s. 18 of the Tax Court of Canada Act (TCC Act) with respect to the 2013 to 2020 taxation years. The appeals were previously scheduled for hearing but were adjourned several times. Due to the delays in moving the appeals forward, the Chief Justice (St-Hilaire C.J.) held a status hearing and, upon hearing from the...

[1] Fathia Ali Osman appeals from a reassessment dated February 10, 2022, wherein the Minister of National Revenue (the “Minister”) denied her claim for the Goods and Services Tax / Harmonized Sales Tax (“GST/HST”) New Housing Rebate (the “New Housing Rebate”) in relation to her purchase of 47 Crows Nest Lane, Bowmansville, Ontario. I will refer to that property as the “Rebate Property” and to Ms.

[1] This appeal concerns the Minister’s disallowance of a single, significant input tax credit (“ITC”) in the amount of $910,517 under the Excise Tax Act (“ETA”). The ITC arose through sequenced agreements, amendments and terminations. Most of the critical facts are not in dispute; the facts were the subject of a thorough partial agreed statement of facts, summarized below.

[1] In trying to build high-efficiency, direct-contact, water heaters for the fracking industry that were mountable on a truck or trailer (the “project”), did the Appellant engage in “experimental development” in its 2014 and 2015 taxation years within the meaning of the phrase “scientific research and experimental development” (“SR&ED”) in subsection 248(1) of the Income Tax Act (th

[1] Mr. McCague appeals to this court in respect of two distinct matters. He was assessed because a company 2189632 Ontario Inc. (“218”) paid him a dividend while it had an outstanding tax debt. Separately from that he was assessed because another company 2271561 Ontario Inc (“227”), failed to withhold and remit source deductions.

[1] No dispute exists in this appeal regarding the amount of tax the Appellant should otherwise have paid in any appealed taxation year, had the Minister reassessed within the normal reassessment period. The years, amounts and nature of the (re)assessed tax are as follows:

[1] Mr. Mohammed Salehe, the Appellant in this matter, has appealed from the reassessment and assessment for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years.

[1] My August 23, 2024 judgment allowed these appeals only to the extent conceded by the respondent and in doing so, I awarded costs to the respondent in light of their substantial success. I gave the parties time to reach an agreement on costs failing which they were directed to file written submissions for my consideration. I also directed that if I did not hear from the parties with respect to

[1] Barry (“Barry”), Barbara (“Barbara”) and Brandon (“Brandon”) Malone (the “Malones”) bring these appeals concerning the following claimed charitable donation amounts relating to sums given to the Global Learning and Gifting Initiative (“GLGI”). The Minister says the claimed amounts do not comply with the necessary Income Tax Act (the “Act”) provisions and other legal principles concerning

[1] The Minister of National Revenue (the “Minister”) declined a request for a downward transfer pricing adjustment from MEGlobal Canada ULC (the “Appellant”), pursuant to subsection 247(10) of the Income Tax Act[1] (the “Act”). The Appellant appealed the Minister’s notices of reassessment in respect of its 2008, 2010, and 2011 taxation years (the “Relevant Period”) to the Tax Court of Canada (the

[1] This is an appeal from an assessment made by the Minister of National Revenue denying new housing rebates with respect to the purchase of a new house located at 57 Tabaret Crescent in Oshawa, Ontario.

[1] These are appeals by Malamute Contracting Inc. (“Malamute”) from reassessments made under the Income Tax Act (the “Act”) of its taxation years ending October 31, 2018 and October 31, 2019. Malamute also appeals the decision of the Minister of National Revenue (“Minister”) in respect of the assessments dated October 16, 2019 under the Canada Pension Plan.

[1] This judgment pertains to the Appellant’s Notice of Appeal dated February 23, 2024 wherein the Appellant appeals to this Court the Minister’s denial of a claimed medical tax credit relating to the Appellant’s purchase and installation of a Pro EP-15 Exercise Pool.

[1] Michael Ayoub, the Appellant herein, was the sole director of 6545009 Canada Inc. (the “corporation”), a custom home builder operating in Ottawa, Ontario.

[1] The Appellant has made a motion under subsection 17.1(1.1) of the Tax Court of Canada Act (the “TCCA”) and subsection 30(2) of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure) (the “Rules”) for Mr. Onkar Khunkhun, the Appellant’s sole shareholder, director, and officer, to represent it in two appeals before the Court.

[1] This motion is brought by the applicant, Sulakshana Raja for reconsideration of an Order dated Aug 14, 2024 dismissing an application to extend time to file appeals of assessments issued for the applicant’s 2007, 2010 and 2011 taxation years. Oral reasons for were given on August 13, 2024 following the hearing of the application to extend time.

[1] The appellants provided their employees with access to a health plan that reimbursed them for (among other things) acupuncture, massage therapy, naturopathy, and homeopathy services. These services attracted GST/HST and the employees were reimbursed for the tax under the plan.

[1] This is an appeal governed by the Court’s informal procedure.

[1] These six appeals are lead cases under section 146.1 of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure). Behind these lead cases is a group of ninety‑nine other appeals bound under a Re-Amended Order issued on January 16, 2019 by Justice Hogan, as case management judge.[1] Those other appeals will be bound by the final decision in these six lead cases.[2]

[1] The present matter originally began as a motion to strike portions of the Reply to the Notice of Appeal. However, shortly before the hearing, counsel for the Appellant realized that the Court had not accepted the Reply because it was not filed within a 60-day Court-ordered deadline. The Appellant therefore amended its motion to include a request for default judgment. In turn, the Respondent...

[1] Amarpal Singh is a realtor in Delta, British Columbia. He incorporated a personal services business, meaning that all real estate commissions he earned were income of the Amarpal Singh Personal Real Estate Corporation (the “Applicant”).

[1] Mary Sivekumar was assessed under section 160(1) of the Income Tax Act. Sinna Sivekumar is Ms. Sivekumar’s husband. The Minister of National Revenue reassessed Ms. Sivekumar on the basis that she received property valued at $14,150 from Mr. Sivekumar at a time that Mr. Sivekumar owed in excess of that amount to the Minister.

[1] This appeal concerns the Appellant’s entitlement to the Ontario component of GST/HST New Housing Rebate for owner-built homes under subsection 256.21(1) of the Excise Tax Act (“ETA”).

[1] The Appellant has brought a motion to strike portions of the Amended Reply based on two grounds. First, the Appellant submits that several assumptions of fact should be struck with leave to amend because they plead facts in the alternative. Second, the Appellant says that other paragraphs should be struck with leave to amend because they ask the Court to apply penalties that were not applied...