Docket: 2009-999(IT)G
BETWEEN:
GREAT LANDS CORPORATION,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
____________________________________________________________________
Motion heard on October 11, 2011 at Toronto, Ontario
By: The Honourable Justice
Judith Woods
Appearances:
|
Counsel for the Appellant:
|
Leigh
Somerville Taylor
Morgan Wiles (student at law)
|
|
Counsel for the Respondent:
|
Bobby J.
Sood
|
____________________________________________________________________
ORDER
UPON motion by the respondent for an order to compel answers to questions and
undertakings from the examination for discovery, to compel reattendance for a
continuation of the examination, and for costs;
THE MOTION is granted, and it is ordered that:
1.
the appellant is directed to
satisfy the undertakings set out in Schedule A to the Notice of Motion,
2.
the appellant is directed to
answer the questions set out in Schedule B to the Notice of Motion,
3.
the appellant is directed to
reattend a continuation of the examination to answer the questions set out in
Schedule B, any proper questions arising from those answers, and further
questions relating to matters in issue in this appeal, and
4.
the respondent is entitled to its
costs in respect of this motion.
Signed at Toronto, Ontario this 8th
day of November 2011.
“J. M. Woods”
Citation: 2011 TCC 517
Date: 20111108
Docket: 2009-999(IT)G
BETWEEN:
GREAT LANDS CORPORATION,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR ORDER
Woods J.
[1]
The Crown seeks an order directing
the appellant, Great Lands Corporation (“Great Lands”), to answer questions and
undertakings from the examination for discovery, and to reattend for a
continuation of the examination. It also seeks costs in respect of the motion and
the further discoveries.
[2]
By way of background, the issue in
the appeal is whether Great Lands is entitled to a deduction in respect of
loans that it made to related corporations which were engaged in real estate
development. Great Lands submits that the deduction may be taken under any one
of three provisions in the Income Tax Act, namely, s. 20(1)(l)(i),
(ii) or s. 20(1)(p).
[3]
The amount of the deductions at
issue are $2,825,780, $7,879,070 and $307,293 in respect of the 2002, 2003 and
2004 taxation years, respectively.
[4]
Great Lands’ nominee for purposes
of the discovery was its principal, Hassam Sadr. He was examined on March 25,
2010 and on the afternoon of November 22, 2010. At the conclusion of the second
day, counsel for the Crown indicated that he wished to continue the examination
but it appears that Great Lands objected.
[5]
This motion was brought almost 11
months later.
Undertakings and refusals
[6]
The respondent seeks proper
answers to 21 items. The Crown submits that the answers that were provided are
generally incomplete, non-responsive or otherwise ambiguous.
[7]
Seven of the 21 items relate to
answers that were provided to undertakings. The remaining 14 items relate to
questions which Great Lands refused to answer at the discoveries but subsequently
answered in writing.
[8]
I agree with the Crown that the
answers provided are not satisfactory. The answers are generally oblique and do
not provide clear, understandable answers to the questions. The questions were
clear and the answers should also be clear.
[9]
Counsel for the Crown submits that
it is necessary to have clear answers in order that they can be used as
admissions at trial. I agree with this. Almost all of the answers provided
would not be useful for this purpose.
[10]
Great Lands submits that Mr. Sadr
became frustrated during the examination because the questions were repetitive.
I would agree that there is some unfortunate repetition to the questions.
However, Mr. Sadr cannot complain because his answers were too often rambling
and difficult to follow.
[11]
The order sought by the Crown with
respect to questions and undertakings will be granted.
Continuation of
discoveries
[12]
The Crown also seeks an order
directing a continuation of the examination, not only to have proper answers
but also for further lines of inquiry.
[13]
This order will be granted. The
Crown should be entitled to complete its examination of Mr. Sadr.
[14]
Although this request is being
granted, I am concerned about the delay in bringing this motion. The last
examination was held almost 11 months before this motion was heard. Part of the
delay was due to Court scheduling, but this is just a minor factor. Counsel for
the Crown indicated that part of the reason for the delay was that Great Lands
had asked for a settlement conference and the Court scheduled a status hearing.
Perhaps Great Lands should not have sought a settlement conference, but I am
not satisfied that either of these reasons justifies the 11-month delay in
bringing this motion.
Costs
[15]
The Crown seeks costs in respect
of this motion as well as costs for the continuation of the examination for
discovery. The Crown should be entitled to costs in respect of the motion. As
for further discoveries, I prefer to leave that to the discretion of the trial
judge.
Signed at Toronto, Ontario this 8th day of November 2011.
“J. M. Woods”
CITATION: 2011 TCC 517
COURT FILE NO.: 2009-999(IT)G
STYLE OF CAUSE: GREAT LANDS CORPORATION and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto,
Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: October 11, 2011
REASONS FOR ORDER
BY: Hon. J.M. Woods
DATE OF ORDER: November 8, 2011
APPEARANCES:
|
Counsel for the
Appellant:
|
Leigh Somerville Taylor
Morgan Wiles (student at law)
|
|
Counsel for the
Respondent:
|
Bobby J. Sood
|
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For the Appellant:
Name: Leigh Somerville Taylor
Firm: Leigh
Somerville Taylor Professional Corporation
Toronto, Ontario
For the
Respondent: Myles J. Kirvan
Deputy
Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario
Email this Content