Federal Court

Civil Practice and Procedure

Judgments and orders

Setting aside

Regardless of who shareholders or directors of company were, evidence showed that taxpayer was directing mind

Setting aside orders. Judge M dismissed motions to set aside jeopardy collection orders against taxpayer, confirmed lifting of corporate veil and issued charging order against immovables, including C building belonging to company. Judge B granted Crown’s motion for forced surrender and judicial sale of C building and dismissed taxpayer’s motion to set aside judge M’s order. Judge R dismissed taxpayer and company’s motion to set aside judge B’s order for forced surrender and sale and to set aside judge M’s order lifting corporate veil and issuing charging order. Taxpayer brought motion to set aside these three orders on basis that he had found “transaction confirmation” document that confirmed sale of shares and revoked counter letter. Motion dismissed. Taxpayer did not meet conditions to set aside orders. Matter alleged by taxpayer was not “matter” within meaning of s. 399(2)(a) of Federal Courts Rules. Even if document could not be found until after last order, taxpayer knew or should have known that counter letter had been revoked. Taxpayer could have found document sooner if he had exercised due diligence. Taxpayer did not show that document would have had determining effect on orders. Since matters had no effect on order made by judge M, they had had no effect on orders by judges B and R. Regardless of who shareholders or directors of company were, evidence showed that taxpayer was directing mind. Crown was awarded costs of $5,000 because motion was dilatory proceeding and taxpayer was trying to unduly delay sale of building.

Loi de l’impôt sur le revenu (Re) (2018), 2018 CarswellNat 6206, 2018 CarswellNat 6207, 2018 FC 1012, 2018 CF 1012, Sylvie E. Roussel J. (F.C.).

cover image


Subscribers get early and easy access to Law Times.

Law Times Poll

The Law Society of Ontario is in the midst of a major overhaul of the role of paralegals in family law — and a proposal on the issue could become an imminent issue for the regulator’s newly elected benchers. Do you agree with widening the scope of family law matters that paralegals can address?