Articles 2021

Mental health lawyers Anita Szigeti and Maya Kotob offer an overview of what occurs after a finding of not criminally responsible, and what lawyers need to explain to their clients when this disposition is a likelihood.

The recent decision of Justice Morgan in Levac v. James, 2021 ONSC 5971 confirms that common elements of causation can be resolved in a class proceeding, even while the ultimate proof of causation remains an individual issue. The decision is also noteworthy for the proposition that causal inferences can be established on the basis of circumstantial evidence supported by statistical and epidemiologic inference alone.

This article reviews evidence that police presence in schools can have a harmful impact on marginalized students, including the recent Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision in JKB v Peel (Police Services Board).

Please find below our summaries of the civil decisions of the Ontario Court of Appeal for the week of November 1, 2021. There were four substantive civil decisions this week, one of which was 300 pages long.

Can a non-profit organization add a secondary business and use the net income to fund its non-profit objectives? Can it fund the business from a reserve accumulated from excess member contributions held for future capital expenditures? Can it provide services to non-members outside its geographical area? This article will explain CRA’s view on these questions, with reference to the Income Tax Act and Interpretation Bulletin IT-496R.

The Tax Court of Canada decision in Odette (Estate) v the Queen serves as a warning that private foundations and their donors need to be sensitive to the complex rules that apply to them, and in particular to proceed very cautiously when considering making gifts of non-qualifying securities. In this case, the court dismissed an appeal from an assessment denying the taxpayer a charitable donation tax credit. Read the full article for the court’s analysis of s.118.1(13)(c) of the Income Tax Act.

The Federal Court case of Canada (National Revenue) v Miller examines the CRA’s extensive audit powers. It affirms that the CRA can compel the production of any information that should be documented in books and records, even if a transaction was originally an oral agreement. In an audit, charities and NFPs should be prepared to make reasonable efforts to accurately respond to requests for documents and information.

Who should be responsible for paying for productions prior to examinations for discovery in personal injury matters? It is my position that the onus of proof remains with the Plaintiff and that, therefore, they should be producing documentation to substantiate the claims advanced in the Statement of Claim. Why should the Defendant pay for productions to assist the Plaintiff’s claim? In the decision of Rheaume v. Foster, we received some more clarity on this issue.