Tax Court of Canada Judgments

Decision Information

Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. The Queen

Court (s) Database Tax Court of Canada Judgments
Date 2012-07-05
Neutral citation 2012 TCC 237
File numbers 2010-1413(IT)G, 2010-1414(IT)G, 2010-1640(IT)G, 2010-2864(IT)G
Judges and Taxing Officers Eugene P. Rossiter
Subjects Income Tax Act

Decision Content

 

 

Citation: 2012 TCC 237

Date: 20120705

 

Dockets: 2010-1413(IT)G

2010-1414(IT)G

2010-1640(IT)G

2010-2864(IT)G

BETWEEN:

CANADIAN IMPERIAL BANK OF COMMERCE,

Appellant,

and

 

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,

Respondent.

_______________________________________________________________

 

The Honourable E. P. Rossiter, Associate Chief Justice

 

Appearances:

 

Counsel for the Appellant:

Al Meghji and

Joseph M. Steiner

Counsel for the Respondent:

Patricia Lee, Eric Noble, Michael Ezri and

Craig Maw

______________________________________________________________

 

ORDER AND REASONS FOR ORDER

 

[1]     On the Appellant’s motion to strike, on December 21, 2011, the Court ordered that portions of the four Replies in question be struck because they were prejudicial and/or an abuse of process, conclusions of mixed fact and law, scandalous, not material facts, or evidence (Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. The Queen, 2011 TCC 568). The Court rejected the Appellant’s argument that the Court should strike references to the “egregious or repulsive" concept.

[2]     The Order specified the text struck from the Reply in 2010‑1414(IT)G, and held that these strikes should be applied mutatis mutandis to the Replies in appeals 2010-1413(IT)G, 2010-1640(IT)G, and 2010-2864(IT)G. The Respondent was ordered to provide draft Amended Replies to the Court within 60 days for the Court to review for compliance and then issue any further Order, as required.

 

[3]     Both parties appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal, but to date, neither party has requested a suspension of operation of the Judgment under rule 172(2) of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure).

 

[4]     The Respondent has submitted a single draft Amended Reply for appeal 2010-1414(IT)G as a model, with the intention to then amend the three other replies, as required, in compliance with the Court’s assessment as outlined in this Order.

 

[5]     Upon reviewing the draft Amended Reply, Appellant’s counsel informed the Court that he believes it is materially non-compliant with the December 21, 2011 Order.

 

[6]     Both parties were invited to provide submissions regarding the compliance of the draft Amended Reply and each party did so. 

 

[7]     After reviewing each party’s submissions and the draft Amended Reply in detail, the Court determines that the text ordered struck has been removed from the draft Amended Reply. Where ordered, the Respondent also condensed or deleted text to eliminate pleadings determined by the Court’s Order to be evidence or non-material facts.

 

[8]     Some of the text deemed by the December 21, 2011 Order to be prejudicial, and/or scandalous, an abuse of process, or conclusions of mixed fact and law has been replaced with new text in the draft Amended Reply. Significant portions of this new text do not comply with the Court’s previous Order. A number of the substituted terms are near synonyms with the phrases previously struck. Several of the additional paragraphs are replete with conclusions of mixed fact and law concerning both Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce [“CIBC”] and a third party and place an unfair onus on CIBC; they are prejudicial and an abuse of process.

 

[9]     The Court orders that all text identified in the table below as not complying with the Court’s December 11, 2011 Order is struck. In addition, the Court accepts any proposals from the Respondent to delete paragraphs with duplicative text.

 

[10]   The Respondent shall file with the Court, within 30 days, four final Amended Replies in each of the appeals, 2010-1413(IT)G, 2010-1414(IT)G, 2010-1640(IT)G, and 2010-2864(IT)G, in compliance with this Order and this Court’s previous Order issued December 21, 2011. Given the partial success of both parties with respect to their arguments before the Court, there will be no order as to costs.

 

 

Para

#

Replacement or Additional Text in Draft Amended Reply

Decision – Complies or Does Not Comply

Reasons for Compliance or Non-Compliance

2

deceived

 

 

Complies

Acceptable in the context of the overview given the Respondent’s claim regarding the Appellant’s alleged misconduct. As discussed in Strother v. Canada, 2011 TCC 251 at para. 44, the overview may contain colourful language.

 

3

dishonest

 

Complies

See above regarding paragraph 2.

5

deceptions

Complies

See above regarding paragraph 2.

 

28.7

knowingly participated in, dishonest

 

Does not comply

Abuse of process, prejudicial, conclusion of mixed fact and law

 

28.7.1

falsely

 

 

Does not comply

Abuse of process, prejudicial, conclusion of mixed fact and law

 

28.7.1 – 28.7.4

 

Complies except as described above regarding paragraph 28.7.1 (“falsely”)

 

28.7.5

The impugned FAS 125/140 transactions were recorded as asset sales and equity contributions but were loans made to Enron by the Foreign Affiliates and the appellant

 

Complies

Text struck in the Order dated December 21, 2011 has been deleted. Remaining text complies.

 

28.7.6

secret repayment guarantees, knew would disqualify

 

Does not comply

Abuse of process, prejudicial, conclusion of mixed fact and law

 

28.7.10

the purported equity stake of CIBC Inc. was a loan limited to the original investment at the stated yield of generally 15%

 

Complies

Text struck in the Order dated December 21, 2011  has been deleted. Remaining text complies.

 

28.7.12

the purported equity stake of CIBC Inc. was guaranteed by Enron and therefore was not at risk

 

 

Complies

Text struck in the Order dated December 21, 2011 Order has been deleted. Remaining text complies.

