http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/73428/index.do 
Maddin v. The Queen (September 18, 2014 – 2014 TCC 277) was a decision involving a director’s liability for source deductions:
[4] Initially, the Appellant, Mr. Maddin, owned and operated a family wholesale and retail business called Quadra Stone Company Ltd. (“Stone”), which undertook the distribution, fabrication, sale and installation of marble, granite and stone. By December 31, 2007, the unremitted source deductions (“payroll debts”) owing by Stone to the Minister totalled $158,880.13. These appear to have been paid in 2008.
[5] On December 31, 2007, Mr. Maddin and two other individuals, Curtis Barker and Caesar Chang, incorporated, as its first directors, a new company called Quadra Marble and Granite Inc. (“Marble”).
[6] On December 31, 2007, the newly incorporated Marble assumed the operations of the pre-existing Stone which transferred all of its material assets and employees to Marble.
[7] Mr. Maddin was also an officer and both chairman and secretary of Marble, as well as being a shareholder. Mr. Barker (President) and Mr. Chang (Vice-President) were also officers and equal shareholders of Marble with Mr. Maddin.
[8] The business operations of Marble continued in the same business premises as Stone. There was no executed lease agreement between Marble and the landlord, Camad Land Corp.(the “Landlord”), a company also owned and controlled by Mr. Maddin and his family members.
[9] Mr. Maddin resigned as a director of Marble on September 11, 2008.
[10] In October 2009, Marble vacated the business premises pursuant to an eviction notice issued by the Landlord.
[11] During the Period, Marble paid its employees salary, wages, and other remuneration. Marble deducted and withheld the Source Deductions respecting the amounts paid to its employees, but did not pay same to the Receiver General.
The court rejected Mr. Maddin’s evidence that he was not deeply involved in the business of Marble:
[30] While it is true that Mr. Barker was ostensibly the manager of the business during the relevant period in 2008, the reasons for retaining Mr. Maddin as a director were his experience, knowledge and ownership interest in Marble. While Mr. Maddin may have intended to be an inactive director and shareholder, the evidence does not display the usual hallmarks of such a pattern. Mr. Maddin’s lawyer exclusively documented the sale transaction, created the company and advised on the establishment of the new business structure. All of the familiar and known business systems, material employees, outstanding inventory and contracts (with the exception of the $4 million dollar contract) were placed in use for Marble.
[31] Most importantly and by his own testimony, Mr. Maddin attended the offices (his offices) at Marble 2 to 3 days a week. Marble’s bookkeeper during the 2008 winter period was also an employee of Mr. Maddin and Ms. Roberge continues to act in such capacity to this day. She was well experienced in the payroll debts of Stone, the predecessor company which frequently avoided its own payroll debts to the Crown.
[32] Given their longstanding history, the suggestion that Mr. Maddin had never asked Ms. Roberge regarding payroll deductions remittances during the 2008 winter period rings hollow for several reasons. During the 2008 winter period, there was uncontroverted evidence that Mr. Maddin required payments by Marble to Stone in respect of rent, utilities for the premises and other amounts. He expressed his dissatisfaction of late payments of the vendor take back debt retained by Stone to Ms. Roberge and Mr. Barker. Mr. Barker was rarely present at Marble’s premises even during the 2008 winter period. By comparison, Mr. Maddin was present 2 to 3 business days a week with his bookkeeper of many years also on site each day who, in turn, possessed the most detailed and critical information concerning the Source Deductions. He testified that he never inquired of Ms. Roberge specifically regarding the Source Deductions. As Mr. Maddin indicated many times, he had no reason not to believe the money was available and paid.
In the end Mr. Maddin simply did not meet the onus of showing the due diligence necessary to escape liability:
[39] In summary, Mr. Maddin’s actions during the 2008 winter period were insufficient to establish reasonably prudent steps to discover the Source Deductions arrears under the circumstances: the simple asking of a discreet and confidential question from a long standing trusted source. Although moot, upon becoming aware of the arrears, Mr. Maddin has not sufficiently established through evidence that he took steps to prevent the failure or continued failure by Marble to pay those arrears for the period after the 2008 winter period. Instead the evidence shows he exhibited a preferred and exclusive pre-occupation with his other role as a landlord and/or creditor of Marble.
[40] For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed. Costs are awarded to the Respondent on a party and party basis in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Tariff, however, either party may make submissions otherwise for consideration by the Court within 30 days of this judgment.