Part I — Technological Eligibility
| Appellant / Citation | Issue / Industry | Outcome | Ruling & rationale | Implications |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| I-1 · Software & IT | ||||
| Acsis EHR 2016 TCC 50 | Work to increase stability (Software) | ✓Win | No existing methods | Still lacks detail on specific hypotheses — Moderate |
| CRL Engineering 2019 TCC 65 | Distributed computing & advancement (IT) | ✓Win | Sequentially progressive complex options via PhD researcher & published scholarly project | Example of software-related advancement — Moderate |
| Allegro Wireless 2022 | Claims by telecom (Software/AI) | ✓Win | 3 of 3 projects eligible | Examples including AI and software — High |
| Dazzm Inc. 2024 TCC 129 | Cloud-based SaaS integration, React performance (Software) | ✓Win | Systemic uncertainty in open-source tool integration (React/Redux); Northwest Hydraulic criteria; beyond routine debugging/optimization | Encourages holistic evaluation of software projects; reinforces documentation via metrics/testimony — High |
| I-2 · Manufacturing & Engineering | ||||
| 6379249 Canada Inc. 2015 TCC 77 | Printer design problems post commercial sale (Manufacturing) | ✓Win | Strong evidence of technical uncertainty and technological advancement | Excellent example of eligible project — High |
| Formadrain 2017 TCC 42 | Technological advancement, concrete (Engineering) | ✓Win | Method unique in industry & cross-disciplinary | Excellent example of eligible project — High |
| A&D Precision 2019 TCC 48 | Technological advancement in precision machining (Manufacturing) | ✓Win | System uncertainty but still lacks detail | Use of expert testimony favourable — Moderate |
| Beton Mobile 2019 CCI 278 | Concrete processes — 5 criteria (Engineering) | ✓Win | 6 of 14 projects eligible, each detailed | Questions on why some ineligible — High |
| Andre Lamy MPC 2020 TCC 61 | Whether directly engaged (Engineering) | ✓Win | Work by doctor deemed on behalf of MPC; 4 eligible project examples, 2 with sponsors | Clarifies claims for Medical Professional Corporations — High |
| 9158 Quebec 2022 TCC 137 | Machine design (Engineering) | ✕Loss | Documentation using subcontractors | Low |
| Buhler 2023 TCC 18 | Tractor design (Manufacturing) | ✓Win | Ability to illustrate integration issues | Excellent illustration of system uncertainties — High |
| Chagnon 2023 | Jewelry design (Manufacturing) | ✕Loss | BSc. + in field of science | Need to evidence knowledge apparent to a BSc. in the field — Low |
| Daves Diesel 2023 | Injector design (Manufacturing) | ✕Loss | BSc. + in field of science | Low |
| JEC 2023 | Welding processes (Engineering) | ✕Loss | BSc. + in field of science | Low |
| Mold Leaders 2023 | Mold designs (Manufacturing) | ✕Loss | BSc. + in field of science | Low |
| Mold Leaders (Appeal) 2024 | Mold development (Manufacturing) | ✕Loss | Trial & error vs. systematic; original ruling supported | Low |
| I-3 · Energy & Environment | ||||
| Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Ltd. 97-531-IT-G · 1998 | System uncertainties basis for eligibility (Hydraulics/Environment) | ✓Win | 4 of 5 projects eligible on "system uncertainties" | Landmark case, "exemplary" project — High |
| Rainbow Pipeline 96-4369-IT-G · 1999 | Definition of "technological advancement" (Energy/Pipeline) | ✓Win | Rejection of a hypothesis is itself an advance | Significant precedent defining "TA" — High |
| Airmax* 2012 TCC 376 | Technological advancement, HVAC (Environment) | ✓Win | System uncertainties re: heat source pressure ducts; informal appeal procedure | High |
| Novalia (Wind turbines) 2016 TCC 81 · 2017 | Wind turbine with patent (Energy) | ✕Loss | Lack of qualifications — PhD in music | Hypotheses must be grounded in science — Moderate |
| Airzone One 2022 | Air quality research (Environment) | ✓Win | 4 of 6 projects eligible | Cut-off between eligible and ineligible — High |
| Global Sustainable 2021 TCC 17 | Energy efficiency (Energy) | ✕Loss | Work deemed routine | Compare vs. Airmax case — Moderate |
| Logix Data 2022 | Solar panels (Energy) | ✕Loss | Tests not recorded | Good project if properly documented — Moderate |
| ACBK 2023 | Thermal storage process (Energy) | ✕Loss | Improving a patented process — planning stage | Defining standard practice — Moderate |
