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 dismissed a GST/HST rebate appeal because part of the claim was filed too late under subsection 261(3) and no set-off was available under subsection 296(2.1).
The Tax Court dismissed a GST/HST leave application for an extension of time. It held the CRA mailed the reassessment to the address of record and deemed receipt applied.
The Tax Court allowed an amendment and reopening of evidence in a GST/HST appeal, but refused judicial notice of CRA search results and excluded a solicitor-sourced affidavit.
The Tax Court allowed Lucas Paglia’s GST/HST new housing rebate appeal, finding credible evidence that he and a co-owner intended to live in the condo and did reside there.
The appellant failed to exercise reasonable care and was negligent in not ensuring required self-assessments; reliance on its accountant did not negate neglect. Therefore a misrepresentation attributable to neglect existed and the Minister's reassessment beyond the four-year limitation was valid, so the appeal is dismissed.
Source excerpt
The court held that once the June 23, 2016 PSB rebate application produced a July 20, 2016 assessment that was not objected to, that assessment was valid and binding under s.299 and the spent rebate application could not be amended after the assessment to evade the statutory objection and limitation regime; the January 2019 filings were late, constituted new applications rather than amendments, were time-barred under para.259(5)(b), and therefore the appeal was dismissed.
Source excerpt
Given the Appellant's success on all issues and the Respondent's improper conduct — including prolonged refusal to adopt binding features of BC Ferries, filing the Shimizu Affidavit which amounted to a trial by ambush and caused wasted trial time and additional steps, and written submissions challenging the Court's factual findings — the Court exercised its discretion under Rule 147 to award enhanced costs equal to 60% of legal fees; all claimed disbursements were awarded and non-recoverable HST was awarded at 6.14% of fees plus disbursements, resulting in a lump sum award of $895,731.40.
Source excerpt
The Court concluded SMP Inc. did engage in commercial activity and made taxable supplies as reflected in its incorporation, invoicing and T2 filings; however, the appellant failed to provide admissible, quantifiable evidence linking additional claimed ITCs to SMP Inc. beyond the amounts the Minister conceded, so only those conceded additional ITCs were allowed; s.285 penalties were deleted by concession and interest/late-filing penalties remain subject to recalculation.
Source excerpt
The applications were dismissed because they were filed after the expiry of the mandatory one‑year grace period (deadline August 8, 2022) following the 90‑day appeal period (notice dated May 10, 2021); timeliness is a jurisdictional statutory condition and, having failed that threshold, the Court could not grant relief and need not consider the remaining conditions or equitable arguments.
Source excerpt
The due diligence defence under s.323(3) is assessed by an objective reasonably prudent person standard with contextual modification for incapacity due to serious mental illness; the appellant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that his mental illness rendered him incapable of taking steps to prevent the failures to remit during the relevant period, and having failed to take active remedial steps he cannot rely on the defence, so he is liable for the corporation's unremitted GST/HST for the 2013 and 2014 reporting periods but not for periods after he ceased to be a director.
Source excerpt
Explore more
