Canada: 2010 Tax Avoidance Cases Update

Last Updated: December 13 2010
Article by Douglas J. Powrie and Stephanie Wong

Most Read Contributor in Canada, September 2016

The Canadian courts have recently considered appeals of several cases in which the Crown has invoked the general anti-avoidance rule (GAAR) to challenge tax avoidance transactions. In Lehigh Cement, the Crown was unable to apply the GAAR because it could not meet its burden of establishing the taxpayer's abusive tax avoidance in the context of planning that had interest paid (free of withholding tax) to an arms-length bank in respect of principal owed to an affiliated corporation. In Collins & Aikman, the Crown was similarly unable to meet its burden in seeking to apply the GAAR to the tax benefits obtained from planning in an unusual fact pattern (a non-resident's investment in a Canadian operating company was held through a Canadian incorporated holding company that was a non-resident of Canada).

Both Antle and St. Michael Trust Corp. (Garron) involved planning that intended to see capital gains on shares of Canadian corporations realized without Canadian tax by trusts resident in Barbados. In Antle, the gain was taxed in Canada on the basis that the relevant shares had never been transferred to the purported non-resident trust. The case is important for the Federal Court of Appeal's obiter comments which may breathe new life into the doctrine of sham in tax avoidance cases. In St. Michael Trust Corp., the trust was taxed in Canada on the basis that it was, in fact, a resident of Canada. The case is important for the new ground it breaks in this area. Neither Antle nor St. Michael Trust Corp. applied the GAAR. However, the Federal Court of Appeal in St. Michael Trust Corp. did confirm (in obiter) that, had the trust been a non-resident of Canada, the GAAR would not have applied to deny the treaty benefit.

Lehigh Cement Ltd. v. The Queen

Lehigh borrowed money from a consortium of Canadian banks. A related Belgian corporation acquired Lehigh's debt, and Lehigh remitted withholding tax on interest payments. The terms of the debt were later amended to change the interest rate to the then market rate, and to add terms to comply with the former "5/25" Canadian domestic non-resident withholding tax exemption for interest on certain arm's length corporate debt. The Belgian corporation then sold all of its right to interest payable on the debt to an arm's length Belgian bank. Following the restructuring, Lehigh paid directly to the Belgian bank all interest payable on the Lehigh debt and did not withhold on the basis that the 5/25 exemption applied.

The Crown argued that there was a misuse of the 5/25 exemption as it was not intended to benefit a non-resident person who was legally entitled to be paid interest on a debt as a result of a transaction by which the right to be paid the interest is split from the right to be paid the principal amount.

Since the restructured loan did not result in Lehigh accessing funds in the international capital markets, the Crown argued that it was inconsistent with the underlying rationale of the exemption. The Tax Court agreed that the GAAR applied; the 5/25 exemption had been abused because Lehigh had not borrowed money from the Belgian bank or any other non-resident lender.

The Federal Court of Appeal reversed the Tax Court's decision, concluding that the GAAR did not apply. The wording of the exemption was broad enough to include any interest payable by a Canadian resident corporation to a non-resident, "no matter how the non-resident may have become entitled to receive that interest". The exemption required the arm's length test to be met only in respect of the relationship between the person required to pay the interest and the person entitled to be paid the interest, and not in respect of the relationship between the person required to pay the principal amount of the debt and the person entitled to be paid the principal amount of the debt.

The Crown's reliance on a single sentence in the 1975 budget papers was considered by the Court to be a "shaky foundation" and an insufficient basis on which to apply the GAAR to the restructuring of the Lehigh debt. The Crown's argument found no other support in either the Act, the jurisprudence or any other authority. The Court noted that the Crown could meet its burden of proving a misuse by simply asserting that the transaction was unforeseen or exploited a legislative loophole.

On November 4, 2010, the Supreme Court of Canada denied the Crown's application for leave to appeal the Federal Court of Appeal decision.

The Queen v. Collins & Aikman Products Co.

The Collins and Aikman multinational group reorganized its Canadian business operations so that it held directly a Canadian affiliate, Holdings, which in turn wholly owned another Canadian affiliate (CAHL). The reorganization resulted in the creation of both paid-up capital and adjusted cost base in the shares of Holdings held by the taxpayer of $167 million (a significant increase over the $425,000 which the taxpayer had before the reorganization in CAHL, the non-resident holding company for its Canadian operations). It was admitted the reorganization was carried out to permit tax-free returns of capital in the future.

