Supreme Court Docket Update

Judgment Rendered

  • Canada (National Revenue) v. Thompson (2016 SCC 21). The judgment was rendered on June 3, 2016. The appeal was allowed in favour of Duncan Thompson solely to set aside the FCA’s order (2013 FCA 197). This case pertains to the issue of whether a lawyer subject to enforcement proceedings can claim solicitor-client privilege over his accounts receivable. In light of the SCC’s conclusion in Canada (Attorney General) v. Chambre des notaires du Québec (2016 SCC 20), the request made by Thompson is now foreclosed. A webcast is available here. See also Sze Yee Ling and Nathan Wright, “SCC Upholds Solicitor-Client Privilege,” elsewhere in this issue.

  • Canada (Attorney General) v. Chambre des notaires du Québec (2016 SCC 20). The judgment was rendered on June 3, 2016. The appeal was dismissed with costs against the attorney general. Subsection 231.2(1) and section 231.7, together with the exception set out in the definition of “solicitor-client privilege” in subsection 232(1), were found unconstitutional vis-à-vis notaries and lawyers in Quebec on the basis that the provisions are contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. A webcast is available here. See also Sze Yee Ling and Nathan Wright, “SCC Upholds Solicitor-Client Privilege,” elsewhere in this issue.

Awaiting Judgment

  • Jean Coutu Group (PJC) Inc. v. Attorney General of Canada (from 2015 QCCA 838). The hearing was held on May 18, 2016. This case pertains to a motion for rectification and to what extent a taxpayer can retroactively revisit documentation giving effect to a series of transactions when unforeseen tax consequences have resulted following the SCC’s decision in Quebec (Agence du revenu) v. Services Environnementaux AES inc. (2013 SCC 65). A short summary of the case is available here, and a webcast is also available.

  • Attorney General of Canada v. Fairmont Hotels Inc., et al. (from 2015 ONCA 441). The hearing was held on May 18, 2016. This case pertains to a motion for rectification granted in favour of the taxpayer based on the test in Attorney General of Canada v. Juliar (2000 CanLII 16883 (ONCA)) and the taxpayer’s continued tax intention. The Crown argued that the Juliar test was misapplied and that to allow rectification solely on the basis of the taxpayer’s tax intention would be to sanction impermissible retroactive tax planning. A short summary of the case is available here, and a webcast is also available.

Leave Granted

  • Deloitte & Touche v. Livent Inc. (from 2016 ONCA 11). Leave was granted on June 9, 2016. The date of the hearing is February 15, 2017. This case pertains to the professional liability of auditors and their duty of care owed to corporate clients. A short summary of the case is available here.

Leave Sought by the Department of Justice

None.

Leave Sought by the Taxpayer

  • 1455257 Ontario Inc. v. Her Majesty The Queen (from 2016 FCA 100). Leave was sought on May 27, 2016. This case pertains to whether a dissolved corporation has the capacity to initiate an appeal to the TCC from a reassessment issued against it.

  • Jacques Pellan v. Agence du revenu du Québec (from 2016 QCCA 263). Leave was sought on April 8, 2016. This case pertains to the interpretation of section 8(b) of the Taxation Act (CQLR, c. I-3) with respect to the scope of the phrase “leaving Canada.”

  • Jaamiah Al Uloom Al Islamiyyah Ontario v. Minister of National Revenue (Canada Revenue Agency) (from 2016 FCA 49). Leave was sought on April 7, 2016. This case pertains to the status of a charity whose registration the minister of national revenue has revoked. A short summary of the case is available here.

  • Jean-Yves Archambault v. Agence du revenu du Québec, et al. (from 2016 QCCA 76). Leave was sought on March 23, 2016. This case pertains to Revenu Québec’s responsibility to a company and its main shareholder resulting from a tax audit.

  • Mac’s Convenience Store Inc. v. Attorney General of Canada, et al. (from 2015 QCCA 837). Leave was sought on December 18, 2015. This case pertains to a motion for rectification sought by the taxpayer that was denied on the basis that a taxpayer is obliged to pay tax arising from the transaction that it effected—not from the transaction that it would have preferred to have effected given the benefit of hindsight regarding unintended tax consequences. A short summary of the case is available here.

Leave Dismissed

  • Dan Mason v. Her Majesty The Queen (from 2016 FCA 15). Leave was dismissed on June 30, 2016. This case pertains to the determination of the income of a taxpayer, as to whether the income is earned personally by the taxpayer or earned by corporations and trusts. A short summary of the case is available here.

  • James T. Grenon v. Her Majesty The Queen (from 2016 FCA 4). Leave was dismissed on June 30, 2016. This case pertains to the deductibility of legal fees and costs incurred in contested proceedings to determine the amount of child support payments. A short summary of the case is available here.

  • Virginia Forsythe v. Her Majesty The Queen (from 2015 FCA 258). Leave was dismissed on April 21, 2016. This case pertains to whether the taxpayer’s employment income is property “situated on a reserve” so that it is exempt from taxation by operation of section 87(1)(b) of the Indian Act (RSC 1985, c. I-5). A short summary of the case is available here.

Marie-France Dompierre
Deloitte Tax Law LLP, Montreal
mdompierre@deloittetaxlaw.ca

Canadian Tax Focus
Volume 6, Number 3, August 2016
©2016, Canadian Tax Foundation