B.C. Billionaire Terry Hui's Companies Accuse CRA of Misconduct in $330M Tax Dispute
Noah Chen
10/22/20264 min read
A group of companies controlled by prominent British Columbia real estate developer Terry Hui has launched a legal challenge against the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), alleging a prolonged pattern of improper conduct in its efforts to collect nearly $330 million in disputed taxes and accumulated interest.
The dispute involves five companies connected to Hui's real estate development operations, including Adex Securities, One West Holdings, a numbered British Columbia corporation and two companies incorporated in Luxembourg.
According to an application filed in Federal Court this month, the companies claim that federal tax authorities have improperly pursued collection measures stemming from transactions dating as far back as 2007.
The companies argue that the CRA's actions have placed substantial financial pressure on their operations and could interfere with major real estate developments underway in Vancouver, Toronto and Calgary.
They are asking the court to temporarily halt collection efforts until a separate legal challenge involving the underlying tax dispute has been resolved.
Tax Assessments and Interest Approach $330 Million
The legal filings describe a tax dispute that has continued for more than a decade, beginning with a CRA audit initiated in 2013.
The audit focused on financial transactions involving Canadian real estate investments and the application of Canada's tax treaty with Luxembourg, a jurisdiction frequently used in international investment structures.
The companies maintain that the transactions were structured in accordance with applicable tax treaty provisions and dispute the CRA's subsequent assessments.
According to the court application, assessments issued in 2026 have resulted in substantial liabilities for several companies within the group.
Adex Securities faces approximately $45 million in assessed taxes, along with more than $65 million in accumulated interest.
The two Luxembourg-based companies collectively face more than $92 million in assessed taxes and approximately $127 million in interest.
Together, the amounts described in the filing approach $330 million, with interest accounting for most of the disputed total.
The size of the interest component reflects the extended period over which the tax dispute has remained unresolved.
The companies contend that the revenue agency's collection demands have created serious financial uncertainty, particularly because the businesses operate in the capital-intensive real estate development industry.
Companies Say Collection Demands Threaten Active Developments
One of the central issues in the latest legal challenge is the CRA's demand that Adex Securities provide approximately $115 million in security.
The companies oppose the requirement and argue that being forced to commit such a substantial amount would remove capital currently allocated to ongoing development projects.
According to their application, the demand could significantly affect the group's ability to maintain project financing, meet development obligations and continue operations.
The businesses also allege they were not given sufficient advance warning of the collection measures.
They argue that the absence of notice made it impossible to reasonably prepare for financial demands of this magnitude.
The companies describe the potential consequences as "irreparable harm," a legal concept relevant to their request for temporary court protection.
Their latest application is among at least three Federal Court proceedings filed this year in connection with the dispute.
Through those proceedings, the companies are seeking to challenge the CRA's conduct and prevent collection activities from proceeding before the broader legal issues are decided.
The allegations have not been established as findings of fact by the court.
CRA Accused of Departing From Established Procedures
Beyond disputing the tax assessments themselves, the companies have raised allegations concerning how the CRA has handled the matter.
Their application accuses the revenue agency of engaging in a "pattern of misconduct" during its efforts to recover the disputed amounts.
The companies allege that CRA officials operated outside established policies and procedures and failed to adequately consider the financial consequences of their decisions.
They further claim the agency pursued collection measures without sufficient regard for the effects on businesses that depend on access to substantial capital to sustain long-term projects.
The allegations introduce a separate question from the underlying tax dispute: whether the agency exercised its collection powers appropriately while legal challenges to the assessments remained unresolved.
The companies' lawyers were not immediately available to comment on the latest application.
The CRA, meanwhile, said it did not have a spokesperson available for an interview concerning the broader issue of tax treaty abuse.
Supreme Court Ruling Forms Part of Legal Context
The dispute has drawn attention because of its similarities to a major Supreme Court of Canada decision involving the country's tax treaty with Luxembourg.
Earlier this year, Justin Kutyan, a lawyer with KPMG Law in Toronto, said the transactions under examination resembled a tax arrangement considered by the Supreme Court in its 2021 decision involving Alta Energy Luxembourg.
In that case, Alta Energy Luxembourg sought to claim a Canadian tax exemption on a capital gain exceeding $380 million under the provisions of the Canada-Luxembourg tax treaty.
The Supreme Court ruled six to three in favour of Alta Energy.
The majority concluded that Canada's general anti-avoidance rules could not be used to effectively rewrite treaty provisions simply because the resulting tax treatment was advantageous to the taxpayer.
The decision emphasized the importance of interpreting tax treaties according to their established language and legal framework.
However, the ruling also revealed significant differences of opinion among the justices.
The three dissenting judges argued that the arrangement represented an abusive use of the treaty and that the federal government had not intended to permit unlimited tax avoidance through such structures.
They warned against allowing arrangements they regarded as abusive to benefit from treaty protections merely because the treaty could have been negotiated differently.
The decision remains relevant to disputes involving cross-border investments, treaty-based tax exemptions and the limits of Canadian anti-avoidance legislation.
However, whether the ruling applies to Hui's companies will depend on the specific transactions, evidence and legal arguments considered in their proceedings.
Federal Court Asked to Intervene as Dispute Continues
For Hui's companies, the immediate priority is obtaining protection from collection measures while their related litigation proceeds.
Their applications raise two closely connected issues: whether the disputed tax liabilities are legally justified and whether the CRA can require substantial payments or security before the underlying challenges are resolved.
The companies maintain that proceeding with collection could cause financial consequences that would be difficult to reverse, even if they ultimately succeed in their legal challenges.
The CRA's position on the specific allegations has not been detailed in the material provided, and the court has yet to determine the merits of the companies' claims.
The proceedings could have significant implications for the businesses involved, given the scale of the disputed amounts and the funding requirements associated with their real estate developments.
More broadly, the case highlights the tensions that can arise when Canadian tax authorities challenge complex international investment arrangements involving treaty-based exemptions.
As the litigation continues, the Federal Court will be tasked with assessing the companies' requests for relief while the larger dispute over tax liability and the CRA's enforcement actions remains unresolved.
News
Stay updated with the latest BC news stories, subscribe to our newsletter today.
SUBSCRIBE
© 2026 Innovatory Labs Inc. All rights reserved.
LINKS