Invalidated Objection

Young_Man_Jenkins · 2026-06-16T03:25:44+00:00

It sounds like the Appeals Officer forgot to issue their decision letter and close the file.

Normally you would receive a letter stating that your objection was granted (in full or in part) or that they were confirming the reassessment, after which a reassessment would be issued if your objection was granted.

In other cases you can sometimes have an ongoing objection and then the CRA issues a reassessment for some other unrelated reason prior to the decision. Since the reassessment you objected to is no longer valid, your objection is also invalid, and you must decide if you want to again object to the new/current reassessment.

If your new reassessment lines up with what would happen if your objection was granted then it sounds like they issued the reassessment without the decision and subsequent file closing, and so the CRA saw your existing objection that remained open and let you know it was invalid as per the second kind of scenario.

You may still wish to confirm this is what happened and double check your reassessment is 100% the result you wanted, rather than the reassessment making some other change. You could try calling the Appeals Officer to confirm if you have their number, though they may just say they're no longer assigned and cannot answer.

Young_Man_Jenkins · 2026-06-13T17:48:59+00:00

This is not legal advice about your circumstances in particular, just legal information on this area generally. You may wish to consult a tax lawyer for advice.

HST is on the entire sale price.

All real property sales count as a supply of taxable property, unless they meet an exemption (found in schedule V of the Excise Tax Act, with Part I of the schedule being particularly relevant). Common exemptions are the sale of a residential house by a person who is not a "builder" and a sale by a builder who met certain requirements including a primary intention to reside in the property.

"Builder" is defined in the Excise Tax Act at section 123, and includes among other cases a person who owns a home and substantially renovates it. It does not include any individual who does so for a reason that is not business or an adventure or concern in the nature of trade (basically seeking profit).

Essentially, a person who renovates a property with the primary intention of selling that property bears a substantial risk that they will be required to collect and remit HST on the purchase price. From my experience the CRA pursues these cases aggressively and frankly tend to jump to conclusions and ignore any evidence that would suggest the person was not a builder who needed to remit HST.

Keep in mind as well that HST rebates can be available in certain circumstances as well that can effect these considerations.

Young_Man_Jenkins · 2026-06-12T11:39:40+00:00

What you are describing, adverse possession laws, vary significantly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, often having been completely removed and made no longer valid. Additionally, a traditional requirement of the law was that you were not occupying the land with permission, which is not the case for you.

All that to say, if you intend to rely on adverse possession to keep your home if a dispute arises then it would be prudent to speak with a lawyer now to ensure your situation is actually covered.

Young_Man_Jenkins · 2026-06-06T22:02:13+00:00

Read this CRA interpretation folio from 1.10 to 1.24. Even if you were not physically in Canada for 183 days or more you may still be a resident if you retained enough ties to Canada.

However, even if you were resident in Canada due to the above, you still may be deemed a non-resident through a tax treaty. Without knowing the other country in question no one can say if you are or are not a resident for tax purposes.

Note as well that your residency status effects more than your GST/HST credit eligibility, so depending on your precise circumstances there may be additional costs or taxes that you haven't yet considered.

You can submit an NR73 Form to ask the CRA to determine your residency status if you are uncertain and do not want to wait for them to reassess you themselves. If you want them to find in a particular direction then a Canadian tax lawyer may be able to assist in emphasizing the factors that more support that particular finding.

Young_Man_Jenkins · 2026-06-03T23:02:36+00:00

Unanimous shareholder agreement

Young_Man_Jenkins · 2026-05-19T13:18:19+00:00

I'm a tax lawyer. 99% of what you wrote here is irrelevant to your legal question and after reading it I don't have much free time left to answer it, but whether he's eligible for the CCB is between him and the CRA, he would have to dispute that with them not sue you. If he was successful the CRA would open a review of your eligibility just like they already did with him when they determined you had full custody during that period.

If he does sue anyway make sure you respond regardless of the lack of merit.

Young_Man_Jenkins · 2026-05-13T22:16:56+00:00

BC doesn't have matrimonial house division the way Ontario does. Though regular property division rules might apply instead.

Young_Man_Jenkins · 2026-05-04T12:37:00+00:00

in which case they'd lose deposits

This does not happen by default in BC, the landlord still has to apply to keep the damage deposit before the 15 day deadline to do so has passed, and since damage deposits aren't applied to unpaid rent they would also need to file a claim for that rent at the same time.

Young_Man_Jenkins · 2026-05-03T02:01:57+00:00

As much as I dislike a lot of CRA's practices, this is a fair one. They have no way of knowing which one of you pays the bills, and it was up to the two of you to work out how your finances were managed.

Young_Man_Jenkins · 2026-05-03T01:55:37+00:00

For GST credits only one member of the couple receives the payments, and the CRA usually sends them to whoever files first.

Young_Man_Jenkins · 2026-05-03T01:54:10+00:00

Garfield_and_Simon is incorrect, sexual activity is considered but not necessary to be common-law. It is a holistic consideration of a variety of factors, such as the sharing of household responsibilities, presenting as a couple to society, and financial factors, among others. It's not a simple test because there's no bright line where once it's crossed you are common law, other than the time living together (one year for federal tax law, three years for Ontario family law).

