Alex Klyguine

In episode one of our two-part podcast series produced in collaboration with The Advocates'​ Society, Justin Kutyan, National Leader of the Tax Litigation group at KPMG Law LLP has an insightful conversation with the Honourable Patrick Boyle to discuss his 17-year journey at the Tax Court of Canada. From his call to the bench to how the Court operates uniquely within Canada’s legal system, this episode is a thoughtful look into the legal landscape, career evolution and insights for litigators. Listen to the first episode now: https://lnkd.in/gdYmXPic #TaxLaw #KPMGLawCanada #Podcast

70

1 Comment

A big first in Ontario securities law. Justice Centa has awarded a turfed CEO $5.4 million in damages under the Securities Act's anti-reprisal provisions. Under the Securities Act, if a company fires or retaliates against an employee for raising compliance concerns, the company can be ordered to pay double what would have been the employee's salary from the date of reprisal to judgment — without any duty to mitigate. In McPherson v. Global Growth Assets Inc. (link in comments), Justice Centa brought some interpretive clarity to some of the murkier wording in the Act. Among other things, the court confirmed that the reprisal does not need to be the sole reason for termination. A would-be whistleblower might also be bad at his job, but that does not deny him protection from retaliation. I expect we will see more of these cases now that there is a proof of concept. The double salary damages can really bite, especially given the pace of Ontario litigation. The damages here were about $2,200 a day between termination and judgment. Read this case whether you follow securities law or not. Justice Centa puts on a clinic in legal writing and analysis. To pick one example, see the excellent summary of how courts should assess credibility and reliability, and why they are not the same thing, at paras. 28–37.

137

12 Comments

We’re a fully remote tax law firm. And we still keep offices in Toronto and Ottawa - open to anyone who wants a desk, a whiteboard, or just human energy. No mandate. No side‑eye. Come in when it makes sense for everyone and the matter benefits from face‑to‑face time. How we operate: 1. In‑person when it adds value. We collaborate in-person when it makes sense. Otherwise, deep and remote work wins. 2. Open‑door by default. Our calendars are shared across the firm. Anyone can book time with anyone. No gatekeepers. No “check with me first.” 3. Context over rules. A teammate recently asked for a private office near their home. We got it for them. Different work, different seasons of life - different setups. Here are the principles that actually work for us: * Flexibility on employees’ terms - not the employer’s. * If you’re trusted to deliver outcomes, you should have a say in where and how you do your best work. When we design for people, the work takes care of itself - and our clients feel the difference.

174

6 Comments

Want to keep up to speed on the latest appellate decisions shaping the Canadian business and legal landscape? Our National Appellate Litigation Group recently broke down six recent significant appeals from across the country, highlighting their implications as part of our Appellate Quarterly webinar series. Read our key takeaways from the webinar to gain insights from Kara Smyth, Kosta Kalogiros, Brandon Kain, Patrick Williams, Sajeda Hedaraly and Leah Strand ➡️ https://lnkd.in/duMP92rW

22

𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝗦𝗵𝗼𝗽𝗶𝗳𝘆 𝗯𝗲𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗮𝘅𝗺𝗮𝗻: 𝗙𝗲𝗱𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘁 𝗿𝗲𝗷𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘀 𝗖𝗥𝗔’𝘀 𝘀𝘄𝗲𝗲𝗽𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗿𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘂𝘀𝗲𝗿 𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 In Canada, Section 231.2 of the Income Tax Act gives the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) broad authority to demand sensitive information - even from third parties - during tax audits. But in a pivotal decision, Canada (National Revenue) v. Shopify Inc., the Federal Court set firm boundaries, rejecting the CRA’s sweeping request and reinforcing the importance of judicial oversight, user privacy, and proportionality in tax enforcement. Here’s what happened: In April 2023, the CRA demanded Shopify provide detailed information on all Canadian-resident merchants using its platform - names, addresses, banking details, and sales data included. Shopify opposed the request, arguing it was overly broad, vague, and failed to meet the legal threshold under Section 231.2(3), particularly the requirement that the unnamed group be ascertainable. Describing it as a “fishing expedition,” Shopify insisted the demand lacked legal and factual justification. The court agreed, stating: • The unnamed persons were not clearly defined or ascertainable. • The CRA’s request was disproportionate and unsupported by existing case law. • Complying would have required eight years of labour for one employee, clearly unreasonable. In addition, the Federal Court awarded Shopify $45,000 in costs for mounting a strong, evidence-heavy legal defence. Why it matters: Section 231.2 grants the CRA power to collect information, but stricter conditions apply when unnamed third parties are involved. To justify such a request, the CRA must: 1. Prove that the individuals are ascertainable. 2. Ensure the request is not overly broad or speculative. 3. Show that the information is relevant for verifying compliance. Impact for Canadian Businesses: • Businesses can challenge CRA when they overreach and they can win. • Digital platforms like Shopify can no longer be treated as automatic data funnels. • CRA requests must be specific, legally justified, and proportional. Tax tips: 1. You have the right to challenge unjustified CRA demands through court or negotiation. 2. Support objections with solid evidence like affidavits or technical documentation. 3. Always consult an experienced Canadian tax lawyer. To read more about the case and your rights, here's a link: https://lnkd.in/d-SErkTW Ready to push back against broad CRA demands? Our experienced Canadian tax lawyers can help. 📞 Call 416-367-4222 for a FREE 10-minute consultation or 📩 email [email protected]. Taxpage.com All the tax help you need. Disclaimer: Posts on this page are for educational purposes only. #Taxpage #DataPrivacy #CanadianTaxLaw

21

3 Comments

Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada/Commissariat à la protection de la vie privée du Canada issues detailed guidance for the use of biometrics in a privacy protective manner. Helpful framework for US-based companies to use when utilizing biometrics, in view of (1) the authorization-mandating US biometrics laws (like BIPA, CUBI and Colorado CPA); (2) the fact that biometric information/data is sensitive under the US privacy laws and according to the FTC and (3) the FTC Rite Aid decision (https://lnkd.in/emmvNkYa). It lays out the considerations to include such as:  ◆ Make sure your purpose is clear and legitimate ◆ Make sure the product you are choosing does what it is supposed to do  ◆ Check accuracy ◆ Make sure to consider other alternatives and determine that this one is better ◆ Consider whether the biometric program or initiative’s impact on privacy is proportional to the benefits gained  ◆ Get consent (and it will usually need to be explicit) [in the US this would be GDPR-like consent unless an exception applies; or an opt out/right to limit in CA) ◆ Use the minimum number of biometric characteristics needed  ◆ Use verification over identification  ◆ Seek to keep the template in the individual’s control  ◆ Don't extract secondary information without consent  ◆ Limit retention ◆ Adopt technical, physical and organizational measures to protect access and use ◆ Document to ensure accountability ◆ Institute governance  ◆ Provide transparency Pic by ChatGPT https://lnkd.in/eZ6rAG43

23