Law Times

PAGE 14 CaseLawLaw Intellectual Property FEDERAL COURT Industrial And COPYRIGHT Copyright Act (Can.) did not require author to identify where he or she lives Application for order to amend register. Applicant and her son wrote book. Applicant registered book with Canadian Intellectual Property Offi ce and was issued copyright. Applicant sought or- der to amend register to add her son's name and to replace her home address with address of her solicitors. Application granted. Th ere was no reason not to grant applicant's request to add her son's name to register. Requirement in Copyright Act (Can.), did not re- quire author to identify where he or she lives. Suttie v. Canada (Attorney Gen- eral) (Feb. 2, 2011, F.C., O'Reilly J., File No. T-1089-10) 197 A.C.W.S. (3d) 487 (7 pp.). TAX COURT OF CANADA Taxation INCOME TAX Canada Revenue Agency officials failed to take into consideration huge losses experienced by taxpayer Appeal by taxpayer from assess- ment by Minister under Income Tax Act (Can.), for 2003 taxation year. Taxpayer was president, chief executive offi cer, and director and shareholder of corporation. Minister submitted that during corporation's 1999 fi scal year, tax- payer borrowed US$97,000 from corporation to fi nance taxpayer's exercise of option to purchase shares of corporation. In 2003, taxpayer transferred shares back to corporation. Appeal allowed. Assessment was referred back to Minister for reconsideration and reassessment. Taxpayer was not required to include amount of US$97,500 in his income for 2003 taxation year. Offi cials of Canada Revenue Agency failed to take into consideration huge losses experienced by taxpayer when he transferred shares back to corporation and received noth- ing for those shares. Ackles v. Canada (Jan. 28, 2011, T.C.C., Little J., File No. 2007- 4009(IT)G) 197 A.C.W.S. (3d) 540 (19 pp.). Taxpayer involved with women carrying on scam or modified Ponzi scheme Appeals by taxpayer from reas- sessments by Minister addition amounts to taxpayer's income for 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003 tax- ation years. Taxpayer became in- volved with woman who was car- rying on scam or modifi ed Ponzi scheme, in which investors were tricked into investing money for no returns. Taxpayer's bank ac- count was used for transactions. Taxpayer claimed that she was informed business was legitimate, and that all moneys deposited in account were paid immediately to woman. Taxpayer fi led income tax returns. Minister reassessed taxpayer under Income Tax Act (Can.), and added to taxpayer's income amounts of $11,663.50, $10,969.19. $190,997.63 and $70,211.04 for 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003 taxation years, respectively. Appeal dismissed. Minister was justifi ed in assess- ing using net worth method given taxpayer's lack of records and documentation explaining more than $300,000 that passed April 4, 2011 • lAw Times Follow on www.twitter.com/lawtimes COURT DECISIONS Untitled-3 1 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. CaseLaw is a weekly summary of notable unreported civil and criminal court decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada, the Federal Court of Canada and all Ontario courts. Single or multiple copies of the full text of any case digested in this issue can be obtained by: 5/5/10 3:55:30 PM These cases may be found online in BestCase and other electronic resources from Canada Law Book. To subscribe, please call 1-800-565-6967. i) completing and mailing in the order form in this issue; or ii) calling CaseLaw's photocopy department at (905) 841-6472 in Toronto, (800) 263-3269 in Ontario and Quebec, or (800) 263-2037 in other provinces; or iii) faxing a copy of the completed order form to (905) 841-5085. through her account over relevant years. Th ere was very little sub- stantial evidence corroborating taxpayer's testimony. Money was deposited in taxpayer's personal bank account and commingled with her own funds with no ap- parent attempt to keep them sep- arate and identifi able. Taxpayer was bookkeeper by day and kept no records of transactions. Lawrence v. Canada (Sep. 23, 2010, T.C.C., McArthur J., File No. 2007-3710(IT)G) 197 A.C.W.S. (3d) 550 (16 pp.). ONTARIO CIVIL CASES Civil Procedure COSTS Lost time and wasted costs adversely impacts on public interest Application by moving party to be relieved from costs order fol- lowing their abandonment of motion for leave to appeal from decision of Ontario Municipal Board. Certain respondents brought motion to dismiss appeal because it did not relate to Jock River watershed. Ontario Mu- nicipal Board found that lands in Jock River watershed were never