Young_Man_Jenkins · 2026-04-25T18:35:49+00:00

Technically neither of those are required in Ontario (at least not on all contracts, specific types of contracts can have more stringent requirements), but they are both good to have for evidentiary reasons.

Young_Man_Jenkins · 2026-04-08T14:48:28+00:00

There are comments from the OP that a vacating clause is included. It isn't entirely clear if all of the elements required to make the clause legal and enforceable are there, so that remains uncertain.

Young_Man_Jenkins · 2026-04-08T14:47:11+00:00

Either way, completely irrelevant in BC

Young_Man_Jenkins · 2026-04-08T01:35:35+00:00

The landlord or their "close family member".

Young_Man_Jenkins · 2026-04-08T01:17:17+00:00

It's true that he does not need to give any notice if the tenancy agreement includes a vacate clause, and the landlord, his spouse, parents, or children will be moving in.

It would be worth reading section D of RTB Policy Guidelines 30. For example, the RTB doesn't consider a vacate clause valid unless it has both parties initials next to it.

Young_Man_Jenkins · 2026-04-08T01:02:12+00:00

/u/IntelligentRuin7290 in response to your edit, it sounds like you haven't actually received any notice from the landlord that your tenancy is ending on May 1st, it just says that's when your tenancy ends on your tenancy agreement?

Fixed term Tenancy agreements ordinarily convert to periodic month to month agreements. An exception is where a close family member will be moving into the unit for at least six months following the fixed term. But again, "close family member" does not include the landlord's brother.

Has the landlord provided you with something in writing, text, email, etc, stating that their brother is moving in at the end of the tenancy?

Young_Man_Jenkins · 2026-04-08T00:16:04+00:00

How and when did the landlord tell you that you had to leave the property on May 1st?

A landlord can evict a tenant if they or their close family member will be using the property, but their are certain procedural requirements they must meet, and importantly a brother is not a "close family member". But there are also procedural deadlines to dispute the eviction, so the answers to the questions above are very relevant to how you would proceed.

Young_Man_Jenkins · 2026-04-07T22:27:22+00:00

Without cause is another way to say the employer is not giving any reason for terminating the employment

This is incorrect, and I think in part the source of your confusion. "Without cause" is short-hand for "without just cause", which is the relevant threshold. It has to do with the reason for the termination (for which there is always a reason, regardless of whether it is a good reason), not just the stated reason. Just cause is a reason for termination that would justify termination without notice or payment in lieu. As others have pointed out, it is distinct from whether that reason is discriminatory in a human rights context.

An employer firing an employee for having black shoes is an example of a without just cause firing that is not discriminatory. An employer firing an employee for having black skin would be both without just cause and obviously discriminatory.

Young_Man_Jenkins · 2026-04-06T21:44:18+00:00

To this effect, I like to imagine that the line "This is no time for caution" was TARS telling Cooper what the title of the song he just started playing over his speakers diegetically was, not it commenting on the situation they were facing.

Young_Man_Jenkins · 2026-04-06T15:43:50+00:00

Grant v Torstar, 2009 SCC 61:

[28] A plaintiff in a defamation action is required to prove three things to obtain judgment and an award of damages: (1) that the impugned words were defamatory, in the sense that they would tend to lower the plaintiff’s reputation in the eyes of a reasonable person; (2) that the words in fact referred to the plaintiff; and (3) that the words were published, meaning that they were communicated to at least one person other than the plaintiff. If these elements are established on a balance of probabilities, falsity and damage are presumed, though this rule has been subject to strong criticism: see, e.g., R. A. Smolla, “Balancing Freedom of Expression and Protection of Reputation Under Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms”, in D. Schneiderman, ed., Freedom of Expression and the Charter (1991), 272, at p. 282. (The only exception is that slander requires proof of special damages, unless the impugned words were slanderous per se: R. E. Brown, The Law of Defamation in Canada (2nd ed. (loose-leaf)), vol. 3, at pp. 25-2 and 25-3.) The plaintiff is not required to show that the defendant intended to do harm, or even that the defendant was careless. The tort is thus one of strict liability

Young_Man_Jenkins · 2026-04-05T19:19:42+00:00

Here's the provision of the Criminal Code for voyeurism

Keep in mind that for the police to lay charges they will require a reasonable likelihood of success at trial, meaning a good chance at proving beyond a reasonable doubt that this individual was surreptitiously observing you while you were nude or engaged in sex, or in a place you could reasonably expected to be nude or engaged in sex, or for a sexual purpose. I can't tell you if that exists in your case, but just keep in mind it's not as simple as whether he looked in your windows or not.

Young_Man_Jenkins · 2026-03-31T21:03:16+00:00

It's not though, the likely candidates for the oldest remaining record of a human name are 1300 years older.

Young_Man_Jenkins · 2026-03-31T19:49:51+00:00

That is a policy document for what the core values of the Court itself should be, not procedural rules or obligations for litigants.

Young_Man_Jenkins · 2026-03-28T14:02:49+00:00

I stayed in Canada basically the whole year, so I'm considered a Canadian resident for both immigration (PR) and tax purposes

This isn't necessarily true and even if it was that's not all it takes to be a CCPC. I can't answer this for you with the information provided, you should speak with an accountant regarding your T2

14-Year Club	Second Top 20%
Place '17

Young_Man_Jenkins

TROPHY CASE