surrogatum principle

In 1980, Nortel had established a health and welfare trust (the “HWT”) for its employees. Following its insolvency and filing under the CCAA (with the related CCAA proceedings being court-supervised), it made lump sum payments in 2011 to the four taxpayers, pursuant to a court-approved settlement agreement, in satisfaction of their entitlement to funding of life insurance premiums or to survivor death benefits.

In 1980, Nortel had established a health and welfare trust (the “HWT”) for its employees. Following its insolvency and filing under the CCAA (with the related CCAA proceedings being court-supervised), it made lump sum payments in 2011 to the taxpayers, pursuant to a court-approved settlement agreement, in satisfaction of their entitlement to payments under the HWT. Mr. Scott, had been the husband of a full-time non-unionized employee, and had been receiving monthly survivor income benefits following her death, that had been included in his income under s. 56(1)(a)(iii) as death benefits.

The taxpayer incurred expenses in obtaining a reversal of most of the costs that the Ontario Municipal Board had awarded against it. These expenses were capital expenditures but were deductible and deducted by it under s. 20(1)(cc). The taxpayer then received a settlement amount from the law firm that had acted for the OMB in respect of its negligence in having caused the OMB to impose the costs against the taxpayer.

On the early termination of a power purchase agreement between the taxpayer and the Alberta government, the taxpayer received $59.7 million from the Alberta government and the Alberta government became the beneficial owner of a power generation plant of the taxpayer, although the taxpayer continued as legal title owner and continued to operate the plant under an operating agreement with the Alberta government.

The taxpayer received a lump sum payment of $105,000 in settlement of her claim for wrongful termination of her long-term disability benefits. Although the portion of the settlement that was in respect of future disability benefits was not paid "pursuant to" the plan because there was no obligation on the part of the insurer to make a lump sum payment under the terms of the plan (para. 11), under the surrogatum principle, the portion of the lump sum payment that was intended to replace past disability payments was taxable to her under s. 6(1)(f). Charron J stated (at para. 15):