Canada: Recent Jurisprudence Regarding The Provincial Residency Of Trust In Canada

Last Updated: April 4 2016
Article by William J. Fowlis and Troy McEachren



  • The jurisdiction in which a trust is resident is relevant for Canadian federal and provincial tax reasons because a trust pays income tax to whatever country and province that the trust is resident in.
  • 2012 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada established that the proper test to use to determine the residence of a trust is the place where central management and control of the trust actually takes place.  This decision was made in the context of whether a trust was resident in Canada or in Barbados.
  • The province within Canada in which a trust is resident is also relevant for Canadian provincial tax reasons.
  • The first two decisions regarding the issue of provincial residency of a trust

        for tax purposes have now been released.

  • Both cases confirmed that the central management and control test also applies in the domestic context to determine the provincial residence of a trust.
  • Unfortunately the two different provincial courts applied the central management and control test very differently, resulting in different conclusions as to the province in which the trusts reside.
  • The arguably more well-reasoned decision found the trust to be resident in the province of residency asserted by the trust.  The decision of the court in the other case has been appealed by the trust.

Canada and many other countries have a tax system which levies an income tax on residents of the particular country, including trusts that are resident in that country.  In Canada, an income tax is imposed by both the federal government of Canada and by each province in Canada.  The Canadian federal tax is applicable to trusts resident in Canada and the provincial tax is applicable to trusts that are resident in the particular province.

Given the differing tax rates between Canada and other countries or between the provinces in Canada, the country or province in which a trust resides is key in determining the income taxes applicable to the particular trust.

While domestic tax legislation may contain rules which govern residency of a trust in specific circumstances, the determination of residency status is generally determined based upon applicable jurisprudence of the courts in the particular jurisdiction.

In 2012, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision relating to the residence of a trust as between Canada and another country in the companion cases of St. Michael Trust Corp., as trustee of the Fundy Settlement v. Canada and St. Michael Trust Corp., as trustee of the Summersby Settlement v. Canada.   These cases will be referred to herein as the Fundy Settlement case.

The Supreme Court of Canada confirmed the decisions of the Tax Court of Canada and the Federal Court of Appeal that the proper test to use to determine the residence of a trust is the place where the central management and control of the trust actually takes place. At issue in the Fundy Settlement case was whether the appellant trusts were resident in Canada or in Barbados.  On the basis of the central management and control test, the appellant trusts were found to be resident in Canada rather than Barbados.

The Fundy Settlement case was handled by the Federal Court system, as it dealt with the residency of the trust as being either in Canada or outside of Canada.  The province within Canada in which a trust is resident is also relevant for Canadian provincial tax reasons as a Canadian resident trust pays income tax to whatever province the trust is resident in at the end of the relevant taxation year.  The Province of Alberta has had lower income tax rates than other provinces in past years.  Following the release of the Fundy Settlement decision, tax practitioners in Canada waited for the decisions of provincial courts regarding residency of trust from a provincial standpoint based upon the new test that had been confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada.

New Jurisprudence – Discovery Trust and
Boettger, Trustee of Nancy Smith Spousal Trust

The first two decisions regarding the issue of provincial residency of a trust for tax purposes have now been released.

The first case was a decision of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador in the Discovery Trust (acting through its trustee, Royal Trust Corporation of Canada) v. Canada (National Revenue)("Discovery Trust").  Discovery Trust was heard in May 2015 with the decision of Justice Carl Thompson being released on 18 June 2015.  At issue was whether the Discovery Trust was resident in Alberta, as the taxpayer contended, or in Newfoundland, as the tax authority contended.  The Court held that the Discovery Trust was resident in Alberta. 

The second case was a decision of the Court of Québec {ntd: as the newsletter is distributed nationally, suggest adding accents} in the Roy Boettger, trustee of Nancy Smith Spousal Trust v. ARC ("Boettger").   This case was heard by the Court in December 2014 with the decision being released on 6 August 2015.  At issue was whether the Nancy Smith Spousal Trust was resident in Alberta as the taxpayer contended or in Quebec as the tax authority contended.  The Court held that the Nancy Smith Spousal Trust was resident in Quebec.

