Published: March 10, 2020
Last Updated: August 20, 2026
Overview: How the CRA Taxes Settlement Payments
If you have received or are about to receive a settlement payment, whether from a lawsuit, a workplace dispute, an insurance claim, or a business disagreement, one of the first questions you will likely ask is whether that money is taxable.
The Canada Revenue Agency does not have a single blanket rule for settlement payments. Instead, the CRA looks at what the payment is actually compensating for and taxes it accordingly. Getting this wrong, or allocating a settlement poorly before it is finalized, can turn a tax-free recovery into a taxable one.
An experienced Canadian tax lawyer should be involved before a settlement is signed, not after, because once the agreement is finalized, there is generally no going back..
Background: The Surrogatum Principle
The CRA’s long-standing policy toward settlement payments is that they are treated the same way as damages awarded at trial by a judge, even where the settlement involves no finding or admission of wrongdoing by the payor. This is because of the surrogatum principle, a common law concept adopted for Canadian tax purposes. Under the surrogatum principle, a payment takes on the tax attributes of whatever it is intended to replace, and is taxed, or not taxed, accordingly.
For example, if a settlement is reached for a breach of contract that caused a business to lose income, the settlement amount stands in for that lost income and is taxed as business income. If, instead, a settlement compensates for damage to an income-producing property, the settlement is generally treated as a capital amount, potentially eligible for capital gains treatment rather than full inclusion in income.
Key Issues and Findings: How Canadian Courts Have Applied the Surrogatum Principle
The surrogatum principle was not created by statute. It developed through a series of Canadian tax decisions, and it continues to be refined by the courts.
One of the earliest Canadian cases to consider the tax nature of damages was Parsons-Steiner Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue, 1962 CanLII 849 (CA EXC), [1962] Ex CR 174. There, the taxpayer, the exclusive Canadian agent for Doulton china for over twenty years, received $100,000 from Doulton on termination of the agency, described as being in full settlement of its claim for damages for loss of rights under the agreement. The Exchequer Court held that, apart from a small portion attributable to services rendered and outstanding commissions, the payment was not income from the taxpayer’s business but compensation for the loss of its interest in the goodwill and business built up in Doulton products, a capital asset of an enduring nature, and was accordingly a capital receipt rather than taxable income.
The Supreme Court of Canada addressed related principles in 65302 British Columbia Ltd. v. Canada, 1999 CanLII 639 (SCC), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 804, holding that the Income Tax Act does not distinguish between levies and fines or penalties, and that whether such amounts, and by extension damages, are deductible depends on how they were incurred rather than on public policy grounds.
The CRA’s own guidance on the payor’s side of a damages or settlement payment, IT-467R2, Damages, Settlements and Similar Payments, discusses 65302 British Columbia Ltd. directly, confirming that this is the same authority the CRA itself relies on when assessing deductibility of a settlement payment.
The leading modern authority is Tsiaprailis v. Canada, 2005 SCC 8, [2005] 1 S.C.R. 113. There, the taxpayer settled a dispute with her long-term disability insurer for a lump sum after the insurer terminated her benefits. The Supreme Court of Canada held that the portion of the settlement that replaced the periodic disability payments she would otherwise have received was taxable under paragraph 6(1)(f) of the Income Tax Act, because it took on the same tax character as the benefits it replaced. The Court’s approach in Tsiaprailis is the framework the CRA and the courts still apply today: identify what the payment replaces, then apply the tax treatment that item would have had.
Personal Injury Exception for Settlement Payments
Any portion of a settlement payment for damages related to personal injury or death is exempt from tax. This covers both special damages, such as out-of-pocket medical and hospital expenses and lost accrued or future earnings, and general damages, such as pain and suffering, loss of earning capacity, loss of amenities of life, and shortened life expectancy. So long as the amounts qualify as special or general damages for personal injury, they remain tax-free even if calculated by reference to a taxpayer’s lost earnings. This remains the CRA’s operative general view, set out in IT-365R2, Damages, Settlements and Similar Receipts, and confirmed as recently as the CRA’s June 20, 2023 response at the STEP Canada Roundtable (document 2023-0961321C6) on damages paid to a minor following the death of a parent.
That said, an amount that is not itself damages, and that can reasonably be considered employment income, remains taxable. For example, if a settlement for a workplace injury also guarantees a severance payment, that severance component is likely taxable as employment income even though the personal injury portion is not. Similarly, where a court-awarded or settlement amount is augmented by an amount referred to as interest, that interest remains non-taxable if it relates to damages for personal injury. However, if damages are held in a deposit account and interest accrues on that amount before it is paid out, the accrued interest is taxable as income. The distinction is easy to miss and can materially change a taxpayer’s total tax liability, which is why settlement structuring should always involve an experienced Canadian tax lawyer.
