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 held that two Wilson Avenue properties were capital property until September 16, 2011, when financing fixed the shift to inventory.
Teck's procurement practice satisfied the "obtained for use" requirement for a use-based exemption because institutional scheduling and ordering established a bona fide expected use at time of purchase, but the coal is nonetheless excluded from the exemption by s.38(3)(a) because the coal was obtained to be combusted and produced heat (energy) that was necessary, anticipated and factored into procurement for the Reduction Process; the exclusion is unqualified and therefore any use to produce energy disqualifies the substance from the exemption, so the petition is dismissed.
Source excerpt
The Federal Court dismissed Janssen’s judicial review, upholding OSIP’s refusal to list the 837 Patent for STELARA under two SNDS filings and finding subsection 4(6) intra vires.
The Court found the sale and disposal of the restaurant equipment were acts done in the course of commercial activity so the appellant remained a person required to be registered under the ETA; therefore the appellant never ceased to be a registrant and subsection 171(3) (and s.200) did not apply. The appellant’s re-registration and evidence established its registration was valid throughout the period. Result: the reassessment based on deemed disposition was not supportable except for the appellant’s concession that GST on the $57,500 sale was owing ($2,875). The reassessment was sent back fo…
Source excerpt
The court accepted the respondent's post‑hearing concession that $2,555.30 of the German pension was deductible for 2004; it found the daughter’s tenancy involved a personal element and lacked sufficient commercial operation under Stewart, so her rent and pro rata expenses were excluded; it found the vacant first‑floor unit remained part of the rental source because it was not converted to personal use, the owner retained intent to rent (limited by word‑of‑mouth condition) and the unit was inseparable from the building; the stove expense of $263.40 was allowed. Accordingly the court adjusted…
Source excerpt
Appellant failed to meet his burden to establish that the disputed expenses were deductible; however, given documentary evidence of significant post‑change improvements and the difficulty of retroactive valuation, the court reduced the expert's FMV of the residence by $10,000 as a reasonable adjustment and ordered reassessment to determine terminal loss; all other aspects of the assessment remain unchanged.
Source excerpt
The property as a whole remained primarily for the appellant's personal use; the appellant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the property ceased to be primarily personal after construction of the garage; therefore s.208(4) disallows the ITC and s.208(2) is not triggered so no deemed supply arises; appeal dismissed.
Source excerpt
The Court allowed the appeal in part: it found the Appellant had incurred and was entitled to claim specific categories of expenses for Le Caine Enterprises and Data Entry Select as quantified in the reasons, held that the rental of 135 Conrad Road did not constitute a source of property income (therefore no income or expenses from that property), refused to apply alternative bases or regulatory rules not pleaded by the Minister (e.g. capitalization of vehicle incidental costs, half‑year CCA rule) and referred the matter back to the Minister for reconsideration and reassessment using the Cour…
Source excerpt
Given the facts (professionally managed resort complex, unit available for rent whenever owner not using it, practical administrative considerations and the absence of a practicable superior allocation method), the appellant's day‑based method of allocating personal versus business use is fair and reasonable under s.141.01(5); there was no change in use of 10% or more and thus no deemed supply or resulting GST output tax, so the assessment increasing net tax by $5,172.93 was incorrect.
Source excerpt
The court found the new garage was an improvement to capital real property but the overall 11‑acre property continued to be used primarily for the appellant's personal use and enjoyment; subsection 208(4) therefore disallowed the ITC and no supply under subsection 136(2) was triggered to treat the garage as a separate taxable property, so the claimed ITC was not recoverable.
Source excerpt
Explore more