Facts in Discovery Trust

The Discovery Trust was originally established and was resident in Newfoundland, having trustees who resided there.  In 2006, the deed of settlement for the Discovery Trust was amended, the original trustees (being the children of the settlor) resigned, the Royal Trust Corporation of Canada was appointed as the successor trustee of the trust, and the laws governing the trust were changed from Newfoundland to Alberta.  A majority of the beneficiaries of the trust continued to be residents of Newfoundland.  In 2008, the Discovery Trust realised a large capital gain and took the position that it was resident of Alberta resulting in overall taxes being substantially lower than the taxes that would have been applicable had the trust been resident in Newfoundland.

Confirmation of Central Management and Control Test

Justice Thompson applied the rules set out in the Fundy Settlement case, thereby confirming that the central management and control test also applies in the domestic context to determine the provincial residence of a trust.

Application of the Test and Finding of the Court in Discovery Trust

Justice Thompson reviewed the actions of the trustee, the actions of the beneficiaries of the trust and others in his analysis of where central management and control of the trust took place.  His review of the various transactions undertaken by the trust was done in the context of the property held by the trust and the Court found that where the required level of engagement or active management is low, such as where a trust holds only shares of a holding corporation, a trustee's actions in approving straightforward reorganisations and encroachment requests from beneficiaries constitutes central management and control. The Court also found that the involvement of beneficiaries or their advisors in the affairs of the trust does not amount to the trustee not exercising control over the trust in question.  Such consultation was not found to constitute a delegation of authority or responsibility by the trustee.  With respect to requests for distributions made by the beneficiaries, Justice Thompson found:

It is not unusual that the Trustee should require a written request to formally indicate the beneficiaries' desire to take the funds out of the Trust nor for the Trustee to have it in hand on disposition of cash to the beneficiary.  Neither would appear to conflict with the independent engagement of the Trustee's authority and the exercise of its obligations.

With respect to the review of corporate transactions, Justice Thompson found:

Independence of the Trustee is maintained by its review of the transaction, acquiring explanation sufficient that an informed decision can be made, ensuring the decision has no negative consequence and is in the best interests of the beneficiaries.

In the end, Justice Thompson concluded that the evidence did not support that management and control of the trust was directly or indirectly being exercised by the beneficiaries.  He found that "There was no substantial decision by which control could be said to have moved to another party other than is found in compliance with the trust document", and that "the evidence does not support that management and control directly or indirectly being in the beneficiaries."

Tax Motive is Irrelevant

Justice Thompson's analysis also considered a second issue of significance, being whether the outcome of the audit was essentially a foregone conclusion because it was conducted with an "overall negative view of the motive for minimization of tax".  Justice Thompson concluded that "... improper motive entered the discernment process and compromised in an apparent way the integrity of an independent rationale for the findings upon which the reassessment could be based."  In so concluding, Justice Thompson reinforced the basic Duke of Westminster  principle that taxpayers have the right to order their affairs as they see fit to minimize tax payable and that tax motive is irrelevant to the determination of residency. 

Summary of Discovery Trust

In summary, Discovery Trust confirms that the central management and control test applied in Fundy Settlement applies equally in the domestic provincial context, and that tax motive is irrelevant to the determination of residency. The case provides a useful analysis of facts that may be relevant in determining where central management and control of a trust takes place and accordingly where the trust is resident.

The decision in Discovery Trust was not appealed by the Crown.

In contrast, the Quebec Court held in Boettger, that the trust was resident in Québec rather than Alberta.

Facts in Boettger

The Fiducie NS (the "trust") was settled in 2003 by a Québec resident settlor for the benefit of his wife who was also a Quebec resident. The trustee was an attorney resident in Alberta chosen by the Montreal tax advisor of the settlor who was unknown to the settlor and his wife. The trust was drafted in conformity with Alberta law.

The trust was settled by a CAD $10 promissory note. The settlor also donated preferred shares of a private corporation ("Cetco") to form part of the trust's assets.  On the same day that the trust was settled, a series of transactions were carried out by the trustee involving the repurchase of part of the shares by Cetco.