The Tax Court of Canada held that the GAAR did not apply, as there was no abusive tax avoidance. The Court concluded that the Crown was unable to establish, through the use of extrinsic aids or relevant statutory provisions, that there is a general scheme of the Act that corporate distributions must be included in income except where specific provisions provide otherwise, or that there is a clear scheme against all forms of dividend stripping. The impugned transactions had real Canadian tax consequences, they did not rely on any specific provisions of the Act to accomplish what the provision sought to restrict, and they did not defeat the underlying rationale or purpose of any of the specific provisions that applied or were relied upon. Further, each of the steps in the reorganization was appropriate, and none were abusive, vacuous or artificial.

While not pleaded by the Crown, the Tax Court also considered whether section 212.1 was avoided and whether the avoidance was abusive. Although the reorganization's success depended upon the non-application of section 212.1, which would have ground the paid-up capital of the CAHL shares from $167 million to $475,000, the Court was unable to conclude that the application of section 212.1 was avoided as part of the series of reorganization transactions because CAHL became non-resident many years prior to the reorganization.

The Tax Court concluded that consistency, fairness and predictability would be significantly eroded if the GAAR were to be lightly applied and upheld, and cautioned that the GAAR should not be used to fill in what the government perceives to be a possible gap left by the legislation.1

The Crown's appeal of the Tax Court's decision was dismissed by the Federal Court of Appeal in a brief decision delivered by Sharlow, J. from the bench. In addition to finding that the Tax Court had made no error that warranted intervention, the Court addressed the Crown's argument, raised for the first time, that the reorganization transactions were abusive based on the inclusion of section 212.1 as part of the relevant statutory scheme for determining whether there was abusive tax avoidance under the GAAR. The Court agreed with the Tax Court's conclusion that there was no abusive avoidance of section 212.1 since CAHL became non-resident in 1961, long before the occurrence of the reorganization transactions and the introduction of section 212.1 to the Act.

Consistent with Lehigh Cement, the Federal Court of Appeal's decision emphasizes that the Crown must meet its evidentiary burden not only in alleging the taxpayer's misuse or abuse based on the purpose of the relevant statutory provision(s) or the Act as a whole, but also in establishing such purpose in the first instance. In this case, the Crown was unable to convince the Court that there was a general scheme of the Act against dividend stripping that supported the application of the GAAR on the facts.

The Crown did not seek leave to appeal the Federal Court of Appeal's decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Antle v. The Queen

The Canadian resident taxpayer implemented a series of transactions known as a "capital property step-up strategy". The strategy involved transferring corporate shares owned by the taxpayer (and having an accrued gain) on a tax-deferred basis to a Barbados trust settled by the taxpayer for the benefit of his wife. The trust then sold the shares to the wife triggering the capital gain. The wife, in turn, sold the shares to a third party purchaser and used the proceeds to pay the trust for the shares. The trust then distributed the proceeds as trust capital to the wife, and then dissolved. If successful, the result would have been to shift a capital gain of the taxpayer taxable in Canada to a Barbados trust that would be exempted from Canadian tax on its gain under the Canada-Barbados Income Tax Convention (the Barbados Treaty).2

The Tax Court denied the taxpayer's appeal from the Minister's assessment for the capital gain arising on the share sale. From the evidence it was unclear when the Barbados trust deed was actually signed by the taxpayer and the trustee, when the Barbados trust was actually formed and when the share transfers occurred. The Tax Court found that the trust was not properly constituted and that the shares were never legally transferred to the Barbados trust. As a result, either the taxpayer had sold the shares to his wife and realized a capital gain on the sale, or he had transferred the shares to his wife on a rollover basis and was attributed the capital gain realized when his wife sold the shares.

In the alternative, the Tax Court held that the GAAR applied to the transactions. In the Court's view, the underlying rationale of the capital gains exemption in the Canada-Barbados Income Tax Convention was frustrated, not with respect to the Barbados trust, but with respect to the taxpayer who used the treaty to avoid taxation, thus circumventing a general objective of the treaty to prevent tax avoidance. The Court held that the transactions abused both the Act and the treaty and the GAAR was applied to deny the taxpayer the benefit of the spousal rollover on the transfer of the shares to the Barbados trust.

The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the taxpayer's appeal in a brief judgment. Reviewing the case law, the Court concluded that the Tax Court did not err in looking beyond the terms of the trust deed at the taxpayer's actions and all of the surrounding circumstances to determine whether the requisite intention to settle the Barbados trust existed.

However, the Court noted that, in its view, the Tax Court had misconstrued the intentional deception test required to establish that the Barbados trust was a sham. It was not necessary to conclude that there was a criminal intent to deceive: the test required only that the parties to a transaction present it differently from what they know it to be. Since the Tax Court had found as a fact that both the taxpayer and the trustee knew with absolute certainty that the trustee had no discretion or control over the shares, yet both had signed the trust deed which stated the opposite, that finding was sufficient to hold that the Barbados trust was a sham. Thus, not only was the proper execution and timing of the transactions a problem in this case, but also the intent of the parties to create a valid trust relationship, which was the linchpin of the capital step-up strategy.

