Below is an archive of court rulings which we feel have been particularly significant in shaping the interpretation of the SR&ED related provisions of Canada's Income Tax Act. We believe that these cases provide useful guidance with respect to what types of R&D activities can be claimed, the expenditures that qualify to attract SR&ED benefits, and the benefit rates that apply to various types of business structures. This is not intended to be a complete list of all SR&ED related cases.

• DAZZM Inc. v. The King in Tax Court Canada of Canada October 2024
  Dckt 2021-3161(IT)G (WARNING: Google Translate of French Original) [PDF]
  Taxpayer claimed two software development projects; CRA accepted one project as filed and after technical review denied the other in which SR&ED was undertaken to improve an existing software product that the taxpayer sold to others as a tool for performing IT system management and provisioning.
  CRA RTA contended that there was no technological uncertainty, but failed to ever provide any grounds for that assertion. The CRA RTA did not pay heed to supporting documents provided by the taxpayer.
  The court entirely ruled that the denied project met the definition of SR&ED and allowed all expenditures claimed in respect of it.
• Canafric Inc. v. The King in Tax Court Canada of Canada July 2023
  Dckts 2018-677(IT)G, 2019-3835(IT)G, 2020-1571(IT)G and 2020-1574(IT)G [PDF]
  The court entirely allows SR&ED claims related to development of frozen foods (savoury pies) over a total of four taxation years. Advancements were shelf life and salt / fat reduction. Uncertainty is the unpredictability of how the same ingredients will interact with each other in different combinations and quantities. Both CRA and taxpayer witnesses were well qualified in the subject matter, however per para [95] the Court gave more weight to the taxpayer's witness (who was its CEO) noting that while the CRA RTA "....although factual, was very much a generalist without support or backups. He was rigid in his evidence and his approach lacked the understanding necessary to property evaluate the operations in question." At para [114] the Court criticized CRA for failing "....to address the Appellant's evidence in a forthright manner, especially the documentation provided to the CRA and the detailed technical discussions, which took place during the on-site meetings. This was never addressed by the Respondent other than by denying the claim."
• Buehler Versatile Inc. v. The King in Tax Court Canada of Canada February 2023
  Dckt 2012-4373(IT)G [PDF]
  The court makes partial allowance for SR&ED related to development of large high-powered four-wheel drive agricultural tractor.
  This decision re-affirms the concept of "system level" uncertainty as valid grounds for the technological eligibility of a SR&ED claim:
  [57] I am of the view that the technological uncertainty in this case fits squarely under the description of a system uncertainty. In other words, the integration of non-trivial combinations of established (well-known) technologies and principles carried a major element of technological uncertainty. When all the individual parts were combined, their individual uncertainties were merged into a system uncertainty and the system uncertainty was the entire tractor. All of the constituent parts needed to function in unison to achieve the appellant's objective.
• JEC Distributors Inc. v. The King in Tax Court Canada of Canada December 2022
  Dckt 2019-1422(IT)I [PDF]
  The court entirely denies SR&ED claims related to development of industrial welding equipment used in Tier 2 automotive parts manufacturing.
  Taxpayer fails to introduce any expert witness testimony to support technological uncertainty, the detriment of this is highlighted in the following excerpts:
  [22] However, it is not enough for the Appellant to prove that it could not remove the risks and uncertainties through routine engineering or standard procedures. The test is an objective test, not a subjective test. The Appellant must show that the risks could not be overcome by routine engineering or standard procedures generally accessible to competent professionals in the field. The Appellant did not do so.
  [23] The Appellant's expertise is in welding technology. I have no way of knowing, for example, whether an electrical engineer or even a skilled electrician could have proposed a routine solution to prevent the electric noise from reaching the sensors. Similarly, I have no way of knowing whether a computer engineer or a technician with networking expertise could have employed standard networking procedures to connect the sensors to the Appellant's customers' networks.
• CAE Inc. in Federal Court of Appeal October 2022
  Dckt A-264-21 19-Oct-2022 (WARNING: Google Translate of French Original) [PDF]
  FCA upholds TCC decision that certain funds provided to CAE Inc. by the Canadian Federal Government as non-forgivable loans constitute "government assistance" and therefore both reduce the company's SR&ED ITCs AND must also be counted as taxable "income" on grounds that the terms of the loan were not "strictly commercial".
• CAE Inc. Factum to Canadian Federal Court of Appeal March 2022
  CAE - Mémoire des faits et du droit de l'appelante (WARNING: Google Translate of French Original) [PDF]
  This factum document sets out the "facts and reasons" that CAE Inc. submitted to the court in support its appeal of the Tax Court Canada ruling on the loans it received from Canadian Federal Government under the SADI program. FCA ruled on this in October 2022, see link to that ruling above.