 

28.7.13

knew

 

Does not comply

 Prejudicial, Conclusion of mixed fact and law

28.7.14

… knowing …could not be disclosed, with actual knowledge to manipulate and misstate … materially misleading manner

 

Does not comply

Abuse of process, prejudicial, conclusion of mixed fact and law

 

 

28.7.15

… conspired …manipulate and misstate …to facilitate self-dealing transactions…

 

Does not comply

Abuse of process, prejudicial, conclusion of mixed fact and law

 

28.7.16

were deliberately kept out

 

Does not comply

Abuse of process, prejudicial, conclusion of mixed fact and law

28.7.17

… knew that Enron was falsifying

 

Does not comply

Abuse of process, prejudicial, conclusion of mixed fact and law

 

28.7.18

… permitted the making of … false and misleading statements

 

 

Does not comply

Abuse of process, prejudicial, conclusion of mixed fact and law

 

28.7.19

false and misleading statements

 

 

Does not comply

 

28.7.20

the impugned FAS/125 Transactions ostensibly generated approximately US$1.1 Billion in pre-tax income, and increased operating cash flows of almost US$2 Billion while US$2.6 Billion in debt was not show on Enron’s balance sheet

 

Complies

Pleads factual assumptions.

 

28.7.21

knew, false reporting

 

Does not comply

Abuse of process, prejudicial, conclusion of mixed fact and law

 

28.7.22

knew or were reckless in not knowing, false

 

Does not comply

Abuse of process, prejudicial, conclusion of mixed fact and law

 

28.7.23

… false reporting

 

Does not comply

Abuse of process, prejudicial, conclusion of mixed fact and law

 

28.16.2 – 28.16.4

 

Complies

Complies with Order, provides condensed summary underlying factual assumptions.

28.18.4.2

dishonest course of conduct

 

Does not comply

Nearly synonymous with previous strike.

28.19.4

non-recurring outlays

 

Complies

Replaces text struck as conclusion of mixed fact and law with text describing underlying factual assumptions.    

28.19.9 (Former 28.22.14 – 28.22.15)

 

Portions referring to text struck from other paragraphs are also struck here. 

Problematic to the extent that it refers to portions of 28.7 – 28.14, and 28.17 that are struck as described above.

 

62

 

Delete as proposed by Respondent

The Court accepts the Respondent’s proposal to delete this paragraph as duplicative in light of changes to amended reply.

65

 

Delete as proposed by Respondent

The Court accepts the Respondent’s proposal to delete this paragraph as duplicative in light of changes to amended reply.

66

 

Delete as proposed by Respondent

The Court accepts the Respondent’s proposal to delete this paragraph as duplicative in light of changes to amended reply.

67

 

Delete as proposed by Respondent

The Court accepts the Respondent’s proposal to delete this paragraph as duplicative in light of changes to amended reply.

68

 

Delete as proposed by Respondent

The Court accepts the Respondent’s proposal to delete this paragraph as duplicative in light of changes to amended reply.

69

 

Delete as proposed by Respondent

The Court accepts the Respondent’s proposal to delete this paragraph as duplicative in light of changes to amended reply.

74

 

Delete as proposed by Respondent

The Court accepts the Respondent’s proposal to delete this paragraph as duplicative in light of changes to amended reply.

71

 

Delete as proposed by Respondent

The Court accepts the Respondent’s proposal to delete this paragraph as duplicative in light of changes to amended reply.

72 and 73

 

Complies

Describes underlying facts.

102

 

Delete as proposed by Respondent

The Court accepts the Respondent’s proposal to delete this paragraph as duplicative in light of changes to amended reply.

103

 

Delete as proposed by Respondent

The Court accepts the Respondent’s proposal to delete this paragraph as duplicative in light of changes to amended reply.

104

 

Delete as proposed by Respondent

The Court accepts the Respondent’s proposal to delete this paragraph as duplicative in light of changes to amended reply.

105

 

Delete as proposed by Respondent

The Court accepts the Crown’s proposal to delete this paragraph as duplicative in light of changes to amended reply.

106

 

Delete as proposed by Respondent

The Court accepts the Respondent’s proposal to delete this paragraph as duplicative in light of changes to amended reply.

107

 

Delete as proposed by Respondent

The Court accepts the Respondent’s proposal to delete this paragraph as duplicative in light of changes to amended reply.

114

 

Delete as proposed by Respondent

The Court accepts the Respondent’s proposal to delete this paragraph as duplicative in light of changes to amended reply.

 

 

       Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 5th day of July, 2012.

 

 

“E.P. Rossiter”

Rossiter A.C.J.

 

 

 

CITATION:                                      2012 TCC 237

 

COURT FILES NOS.:                      2010-1413(IT)G

2010-1414(IT)G

2010-1640(IT)G

2010-2864(IT)G

 

STYLE OF CAUSE:                         CANADIAN IMPERIAL BANK OF COMMERCE v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

 

PLACE OF HEARING:                    Toronto, Ontario

 

DATE OF HEARING:                     

 

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:  The Honourable Associate

                                                          Chief Justice E.P. Rossiter

 

DATE OF ORDER:                          July 5, 2012

 

APPEARANCES:

 

Counsel for the Appellant:

Al Meghji and Joseph M. Steiner

Counsel for the Respondent:

Patricia Lee, Eric Noble, Michael Ezri and Craig Maw

 

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

 

       For the :

 

                          Name:                     Al Meghji

                            Firm:                     Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP

                                                          Toronto, Ontario

 

       For the Respondent:                  Myles J. Kirvan, Q.C.

                                                          Deputy Attorney General of Canada

                                                          Ottawa, Canada

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.