Private companies in BC are currently required to maintain “transparency registers” at their records office, which are only accessible to directors and certain government officials like the police and tax authorities in the hopes of fighting money laundering and tax evasion. They require companies to disclose significant individuals who, directly or indirectly, have substantial shareholdings in a BC company (25% or more) or who have the ability to exercise control or significant influence over a BC company.

‍

The BC government recently approved the implementation of a public transparency register that will be introduced by 2025. Similar to Land Owner Transparency Register (LOTR) implemented last year, the new company transparency register will be searchable by the public.

‍

Failure to comply can expose companies to regulatory offences and fines of up to $50,000.

‍

To avoid these fines, companies and their directors can review the new corporate transparency rules pre-emptively to ensure they are prepared to comply with the new reporting requirements once the public transparency register is introduced in 2025.

‍

If you have any questions about the new rules or if you need assistance in reviewing or preparing your company’s transparency register, reach out to Aman Bindra at [email protected] or 604-591-7321 today.

‍

A builder’s lien is a legal claim made by a contractor, subcontractor or supplier against a property owner for unpaid work or materials used in a construction project. Even if there is no direct contract with the property owner, a lien can still be claimed. An owner’s property may even be liened without the owner knowing about it.

‍

However, as a property owner, you can protect yourself by:

‍

• Having a written contract: property owners should have written contracts with their contractors and subcontractors that clearly outline the scope of the work, the timeline for completion of various steps in the project, and payment terms.

‍

• Ensuring timely payments are made: property owners should understand the payment provisions of the contract and ensure that contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers are paid on time and according to the provisions of the contract.

‍

• Keeping accurate records: property owners should keep detailed records of all payments made to their contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers. Details should include the party the payment was made to, the date the payment was made, and an itemized list of what the payment was made for.

‍

The law governing builder’s liens in British Columbia is complex so if you have concerns regarding your construction project, reach out today.

‍

The British Columbia Court of Appeal just issued its important decision of a 5 member panel reviewing the test for family status discrimination under the Human Rights Code (“Code”): British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal) v. Gibraltar Mines Ltd., 2023 BCCA 168 (“Gibraltar”). This decision came out on Friday, April 21, 2023, and represents a loss for employers but also a win.

‍

Introduction - Family Status Discrimination

‍

One of the protected grounds of discrimination under the Code is “family status”. Family status discrimination continues to be an area in which the law differs across Canada. In British Columbia, the test for family status discrimination has been more stringent than in other parts of Canada for the past 15 years, defined by the BC Court of Appeal decision in HAS v Campbell River and North Island Transition Society, 2004 BCCA 260 (“Campbell River”).  In that case the court held that the test for determining if there is prima facie family status discrimination is as follows:

‍

Whether particular conduct does or does not amount to prima facie discrimination on the basis of family status will depend on the circumstances of each case. In the usual case where there is no bad faith on the part of the employer and no governing provision in the applicable collective agreement or employment contract, it seems to me that a prima facie case of discrimination is made out when a change in a term or condition of employment imposed by an employer results in a serious interference with a substantial parental or other family duty or obligation of the employee. I think that in the vast majority of situations in which there is a conflict between a work requirement and a family obligation it would be difficult to make out a prima facie case.

‍

Since then, many have tried to challenge this more stringent test to match the rest of Canada. Now the test was challenged again in this judicial review.

‍

Gibraltar Mines Ltd. v. Harvey

‍

Lisa Harvey and her husband were both employees of Gibraltar Mines, who usually worked the same 12-hour shifts but they sometimes worked different night shifts. Lisa became pregnant and after the birth she sought a workplace accommodation to change her and her spouse’s work schedules to facilitate childcare arrangements. After she and Gibraltar were unable to agree on an accommodation, she filed a Human Rights Complaint.