• Dave's Diesel Inc. v. The Queen in Tax Court Canada of Canada June 2022
  Dckt 2018-1618(IT)G [PDF]
  The court rules against taxpayer's claim for SR&ED related to remanufacturing of fuel injectors for diesel engines.
  This decision underlines the weight that the Tax Court places on professional qualifications.
  - Paras [26], [27], [28] and [33] reinforce that the term "technological uncertainty", means that the goal of the project is obstructed by a problem that a person with professional qualifications, training and expertise in the subject technology could not resolve without resorting to the testing of various hypothesis ideas by experimentation.
  - Para [32] highlights the folly of claiming that the uncertainty is simply whether or not the goal could be achieved.
  - Para [37] gives an example of what the court might expect to see in a hypothesis statement.
• Airzone One Ltd. in Tax Court Canada February 2022
  Dckt 2018-379(IT)G [PDF]
  CRA disallowed all six projects claimed over two TYs on grounds that there was no "technological advancement". Court rules that three of the six projects meet the SR&ED criterion and are eligible. The Court applies an interesting "how and why" reasoning in support of its judgement.
  Also notable is that the taxpayer's cross-examination of the CRA auditor who made the decision to deny the disputed projects, suggests that his sources "were not of particular relevance" and that "his knowledge of Airzone's specialized field of activity [was] understandably quite limited".
• CAE Inc. in Tax Court Canada September 2021
  Dckt 2016-4984(IT)G 14-Sep-2021 (WARNING: Google Translate of French Original) [PDF]
  Court rules that $81.6M provided to CAE Inc. by the Canadian Federal Government in the form of an un-secured, non-forgivable loan under the Strategic Aerospace and Defense Initiative ("SADI") program, constitutes "government assistance" and therefore acts to reduce CAE's SR&ED claims per subsection 127(18) of the ITA.
  At paras [128] and [135] to [137], the court concludes that the loan did not constitute an "ordinary commercial agreement" and as such is caught by the definition of "government assistance" in subsection 127(9) of the ITA. Para [113] cites an earlier decision by the Federal Court of Appeal (i.e. Immunovaccine, September 2014) wherein the court ruled that a payment constitutes "government assistance" if it has not been made in exactly the same way and for exactly the same reasons as a payment done by a private company. At para [54] it is noted that the terms of the loan featured an unusual five-year deferral of both interest and principal. Paras [78-79] describe several other unusual covenants (e.g. dearth of protections for the lender, restrictions on sale of IP, prohibition of work outside Canada, etc.) that would be unlikely in an ordinary private commercial loan agreement.
• Kam-Press Metal Products Ltd. in Federal Court of Appeal April 2021
  Dckt A-442-19 10-May-2021 [PDF]
  FCA upholds Tax Court Canada decision that claimed work had neither technological uncertainty nor systematic investigation consistent with "scientific method".
  At para 7 the court references several earlier precedential FCA decisions including Jentel Manufacturing Ltd. (2011), C.W. Agencies Inc. (2001) and RIS-Christie (1998).
• Allegro Wireless Canada Inc v. The Queen in Tax Court of Canada March 2021
  Dckt 2014-1690(IT)G 31-Mar-2021 [PDF]
  Court allows SR&ED on development of software for portable wireless computing devices. Both taxpayer and the CRA utilize expert witness testimony. Based on testimony of taxpayer's expert witness, court finds that there was "technological uncertainty" in the claimed work. Taxpayer was able to produce records evidencing formation and investigation of hypothesis. Per paras 106, 107, 119 and esp. 120 court views CRA's expert witnesses as not well prepared and ultimately gives "no weight" to their reports.
• Indusol Industrial Control Ltd. v. The Queen in Tax Court of Canada September 2020
  Dckt 2016-5458(IT)G 14-Sep-2020 [PDF]
  Improvement to existing marine navigation software not SR&ED; court acknowledges some technological uncertainty but denies SR&ED due to lack of "systematic investigation". Taxpayer did not produce an expert witness.
• Andre Lamy Medicine Professional Corporation v. The Queen in Tax Court of Canada July 2020
  Dckt 2017-2714(IT)G 20-Jul-2020 (WARNING - informal procedure) [PDF]
  Who claims SR&ED performed by medical doctor (physician) i.e. the medical professional corporation ("MPC") or the physician personally?
