What’s Hot on CanLII This Week

Here are the three most-consulted English-language cases on CanLII for the week of April 23 – 30.

♨ 1. Price v. Turnbull’s Grove Inc. 2007 ONCA 408

[1] The main question in this appeal concerns the legal effect of a rent increase purportedly imposed by a landlord in respect of a residential tenancy without written notice to the tenant. At issue is the interplay between ss. 127(1), 127(4) and 141 of the Tenant Protection Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 24 (the “Act”).

♨ 2. Tucows.Com Co. v. Lojas Renner S.A.
2011 ONCA 548

[1] Tucows.com Co. (“Tucows”) and Lojas Renner S.A. (“Renner”) are having a dispute about Tucows’s right to keep the domain name in the face of Renner’s registered trademark “Renner”.

♨ 3. Calgary (City) v. Canada 2012 SCC 20

[1] The City of Calgary acquired and constructed transit infrastructure, facilities, and equipment (“facilities”) for the use of the Calgary public as part of the municipal transit system pursuant to the City Transportation Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. C-14 (“CTA”). Under the CTA, the Province of Alberta was authorized to share the cost of the transit system with the City, and to that end, entered into funding agreements with the City.

[2] The City paid Goods and Services Tax (“GST”) in respect of its purchases for the acquisition and construction of the transit facilities. The provision of a “municipal transit service” is an exempt supply under the terms of the Excise Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-15 (“ETA”). Input tax credits (“ITCs”) cannot be claimed with respect to purchases made for the purpose of providing an exempt supply. However, the City took the position that the construction of the transit facilities (in contrast to their operation) was a separate, non-exempt supply to the Province, pursuant to its contractual obligations to the Province under the funding agreements, for which the Province paid consideration. It therefore claimed ITCs in respect of the purchases made for the construction of the transit facilities. The Minister of National Revenue rejected the City’s position. The Tax Court of Canada agreed with the City, allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to the Minister for reassessment. The Federal Court of Appeal allowed the Minister’s appeal.

The most-consulted French-language decision was 9080-5128 Québec inc. c. Morin-Ogilvy 2012 QCCS 1464.

[1] 9080-5128 Québec inc. qui fait aussi affaires sous la raison sociale de Garage Reid (Garage Reid), Gaston Grenier (Grenier)[1], Lise Bouffard (Bouffard) et Josiane Leduc (Leduc) poursuivent solidairement les défendeurs Jacqueline Morin-Ogilvy (Morin), Équestre Ogilvy inc. et Jack Ogilvy (Ogilvy) en recouvrement d’une somme variant entre 55 000 $ et 165 000 $ chacun en compensation des dommages qu’ils allèguent avoir subis à la suite de la publication sur Facebook de propos qui auraient porté atteinte à leur réputation et pour ce qui est de Garage Reid, ayant aussi en conséquence occasionné des pertes d’affaires.

[2] Également, Garage Reid réclame de Jack Ogilvy (Ogilvy) et Équestre Ogilvy inc. le paiement d’une somme de 940,60 $ pour des travaux de réparation effectués sur le véhicule de marque Volvo dont Ogilvy est propriétaire.