‍

Gibraltar brought an Application to Dismiss the Complaint by way of a summary application under section 27 of the Code. The Tribunal is empowered to dismiss the complaint at an early stage if for example it determines there is no reasonable prospect of success.

‍

On an application by Gibraltar to dismiss the complaint, the Tribunal dismissed the claim of sex and marital status discrimination. However, it decided to not dismiss the family status complaint, determining it had to go to a full hearing at a later date. As part of its analysis, the Tribunal held that the Campbell River legal test did NOT require that there be a change in a term or condition of employment. The Tribunal could not make findings of fact at this stage, so it held that a hearing was necessary to decide whether Gibraltar’s decision not to modify the work schedules of Lisa and her husband “created a serious interference with a substantial parental obligation”, resulting in discrimination based on family status under the Code.

‍

Gibraltar (the employer) filed a judicial review in the BC Supreme Court, challenging the initial Tribunal decision to not dismiss the complaint, arguing that the Campbell River test required as a precondition a change in terms and conditions of employment (see quote above in the Introduction). The Judicial Review Judge agreed with Gibraltar, and overturned the Tribunal’s decision, holding that the Tribunal was bound by Campbell River to dismiss the complaint, as it had not arisen from a change of terms and conditions of employment in this case.

‍

The employees were not interested in pursuing further appeals, but with the opportunity to challenge the more stringent BC test, the Human Rights Tribunal brought an appeal of this judicial review decision. The Tribunal argued first that the change of terms and conditions of employment was not a prerequisite to bringing a family status discrimination complaint. It also argued that the second part of the Campbell River test (“materiality condition”) was contrary to the Code.

‍

BC Court of Appeal

‍

Because one of its landmark decisions was in issue, the BC Court of Appeal constituted a 5-member panel signaling that it was going to reinterpret or overrule the Campbell River earlier decision.

‍

Does the Tribunal Have Standing to Bring This Appeal?

‍

First the Appeal Court had to decide whether the Tribunal could bring an appeal involving one of its decisions. Gibraltar argued that to allow the Tribunal to do so would call into question its impartiality.

‍

The court held that the Tribunal, as a party to the judicial review, had a statutory right to appeal and further the Tribunal was entitled to make submissions on the question of law namely whether a finding of prima facie family status discrimination requires a change in a term or condition of employment. The Tribunal was also allowed to argue that the second part of the Campbell River test should be overturned. The notion that a tribunal can appeal its own decision has evolved over time reflecting what the court described as “the evolution in thinking” and courts now say such standing and scope of participation is a matter of discretion. The court must “balance the need for fully informed adjudication against the importance of maintaining tribunal impartiality.” [para 35]

‍

Interpretation - Change in a Term or Condition of Employment

‍

Secondly the BCCA held that on a proper interpretation of Campbell River a complainant does not have to prove there has been a change in a term or condition of employment.  The court justified its decision on the basis that in Campbell River the employer in fact did alter the employee’s shift schedule “so it was not necessary for the Court to consider whether prima facie discrimination regarding a term or condition of employment could arise from a change in circumstances of the employee, or a change in the employee’s family status, and the Court did not do so. That question was not a live issue before the Court in Campbell River, as it is in this appeal.” [para 63].

‍

The court held that the proper test is:

I conclude that s. 13(1)(b) applies whenever a term or condition results in a serious interference with a substantial parental or other family duty or obligation of an employee, whether as a consequence of a change in the term of employment or a change in the employee’s circumstances. [para 77 emphasis added]

‍

Interference With a Substantial Parental or Other Family Duty or Obligation

‍

Thirdly the Court upheld what it described as the “substantive element” of Campbell River namely the “materiality test”.  It held:

‍

The requirement in Campbell River that to establish discrimination arising from a conflict between work requirements and family obligations, the parental or family duty be substantial or out of the ordinary is necessary to give meaning to the protected characteristic of family status. Without a materiality standard, any family obligation that is impacted by a person’s employment conditions could support a finding of prima facie discrimination, which would require justification by the employer. Such an interpretation would trivialize the important value that is reflected by the inclusion of family status in s. 13(1)(b) of the Code. [para 92]