From 2003 until 2013, the Court found that the trustee had undertaken no activities of any consequence. Essentially the trust was 'dormant' and the trustee undertook no active administration, such as carrying on business or hiring employees.  These comments by the judge appear to be a misunderstanding of the nature of a trust, both at common law and under Quebec's civil law, and the myriad of purposes for which trusts can be settled.
Confirmation of Central Management and Control Test

The question before the Court was whether the trust was resident in Québec or in Alberta.  The difference was important, as the tax rate to which the trust would be subject if it were resident in Quebec was significantly higher.

Similar to Discovery Trust the Court in Boettger also confirmed that the rules set out in Fundy Settlement with respect to the central management and control test apply to determine the provincial residency of a trust in Québec.

Application of the Test and Finding of the Court in Boettger

The Court applied its understanding of Fundy Settlement and found that central management and control was located in Quebec for the following reasons: 

  1. The creation of the trust was motivated by tax planning;
  2. The trust undertook no economic activity in Alberta, such as operating a business or hiring employees. It simply held shares of Cetco, a private corporation;
  3. The trust had no active purpose to increase the value of the trust's assets. It had only a passive purpose;
  4. The trust was settled and a series of initial transactions were implemented by the trustee in accordance with a tax plan created by the settlor's tax advisors in Montreal;
  5. The trustee's fees and the trust's expenses, while paid from the trust's assets, were contributed by the settlor or by Cetco;
  6. The settlor exercised de facto control over the trust because he had the power to appoint a protector who could remove and appoint trustees.  As no protector was appointed, this power could be exercised by the settlor.  (It should be noted that there was no evidence of the settlor ever exercising this power.); and
  7. The main asset of the trust, the shares of Cetco, could be repurchased by Cetco without the consent of the trustee.  Cetco was controlled by the settlor.

It does not appear that during the trust's existence either the settlor or his Montreal based tax advisors gave any directions to the trustee.

Summary of Boettger

Boettger stands in stark contrast with Discovery Trust. First, it appears that the Court in Boettger found that a tax motivated transaction was a relevant consideration in determining a trust's residency. Second, the Court appears to require active business activities or the presence of employees to establish residency of a trust.  Merely holding assets is insufficient.  Third, the residency of the legal and tax advisors of the settlor at the time a trust is settled was found to be a relevant criteria.  Fourth, the power of the settlor to remove and appoint trustees in addition to the power to have Cetco repurchase the shares held by the trust, even though neither of these were done, demonstrated de facto control of the trust.

With respect, it appears that the application of Fundy Settlement by the Court in Boettger is questionable.  Fortunately, the trustee of the trust has appealed the decision to the Québec Court of Appeal.  It is hoped that, on appeal, the principles and approaches applied in Discovery Trust will be considered by the Québec Court of Appeal and the appeal of the trust is allowed.


At present, only two courts in Canada have addressed the residency of a trust in a province since the Supreme Court of Canada issued its decision in Fundy Settlement. In both instances, the courts accepted that central management and control as set out in Fundy Settlement was the correct test to be met in establishing a trust's residence in a province.  Unfortunately, from that point onwards, the courts appear to have applied Fundy Settlement very differently.  In one case the tax motive was found to be an irrelevant factor (with the court even suggesting that such a consideration may have compromised the integrity of an independent rationale for the audit findings), while in the other case the tax motive appears to have been relevant.  Also, in Quebec, the circumstances surrounding the creation of the trust appears to have been more relevant than its subsequent operations, while the Newfoundland court focused on the manner in which the trust was administered since its creation to determine where central management and control of the trust actually took place.  As mentioned above, the Québec Court of Appeal will have a chance to address this issue and hopefully provide a more rigorous analysis more in line with the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada.

It is also expected that other cases regarding provincial residency of trusts will be heard by provincial courts in the future.


1 Fundy Settlement v. Canada, 2012 SCC 14.

2 Discovery Trust v. Minister of National Revenue 2015 NLTD (G) 86.

3 2015 QCCQ 7517, J.E. 2015-1517, 2015 CarswellQue 7892.

4 IRC v. Westminster (Duke) [1936] AC 1 (HL).

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.

William J. Fowlis
Troy McEachren
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.