Maxi Maid Services Ltd. v. The Queen, 2012 DTC 1174 [at at 3435], 2012 TCC 178 (Informal Procedure) -- summary under Subsection 227(8)

The taxpayer's belief that it had paid an employee through dividends rather than wages (which it corrected in the subsequent year with retroactive source deductions and T4 slips) was found to support a due diligence defence for the purposes of s. 227(8) (as to which C. Miiiler J stated, at para. 12, that "in the assessment of a penalty, the onus of proof is on the Minister"). The Minister had not led evidence to support the assessment of a penalty. C. Miller J. stated (at para. 12): "there is no proof that the so-called dividend draws were just a figment of [the director's] imagination."