![]() ![]() The appellant also argues that he was denied procedural fairness because he legitimately and reasonably expected that he would be provided the same process considerations as the successful SDL Optics employees.Īgain, I disagree. Fewer options are granted under stock purchase plans. The appellant had the option to purchase, or not purchase, shares at a designated price for a specified period of time regardless of shifts in market value during that period. This reflects the fact that a stock option plan provides greater flexibility to employees. In the case of SDL Optics, employees who purchased shares through a stock option plan, as opposed to a stock payment plan, were not entitled to remission. It is submitted that the decision-maker distinguished the situation in SDL Optics from the present case on a basis that was arbitrary and unreasonable. who acquired shares through a stock purchase plan and who were granted remission orders. The appellant’s principal argument on appeal is that the decision is unreasonable because the appellant was similarly situated to employees of SDL Optics, Inc. The issue on this appeal, therefore, is whether the Federal Court applied the reasonableness standard correctly. On this appeal the parties agree that the Federal Court correctly reviewed the remission decision on the standard of review of reasonableness. The appellant now appeals the judgment of the Federal Court. The appellant unsuccessfully sought remission of income tax payable in respect of taxable benefits he received under a stock option plan offered by his employer, ZCL Composites Inc.įor reasons cited 2018 FC 936, the Federal Court dismissed an application for judicial review of the negative decision. Remission orders are highly discretionary and are entitled to significant deference on judicial review. F-11, allows the federal government to provide full or partial relief from any tax or penalty, including interest paid or payable thereon, where the Governor in Council “considers that the collection of the tax or the enforcement of the penalty is unreasonable or unjust or that it is otherwise in the public interest to remit the tax or penalty.” A remission order is an extraordinary remedy granted by the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the appropriate Minister. Subsection 23(2) of the Financial Administration Act, R.S.C.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |