Fairmont Hotels Inc. v. Attorney General of Canada

Fairmont Hotels Inc. v. Attorney General of Canada

On the application judge's factual findings that Fairmont had a continuing, specific intention from 2002 that Legacy-related transactions be tax-neutral and that preference share redemptions were not intended but occurred by mistake, rectification was properly granted under the binding authority of Juliar; a claimant need not have determined the precise transactional device in advance to obtain rectification.

Citation
2015 ONCA 441
Parties
Applicant (respondent in Appeal): Fairmont Hotels Inc.; Applicant (respondent in Appeal): FHIW Hotel Investments (Canada) Inc.; Applicant (respondent in Appeal): FHIS Hotel Investments (Canada) Inc.; Respondent (appellant): Attorney General of Canada
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 June 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil (tax Dispute) / Appeal to Court of Appeal From Superior Court Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Rectification, Retroactive Tax Planning, Preference Share Redemption, Foreign Exchange Tax Consequences, Intention and Mutual Agreement
Source Language
English
Tax Equitable Remedies Corporate Law Civil Procedure Rectification Retroactive Tax Planning Preference Share Redemption Foreign Exchange Tax Consequences +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fairmont Hotels Inc.

Applicant (respondent in Appeal)

FHIW Hotel Investments (Canada) Inc.

Applicant (respondent in Appeal)

FHIS Hotel Investments (Canada) Inc.

Applicant (respondent in Appeal)

Attorney General of Canada

Respondent (appellant)

Procedural Posture

Civil (tax Dispute) / Appeal to Court of Appeal From Superior Court Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application judge properly granted rectification
  2. 2 Whether rectification requires a prior agreement on the precise transactional means to achieve a tax outcome
  3. 3 Whether allowing rectification in these facts would amount to impermissible retroactive tax planning

Ratio Decidendi

On the application judge's factual findings that Fairmont had a continuing, specific intention from 2002 that Legacy-related transactions be tax-neutral and that preference share redemptions were not intended but occurred by mistake, rectification was properly granted under the binding authority of Juliar; a claimant need not have determined the precise transactional device in advance to obtain rectification.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Respondent entitled to costs of the appeal fixed at $20,000 inclusive of disbursements and all applicable taxes