Law Times

LAW TIMES 14 COVERING ONTARIO'S LEGAL SCENE | MARCH 18, 2019 www.lawtimesnews.com CASE LAW Supreme Court of Canada Conflict of Laws ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS Prerequisites for enforcement By presenting substantive arguments in motion to dismiss, resident submitted to court's jurisdiction Quebec resident into contract with corporation operating in Utah. Dispute arose as to amount owed to corporation according to contract. Corpora- tion brought application before Utah court against resident. Resident brought motion to dis- miss before Utah court. Default judgment was rendered by Utah court against resident. Corpo- ration sought to have that deci- sion recognized in Quebec and declared enforceable against resident. Superior Court held that, since resident had made submissions before Utah court by raising substantive argu- ments in his motion to dismiss, judgment could be enforceable against him. Resident's appeal was dismissed and resident ap- pealed before Supreme Court of Canada. Appeal dismissed. By presenting substantive argu- ments in his motion to dismiss, resident submitted to Utah Court's jurisdiction. In doing so, resident attempted to take advantage of proceedings initi- ated in Utah to resolve part, if not all, of dispute. This was suf- ficient to justify recognizing and enforcing Utah decision against him in Quebec. Therefore, no intervention was justified. Barer v. Knight Brothers LLC (2019), 2019 CarswellQue 420, 2019 CarswellQue 421, 2019 SCC 13, 2019 CSC 13, Wagner C.J.C., Abella J., Moldaver J., Karakatsanis J., Gascon J., Côté J., Brown J., Rowe J., and Martin J. (S.C.C.); affirmed (2017), 2017 CarswellQue 2806, 2017 QCCA 597, Jacques J.C.A. (ad hoc), Vé- zina J.C.A., and Mainville J.C.A. (C.A. Que.). Federal Court of Appeal Tax INCOME TAX AdministrAtion And enforcement Not apparent from transcript or recording that judge demonstrated bias or hostility towards taxpayers Bias. Taxpayers unsuccessfully appealed against reassessments made under Income Tax Act for 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013 taxation years to add business income and automobile ben- efits. Judge maintained penal- ties imposed on taxpayers un- der s. 163(2) of Act. Taxpayers appealed. Appeal dismissed. Reasonable and well-informed person could not conclude that judge failed to act impartially and fairly. It was not apparent from transcript or recording that judge demonstrated bias or hostility towards taxpay- ers. Judge explained court rules and evidence rules to taxpayers' representative and ensured that taxpayers could present their evidence by extending hearing to next day. It was open to judge to assess evidence as he did. Cyr c. Canada (2019), 2019 CarswellNat 166, 2019 CAF 14, Gauthier J.A., Richard Boivin J.A., and Gleason J.A. (F.C.A.); affirmed (2018), 2018 Carswell- Nat 3, 2018 CarswellNat 381, 2018 TCC 4, 2018 CCI 4, Alain Tardif J. (T.C.C. [Informal Pro- cedure]). Federal Court Pensions FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL PENSION PLANS federAl Pension PlAns General Division was entitled to make determinations about how it held its hearings General Division of Social Secu- rity Tribunal held that applicant was not eligible for Canada Pen- sion Plan (CPP) disability pen- sion. Appeal Division denied leave to appeal General Divi- sion's decision on basis appeal had no reasonable chance of suc- cess that it was procedurally un- fair for General Division hearing to be heard by teleconference. Appeal Division rejected ap- plicant's argument that hearing should have been done in person, found that person's demeanour was only one factor of many in credibility assessment, and held that format of hearing was dis- cretionary decision. Appeal Di- vision found that applicant had not objected to forum of hearing before General Division and did not allege technical issues. Ap- plicant brought application for judicial review. Application dis- missed. Appeal Division did not err in denying leave to appeal. Applicant's broad comments about demeanour evidence were not accepted. General Division was entitled to make determina- tions about how it held its hear- ings. There was no evidence that applicant would have presented anything differently had hearing been in person or by videocon- ference. Hearing lasted longer than time it was set for so appli- cant