The Federal Court of Appeal chose not to express its views on the Tax Court's alternative ground for dismissing the taxpayer's appeal based on the GAAR. However, the Court did address the question in another offshore trust context in St. Michael Trust Corp. v. The Queen.

St. Michael Trust Corp. v. The Queen (Garron v. The Queen)

The Tax Court of Canada considered whether two Barbados trusts were entitled to claim the benefit of the capital gains exemption in the Barbados Treaty on their dispositions to an arm's length purchaser of shares of two Canadian holding corporations which indirectly owned a Canadian automotive parts manufacturing and assembly business. The trusts were established in 1998 in the course of a reorganization of the share structure of PMPL Holdings Inc. (PMPL), which owned shares of a Canadian corporation that manufactured and assembled parts for the automotive industry. Prior to the 1998 reorganization, the shares of PMPL were owned equally by Mr. Dunin and a holding company that was wholly owned by Mr. Garron, Mr. Garron's wife and the Garron Family Trust. Both Mr. Garron and Mr. Dunin were residents of Canada. The trusts were settled under Barbados law, one trust for the benefit of Mr. Dunin and his family, and the other trust for the benefit of Mr. Garron and his family. Both trusts were settled by a friend of Mr. Garron who was resident in St. Vincent, the sole trustee of both trusts was a corporation resident in Barbados which provided trustee services, and the protector of both trusts (who had the power to remove and appoint trustees) was another friend of Mr. Garron who was resident in St. Vincent.

As part of the reorganization of PMPL, the existing shareholders of PMPL exchanged their common shares for fixed value preference shares of PMPL. Each trust subscribed for shares of a newly incorporated Canadian corporation, with each corporation in turn subscribing for common shares of PMPL. The share subscriptions were transacted based on a valuation of the common shares of PMPL immediately before the reorganization of $50 million. In 2000, when each trust sold shares of its respective holding corporations to the arm's length purchaser, PMPL was valued at approximately $532 million. Capital gains of over $450 million realized by the trusts on the share dispositions were not subject to Barbados income tax. As the shares sold were taxable Canadian property, amounts on account of potential Canadian tax on the capital gains were remitted to the Canada Revenue Agency under Canada's reporting procedures in section 116 of the Act. The trusts filed Canadian income tax returns for the year of disposition and sought a refund of the remitted amounts based on the capital gains exemption in the Barbados Treaty. The Minister denied the trusts the benefit of the Treaty exemption and assessed the trusts in respect of their capital gains on the sale.

On appeal of the Minister's assessments, the Tax Court held that the test for determining trust residence should not be based on a mechanical determination of the residence of the trustee(s), as the case of Thibodeau v. The Queen did not support such a test. Instead, the appropriate test should be consistent with the central management and control test in the corporate context, which requires a court to determine where a corporation is actually managed and controlled. The Court found on the facts that the trusts were resident in Canada when the shares were sold because general decision-making in respect of the trusts was carried out by Mr. Dunin and Mr. Garron, and not the trustee which played only a limited role executing documents and providing administrative services in respect of the trusts. As the trusts were found to be resident in Canada, the capital gains exemption in the Barbados Treaty did not apply to exempt the capital gains arising on the share dispositions from Canadian tax.

The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the taxpayers' appeal, agreeing with the Tax Court that a central management and control test should be applied in determining the residence of the trusts, and further concluding that the Tax Court made no error in determining, based on the facts presented at trial, that the trusts were resident in Canada at the time the shares were sold.

The Court then expressed its opinion on the Crown's alternative arguments, which had been commented on by the Tax Court.

Assuming that the trusts were resident in Barbados (based on a residence of the trustee test), the Crown argued that section 94 of the Act deemed the trusts to be resident in Canada at the time the shares were sold and therefore precluded the trusts from relying on the capital gains exemption in the Barbados Treaty. The Federal Court of Appeal disagreed with the Tax Court's interpretation of the contribution test in paragraph 94(1)(b) which requires the trust to have acquired property, directly or indirectly in any manner whatever from a Canadian resident beneficiary or a person related to that beneficiary. Since the Tax Court had found that the pre-reorganization value of the common shares of PMPL was substantially more than $50 million, the reorganization therefore shifted value from the holders of the preference shares of PMPL to the Canadian holding companies owned by the trusts. Accordingly, based on the principle in Canada v. Kieboom, the holders of the preference shares of PMPL had transferred property indirectly to the Canadian holding companies owned by the trusts. Further, contrary to the Tax Court's view, that transfer was an indirect transfer of property "in any manner whatever" to the trusts as sole shareholders of the holding companies, as the words "directly or indirectly in any manner whatever" in paragraph 94(1)(b) were deliberately chosen by Parliament to "capture every possible means by which the wealth and income earning potential represented by the shares of a Canadian corporation can move to a non-resident trust from a Canadian resident beneficiary of the trust or a person related to that beneficiary".

