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 court set January 9, 2019 as the valuation date for Casa Margarita’s Huntly shares in this oppression remedy dispute, rejecting a later 2023 date.
The court dismissed oppression claims arising from a failed corporate reorganization, but awarded $98,075 for termination without cause and without notice.
Leave granted because the Respondent established EY and Deloitte had information relevant to the determination of the promissory notes and interest rates, the Appellant’s nominee lacked knowledge and the Appellant could not produce the information, the Respondent had been unable to obtain the information voluntarily, and examinations would not unduly delay or cause unfairness; costs awarded as directed.
Source excerpt
The Federal Court dismissed Selex’s judicial review of a procurement decision, holding that a change in corporate structure and asset transfer rendered its bid non-compliant.
During the periods at issue each appellant legally held 50% of the voting shares and there were no legal restrictions on their exercise of those votes; post-period share adjustments reducing their voting rights to 40% could not be enforced against the Minister; accordingly the Minister correctly concluded the appellants were not in insurable employment and the appeals fail.
Source excerpt
GAAR does not apply because the Minister failed to show the reorganization and subsequent returns of capital constituted a misuse or abuse of s.84(4) or the Act read as a whole; the transactions were within the object, spirit and purpose of the relevant provisions and produced real legal and tax consequences (e.g. CAHL became resident, new withholding exposure), so the abusive standard under Canada Trustco/Lipson was not met.
Source excerpt
Payments by SDM to reimburse Imasco for the Cash Surrender Chargeback and the Make-Up Chargeback were payments on revenue account and deductible because they were ordinary employee compensation expenses that did not confer an enduring capital benefit on SDM and the parent’s reorganization did not convert them into capital outlays.
Source excerpt
The court held that the professional fees incurred to redraft and rectify existing shareholder agreements were incurred for the purpose of gaining or producing income by facilitating effective management and preserving business operations; they did not constitute shareholder benefits to Mr. Grabowski under s.15(1) and were properly deductible as current business expenses under ss.9(1) and 18(1)(a); amounts capitalized as eligible capital expenditures and the claimed amortization under s.20(1)(b) were also allowed and the file was referred to the Minister for reassessment.
Source excerpt
Because counsel for the Respondent admitted the transferred term deposits and the preferred shares issued in exchange had equal values, s.74.5(1)(a) applied and precluded the operation of s.74.1(2); the Crown's alternative reliance on s.74.4(2) could not be entertained because it was not adequately pleaded and the Respondent sought to raise it too late in the trial; accordingly the reassessments cannot stand under s.74.1(2) though additions under paragraphs 6(1)(e) and 6(1)(k) remain.
Source excerpt
The court held that a portion of each accounts receivable equal to the unpaid price of the paper supplied by the appellant constituted proceeds of the appellant's PMSI and ranked first, but once those receivables were paid and the sums deposited into Johanns Graphics Inc.'s general bank account the proceeds could not be traced and the PMSI priority disappeared; except for the preserved PMSI portion, priority was Bank first, Owners Group second, appellant third, and the appellant was entitled to accrued interest on the approximately $66,000 recovered.
Source excerpt
Explore more