…

I conclude that for purposes of assessing conflicts between work requirements and family obligations, prima facie discrimination is made out when a term or condition of employment results in a serious interference with a substantial parental or other family duty or obligation. To put this test in terms of Moore, to establish prima facie adverse impact discrimination as a result of a conflict between work requirements and family obligations, an applicant must establish that their family status includes a substantial parental or other duty or obligation, that they have suffered a serious adverse impact arising from a term or condition of e1mployment, and that their family status was a factor in the adverse impact. [para 101]

‍

The court allowed the appeal, and the matter was sent back to the BC Supreme Court level for the judge to decide the question of materiality (the judge might decide to refer it back to the Tribunal for a hearing as it had found).

‍

What Does This Mean for my Business

‍

There is no doubt that the elimination of the “changed working conditions and terms” test is “bad news” for employers.  That threshold test was clear and easy to understand and apply and would eliminate any complaints that did not result from such a change.

‍

However the “good news” is that the Court of Appeal has strongly affirmed the “materiality” test for any claim of family status discrimination.  Absent a legislative change, that is a high bar for a complainant to hurdle.  But unfortunately, each case will be decided on its own facts so there is far less certainty in the outcome.  As witnessed here in the Gibraltar case the Tribunal held that it could not decide the application of the materiality test and would require a formal hearing.

‍

The other concern employers will have with this expanded scope of family status discrimination complaints is that the Tribunal is so backed up in processing complaints that employers may not even know a complaint has been filed and accepted by the Tribunal for a year or longer.  That will make it more difficult for employers to defend such complaints.  Such delays will also impact on remedies.

‍

Finally the action of the Tribunal in aggressively attacking the Campbell River tests (#1 and #2) might raise concerns of the perception of impartiality in any particular case.  If the Tribunal expands the scope of what is included in the materiality test, then the business community will have reason to be concerned.

‍

It remains to be seen if the comments of the court in Campbell River regarding the likely success of such family status discrimination complaints will continue to apply:

‍

“I think that in the vast majority of situations in which there is a conflict between a work requirement and a family obligation it would be difficult to make out a prima facie case.”

‍

Mike Weiler & Chris Drinovz

April 24, 2023

‍

Note to Readers: This is not legal advice. If you are looking for legal advice in relation to a particular matter please contact one of our group members. We communicate all these updates to our clients and readers on our Employer Resources Portal and through monthly Newsletters.

When someone says to me, “Do you do wills? I think I need one. My answer immediately is always a resounding yes! Yes, you do need one, and we can do that.”

‍

Even if your estate is simple, the will does something far more important than only dictate who gets what. It authorizes a person to get everything, or anything for that matter, accomplished.

‍

Without a will, nobody has authority to speak for the estate. This can be problem for landlords, companies, banks, the provincial government, the federal government, property taxes, ICBC and more.

‍

Not to mention, good estate planning includes more than just drafting a will. It includes a complete analysis of what you own, how you own it and what you hope to achieve with it. We can organize your assets to try reduce or eliminate fees and taxes that can be triggered when a person dies. So, yes, we do wills and, yes, you need one.

‍

Business Name Registration

‍

A corporate or business name often is one of the most important and valuable assets of a business. A business’s brand is almost always associated with its business name, representing the quality of the business’s goods and/or services, and thus accruing goodwill and a positive reputation in the market amongst consumers.

‍

In B.C., a business owner may register a business name (or a trade name) for their business by submitting a name request application to B.C. Registry Services. B.C. Registry Services will then check the availability of the proposed business name and determine whether it is valid for registration. This process typically ensures that an identical business name does not already exist, but does not consider business names that might be confusingly similar therewith. The business name registration permits the use of the registered name for identification purposes.

