Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Judicial review challenged a Ministerial delegate's June 23, 2025 decision denying LG further interest relief under subsection 220(3.1) of the Income Tax Act, arising from a bilateral advance pricing arrangement between Canada and South Korea.
• Both parties agreed the decision was unreasonable and the Respondent conceded it contained inaccurate findings of fact, leaving the appropriate remedy as the only live issue.
• Whether the Court should exercise its discretion under paragraph 18.1(3)(b) of the Federal Courts Act to issue directions imposing findings of fact on the new decision-maker was central to the dispute.
• A preliminary objection questioned whether the Applicant's notice of application satisfied Rule 301 of the Federal Courts Rules by precisely stating the relief sought.
• Sufficiency of the Applicant's affidavit evidence to justify departing from the usual remittal remedy was contested.
• Tension between the reviewing court's role and the administrative decision-maker's role as the merits-decider framed the analysis.

Facts of the case
LG Electronics Canada Inc. is a Canadian-resident corporation and a distributor within a multinational group focused on developing technology and manufacturing consumer electronics and commercial products; its parent company is resident in Korea. In June 2009, LG applied to the advance pricing arrangement (APA) program to cover inter-company transactions with its foreign parent involving the purchase and sale of tangible goods. The arrangement took the form of a bilateral APA (BAPA) negotiated with the tax authorities of Canada and South Korea. The BAPA was tentatively completed in December 2015 and the APA process concluded in October 2017, after which the Minister reassessed LG in November 2018. LG had sought interest and penalty relief connected to the program on February 6, 2017, and made a further request on March 5, 2019 concerning alleged errors in processing its advance payments; the Minister denied both requests on August 13, 2019, prompting LG to seek a second review. On June 23, 2025, the Minister's delegate issued the decision under review, cancelling arrears interest assessed on the 2012 to 2015 taxation years for the period from December 16, 2016 to June 27, 2018, but declining further relief on the basis that no undue delay by the CRA in completing the APA had been identified.

Statutory and procedural provisions at issue
The relief LG originally sought fell under subsection 220(3.1) of the Income Tax Act, the provision it invoked for relief against the interest that resulted from the APA program. On judicial review, the Court's remedial authority came from paragraph 18.1(3)(b) of the Federal Courts Act, which allows a reviewing court to refer a matter back to a decision-maker "with such directions as it considers appropriate." A preliminary dispute turned on Rule 301 of the Federal Courts Rules, which requires a notice of application to set out a precise statement of the relief sought; the Respondent argued LG's notice of application fell short, while LG maintained that the notice, read as a whole, supported the relief requested and caused no prejudice. The Court accepted that the request for supplementary submissions was "necessarily ancillary to the requested relief in the notice of application" and captured by the notice's basket clause.

The court's reasoning and analysis
Because both parties agreed the decision was unreasonable — with the Respondent conceding inaccurate findings of fact — the only question was what further remedy, if any, was warranted. Justice D'Agostino began from the settled principle that the usual remedy is to set aside the decision and remit it for redetermination, since the legislature has made the administrative decision-maker, not the reviewing court, the merits-decider. Although a court may depart from that course in appropriate circumstances, the discretion must be exercised carefully. LG asked the Court to issue directions adopting findings of fact set out in Schedule A of its record (walked through at the hearing using a "Day Book" compendium filed June 25, 2026), to permit fresh submissions within 30 days, and to impose a 30-day deadline for redetermination. The Respondent countered that dictating findings of fact would improperly constrain the decision-maker's role, and that the affidavits of Maria Cherkasova, dated August 15, 2025 and October 17, 2025, did not establish that the specific relief was warranted. Finding no basis to depart from the usual remedy — except to allow LG an opportunity to make further submissions within 30 days, justified by the passage of time and by concerns LG identified after receiving the Certified Tribunal Record — the Court held that this was not an exceptional case warranting directions on findings of fact, and that LG had not supplied clear evidence or authority supporting a fixed redetermination deadline.

Ruling and outcome
The application for judicial review was granted on the parties' consent. LG Electronics Canada Inc. succeeded in having the June 23, 2025 decision set aside and the matter remitted to a different delegated decision-maker, with an opportunity to provide further submissions within thirty days and no later than August 4, 2026. The Court declined LG's remaining requests: it would neither issue directions determining findings of fact nor impose a deadline for the redetermination itself. No costs were awarded to either party, so although LG obtained the core relief it sought, no monetary amount, costs, or damages were ordered in its favour.