Crooks v. The Queen, 2016 TCC 52 (Informal Procedure)
In connection with finding that he addition of an accommodation co-purchaser (for financing purposes) of a new condo did not have the effect of denying the new housing HST rebate, Hershfield J stated (at paras. 50-51):
In Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Re), [ 1 S.C.R. 27 at para 36] the Supreme Court of Canada said:
Finally, with regard to the scheme of the legislation, since the ESA [Employment Standards Act] is a mechanism for providing minimum benefits and standards to protect the interests of employees, it can be characterized as benefits-conferring legislation. As such, according to several decisions of this Court, it ought to be interpreted in a broad and generous manner. Any doubt arising from difficulties of language should be resolved in favour of the claimant (see, e.g., Abrahams v. Attorney General of Canada,  1 S.C.R. 2, at p. 10; Hills v. Canada (Attorney General),  1 S.C.R. 513, at p. 537).
While that case speaks of difficulties in interpreting statutory language, the sentiment applies where there are difficulties in making factual findings. The benefit of any doubt must be given to ensure the conferring of intended benefits.
|Locations of other summaries||Wordcount|
|Tax Topics - Excise Tax Act - Section 254 - Subsection 254(2) - Paragraph 254(2)(a)||accommodation co-owner was not supplied her interest directly by the builder||451|
|Tax Topics - Excise Tax Act - Section 123 - Subsection 123(1) - Recipient||“ultimate liability” doctrine indicated an accommodation co-purchaser of condo was not a recipient||301|
|Tax Topics - Excise Tax Act - Section 262 - Subsection 262(3)||accommodation co-purchaser (for financing purposes) of condo was not a recipient of supply by builder||231|
|Tax Topics - General Concepts - Substance||the addition of an accommodation co-purchaser (for financing purposes) of condo did not reflect the parties' true intentions||173|
|Tax Topics - General Concepts - Sham||the addition of an accommodation co-purchaser (for financing purposes) of condo might have been a sham if done for tax purposes||131|