The taxpayer was a corporate director with her husband. When the two separated, the taxpayer erroneously believed she had resigned as director. She was liable under s. 227.1(1) for the corporation's failure to remit employee deductions. Woods J. ruled that she could not make out a due diligence defence under s. 227.1(3). At para. 24: "the appellant was an experienced business person and she was aware that her husband had a history of ignoring remittance obligations. Even though the appellant was not actively involved in the day-to-day activities of [the corporation], she had an obligation to take some action to prevent the remittance failures."
Topics and taglines
d7 import status
Drupal 7 entity type
Node
Drupal 7 entity ID
336592
Extra import data
{
"field_legacy_header": "<strong><em>Lequier v. The Queen</em></strong>, 2010 TCC 474, 2010 DTC 1321 [at 4219]",
"field_override_history": false,
"field_sid": "",
"field_topic_category": "seealso"
}
"field_legacy_header": "<strong><em>Lequier v. The Queen</em></strong>, 2010 TCC 474, 2010 DTC 1321 [at 4219]",
"field_override_history": false,
"field_sid": "",
"field_topic_category": "seealso"
}