CRL Engineering Ltd. v. The Queen (March 27, 2019 – 2019 TCC 65, Smith J.).
Précis: The taxpayer claimed SRED credits for a research project known as “A Real‑Time Vehicle Arrival Prediction Model for Transitlive” which was designed to provide accurate real‑time predictions for public transit bus movements. The Court reviewed the five traditional tests for determining whether research met the SRED criteria and concluded that this project did. Thus the appeal was allowed, limited to $25,000 per taxation year since the appellant had pursued the informal procedure option.
Decision: The Court reviewed the five traditional tests for SRED projects:
 In Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Ltd. v. The Queen, 98 D.T.C. 1839,  3 C.T.C. 2520 (TCC) (“Northwest Hydraulics”), adopted by the Federal Court of Appeal in RIS‑Christie Ltd. v. The Queen,  1 C.T.C. 132; 99 D.T.C. 5087 (FCA) (“RSI-Christie”) and C.W. Agencies Inc. v. The Queen, 2001 FCA 393 (“C.W. Agencies”), Justice Bowman, as he then was, set out the following five criteria (as summarized by the FCA in C.W. Agencies, para. 17) to assist in the analysis of the SRED activities:
1. Was there a technological risk or uncertainty which could not be removed by routine engineering or standard procedures?
2. Did the person claiming to be doing SRED formulate hypotheses specifically aimed at reducing or eliminating that technological uncertainty?
3. Did the procedure adopted accord with the total discipline of the scientific method including the formulation testing and modification of hypotheses?
4. Did the process result in a technological advancement?
5. Was a detailed record of the hypotheses tested, and results kept as the work progressed?
The Court concluded that the taxpayer did meet each of those tests:
 On the basis of the documentary and testimonial evidence adduced at the hearing, the Court finds that the Appellant has satisfied the five-factor test described in the case law and that it was engaged in SRED activities during the subject taxation years.
 Throughout this analysis, I have used the expression “on balance” to indicate that the Court was satisfied that the Appellant had rebutted the Minister’s assumptions. This simply reflects the notion that the burden of proof on the Appellant is the balance of probabilities — and not beyond a reasonable doubt, which is a higher standard that does not apply to appeals before this Court.
 Therefore, the appeals are allowed subject to the proviso that, given the Appellant’s election to proceed under the Informal Procedure, the amounts at issue shall not be reduced by more than $25,000 per taxation year, in accordance with section 18.1 of the Tax Court of Canada Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. T‑2.
Thus the appeal was allowed, limited to $25,000 per taxation year since the appellant had pursued the informal procedure option.