Stack v. The King

Stack v. The King
Court (s) Database
Tax Court of Canada Judgments
Date
2024-12-18
Neutral citation
2024 TCC 163
File numbers
2021-2269(IT)G, 2021-2270(IT)G
Judges and Taxing Officers
Randall S. Bocock
Subjects
Income Tax Act
Decision Content
Citation: 2024 TCC 163
Date: 20241218
Dockets: 2021-2270(IT)G
2021-2269(IT)G
BETWEEN:
MARGARET STACK and LOUIS STACK,
Appellants,
and
HIS MAJESTY THE KING,
Respondent.
Respondent’s Motion heard on May 13, 2024 at Toronto, Ontario
and
Appellants’ Motion heard on May 15, 2024 at Toronto, Ontario
Before: The Honourable Justice Randall Bocock
Appearances:
Counsel for the Appellant:
Kristen Duerhammer
Justin Kutyan
Marta Porodko
Counsel for the Respondent:
Alexandra Humphrey Amin Nur Caroline Ahn
PUBLICATION ORDER
WHEREAS the Respondent brings a motion to compel more complete or better answers from the Appellants to various questions posed and/or refusals given at examinations for discovery and for leave to amend his replies in both appeals (the “Respondent’s motion”);
AND WHEREAS the Appellants bring a motion to compel better or more complete answers from the Respondent’s representative to various questions posed on examination for discovery (the “Appellants’ motion”);
AND WHEREAS the Court has published its Common Reasons for Order concerning both the Respondent’s motion and the Appellants’ motion on this date;
NOW THEREFORE THIS COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The Respondent’s motion is granted or denied, as the case may be, to the extent of the Court’s decision on each respective question indicated in the column entitled “Decision on Question” in Appendix “A” or “B” attached to a specific, lengthy unpublished Directive Order informed by the attached Common Reasons for Order;
2. The Appellants’ motion is granted or denied, as the case may be, to the extent of the Court’s decision on each respective question indicated in the column entitled “Decision on Question” in Appendix “A” or “B” attached to a specific, lengthy unpublished Order informed by the attached Common Reasons for Order ;
3. The Respondent and Appellants, as the case may be, shall have the time allotted in the specific Orders described above to provide the answers directed by the Court therein;
4. Subject to the directions regarding greater clarity and specificity outlined in the Common Reasons for Order, the Respondent’s motion for leave to amend the replies is granted, and the Respondent and Appellant shall advise the Court within 60 days of the date of this Order whether the Appellants consent to the form and content of such amended replies, failing which the Court, upon request in writing, will provide further directions as warranted; and,
In light of the contemporaneous motions and the mixed results, costs in both motions are reserved for the trial judge.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada this 18th day of December 2024.
“R. S. Bocock”
Bocock J
CITATION:
2024 TCC 163
COURT FILE NOS.:
2021-2270(IT)G
2021-2269(IT)G
STYLE OF CAUSE:
MARGARET STACK and LOUIS STACK v HIS MAJESTY THE KING
PLACE OF HEARING:
Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARINGS:
May 13, 2024 and May 15, 2024
REASONS FOR ORDER BY:
The Honourable Justice R.S. Bocock
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
December 18, 2024
APPEARANCES:
Counsel for the Appellants:
Kristen Duerhammer
Justin Kutyan
Marta Porodko
Counsel for the Respondent:
Alexandra Humphrey Amin Nur Caroline Ahn
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For the Applicant:
Name:
Kristen Duerhammer
Justin Kutyan
Marta Porodko
Firm:
KPMG Law LLP
For the Respondent:
Shalene Curtis-Micallef Deputy Attorney General of Canada Ottawa, Canada