Nevertheless, if section 94 applied to the trusts, the Tax Court was correct to conclude that the exemption in the Barbados Treaty trumped section 94. Based on the principles established in Crown Forest, the trusts would not be considered to be residents of Canada for purposes of the Barbados Treaty as they would be liable to tax in Canada under section 94 only for specified purposes of Part I of the Act. As such, if the test for trust residence were the residence of the trustee, then the trusts would be entitled to the benefit of the capital gains exemption in the Barbados Treaty as Barbados residents.

Regarding the Crown's alternative argument that the GAAR applied to the trusts to deny them the benefit of the capital gains exemption in the Barbados Treaty, the Federal Court of Appeal agreed with the Tax Court that the series of transactions that resulted in the trusts becoming entitled to the treaty capital gain exemption in the face of the application of section 94 was not a misuse or abuse of the Barbados Treaty. In that case, section 94 was not avoided and, since the trusts were resident in Barbados for purposes of the Barbados Treaty, they 5 could not misuse or abuse the treaty by claiming the capital gains exemption.

The taxpayer has until January 16, 2011 to seek leave to appeal the Federal Court of Appeal's decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Upcoming Decisions

The Supreme Court of Canada is scheduled to hear the taxpayer's appeal from the Federal Court of Appeal decision in Copthorne Holdings v. The Queen on January 21, 2011. In Copthorne, a multinational group's Canadian operations were reorganized, resulting in a $67 million increase in the paidup capital of shares in a Canadian corporation held by a non-resident corporation. The increase resulted from an amalgamation of a Canadian parent corporation with its Canadian subsidiary, which was structured as a horizontal rather than a vertical amalgamation to avoid the application of rules that would otherwise have eliminated the subsidiary's paid-up capital on amalgamation. The shares of the amalgamated corporation were subsequently redeemed for an amount equal to the aggregate paid-up capital of the two predecessor corporations, resulting in no Canadian tax. The Federal Court of Appeal upheld the Tax Court of Canada's decision that the GAAR applied on the basis that the non-resident shareholder had double counted a portion of its actual invested capital in the paid-up capital of the amalgamated corporation. In the Court's view, the double counting was abusive of the statutory provisions in the Act pertaining to share redemptions, the computation of paid-up capital and the effect of an amalgamation on that computation.

The Copthorne decision will be of particular interest regarding the proper scope of a series of transactions and the application of the abusive tax avoidance test under the GAAR in a situation where a provision of the Act references another statute. This case focuses on the calculation of paid-up capital of a class of shares of a corporation under the Act, which employs as a starting point the determination of stated capital under the relevant provincial corporate law statute.


1. The gap was essentially closed for corporations becoming resident in Canada after February 23, 1998, as a result of the introduction of paragraph 128.1(1)(c) to the Act. Under paragraph 128.1(1)(c), where an immigrating corporation holds shares of a Canadian resident corporation (Canco), Canco is deemed to have paid to the immigrating corporation (and the immigrating corporation is deemed to have received) a dividend immediately before the time at which the immigrating corporation would be deemed to have disposed of its shares of Canco under the corporate immigration rules. The amount of the deemed dividend generally would be equal to the amount by which the Canco shares' fair market value exceeds their paid-up capital, except where the Canco shares are taxable Canadian property and Canada's right to tax any gain realized by the immigrating corporation on the deemed disposition of the Canco shares is not precluded by a tax treaty capital gains exemption. In such case, the deemed dividend otherwise calculated would be reduced by the amount of the capital gain realized by the immigrating corporation on the deemed disposition of the Canco shares. As paragraph 128.1(1)(c) deems the dividend to be paid to the immigrating corporation prior to its immigration, the dividend is therefore subject to Part XIII Canadian non-resident withholding tax.

2. It should be noted that the Department of Finance Canada released a package of draft legislation on August 27, 2010 which includes a proposed addition to the Income Tax Conventions Interpretation Act which would deem a trust that is considered to be resident in Canada for a taxation year under section 94 of the Act to be a resident of Canada, and not a resident of the other contracting state, for the purposes of applying an income tax treaty between Canada and the other contracting state. The proposed amendment is directed at eliminating the tax benefits associated with offshore trust tax planning strategies employed in cases such as Antle and Garron.

About BLG

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.