Articles 2024

On December 4, 2019, Ontario’s Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (“MECP”) filed the long-awaited On-Site and Excess Soil Management Regulation (“Excess Soil Regulation”) and complementary amendments to Ontario’s Records of Site Condition (O Reg 153/04) and Waste Management (Reg 347 and O Reg 351/12) regulations. The Excess Soil Regulation and complementary regulatory amendments will come into legal force in phases.

The FCA clarifies that section 16.2 of the Tax Court of Canada Act does not prohibit partners from continuing appeals on issues that were raised but discontinued by the partnership.

This is the first installment of the OBA Tax Section's Q&A series with women lawyers in tax. The objective of this series is to give insight into the tax law career possibilities and practice areas that women can have, to give advice to junior tax lawyers or students who may be considering tax, and to shine the spotlight on women leaders in the tax profession. In this quarter we feature a Q&A with Kathleen Penny, a well-regarded and brilliant partner at Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP.

A brief update and review of the potential impact of Bill C-21, An Act to Amend the Customs Act.

Top tips on filing and arguing emergency stay motions from Rafeena Rashid, former DOJ Counsel and co-founder of the boutique immigration law firm of Rashid Urosevic LLP.

In this article, Rachel Weiner summarizes the revised framework in Vavilov, identifies changes and uncertainties regarding the standard of review, and argues that the reasonableness standard is not significantly altered.

Read a brief profile of Melissa Babel, Vice-Chair of the OBA Citizenship and Immigration Section Executive.

In Kufsky v. The Queen, the Tax Court of Canada upheld a section 160 tax assessment of a shareholder who received a dividend from a non-arm’s length corporation. This article provides an overview of the case’s key facts and the Court’s decision.

In a recent decision, the SCC in R v Resolute Forest Products Canada Inc found that an indemnity against pollution claims granted by Ontario did not cover a regulatory order to remediate contamination. The SCC found that the indemnity did not cover first-party regulatory claims such as an order to prevent discharges. The decision highlights the importance of delineating the sources of contamination and conditions of a business’ property before drafting an indemnity for environmental claims.