‍

Using Trademark Registration to Protect your Business Name

‍

While you as a business owner may have your business name approved and used in the course of your business, the registration of your business name does not guarantee that you have legal rights to use the name. For example, if your business name is confusingly similar to an existing business name or trademark with earlier rights, there may be others who may seek to stop you from using your business name under allegations of passing off or trademark infringement.

‍

Further, the business name registration does not permit you to stop anyone else from using the name (without registration), or something similar. Overall, business name registrations do not entail the same level of protection as holding a trademark registration, particularly when it comes to preventing others from using confusingly similar names for their goods and/or services. A business name registration is certainly not equivalent to a trademark registration in Canada. Without a trademark registration, you would be forced to rely on common law rights to prevent someone from using the same name or something confusingly similar, which can be tough to do.

‍

If your business strategy entails the use of your business name as a trademark, specifically to identify your goods and/or services, it is almost always best to take precautions and apply for a trademark registration of the name. Business names are not always used as trademarks.  For example, your business name may be “JACKS LTD.” but your products may be marketed under a different trademark, such as “JACKO’S RODS”.  The former would be your registered business name, whilst the latter may be eligible for trademark registration.  A business name is typically only eligible for trademark registration if you are using or have a bona fide intention to use the business name as a trademark, to identify your goods and/or services. You do not want your exclusive right to use your business name as a trademark to be compromised because you did not register.

‍

Generally, trademarks serve a different purpose than business names. Where registration of business names are used to identify a business, they do not grant proprietary rights to the names, while the registration of a name as a trademark grants you said rights. In Canada, a trademark registration gives the owner the exclusive right to use the trademark (which may be a business name) in association with the goods and/or services. For a business, this would mean having the exclusive right to use the registered trademark in association with the goods and/or services of the business and allowing the trademark owner to prevent others from using the same or a confusingly similar trademark in Canada. This protection is nationwide and exclusive in association with the goods and/or services in the registration. On the other hand, if another entity applies and registers a trademark using your business name, you may be forced to change your business name to avoid infringing their rights.

‍

In addition to protecting your business name,  also consider protecting your website or domain name, logo, business slogan and various names of products and/or services, particularly where such marks are used to distinguish your goods and/or services from those of others, for the same reason.

‍

Summary

‍

In view of the potential value of a trademark, registering your business name ought to be strongly considered.  Indeed, for start-ups, a review of the Trademarks Register may be worthwhile to ensure no confusingly similar trademarks are registered before securing a business name.  For more established corporations, trademark registration should be considered earlier rather than later.

‍

‍

For additional information about workplace injuries, compensation claims, and the Workers’ Compensation system in British Columbia, please also review the following articles:

‍

• Workplace Injuries and Workers Compensation Claims
• Overview of Workers’ Compensation in British Columbia
• WorkSafeBC Claims Guide for Injured Workers
• Navigating WorkSafeBC: Independent Contractors, Employees and Your Coverage

‍

The BC Workers' Compensation Act (WCA) applies to approximately 231,000 employers and over 2.33 million workers in the province of British Columbia. Where a person or entity is determined to have status as an employer under the WCA, that employer is liable to pay assessments in respect of any workers it employs and must meet all other statutory obligations of an employer such as reporting injuries to the Board and providing estimates of payrolls.

‍

Employers Under the WCA

‍

The definition of “employer” in section 1 of the WCA includes “every person having in their service under a contract of hiring or apprenticeship, whether the contract is written or oral, express or implied, a person engaged in work in or about an industry.”

‍

It is important to note that in determining whether an entity is an employer under the WCA, the Board is not bound by the common law principles relating to “contract of hiring or apprenticeship”. The Board has the exclusive power to determine whether a particular relationship is one of employment for workers compensation purposes. The following are some general principles the Board applies:

‍

• An employer may be a sole proprietor, a partnership, a corporation or some other type of legal entity.