subject of appeal and determined that any issues concerning Jock River watershed were being ad- dressed by two environmental assessments being conducted by Ministry of Environment and that City of Ottawa Council's of- fi cial plan in relation to Jock River watershed was operational. Jock River respondents commenced preparing for appeal. Motion dismissed. Moving party as- sumed for purposes of costs mo- tion to be public interest litigant. Respondents were private actors who had done nothing illegal and were forced to participate in ill- advised litigation. Litigation was not in public interest. No benefi t to public by issues raised because they were outside of jurisdiction of Ontario Municipal Board. Litigation could have no practical importance because offi cial plan had already been passed in respect of Jock River waterlands. Lost time and wasted costs adversely impacts on public interest. Friends of the Greenspace Alliance v. Ottawa (City) (Jan. 24, 2011, Ont. S.C.J. (Div. Ct.), McKin- non J., File No. 10-DV-1612) 197 A.C.W.S. (3d) 356 (9 pp.). TRIAL Motion judge's reasons for refusing adjournment could not stand in light of case law Motion by plaintiff for leave to appeal refusal of adjournment of trial. Plaintiff commenced action for damages for personal injuries sustained in motor vehicle acci- dent. Motions judge refused to grant plaintiff adjournment be- cause plaintiff had opportunity to obtain reports she stated she need- ed, plaintiff had failed to comply with her obligation to move her case along, and to adjourn matter again would bring administration of justice into disrepute. Motion granted. Reasons could not stand in light of case law. Plaintiff was granted indulgence on legal point upon which there was much au- thority on either side. Graham v. Vandersoot (Jan. 18, 2011, Ont. S.C.J., Hambly J., File No. 05-21581) 197 A.C.W.S. (3d) 392 (13 pp.). Contracts PERFORMANCE AND BREACH Trial judge correct in finding defendant fundamentally breached contract Appeal by defendant from trial THE ONTARIO MUNICIPAL SERVICE DIRECTORY 2011 A Comprehensive Guide for reAl estAte professionAls, 2011 All the municipal services information you need for real estate searches under one cover. With introduction and historical linkages by michael l. Young, ll.B. this handy resource helps you process your real estate transactions more efficiently, saving you time and energy. published annually, the ontario municipal service directory: A Comprehensive Guide for real estate professionals, 2011 gives you up-to-date and easily accessible municipal contact information. more thAn A direCtorY Perfectbound • March 2011 • One time purchase $89 • P/C 0517010999 • On subscription $84 • P/C 0517140999 • ISSN 1206-694X • Multiple copy discounts available Visit canadalawbook.ca or call 1.800.565.6967 for a 30-day no-risk evaluation prices subject to change without notice, to applicable taxes and shipping & handling. CANADA LAW BOOK® www.lawtimesnews.com OMSD 1-4 pg 5X.indd 1 3/7/11 4:16:59 PM decision fi nding that defendant committed numerous breached of agreement made between par- ties. Defendant owned and oper- ated stud farm. Plaintiff owned horse. Parties entered into breed- ing agreement. Trial judge found that plaintiff exchanged 30% ownership interest in horse for right to hear 45% of stud fees for life of horse. Trial judge found that defendant fundamentally breached contract by failing to report as required and by failing to pay stud fees for 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 breeding seasons. Appeal dismissed with respect to defendant. Trial judge was cor- rect in fi ndings he made. Terra Farm Ltd. v. Park Studd Inc. (June 9, 2010, Ont. C.A., Laskin, Feldman and Armstrong JJ.A., File No. C49151) 197 A.C.W.S. (3d) 404 (16 pp.). Corporations OPPRESSION Respondent's failure to co-operate in completion of financial year-end results opening corporation to civil and criminal sanctions Motion by applicant for oppres- sion remedy preventing respon- dent from attending at premises of A Inc. or interfering in opera- tions of A Inc., pursuant to s. 241 of Canada Business Corporations Act. Applicant was minority shareholder of A Ltd.. Parties were married and separated. Par- ties founded A Inc. during mar- riage. Respondent owned 70% of shares and applicant 20%. Motion granted. Evidence clear- ly indicated that respondent's ac- tions had prejudiced applicant. Respondent had failed to co-op- erate in completion of fi nancial year end results so that corpora- tion's taxes could be completed, opening corporation to civil and criminal sanctions. Th ere was

• Cover
• Helping Hands
• Handcuffed Courts
• Focus On ADR/Mediation