• National R&D Inc. in Tax Court of Canada July 2020
  Dckt 2017-3837(IT)G 7-Jul-2020 (WARNING - informal procedure) [PDF]
  Detailed discussion of the SR&ED eligibility factors in software development; no evidence of "scientific method"
• Béton mobile du Québec Inc. in Tax Court of Canada December 2019
  Dckt 2015-3425(IT)G 11-Dec-2019 (WARNING: Google Translate of French Original) [PDF]
  21 projects in dispute, court rules only 6 eligible; extensive discussion of "Technological Uncertainty"
• Kam-Press Metal Products Ltd. in Tax Court Canada October 2019
  Dckt 2016-4880(IT)G 30-Oct-2019 [PDF]
  Court says no expert witness needed to determine that claimed work was "routine engineering" with no technological uncertainty. Development was by "trial and error" and not by systematic investigation.
• A&D Precision Limited in Tax Court of Canada February 2019
  Dckt 2014-3465(IT)G 28-Feb-2019  [PDF]
• Dock Edge Inc. in Tax Court of Canada January 2019
  "Technological Advancement" means advancement in general understanding vs. specific knowledge within a single company
  Dckt 2016-539(IT)G 16-Jan-2019 [PDF]
• Borealis Geopower Inc. in Tax Court of Canada September 2018
  Dckt 2017-3210(IT)I 13-Sep-2018 (Government Assistance - received / receivable from
  Sustainable Development Technologies Canada "SDTC") [PDF]
• Aeronautic Development Corp. in Tax Court of Canada April 2018
  Dckt A-121-17 4-Apr-2018 (Defacto Control by Economic Influence) [PDF]
• Westsource Group Holdings in Federal Court of Appeal March 2018
  Use of prescribed forms for project technical descriptions t661 lines 240, 242, 244.
  Dckt A-61-17 21-Mar-2018 [PDF]
• Akanda Corp in Tax Court of Canada Feb 2018
  Failure to abide time deadlines set by court results in dismissed SR&ED appeal.
  Dckt 2015-5215(IT)G and 2015-217(IT)G 19-Feb-2018 [PDF]
• D. Nagel in Tax Court of Canada Feb 2018
  "nil-assessment": Is loss determination required to appeal of SR&ED ITC?
  Dckt 2017-401(IT)APP 15-Feb-2018 [PDF]
• Mac & Mac Hydrodemolition Services in Tax Court of Canada December 2017
  Dckt 2017-1942(IT)I 22-Dec-2017 [PDF]
• Lehigh Hanson Materials in Tax Court of Canada Oct 2017
  Rule 58 motion re knowledge of others vs "advancement"
  Dckt 2017-2735(IT)G 06-Oct-2017 [PDF]
• Robotx Solutions Inc. in Tax Court of Canada May 2017
  Dckt 2016-736(IT)I 3-May-2017 (WARNING - informal procedure / Google translation) [PDF]
• Les éléments chauffants Tempora inc / Maged Elhami and Shady Elhami in Court of Quebec
  Fined $1.3M for Tax Fraud ITA ss 239 (1.1) on SR&ED Investment Tax Credits
  Dckt QCCQ 2684 500-73-004048-134 27 Mar 2017 (Google translation of French Original) [PDF]
• Formadrain Inc. in Tax Court of Canada March 2017
  Dckt 2016-1657(IT)I 15-Mar-2017 (WARNING - informal procedure / Google translation) [PDF]
• Aeronautic Development Corp. in Tax Court of Canada January 2017
  Dckt 2014-4207(IT)G 13-Mar-2017 (Defacto Control by Economic Influence) [PDF]
• Life Choice Ltd. in Tax Court of Canada January 2017
  (re-confirms SR&ED must entail testing but also suggests literature reviews and "analysis" can be SR&ED)
  Dckt 2015-2308(IT)I 31-Jan-2017 (WARNING - informal procedure) [PDF]
• Westsource Group Holdings Inc. in Tax Court of Canada January 2017
  Use of prescribed forms for project technical descriptions t661 lines 240, 242, 244.