was allowed to fully present his case. Appeal Division looked at issue as alleged breach of pro- cedural fairness and treated it as such, concluding that ground did not have reasonable chance of success. Brochu v. Canada (Attor- ney General) (2019), 2019 Car- swellNat 177, 2019 CarswellNat 507, 2019 FC 113, 2019 CF 113, Glennys L. McVeigh J. (F.C.). Tax Court of Canada Tax INCOME TAX AdministrAtion And enforcement Taxpayers' actions in coming to hearing without expert evidence caused undue delay Taxpayers were ordained rab- bis who taught Judaic studies to children at Orthodox Jewish el- ementary day school. Taxpayers claimed clergy residence deduc- tion in their income tax returns for 2011, 2012 and 2013 years. Minister of National Revenue denied deductions on basis that taxpayers were not minister- ing to congregation. Taxpay- ers' appeals were dismissed. Parties made submissions on costs. Minister awarded costs of $22,214. Minister was awarded party and party costs in amount of $5,745 for services of counsel. Taxpayers' actions in coming to hearing without expert evidence caused undue delay as pro- ceedings had to be adjourned. Although taxpayers were pro- ceeding under informal proce- dure, their case dealt with area in which expert evidence was required. Minister was awarded disbursements since they were essential for appeal and were actually incurred. Minister was awarded disbursements of $13,195 for expert witness, based on daily maximum of $300 per day for services of expert and full amount of expert's travel costs. Minister was awarded dis- bursements of $3,274 for tran- scripts and printing. Lichtman v. The Queen (2018), 2018 CarswellNat 2085, 2018 CarswellNat 2341, 2018 TCC 82, 2018 CCI 82, Diane Campbell J. (T.C.C. [Informal Procedure]); additional reasons (2017), 2017 CarswellNat 7304, 2017 Car- swellNat 8488, 2017 TCC 252, 2017 CCI 252, Diane Campbell J. (T.C.C. [Informal Procedure]). Tax Court of Canada does not have jurisdiction to set aside assessment on basis of abuse of process Taxpayer appealed in respect of 1997, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2004, 2008 and 2010 taxation years pur- suant to R. 53(3)(b) of Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Proce- dure). Minister of National Rev- enue brought motion to quash appeals and to strike portions of fresh notice of appeal. Motion granted. Pursuant to s. 169(1) of Income Tax Act , taxpayer must first file notice of objection to as- sessment or reassessment under s. 165 of Act before he could file appeal to Tax Court of Canada. Taxpayer was out of time to file notices of objection in respect of contested years and was further barred from requesting extension of time to serve notices of objec- tion pursuant to s. 166.1(7) of Act. Purported appeals were quashed on grounds that taxpayer had failed to fulfil necessary preced- ing condition. As Tax Court of Canada has no jurisdiction on issues raised by taxpayer and as he failed to challenge validity or correctness of any of assessments or reassessments issued in respect of 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011 and 2012 taxation years, these taxation years must be struck out from phrase "1995 to 1012 inclusive" on first page of fresh notice of appeal and para- graphs 33 and 34 of fresh notice of appeal must also be struck out. These issues had no reasonable Caselaw is a weekly summary of notable civil and criminal court decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada, the Federal Court of Canada and all Ontario courts. These cases may be found online in WestlawNext Canada. To subscribe, please access carswell.com or call 1-800-387-5164. Case Law Containing contact information for more than 66,000 judges and legal professionals, more than 27,500 law offices, government departments, and law related offices, canadianlawlist.com attracts more than 325,000 page views a month and 110,000 unique visitors! Book your enhanced listing today! Contact Colleen Austin at 416.649.9327 or colleen.austin@tr.com www.canadianlawlist.com Enhance your presence on Canada's largest legal directory AVAILABLE ONLINE AND IN PRINT Untitled-2 1 2018-09-05 10:17 AM Legal News at Your Fingertips Sign up for Canadian Legal Newswire today for free and enjoy great content. Visit canadianlawyermag.com/ newswire-subscribe ntitled-1 1 2019-01-24 9:56 AM

• Cover