Law Times - sample

Page 14 OctOber 29, 2018 • Law times www.lawtimesnews.com Supreme Court of Canada Torts CONSPIRACY Evidence Rioters did not have common intention for acts of vandalism they committed Following hockey game, fans' celebrations turned into riots. As result, 15 patrol cars belong- ing to police department of mu- nicipality were destroyed. Sev- eral rioters were identified and arrested. Municipality brought action against them for damage done to patrol cars. Trial judge held that no evidence showed that rioters had clear intention to engage in common venture. Trial judge determined fair compensation each rioter would have to pay and municipality appealed. Court of Appeal con- firmed trial judge's findings and municipality appealed to Su- preme Court of Canada. Appeal dismissed. In present case, it was possible to determine what spe- cific damage to victim's property was caused by each of identified rioters. Further, rioters did not have common intention for acts of vandalism they commit- ted. Furthermore, there was no causal connection between each person's participation in riot and total destruction of patrol cars. Rather, there were many distinct and identifiable injuries that could be linked to particular ri- oter. Therefore, rioters cannot be found solidarily liable. Montréal (Ville) c. Lonardi (2018), 2018 CarswellQue 4410, 2018 CarswellQue 4411, 2018 SCC 29, 2018 CSC 29, McLach- lin C.J.C., Karakatsanis J., Wag- ner J., Gascon J., Côté J., Brown J., and Rowe J. (S.C.C.); affirmed (2016), 2016 CarswellQue 5327, 2016 QCCA 1022, Duval Hes- ler J.C.Q., Émond J.C.A., and Hogue J.C.A. (C.A. Que.). Federal Court of Appeal International Trade and Customs IMPORT AND EXPORT REGULATION Permits Minister could decide to grant licenses because, in his opinion, export was in Canada's interest GDLSC Inc. was division of American company and spe- cialized in production of mili- tary vehicles used by Canadian Armed Forces. Contracts of sale were negotiated between Saudi Arabia and United States and granted to GDLSC Inc. by CCC, which was corporation responsi- ble for managing American mili- tary contract in Canada. In 2014, Saudi Arabia decided to negoti- ate directly with CCC to procure vehicles and it signed contract that led to export permits. Min- ister of Foreign Affairs approved issuance of permits for export of light armoured vehicles to Saudi Arabia. Applicant unsuccessful- ly brought application for judi- cial review. Applicant appealed. Appeal dismissed. Not only did minister consider economic and trade factors, but he also consid- ered issues of humanitarian law and human rights. Factors set out in manual and guidelines were only subjects to be considered by minister in deciding whether or not to grant licence, they were not binding and could not be considered legal requirements. Responsibility of minister under statutory scheme was to consider all the factors relevant to licens- ing and minister considered all of these factors. Minister could, notwithstanding reasonable risk that exported material would be used against civilian population, decide to grant licenses because, in his opinion, export was in Canada's interest. Court need not ask, since its not its role, if decision of minister was correct but rather only if it considered all relevant factors. Turp c. Canada (Affaires étrangères) (2018), 2018 Car- swellNat 3558, 2018 CAF 133, M. Nandon J.A., Richard Boivin J.A., and Mary J.L. Gleason J.A. (F.C.A.); affirmed (2017), 2017 CarswellNat 161, 2017 Carswell- Nat 162, 2017 FC 84, 2017 CF 84, Danièle Tremblay-Lamer J. (F.C.). Federal Court Tax INCOME TAX Administration and enforcement Efforts made prior to issuance of compliance order could not be considered efforts made to comply Compliance audit was conduct- ed by Canada Revenue Agency of taxpayer's 2009, 2010 and 2011 taxation years. Compliance order was issued ordering taxpayer to provide information and docu- ments sought by Minister of Na- tional Revenue under s. 231.2(1) of Income Tax Act. Taxpayer was present at hearing of compliance order application and agreed to terms of order sought by Minis- ter. Minister brought motion for order finding taxpayer in con- tempt of court for failing to com- ply with compliance order. Mo- tion granted and taxpayer was to comply with compliance order within 30 days. Compliance or- der stated clearly and unequivo- cally what taxpayer need to do and it was clear that taxpayer had actual knowledge of compliance order at all relevant times. It was fact that taxpayer had not pro- vided information and records specifically ordered by compli- ance order, except with respect to one bank account which were provided just before show-cause hearing, which was more than 6 months after expiry of com- pliance order's 45-day compli- ance period. Two short emails to Minister's counsel in intervening 9 months between issuance of compliance order and original show-cause hearing date fell well short of clear and unequivocal effort to comply with compli- ance order. Efforts made prior to issuance to compliance order could not be considered efforts made to comply as compliance order did not exist. Contempt was serious and taxpayer had failed to provide "reasonable ex- cuse" for non-compliance. There were some mitigating factors as taxpayer did apologize, par- ticipate in contempt proceedings and provide some of information and documents sought under re- quest for information. Circum- stances of case required taxpayer to pay fine of $2,000 and to pay Minister's costs in amount fixed at $3,500 within 30 days. Canada (National Rev- enue) v. Chi (2018), 2018 Car- swellNat 5323, 2018 CarswellNat 5324, 2018 FC 897, 2018 CF 897, René LeBlanc J. (F.C.). Tax Court of Canada Tax INCOME TAX Administration and enforcement Reliability of document was questionable as it was prepared five years after last alleged repayment In audit of taxpayer, CRA identi- fied bank deposits that it believed were unreported income. Tax- payer's documents and submis- sions, including that amounts were repayments of loans to as- sociates including K, led to re- ductions in amounts viewed as unreported income. Minister reassessed taxpayer under In- come Tax Act, increasing tax- payer's income by total amount of $63,203.80 over three taxa- tion years and imposing gross negligence penalties. Minister assessed taxpayer under s. 215(6) of Act for two taxation years, for failure to withhold and remit tax on amount paid or payable to non-resident company. Tax- payer appealed. Appeals allowed in part, with respect to Minister's abandonment of position with respect to assessments on with- holding tax and with respect to gross negligence penalties. Dra- matic reduction in CRA's aggre- gate amount of unreported in- come, from over $1.3 million to only $63,203.80, prompted con- jecture that initially identified de- posits all came from non-taxable sources but that taxpayer had lost documents showing non-taxable character of deposits still in issue. Such conjecture could not satisfy taxpayer's evidentiary obligation. Taxpayer and K testified that taxpayer made cash loans to K, supported by K's document list- ing dates and amounts of alleged cash repayments. Reliability of document was questionable as it was prepared, with taxpayer's assistance, five years after last al- leged repayment. Mere fact that dates and amounts of K's alleged repayments were consistent with taxpayer's explanation was not sufficient to prove that subject deposits were not derived from taxable sources. Questionable reliability of K's document as well as inconsistencies and con- fusion in evidence pertaining to some of deposits at issue meant that evidence from taxpayer and K were not adequately corrobo- rated. Some or all of subject de- posits might have been derived from non-taxable sources de- 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