Advancing tax policy excellence
Responses of the parties to our motion
Each of the parties’ responses to our motion is linked below.
Our Reply Representations
We filed Reply Representations briefly responding to the new or unanticipated issues arising from the responses of Husky, HWLH, and LFMI.
In a nutshell, we explained that the purpose of our proposed intervention was warranted because we sought to fill gaps in the statutory interpretation context, and we assured the Court that–contrary to the claims of Husky (McCarthy), HWLH (Stikeman), and LFMI (Aird)–the Centre raised no new issues and would not provide new evidence; the proposed intervention was timely; the jurisprudence they cited supported the Centre’s intervention; and the intervention surely would not have drowned out the voices of these three elite law firms staffed with preeminent tax lawyers.
The intervention standard proposed by Husky, HWLH, and LFMI would mean that virtually no public interest intervention would be permissible in a tax case at the Federal Court of Appeal.