| Vortex Energy Services Ltd. 2025 TCC 63 | Mobile direct-contact water heaters, fracking (Energy) | ✕Loss | Work was trial-and-error prototyping; vague/general hypotheses; lack of expert evidence | Reinforces need for verifiable systematic documentation — Low |
| I-4 · Food & Agri | ||||
| Flavornet* 2017 TCC 179 | Defining standard practice (Food) | ✕Loss | 4 of 5 criteria not met | Did the TCC consider relevant evidence? — High |
| LifeChoice 2017 TCC 21 | SI analysis, formulations by PhD naturopath (Agri/Food) | ✕Loss | No testing of hypotheses | Change in interpretation of "testing or analysis" — High |
| Canafric 2023 | Food development (Food) | ✓Win | Extension of technology | Unusual verdict based on evidence — Moderate |
| Biscuiterie 2024 | Food product development (Food) | ✕Loss | Usual procedures | Document hypotheses — Low |
| Manning Canning Kitchens Inc. 2025 | Shelf-stable cold-pressed juice ("Chrisoda") (Food) | ✓Win | Novel HPP application for microbial stability; hypotheses tested via measurable observations (pH, microbial counts) | Validates observation & measurement as keys to systematic investigation — High |
| I-5 · Construction & Materials | ||||
| Les Abeilles (GE) 2014 TCC 313 · 2015 | Processes — 4 projects, little evidence (Materials) | ✓Win | Verbal evidence accepted if "highly credible" | Credible witnesses counter weak documentation — Moderate |
| Atelier Béton 2022 | Concrete forming (Construction) | ✕Loss | Documenting hypotheses | Examples of variables missing per CRA — Moderate |
| WRD Borger Construction 2021 TCC 40 | Construction | ✕Loss | Trial & error | Business vs. technological problems — Low |
| Paveit Construction Inc. 2025 | Roller-compacted concrete field process (Construction) | ✕Loss | Adjustments were trial-and-error; known variables; no advancement; poor records | Reinforces need for controlled systematic evidence — Medium |
| I-6 · Other (General Processes, etc.) | ||||
| RIS Christie [1996] ETC 537 | Lack of documentation (General) | ✕Loss (round 1) | No evidence of experimentation or analysis | Results and/or a patent are not proof of SI — Moderate |
| Hun-Medipharma* 97-2305-IT-I · 1997 | Eligibility without "clinical trials" (Pharma) | ✓Win | SR&ED can be "experimentation OR analysis" | SI envisions contemplation vs. experimentation — Moderate |
| RIS Christie (appeal) [1999] ETC 2004 | Death of key witness (General) | ✓Win (round 2) | Engineer died prior to trial — court sympathetic | Courts sympathetic in extreme circumstances — Moderate |
Part II — Financial Issues
| Appellant / Citation | Issue / Industry | Outcome | Ruling & rationale | Implications |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| II-1 · Assistance / Grants / Experimental Product Sale | ||||
| Les Cultures Laflamme 89-2514(IT) · 1989 | Sale of experimental production | ✓Win | Sale irrelevant if SR&ED was performed | SR&ED labour eligible despite subsequent sale — High |
| Com Dev Ltd. 96-4343-IT-G · 1999 | Government fees — "assistance" or "revenue" | ✓Win | Fixed-price contract is not a purchase of SR&ED | Structure contracts so "taxpayer" bears "risk" — High |
| CAE 2022 | Loans as government assistance | ✕Loss | Related to SR&ED | Need to separate R&D vs. non-R&D loans — Moderate |
| II-2 · Wages | ||||
| Synchrosat 2000-1378-IT-I · 1995 | Salary to only SR&ED activities | ✕Loss | Only SR&ED percentage claimable | Need to document employee experimentation time — Low |
| Ergorecherche [1998] CTC | Time allocation, SR&ED vs. non-SR&ED | ✕Loss | Reasonable basis for allocation required | Could structure "non-SR&ED" as unpaid time — Moderate |
| Alcatel 2005 TCC 149 | Stock options — SR&ED "cost" incurred | ±Win / Draw | SR&ED "cost" is dilution of shareholder interest; legislation disallowed > Nov. 14, 2005 | Courts contemplate "costs" not in taxable income; unavailable after 2005 taxation years — High |
| Jaft 2015 MBCA 77 · 2016 | Wages only payable if SR&ED approved | ✕Loss | Claim unpaid wages on Schedule 32, line 315 | — |
| AG Shield 2017 TCC 68 | Allocation of SR&ED wages | ✓Win | 100% allowed even though only 23% attributed | Dividends & non-T4 payments included? — High |
| Oldcastle 2016 CCI 183 · 2017 | SR&ED wages based on sales | ✓Win | Salary & wages definition, ITA 248(1) | Payments not considered commission — High |
| II-3 · Materials | ||||
