Hillcore – Tax Court of Canada strikes the Reply of the Crown in its entirety

Before striking the Reply of the Crown in its entirety (but with leave to the Crown to file a fresh Reply that complied with the Rules), Lafleur J referred to the principle:

Where the deficiencies in a pleading are extensive, lack specificity or are vague, the proper remedy is to set the pleadings aside with leave to file a new pleading that meets the requirements set out in the Rules.

Examples of around six heads of deficiencies that she identified included:

• admitting or denying facts that not been pleaded;
• referring to assumptions of fact made by CRA in assessing which instead were assumptions of mixed fact and law, e.g., that specified parties did not deal with each other at arm’s length and that contracts were shams; and
• including Schedules that contained evidence, as well as materials from which it was difficult or impossible to extract clear factual allegations.

Neal Armstrong. Summary of Hillcore Financial Corporation v. The King, 2023 TCC 71 under Rule 53(1).