• A corporation is considered an employer of:

     - the workers employed by the corporation;

      - family members or principals or shareholders for whom earnings are reported for income tax purposes; and

      - directors, officers, shareholders and principals of the corporation who are active in the operation of the business.

• Societies, co-operatives, Indian Bands, and trade unions are employers if they have workers.

‍

Employers as Workers

‍

Employers may also be considered workers and receive compensation if they are injured. For example, an officer or principal of a corporation, society, cooperative, trade union or other similar entity who is active in the operation of the entity is considered a worker of the entity. However, self-employed persons or partners who have not voluntarily registered under the WCA are not considered workers unless they have incorporated a limited company.

‍

Workers

‍

Generally, workers include individuals not employing other individuals and who fall into the following categories:

   • Individuals paid on an hourly, salaried or commission basis.

   • Individuals paid on commission or piecework where the work is performed in the employer’s shop, plant or premises.

   • Individuals paid commission, piecework or profit sharing where they are using equipment supplied by the employer.

   • Individuals operating under circumstances where the “lease” or “rental” of equipment or “purchase” of material from their employer is merely a device to arrive at a wage or commission amount.

   • Labour contractors who elect not to be registered as independent operators.

‍

Volunteers are not generally considered workers although volunteer firefighters are specifically covered by the definition of “worker” in section 1 of the WCA. Members of the public conscripted to fight forest fires are also considered workers.

‍

Federal government workers who work in the province are not covered by the WCA but are covered by the Government Employees Compensation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. G-5 (GECA), which is administered by the Board in British Columbia. Under the GECA, federal employees who suffer workplace injuries are entitled to compensation “at the same rate and under the same conditions” as provided under the provincial law where the employee is usually employed.

‍

The Board is also empowered to direct that the provisions of the WCA apply to an employer “as though the employer was a worker” and to an independent operator who is neither an employer nor a worker “as though the independent operator was a worker”. The Board has therefore created a personal optional protection scheme, permitting an employer who is not an active principal of a corporation and an unincorporated independent operator without workers to purchase compensation coverage. To learn more, please review our article on: Navigating WorkSafeBC: Independent Contractors, Employees, and Your Coverage.

‍

Independent Operator

‍

This term is not defined in the WCA. Item AP1-1-1 of the Assessment Manual sets out that the criteria for determining whether a person is an independent operator, and therefore not a worker under the WCA, are those used to determine whether a contract creates an employment relationship or a relationship between independent firms. Where the contract does not create what the Board considers to be an employment relationship, the person will be considered an “independent firm.”

‍

Exemptions and Exclusions from Coverage

‍

The Board may exempt employers or workers from application of the WCA by order. The current exemptions include:

‍

  • Certain types of individuals employed by an owner or occupier around a private residence.

  • Both spouses involved in an unincorporated business in certain circumstances.

  • Certain employers with no place of business in the province who temporarily carry on business in British Columbia but do not employ British Columbia residents.

  • Professional sports competitors or athletes.

  • Certain types of personal financial holding companies.

‍

The WCA may not apply to some workers and employers. For example, the WCA will not apply to a worker who does not have a sufficient connection to the province so that his presence in the province is merely transitory.

‍

Extra Provincial Coverage

‍

In some circumstances, an employer’s worker who is injured while working elsewhere than in British Columbia may be eligible for compensation. If all of the following criteria are met the Board must pay compensation:

‍

   • A place of business of the employer is situate in British Columbia.

   • The residence and usual place of employment of the worker are in British Columbia.

   • The employment is such that the worker is required to work both in and out of British Columbia.

   • The employment of the worker out of British Columbia has immediately followed the worker's employment by the same employer within British Columbia and has lasted less than six months.

