http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/72960/index.do 
Grupp v. The Queen (June 4, 2014 – 2014 TCC 184 ) was a decision involving an assessment against Mr. Grupp as a director of Persuader Court Agents Inc. for unpaid GST. Mr. Grupp had two main arguments. In the first place he argued that CRA had not fulfilled the requirements of subsection 323(2) of the
Excise Tax Act:
[19] The appellant asserts that the collection procedures of the CRA are flawed in that it did not obtain a certificate or writ of seizure and sale against him personally, nor were attempts made to collect the unpaid debt of Persuader from the appellant personally. He argues that the only collection action taken against Persuader was insufficient and perfunctory consisting of a superficial visit from the Sheriff at his home when he was not present. I disagree.
[Footnote omitted]
The court found that the efforts of CRA in the instant case met the requirements of subsection 323(2):
[23] After a number of attempts to collect on Persuader’s debt and in light of the appellant’s statement in mid-July 2010 that there were no assets in Persuader, Mr. Fergin obtained the Certificate under the Federal Court seal, and then requested the Sheriff to execute on the Writ. The Sheriff details the efforts he made to collect on Persuader’s debt. This commenced on September 14, 2010, by leaving a Notice of Enforcement at the address for service with the appellant’s daughter. The Sheriff followed up with a conversation with the appellant who indicated that there were no assets in Persuader, and that there could, nor would, be any payment. Consequently, the Writ was returned by the Sheriff to Mr. Fergin unsatisfied in whole or in part before the director’s liability assessment was issued.
…
[27] I find that in having the Sheriff make the attempts outlined so as to collect and seek satisfaction of Persuader’s unpaid debt by executing the Writ, the Minister satisfied his duty of good faith. The appellant’s suggestion to conduct an examination of debtor goes beyond the good faith requirement and would make no sense in any event in light of the appellant’s statements that there were no assets. I conclude that the Minister met the requirements and discharged his statutory obligation under paragraph 323(2)(a) of the Act.
[Footnote omitted]
While Mr. Grupp claimed to have resigned as a director in 1995 the court was not persuaded by this evidence and, in any event, found that on the evidence he acted as a de facto director for the purposes of the Ontario Business Corporations Act:
[37] Subsection 115(4) of the OBCA deals with the eventuality where all of the directors of a corporation have resigned or have been removed, and if any person manages or supervises the business, that person is deemed to be a director of the corporation. It reads:
Where all of the directors have resigned or have been removed by the shareholders without replacement, any person who manages or supervises the management of the business and affairs of the corporation shall be deemed to be a director for the purposes of this Act.
…
[43] I do not accept the appellant’s evidence that he resigned to himself at some point in 1995, and made an entry in the Persuader Minute Book. If such an entry was made, presumably records maintained by Persuader would corroborate the resignation. However, he did not produce the Minute Book nor other (corporate) documentary evidence to corroborate the purported resignation. During cross‑examination, the appellant admitted that he had not sent a written resignation to Persuader, thus does not comply with subsection 121(2) of the OBCA. Even if I were to accept the appellant’s testimony that he resigned in 1995, and even if he had tendered a valid written resignation in compliance with the provincial legislation, he is still caught by subsection 115(4) of the OBCA as he continued to manage the affairs of Persuader.
[Footnote omitted]
As a result the appeal was dismissed.