Law Times - sample

Page 14 OctOber 22, 2018 • Law times www.lawtimesnews.com Supreme Court of Canada Conflict of Laws TORTS Choice of law Motions judge incorrect in applying forum non conveniens test as there was only limited relationship between alleged tort and Ontario Plaintiff was Canadian busi- nessman, who owned popular soccer team in Israel. Defendant was Israeli newspaper, who pub- lished article that was critical of owner's management of team. Article mentioned owner's Canadian business in article. Article was published in news- paper's online edition, where it came to attention of owner's Canadian employees. Owner claimed article was defama- tory, and brought action against newspaper in Ontario. News- paper claimed that proper ju- risdiction for action was Israel. Motions judge ruled in favour of owner, with provincial court of appeal upholding motions judgment. Newspaper appealed appeals court judgment to Su- preme Court of Canada. Appeal allowed; Ontario action stayed. Motions judge was incorrect in applying factors in forum non conveniens test. There was only limited relationship be- tween alleged tort and Ontario as forum. Article was published with Israeli audience in mind, and reached only limited audi- ence in Ontario through Inter- net. Majority of witnesses were located in Israel. Owner had significant business interest in Israel, and was well-known to public in that country. Haaretz.com v. Goldhar (2018), 2018 CarswellOnt 8883, 2018 CarswellOnt 8884, 2018 SCC 28, 2018 CSC 28, McLach- lin C.J.C., Abella J., Moldaver J., Karakatsanis J., Wagner J., Gascon J., Côté J., Brown J., and Rowe J. (S.C.C.); reversed (2016), 2016 CarswellOnt 10242, 2016 ONCA 515, Janet Simmons J.A., E.A. Cronk J.A., and S.E. Pepall J.A. (Ont. C.A.). Federal Court of Appeal Criminal Law DISCLOSURE Miscellaneous Withheld information was properly withheld in public interest of national security Accused was charged with hostage-taking, after incident which took place in Somalia involving Canadian journal- ist. Public prosecution service (PPSC) notified accused that there was sensitive information that could not be disclosed to accused. Accused sought dis- closure of material. Accused was only granted access to some material, in summary form. Ac- cused was tried and convicted, after unsuccessfully applying for adjournment of criminal trial. Accused's sentencing hearing took place. Accused ap- pealed from result of disclosure hearing. Appeal dismissed. Ac- cused was not forced to testify in his own defence. Information withheld was not significant to outcome of trial. Withheld in- formation was properly with- held in public interest of na- tional security. Amicus properly fulfilled role assisting court, not accused. There was no review- able error. Ader v. Canada (Attorney General) (2018), 2018 Carswell- Nat 2720, 2018 FCA 105, Da- vid Stratas J.A., Richard Boivin J.A., and Yves de Montigny J.A. (F.C.A.); affirmed (2017), 2017 CarswellNat 5902, 2017 Car- swellNat 8335, 2017 FC 838, 2017 CF 838, Patrick Gleeson J. (F.C.). Federal Court Administrative Law JUDICIAL REVIEW Nature of decision or decision maker under review No duty of procedural fairness was owed by Governor in Council in exercising its authority to promulgate regulations Challenged regulations estab- lished minimum number of f light attendants required on passenger airplanes in propor- tion to passenger seats. Union represented over 10,000 f light attendants. Union took position that challenged regulations were promulgated in breach of proce- dural fairness and in breach of union's legitimate expectations that it would be meaningfully consulted. Union brought ap- plication for judicial review. Ap- plication dismissed. There was no duty of procedural fairness owed by Governor in Council in exercising its authority to promulgate regulations. Even if there was such duty, it was not breached. Union could not establish that it had legitimate expectation of consultation, nor could it establish that it was de- nied procedural fairness. Union had opportunity to participate in focused consultations re- garding challenged regulations and its input was acknowledged. Canadian Union of Public Employees v. Canada (Attor- ney General) (2018), 2018 Car- swellNat 2252, 2018 Carswell- Nat 5123, 2018 FC 518, 2018 CF 518, Catherine Kane J. (F.C.). Tax INCOME TAX Administration and enforcement Time and cost involved in allowing Minister to interview over 25 personnel was not proportional to information being sought C Corp. had head office in Sas- katchewan and had several indi- rectly wholly-owned subsidiar- ies situated outside Canada. In May and July 2013 and in May 2014, as part of audit, Minister of National Revenue demanded in-person interviews with C Corp. personnel in relation to 2010, 2011 and 2012 taxation years and in replies C Corp. re- fused Minister's requests. One of stated purposes of audits was to verify whether C Corp. com- plied with its duties and obliga- tions under Income Tax Act. Minister's specific concern was that C Corp. may not have abid- ed by transfer pricing rules for non-arm's length organizations. Minister made summary ap- plication for compliance order under s. 231.7 of Income Tax Act and issue for determination was whether C Corp. should be com- pelled to produce approximately 25 personnel for interviews in relation to audit. Application dismissed. Order sought by Minister did not meet principle of proportionality. Related liti- gation before Tax Court of Can- ada would likely resolve most of issues that would form basis of requested interviews. Time and cost involved in allowing Minis- ter to interview over 25 person- nel scattered across world was not proportional to information being sought since Tax Court of Canada would determine issues that were focus of interviews. Cameco Corporation v. Canada (National Revenue) (2017), 2017 CarswellNat 3791, 2017 CarswellNat 6716, 2017 FC 763, 2017 CF 763, Glennys L. McVeigh J. (F.C.). Tax Court of Canada Tax INCOME TAX Employment income Claimed legal expenses not extending to corporate claims In 2004, father gifted his T Corp. shares to taxpayer M and by end of 2004 M owned 25,918.58 of common shares while her brothers N, B and P each owned 3,708.58 such shares. In Sep- tember 2011, B and P launched guardianship application in respect of father in Ontario Su- perior Court of Justice against inter alia M and N, alleging that 2004 transfer of shares was improper. In December 2011, B and P obtained interim in- junction restraining M from dealing with disputed shares and restricting N, M and M's husband R from disposing of T Corp. assets and having T Corp. pay them more than $10,000 per month compensation. In March 2012, Ontario Superior Court ordered trial of issue as to valid- ity of share transfer and that R be joined as defendant, and in Oc- tober 2012 N, M and R obtained order setting aside interim in- junction. Amended statement of claim was filed by B and P in April 2013, claiming against M, N and R for number of remedies. For their respective 2012 taxa- tion years, N, M and R success- fully claimed deduction under s. 8(1)(b) of Income Tax Act of their legal expenses in Ontario Superior Court proceeding. Le- gal fees incurred and claimed in respect of 2013 taxation year were disallowed. N, M and R ap- CASELAW 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. CASELAW 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

• Cover