Law Times

PAGE 14 CaseLawLaw FEDERAL COURT Crown ARMED FORCES Unreasonable to find letter filed in support of reconsideration did not meet due diligence test Applicant served in Regular Force of Canadian Forces. Ap- plicant's lumbar disc lesion was recognized as being result of ser- vice. Applicant underwent sur- gery. Applicant aggravated con- dition while trying to change po- sition in bed. Applicant fi led for disability benefi ts. Board found doctor's medical opinion did not constitute credible evidence for purpose of granting disability award because of lack of reason- ing and analysis on issue of cau- sation. Appeal panel sitting in reconsideration did not admit doctor's letter into evidence. Let- ter was fi led as additional infor- mation in reply to appeal panel's fi ndings on insuffi ciency of rea- sons and vagueness of report. Application for judicial review was allowed. It was unreasonable to fi nd letter fi led in support of reconsideration did not meet due diligence test. Additional in- formation could not have been fi led before applicant learned of appeal panel's criticism of expert. Letter provided precision sought that was essential to determina- tive issue. Cossette v. Canada (Procureur General) (Apr. 14, 2011, F.C., Scott J., File No. T-1147-10) 203 A.C.W.S. (3d) 531 (16 pp.). Immigration GENERAL Accused not a danger to public and therefore detention unnecessary Petitioner sought revision of de- cision that granted release from custody of accused. Accused was permanent resident in Can- ada and was facing proceed- ings on inadmissibility follow- ing condemnation on several counts of sexual assault, assault with weapon, causing bodily harm and threatening to cause death. Victim was ex-wife of ac- cused. Petitioner claimed that decision failed to assess danger to public of accused and risk of evasion, accentuated by im- minent decision on inadmissi- bility. Application not allowed. Court affi rmed that accused was co-operative with authori- ties and underwent several ses- sions on anger management. Court affi rmed that decision was supported by facts and took into account all aspects of fi le of accused concluding that he was not a danger to public and therefore his detention was un- necessary. Canada (Ministre de la Secu- rite Publique et de la Protection Civile) v. Sall (June 13, 2011, F.C., de Montigny J., File No. IMM-3081-11) Reasons in French. 95 W.C.B. (2d) 400 (26 pp.). INADMISSIBLE AND REMOVABLE CLASSES Nothing material to decision was left out of account Applicant was identifi ed as permanent resident who was inadmissible for serious crimi- nality because of convictions for robbery, uttering threats and failing to attend court. Minis- ter's delegate referred applicant to admissibility hearing. Ap- plicant had extensive prior re- cord. Most of crimes occurred while applicant was on judicial interim release with respect to other charges. Application for judicial review was dismissed. September 26, 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. Minister's delegate reasonably concluded that country condi- tions need not be considered at this stage of process because risk assessment would have to be done before applicant could be removed. Minister's delegate considered applicant's rehabili- tation in considerable detail. Nothing material to decision was left out of account and no breach of procedural fairness oc- curred through failure of Minis- ter's delegate to consider doc- tor's update. Th ere was nothing inadequate about reasons. Faci v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) (June 14, 2011, F.C., Russell J., File No. IMM- 4722-10) 203 A.C.W.S. (3d) 615 (29 pp.). TAX COURT OF CANADA Employment Insurance CONTRIBUTIONS Underlying entrepreneurial independence in way intervener conducted himself Appeals from decision of Min- ister of National Revenue that employment of intervener was insurable under Employment Insurance Act (Can.), and pen- sionable under Canada Pen- sion Plan. Appellant operated three enclosed trucks in which carpet cleaning units had been installed. Truck mounts pro- vided power supply to cleaning equipment mounted in truck itself. Appellant paid for all cleaning supplies and paid for maintenance of truck mounts. Intervener would prepare in- voice to calculate percentage af- ter job complete and appellant would pay him as independent contractor. Remuneration paid to subcontractors including in- tervener determined by appel- lant. Appeal allowed and deci- sion of Minister varied to fi nd that intervener was not engaged in insurable and pensionable employment with appellant. Intervener worked when he wanted to work. Intervener free to turn down work. Th ere was a business being engaged in by intervener. Underlying entre- preneurial independence in way intervener conducted himself. Mutual intention of parties not to engage in contract of service. Intervener intended to take full advantage of independent con- tractor status. Alert Carpet Cleaning (Niagara) Inc. v. M.N.R. (June 24, 2011, T.C.C., Hershfi eld J., File No. 2010-1506(EI); 2010- 1505(CPP)) 203 A.C.W.S. (3d) 549 (25 pp.). Taxation GOODS AND SERVICES TAX Work to building not sufficient enough for building to be considered as having been renovated Appeal from denial by Minis- ter of Revenue for Quebec of application for GST rebate for new residential complex or one that had undergone substantial renovation. Cost of renovation work totalled $45,910. Appli- cation denied because interior of existing part of residence be- fore work not renovated. Ap- peal dismissed. Basement could not be taken into account in determining whether mini- mum requirement in defi ni- tion of major renovations had been met because it was only partially completed. Addition of basement even if considered habitable area and entrance hall did not double surface area CANADIAN LAW LIST 2011 YOUR INSTANT CONNECTION TO CANADA'S LEGAL NETWORK Inside you will find: an up-to-date alphabetical listing • • • and judges in Canada; contact information boards, commissions and Crown corporations; legal and government contact information of more than 58,000 barristers, solicitors and Quebec notaries, corporate counsel, law firms for the Supreme Court of Canada, the Federal Court of Canada, Federal Cabinet Ministers, departments, related to each province for the Courts of Appeal, Supreme Courts, County and District Courts, Provincial Courts, law societies, law schools, Legal Aid, and other law-related offices of importance. MORE THAN A PHONE BOOK Hardbound • Published February each year • On subscription $146 • L0084-8573-26084 • One-time purchase $162 • L0084-8573 • ISSN 0084-8573 Visit canadalawbook.ca or call 1.800.387.5164 for a 30-day no-risk evaluation Prices subject to change without notice,to applicable taxes and shipping & handling. CANADIAN LAW LIST www.lawtimesnews.com CLL - 1-4 page - 5X.indd 1 8/23/11 2:40:32 PM of habitable areas of residence and more importantly did not create new residential complex because residence remained mostly intact. Work carried out by appellant constituted major renovations within or- dinary meaning of expression and for purposes of ecoENER- GY program. However, defi ni- tion of expression substantial renovations in s. 256(2) of Excise Tax Act (Can.), very re- strictive since it excludes work that theoretically should be considered major such as work to foundation, exterior walls, interior support walls, fl oors, roof and stairs. Work to build- ing not suffi cient enough for building to be considered as having been renovated or al- tered to such an extent that all or substantially all of building removed or renovated. Nadeau v. Canada (May 6, 2011, T.C.C., Favreau J., File No. 2010-523(GST)I) 203 A.C.W.S. (3d) 666 (7 pp.). INCOME TAX Appellants unable to discharge presumption that they were associated Appeal by two companies of reassessments made under In- come Tax Act (Can.). Reas- sessments were issued after tax department deemed that appel- lants were associated with each other pursuant to s. 256(2.1) of Act and were distinct only to pay less taxes and to both benefi t from deduction for small businesses. Couple was directing mind of both appel- lants. Appellants shared simi- lar corporate information and exchanged employees between them depending on each com- pany's staffi ng needs. Th ey of- fered same services on same territory. Couple argued that separate entities were created to

• Cover
• International Alliance
• Tough Times
• Focus On IP/Trademark Law