Every time a provincial legislature or the federal Parliament sits,
there are likely to be changes in the law. Also, the law is subject to
the thousands of court cases under way across the country. Several
matters I wrote about in 2001 are worth revisiting.
Last summer, I wrote about George Harris who, backed by a coalition for
social justice, was challenging a decision made by Revenue Canada that
favoured a wealthy family. In 1991, the taxpayers, reportedly the
Read Also
Restaurant blends zero waste, ancient farming
A Mexico City restaurant has become a draw for its zero-waste kitchen, which means that every scrap of food and leftovers is reused for other purposes.
Bronfman family, applied for an advance ruling from the tax department
to determine whether the family assets reported to be $1 billion could
be transferred out of Canada without tax consequences. The department
ruled in the family’s favour.
Under many situations, when assets are transferred they are deemed sold
and the appropriate taxes applied. Harris’s group alleged the tax
department “acted illegally or improperly or for ulterior motives,
namely favouritism and preferential treatment … in favour of a
specific trust” and that the department had an obligation to taxpayers
to collect the maximum revenue possible.
The case went to trial last fall. The judge found no bad faith or
preferential treatment on the government’s part. However, the judge did
chastise the department because it failed to keep notes at a meeting of
high level officials when the transfer was approved. Harris and his
supporters will not be appealing.
The law has been moving toward treating common law spouses like their
married counterparts. Both spouses have an obligation to support
children resulting from the union and have equal rights to custody.
After one year, a common law spouse can ask that Canadian Pension Plan
credits be split. In Saskatchewan, a common law spouse can seek support.
Last fall, the province went one step further.
Changes to the Matrimonial Property Act, now known as the Family Law
Act, defined a spouse as including a person who has cohabited with
another person as a spouse for two continuous years.
This means common law spouses and married spouses are treated the same
when dividing property. Before, a common law spouse had to show a
contribution to a spouse’s property or household to make a claim.
Don Purich is a former practicing lawyer who is now involved in
publishing, teaching and writing about legal issues. His columns are
intended as general advice only. Individuals are encouraged to seek
other opinions and/or personal counsel when dealing with legal matters.
