Royal Bank of Canada v. The King, 2024 TCC 125 -- summary under Paragraph 301(1.2)(a)

The objection of the taxpayer (RBC) referred in detail to the prior acceptance by the Minister off its input tax credit methodology as accepted for purposes of ETA 141.02(20), but did not submit that the Minister was bound by this method for its 2012 fiscal year – an argument that its counsel did not raise until the opening arguments at trial – which the Crown did not object to until the closing arguments at the end of the trial. However, its objection and notice of appeal were focused in detail on the appropriateness of the method for claiming ITCs. Smith J found that, in these circumstances, RBC’s counsel was not precluded from raising this argument by s. 301(1.2), after having accepted the submission of RBC (noted at para. 21) that it was “not required to describe an issue exactly and that a reasonable description is sufficient: Canada v. Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan, 2003 FCA 471 (para. 22) (“Potash Corp”) and Devon Canada Corporation v. Canada, 2015 FCA 214 (para. 25).”