The Law Blog

The recent decision of the Tax Court in Williamson v. The Queen is a good reminder of the personal obligations directors have under the Income Tax Act (ITA) for remitting employee source deductions and the potential harsh consequences for failing to live up to those obligations. In Williamson, the director’s company had entered into a [...]

The Canada Revenue Agency has revoked the status of the Canadian Lacrosse Association as a registered Canadian amateur athletic association (RCAAA) for its involvement in what the CRA has declared an “abusive” donation scheme.

Newspapers have been full of stories about naming rights and sponsorships gone wrong. The Aquarium of the Pacific in Long Beach, California had to decide this week whether to proceed with the opening of the BP Sea Otter Habitat or return BP’s $1 million donation, following BP’s oil rig spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The Aquarium chose to proceed, but BP officials did not attend the opening. What happens in these circumstances, when the commitment already has been made? For example, can the owner who granted the naming rights simply, and unilaterally, unwind the agreement?

Here’s a nice little op-ed piece from today’s NY Times about some of the problems with LEED ratings, and in particular the problems with ensuring long-term compliance with the goals of the LEED Program.

Companies should eliminate the risk of having to make legal arguments as to whether an invention or work was created in the course of employment, and should take steps to prevent employees from using the company’s IP for the benefit of future employers. This can be accomplished by including appropriate terms in the employment agreement.