Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Tax Court confirmed Part XIII withholding tax and penalties on rental payments to a UK company, finding it was the beneficial owner and not an agent for Norway.
Judicial review of a Residential Tenancy Branch penalty process was partly allowed; the court found a reasonable apprehension of bias and prohibited the named director from deciding the matter.
The Federal Court allowed CN’s judicial review, finding the TATC appeal panel reasonably interpreted the Track Safety Rules but unreasonably rejected CN’s due diligence defence.
Appellant voluntarily left employment without just cause because he had reasonable alternatives to leaving; he knowingly made false statements about earnings on multiple reports so the Commission lawfully imposed a penalty and issued a notice of violation and the amounts and measures were within judicial exercise of discretion.
Source excerpt
The Tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that the Appellant knowingly made false statements by failing to report employment earnings while receiving EI, the Commission properly classified the violation and considered mitigating factors, and it exercised its discretion judicially in imposing a $5,000 penalty and issuing a very serious notice of violation; appeal dismissed.
Source excerpt
The Tribunal erred in law by applying the defence of automatism without the required assertion of involuntariness and without confirming psychiatric expert evidence as mandated by R. v. Stone; the available medical records were inadequate to support automatism and the record compelled only one conclusion — the Minister's decision confirming the Notice of Violation must be reinstated.
Source excerpt
The Federal Court upheld FINTRAC’s findings that Max Realty committed four compliance violations, but set aside the $27,000 penalty for lack of intelligible reasons.
The Federal Court upheld FINTRAC’s findings that Homelife committed four compliance violations, but found the $27,000 penalty reasons unintelligible and sent the penalty back.
Because subsection 163(1) contains no precondition limiting the availability of the due diligence defence to the second year, a taxpayer may avoid the penalty by proving due diligence in either relevant year; appellant proved due diligence in 2008 by credible evidence of address change efforts, mail forwarding and proper preparation, and the Minister failed to rebut that prima facie case, so the s.163(1) penalty did not apply.
Source excerpt
The Tribunal was correct that the Minister of Public Safety and CBSA lacked statutory authority to conduct the ministerial review under the Monetary Penalties Act; the omission of that Minister from the Act is an under-inclusion that must be remedied by Parliament, not the courts; the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by voiding the Notice of Violation and the appropriate remedy is to remit the misdirected Ministerial review to the proper Minister (Minister of Agriculture) with effect from the original filing date.
Source excerpt
Explore more