  Dckt 2016-1657(IT)G 24-Jan-2017 [PDF]
• Joel Theatrical Rigging in TCC January 2017
  Dckt 2015-125(IT)I 17-Jan-2017 (WARNING - informal procedure) [PDF]
• Easy Way Cattle Oilers Ltd. in Federal Court of Appeal November 2016
  (Use of prescribed forms in filing an SR&ED claim)
  Dckt A-432-15 28-Nov-2016 [PDF]
• Oldcastle Building Products Canada Inc. in Tax Court of Canada Aug 2016
  (% based compensation or bonus paid to non-specified executive employee eligible to attract SR&ED under traditional overhead method)
  Dckt 2014-3152(IT)G 25-Aug-2016 (WARNING: Google Translate of French Original) [PDF]
• A & D Precision Ltd. in Tax Court Canada May 2016
  (motion hearing re taxpayer failure to cooperate in discovery process)
  Dckt 2014-3465(IT)G 5-May-2016 [PDF]
• AFD Petroleum Ltd. in Federal Court of Canada May 2016
  Dckt T-309-15 16-May-2016 [PDF]
• Recherches Novalia Inc in Tax Court Canada April 2016
  Dckt 2014-679(IT)I 8-Apr-2016 (Google Translation) [PDF]
• McGillivray Restaurant Ltd. in FCA March 2016 (Meaning of Defacto Control)
  Dckt A-571-14 2016-FCA-99 30-Mar-2016 [PDF]
• Emotion Picture Studios Inc. in Tax Court Canada December 2015
  Dckt 2015-198(IT)I 4-Dec-2015 (WARNING - informal procedure) [PDF]
• ACSIS EHR (Electronic Health Record) Inc. AWARD OF LEGAL COSTS
  in Tax Court of Canada February 2016
  Dckt 2012-4645(IT)G COST AWARD 26-Feb-2016 [PDF]
• ACSIS EHR (Electronic Health Record) Inc. MAIN ACTION SR&ED
  in Tax Court of Canada October 2015
  Dckt 2012-4645(IT)G 27-Oct-2015 [PDF]
• Fio Corporation in Federal Court of Appeal October 2015 (Implied Undertakings Motion Only)
  Dckt A-125-14 2015-FCA-236 [PDF]
• 2037625 Ontario Inc. (Formerly ITC Invoice to Cash Inc.) in Tax Court Canada October 2015
  Dckt 2014-1702(IT)I 30-Oct-2015 (WARNING - Informal Procedure) [PDF]
• Easy Way Cattle Oilers Ltd. in Tax Court Canada Aug 2015
  (Use of prescribed forms in filing an SR&ED claim)
  Dckt 2012-1217(IT)G 21-Aug-2015 [PDF]
• R&D Pro-Innovation Inc. in Tax Court Canada July 2015
  Dckt 2014-1594(IT)I 23-Jul-2015 [PDF]
• Highweb & Page Group Inc. in Tax Court Canada June 2015
  Dckt 2014-1703(IT)I 8-Jun-2015 (WARNING - Informal Procedure) [PDF]
• 6379249 Canada Inc. in Tax Court Canada March 2015
  Dckt 2012-3634(IT)G 31-Mar-2015 [PDF]
• HLP Solutions Inc. in Tax Court Canada (court order re CRA expert witness) February 2015
  Dckt 2012-671(IT)G 12-Jan-2015 [PDF]
• Hypercube Inc. in Tax Court Canada March 2015
  Dckt 2014-1254(IT)I 17-Mar-2015 [PDF]
• Feedlot Health Management Services Ltd. in Tax Court Canada February 2015
  Dckt 2012-1292(IT)G 06-Feb-2015 [PDF]
• Abeilles Inc. in Tax Court Canada October 2014
  Dckt 2011-2054(IT)G 23-Oct-2014 (Official English Translation) [PDF]
• Immunovaccine Technologies Inc. in Federal Court of Appeal September 2014
  Dckt A-171-13 11-Sep-2014 [PDF]
• Fio Corporation in Tax Court Canada February 2014 (Implied Undertakings Motion Only)
  Dckt 2012-1452(IT)G 20-Feb-2014 [PDF]
• Bagtech in Federal Court of Appeal June 2013
  Dckt A-141-12 2013-FCA-164 [PDF]
• CalAmp Wireless Networks Inc. in Tax Court Canada June 2013
  Dckt 2010-3708(IT)G 25-Jun-2013 [PDF]
• Immunovaccine Technologies Inc. in Tax Court Canada April 2013
  Dckt 2011-245(IT)G 10-Apr-2013 [PDF]
• Lyrtech RD in Tax Court Canada January 2013
  Dckt 2009-1057(IT)G 24-Jan-2013 [PDF]
• 1726437 ONTARIO Inc. o/a Airmax Technologies in Tax Court Canada October 2012
  Dckt 2010-3660(IT)I 25-Oct-2012 (WARNING - Informal Procedure) [PDF]
• Laboratoire Du-Var Inc. in Tax Court Canada July 2012
  Dckt 2010-2038(IT)G 09-Jul-2012 [PDF]
• Bagtech in Tax Court Canada April 2012
  Dckt 2009-3734(IT)G 12-Apr-2012 [PDF]
• Murray Arlin Dentistry PC in Tax Court Canada April 2012
  Dckt 2010-3646(IT)I 12-Apr-2012 (WARNING - Informal Procedure) [PDF]
• Jentel Manufacturing in Federal Court of Appeal December 2011
  Dckt A-222-11 14-Dec-2011 [PDF]
• Soneil International Ltd. in Tax Court Canada August 2011
  Dckt 2007-4787(IT)G 19-Aug-2011 [PDF]
• Giovanni Tozzi in Tax Court Canada August 2012 (nil assessment)
  Dckt 2010-1808(IT)I 18-Aug-2010 [PDF]
• Union Carbide Corporation in U.S. Tax Court June 2010
  **Included here in the absence of any Canadian jurisprudence w.r.t. the exclusion of Commercial Production from SR&ED under para (i) of the 248(1). U.S. court disallowed R&E expenditures on activity deemed to be commercial production - see yellow highlight text on pages 2, 203-207, 275-277 and 208. Note reference to Tax Court Canada ruling on Consoltex on page 280.