‍

Where a British Columbia employer employs British Columbia workers to work in another province or territory, those workers may also be workers under the compensation laws of the other jurisdiction. In order to avoid employers having to pay double assessments for the same work, to help workers or dependants where more than one workers’ compensation authority is involved in a claim and to provide a system to solve disputes between workers’ compensation authorities, all Canadian workers’ compensation authorities have entered into an Interjurisdictional Agreement on Workers’ Compensation. The agreement sets out rules for selection of forum by injured workers, clarifies what assessments the employers pay and provides a system of reimbursement of claims costs between workers’ compensation authorities.

‍

‍

Note to Readers: The information in this article is not legal advice. If you are looking for legal advice in relation to a particular matter please contact our experienced Employment & Disability Group.

For additional information about workplace injuries, compensation claims, and the Workers’ Compensation system in British Columbia, please also review the following articles:

‍

• Workplace Injuries and Workers Compensation Claims
• Who is Covered by Workers’ Compensation Act in British Columbia?
• WorkSafeBC Claims Guide for Injured Workers

‍

Introduction

‍

In British Columbia, compensation for workplace injuries and occupational diseases is provided through a public insurance plan established by the Workers Compensation Act, R.S.B.C. 2019, c. 1 (WCA). The WCA creates a collective liability scheme whereby employers fund the system through payment of assessments based on an employer's payroll, the risk associated with their industry and the particular employer's claims experience rating. In exchange for funding the system, employers gain immunity from lawsuits for work-related personal injuries, mental disorders, deaths, or disablement from occupational diseases.

‍

Workers are entitled to benefits for workplace injuries and occupational diseases regardless of fault and without the necessity of court proceedings. In exchange for compensation that depends neither on fault nor the employer’s ability to pay, workers are barred from bringing legal actions against employers and other workers in respect of work-related injury or disease.

‍

The scheme is administered by an independent public agency established under the WCA and called the Workers’ Compensation Board (the “Board”). In British Columbia, the WCA also establishes a comprehensive health and safety regulatory regime. The Board has branded itself “WorkSafeBC” in keeping with its statutory health and safety mandate.

‍

In British Columbia, the Board has three primary mandates:

‍

• Regulation of occupational health and safety in the workplace (Part 2, WCA).

• Adjudication and payment of compensation for workplace injuries and occupational diseases (Part 4, WCA).

• Assessment and collection of sufficient funds from employers to support the system (Part 5, WCA).

‍

Can a worker be compensated for pain and suffering if they are injured at work?

‍

Workers' compensation benefits are prescribed by the WCA and provide less than full economic compensation. Unlike tort awards, there is no provision in the WCA to compensate for pain and suffering or other types of non-pecuniary losses. However, because workers' compensation benefits are paid without regard to fault, a worker’s benefits are not reduced by reason of any contributory negligence on the part of the worker as they would be under the tort system.

‍

Whereas the goal behind a tort award is to place the individual in the position he would have been in but for the tortfeasor’s negligence (i.e., to make the individual whole), the goal behind workers' compensation benefits is to compensate all workers fairly, regardless of fault, and to provide rehabilitation for a timely return to work.

‍

‍

WorkSafeBC (the Board Level)

‍

First level decisions are made by various Board officers. For example, a case manager will make decisions respecting a worker’s wage loss, health care or rehabilitation benefits. An assessment officer will make decisions regarding an employer’s assessments.

‍

The Board (including the Board’s internal Review Division, which operates as a first level of appeal) has exclusive jurisdiction to inquire into, hear, and determine all matters and questions of fact and law arising in a workers’ compensation claim and the action or decision of the Board is final.

‍

The Review Division

‍

The Review Division is the internal review body of the Board. Its review officers may review and either confirm, cancel or vary most decisions respecting compensation, rehabilitation or assessments.

‍

Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunal

‍

Most decisions made by the Review Division of the Board may be further appealed to an external and independent tribunal called the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal (WCAT). WCAT is the final decision maker in the workers' compensation system and its decisions are protected by a strongly worded privative clause. Any further recourse must be through judicial review in the courts (sections 293, 308 and 309, WCA).