| Consoltex 97 DTC 724 · 1997 | Materials used in SR&ED then sold | ✓Win | Eligible if required for SR&ED; new legislation requires ITC repayment on sale | Short-lived precedent on "commercial materials"; labour eligible, materials sold excluded — High |
| II-4 · Unpaid Amounts | ||||
| Chartwell 2004 TCC 728 · 2002 | Eligibility of unpaid amounts / bad debts | ±Win / Loss | Claim costs in year incurred (then s. 78(4)) | Opportunity to claim unpaid wages — High |
| II-5 · Foreign Expenses | ||||
| LGL 96-4726(IT)G · 1999 | Data collection outside Canada, SR&ED? | ✕Loss / Draw | Ineligible if physically outside Canada; later eligible within the EEZ | Courts took a literal interpretation of "in Canada"; prompted the 10% foreign-travel allowance — Moderate |
| Blackberry Canada 2025 | Foreign R&D; whether income is FAPI | ✓Win | R&D services were not FAPI | Should not be treated as passive income — High |
| II-6 · Filing Deadline | ||||
| Alex Parallel Computers T-1512-97 · 1998 | Basis for extension of filing deadline | ±Win / Draw | Minister's extension power cannot be restricted by CRA; legislation of Nov. 17, 2005 removed SR&ED extensions | Extension reasons per CRA IC (illness/disaster); file by 18 months, preferably 15 — Moderate |
| Datacalc Research 2000-1413-IT-G · 2000 | Extension of 18-month filing deadline | ✕Loss | Qualified expenditures required by filing due date | Object to proper ITA sections — see Alex Parallel — Low |
| 6379249 Canada Inc. 2015 TCC 77 | Proving a project was filed with the claim | ✓Win | Verbal evidence accepted if "highly credible" | Not relevant if e-filing claims — Moderate |
| Easyway Cattle 2015 TCC 211 · 2016 | Failed to file Schedule 31 | ✕Loss | All prescribed information must be in prescribed form | Danger of filing past the 15-month CRA deadline — Moderate |
| Westsource 2017 TCC 9 | Complete claim | ✕Loss | Projects only filed by related company | 18-month deadline is absolute — Moderate |
| Fooi 2024 | Deadline to appeal | ✕Loss | File sent by mail | 18-month deadline; need proof of filing — High |
| Windsor 2024 | Deadline to appeal | ✓Win | Clarification vs. amendment | Right to appeal maintained — Low |
| II-7 · Qualified CCPC Status | ||||
| All Colour Chemicals [1993] CTC | Can CCPC partners claim 35% ITCs? | ✕Loss | S. 127(8) partnership rule overrides s. 127(10.1) refunds | Qualified CCPCs should avoid SR&ED partnerships — High |
| HSC Research CTC 2283 (TCC) · 1995 | Factors in evaluating de facto control | ✓Win | Separate directors — no control evidenced | Landmark case defining "de facto control" — High |
| Mimetex Pharmaceutical 1999-4847-IT-G · 1999 | Does a US director with 50% shares have control? | ✕Loss | US director acted without consent of a Canadian director | Get consent from at least one of two Canadian directors — High |
| Terra Remote 2006 TCC 279 | Is a <50% shareholder at arm's length? | ✓Win | ITA s. 256 (control) & s. 251 (related persons) | Specified employee (>10%) vs. "arm's length" — Moderate |
| Mindready Solutions 2015 CCI 17 | Was a private company controlled by a public one? | ✕Loss | Several factors determine factual control | Good list of relevant issues — Moderate |
| Aeronautic Dev Corp 2017 TCC 39 | De facto control | ✕Loss | Undue influence found | Be careful even with <50% of votes — Moderate |
| CO2 Solution Technologies 2019 CCI 286 | Control by a public company | ✕Loss | De facto control established | Loss with costs — Moderate |
| II-8 · ITC Use | ||||
| Ainsworth Lumber 98-1052-IT-G · 2001 | ITC use — refundable vs. non-refundable | ✓Win | The Act clarifies the taxpayer "may" deduct credits | Taxpayer elects the order — Moderate |
| II-9 · SR&ED Fraud | ||||
| R v. Elhami 2017 QCCQ 2684 | Level of fine | ✕Loss | Each of 3 parties charged 50% for false dates | Fine is 150% of the amount claimed — High |
| Tempora SCC 2018 | Level of fine | ✕Loss | Each of 3 charged 100% for false representations | Fine is 300% of the amount claimed — High |
| II-10 · Reassessment Period | ||||
| Rio Tinto Alcan 2017 TCC 67 | Can CRA reassess 5 years back? | ✕Loss | Waivers were filed for other reasons | Increased risk to all claimants — High |
Source: SR&ED cases 1988–2025, compiled from Tax Court of Canada judgments and CRA Redbook data. Rebuilt from archived site records — verify current status of any case before relying on it for a claim.