According to Minister of National Revenue v. Pillsbury Holdings Ltd. (1964), 64 D.T.C. 5184 (Ex. Ct.), which was adopted by Trac at para. 27, the disputant, such as Almaden, may meet the onus in any one of the following ways: (a) challenging the Minister’s allegation that he assumed those facts; (b) assuming the onus of showing that one or more of the assumptions was wrong; or (c) contending that even if the assumptions were justified, they do not of themselves support the assessment.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.