  Dckt 11119-99 15-Jun-2010 (WARNING - United States Tax Court Ruling) [PDF]
• Jentel Manufacturing in Tax Court Canada June 2010
  Dckt 2008-3875(IT)G 11-Jun-2010 [PDF]
• in Provincial Court of Alberta and (appealed) Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench
  Global Enviro Inc. and Ian George McIntyre
  Fined $250K for Tax Fraud ITA ss 239 (1.1) on SR&ED Investment Tax Credits
  Dckt ACQB 060808508 S2 PCA 060808508P10101-0102 Mar-2009 [PDF]
• One Source Metal in Tax Court Canada July 2009 (Use of prescribed T661 forms)
  Dckt 2008-3566(IT)I 8-Jul-2009 (WARNING - Informal Procedure) [PDF]
• Zeuter Development Corporation in Tax Court Canada October 2006
  Dckt 2005-3306(IT)I 31-Oct-2006 (WARNING - Informal Procedure) [PDF]
• Blue Wave Seafoods Inc. in Tax Court Canada August 2004
  Dckt 2001-2140(IT)G; 2002-1248(IT)G; 2002-1249(IT)G 11-Aug-2004 [PDF]
• Auray-Blais in Tax Court Canada January 2003
  Dckt 2000-3931(IT)I; 2000-3934(IT)I 8-Jan-2002 (WARNING - Informal Procedure) [PDF]
• CW Agencies in Federal Court of Appeal December 2001
  Dckt A-601-00 11-Dec-2001 [PDF]
• CW Agencies in Tax Court Canada August 2000
  Dckt 98-1324-IT-G 30-Aug-2000 [PDF]
• Rainbow Pipe Line Co. in Tax Court Canada September 1999
  Dckt 96-4369-IT-G 15-Sep-1999 [PDF]
• Com Dev Ltd. in Tax Court Canada March 1999
  Dckt 96-4343-IT-G 09-Mar-1999 [PDF]
• Hun-Medipharma in Tax Court Canada January 1999
  Dckt 97-2305-IT-I 28-Jan-1999 (WARNING - informal procedure) [PDF]
• RIS Christie in Federal Court of Appeal December 1998
  Dckt A-710-96 21-Dec-1998 [PDF]
• Data Kinetics Ltd. in Tax Court Canada July 1998
  Dckt 95-456-IT-G 28-Jul-1998 [PDF]
• 116736 Canada Inc. in Tax Court Canada June 1998
  Dckt 96-2484-IT-I; 96-4372-IT-I 9-Jun-1998 [PDF]
• Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Ltd. in Tax Court Canada May 1998
  Dckt 97-531-IT-G 1-May-1998 [PDF]
• Consoltex Inc. in Tax Court Canada March 1997
  Dckt 94-990-IT-G 4-Mar-1997 [PDF]
• CCLC Technologies Inc. in Federal Court of Appeal September 1996
  Dckt A-801-95 19-Sep-1996 [PDF]
• RIS Christie in Tax Court of Canada August 1996
  Dckt 91-2556-IT-G 28-Aug-1996.pdf [PDF]
• CCLC Technologies Inc. in Federal Court November 1995
  Dckt T-3457-90 10-Nov-1995 [PDF]
• Highland Foundry Ltd. in Tax Court Canada August 1994
  Dckt 92-264 15-Aug-1994 [PDF]
• Cultures Laflamme (1984) Inc. in Tax Court Canada June 1992
  Dckt 89-2514-IT 17-Jun-1992 [PDF]
• Ben Martens in Tax Court Canada May 1988 (nil assessment)
  Dckt NA 10-May-1988 [PDF]
• Radio Engineering Products Limited in DTC January 1973
  Dckt 73-DTC-5071 17-Jan-1973 [PDF]