‍

Note that some decisions cannot be appealed to WCAT. For example, decisions respecting rehabilitation issues cannot be appealed to WCAT and the Review Division decision is the final decision in the system and is subject to direct judicial review (section 288(2)(b), WCA).

‍

In British Columbia, the WCAT also has the exclusive jurisdiction to determine the status under the WCA of parties to a personal injury lawsuit and to certify that determination to the court. This is important since a worker cannot sue an employer or another worker in the Province of British Columbia. The parties and the court are bound by WCAT’s determination. The court then makes an order that gives effect to WCAT’s finding as to whether the WCA provides a bar to the action

‍

‍

Note to Readers: The information in this article is not legal advice. If you are looking for legal advice in relation to a particular matter please contact our experienced Employment & Disability Group.

Have you heard about the upcoming changes to Canada's privacy laws? Bill C-27 is a piece of legislation which has been proposed, and is in the process of being considered by Parliament. You can read the Legislative Summary here.

‍

If this legislation passes, it will make significant changes to Canada's privacy landscape, and add and change organizations' obligations when it comes to handling personal information (of employees, customers and clients, as well as other parties).

‍

The legislation will also introduce a new privacy law tribunal, as well as measures related to artificial intelligence. The new laws will include new restrictions around collecting, using, and disclosing personal information, and impose transparency requirements in handling employees' data.

‍

Importantly, the new privacy legislation (the "Consumer Privacy Protection Act") will explicitly require that organizations implement and maintain a privacy management program that “includes the policies, practices and procedures the organization has put in place to fulfill its obligations under this Act”.

‍

Non-compliance can result in significant fines, and failure to protect your employees' privacy can damage your company's reputation, erode trust, and potentially carry civil liability.

‍

We can help you stay up-to-date with the latest privacy requirements and develop appropriate privacy and data policies. Contact us today to learn more about how we can assist you in navigating these changes.

When an individual or corporation has a received a notice of reassessment, this means that the CRA has gone back and reviewed your income tax returns, and have identified a problem, which may result in you paying additional taxes and penalties.

‍

‍

The standard CRA reassessment period is three years from the date on your original Notice of Assessment. So, if you received your original Notice of Assessment on June 2017, the CRA has until June 2020 to see if there has been any errors in the filing of those returns. There are provisions of the Income Tax Act that allow the CRA to go back and reassess older years. This typically occurs when the CRA finds that an individual or corporation was negligent or untruthful in filing their returns.

‍

If you have received a Notice of Reassessment (NORA) there are important deadlines that you must be aware of. A taxpayer has 90 days to file a Notice of Objection with the CRA. If a taxpayer misses this deadline the taxpayer can make an application to apply for an extension of time to file the objection under the Income Tax Act. When applying for an extension, the taxpayer must send the extension application setting out the pertinent facts as to why the original 90-day deadline was missed, alongside a copy of the Notice of Objection.  Keep in mind that an extension is not always granted and must be made within 1 year after the expiration of the 90-day deadline. If the 15 month time period is missed completely, there is no opportunity to refute the Notice of Reassessment and the taxes owing must be paid.

‍

Once a Notice of Objection is filed with the CRA, it can take some time for an Appeal’s Officer (AO) to be assigned to your case. However, once an AO is assigned to your file, they will request for additional information and documentation to support your filing position. The AO will then review all the information, have discussions with the taxpayer or their legal representative and come to a conclusion. If an appeal is not successful at the objection stage, a notice of confirmation is sent to the Taxpayer. The Taxpayer has 90 days from the notice of confirmation to file an Appeal at the Tax Court. Once an Appeal is filed with the Tax Court, a taxpayers case will then be reviewed by a Justice Lawyer and ultimately a Judge if a conclusion cannot be reached.

‍

If you have received a Notice of Reassessment which you believe is incorrect, get in touch with our office today.
‍

‍