Taxation of Settlements for Investment Losses
The CRA has also addressed how to tax settlements paid to compensate taxpayers for losses caused by an investment company’s negligent handling of their funds. The CRA’s position again follows the surrogatum principle. Where the investment company’s conduct amounted to negligence, amounts paid to compensate for the actual financial loss are generally treated as damages for personal injury to the investment and are not taxable. Amounts paid to compensate for investment income the taxpayer would have earned but for the negligence, however, are treated as income from property and are taxable, because that income would have been taxable if it had actually been earned.
For example, if a taxpayer invested $100,000 and the investment dropped to $80,000 after five years due to the company’s negligence, and the parties settle for $50,000, of which $20,000 reflects the decline in value and $30,000 reflects the investment income the taxpayer would otherwise have earned, the CRA’s approach would treat the $20,000 as non-taxable and the $30,000 as taxable investment income.
Employment and Severance Settlements
Employment-related settlements raise their own version of the surrogatum analysis. If a severance settlement compensates an employee for discrimination, harassment, or a similar wrong that could support punitive damages, the settlement typically resembles punitive damages and is not taxable. If the same settlement instead compensates the employee for back pay, unpaid overtime, or amounts in lieu of the standard notice period, it is generally taxable as employment income, because it replaces income that would have been taxable in the ordinary course. This is the CRA’s current position as set out in Income Tax Folio S2-F3-C1, Payments from Employer to Employee, which replaced the former IT-196R2 bulletin and confirms that a payment is only excluded from employment income to the extent it does not have the nature and quality of salary, wages, or remuneration.
This is exactly the distinction the Tax Court of Canada drew in Saunders v. The Queen, 2020 TCC 114. The taxpayers were federal employees who successfully grieved an arbitrary overtime policy and negotiated a compensation award based on the overtime hours they had been wrongly denied. They argued the award was a tax-free personal injury payment under paragraph 81(1)(g.1) of the Income Tax Act, pointing to the stressful and adversarial conduct of their manager during the dispute. The Tax Court disagreed and dismissed the appeal, applying the two-question Tsiaprailis framework: what was the payment intended to replace, and would the replaced amount have been taxable in the recipient’s hands? Because the award was calculated by multiplying an agreed number of overtime hours by each employee’s hourly rate, it replaced remuneration that would have been taxable employment income if actually worked, and was taxed the same way even though it arose from a settlement rather than wages actually earned.
Employment settlements can also carry a reporting obligation that many taxpayers overlook. Since Bill C-47’s mandatory disclosure rules took effect on June 22, 2023, a settlement agreement that includes a confidentiality clause can meet one of the statutory hallmarks of a reportable transaction under section 237.3 of the Income Tax Act, obligating the taxpayer, and potentially the employer, to file Form RC312. Failing to file, or filing late, can result in penalties of up to $500 per week for individuals.
For a full discussion of these reporting obligations and how they interact with the tax treatment of a severance settlement, see our articles:
Taxation of Settlements on Account of Capital vs. Business or Employment Income
Where a settlement is taxable at all, the next question is how it is taxed, as business or employment income, or on account of capital. This, too, follows the surrogatum principle: the determining factor is what the settlement is meant to replace. A settlement for a broken contract that caused a taxpayer to lose sales and business income is taxed as business income. A settlement compensating for the loss of, or damage to, a capital asset, such as destroyed business equipment, is instead treated as proceeds of disposition of property, which may qualify for capital gains treatment.
GST/HST Implications of Settlement Payments
Income tax is not the only tax consequence to consider. Under section 182 of the Excise Tax Act, a settlement or damages payment can be deemed to include GST/HST, even where the settlement agreement or judgment says nothing about sales tax, whenever three conditions are met: the parties had a contract for a taxable supply in Canada, that contract was breached, modified, or terminated, and the payor made a compensation payment to the supplier as a result, rather than as consideration for the supply itself.
Where section 182 applies, part of the settlement is treated as GST/HST, which reduces the net amount the recipient actually keeps, since sales tax is deemed to have been included in the payment rather than added on top of it. The payor, in turn, may be able to claim an input tax credit for that deemed GST/HST portion if the payment was made in the course of commercial activity. Because section 182 only applies to payments flowing from the purchaser of a taxable supply to the supplier, and not the other way around, it is sometimes possible to structure a settlement, or the underlying contract, so the deeming rule does not apply at all.
Where it does apply, the settlement agreement can be drafted to gross up the payment so the recipient still receives the intended after-tax, after-GST/HST amount. This is a highly technical area, and the interaction between the surrogatum principle for income tax purposes and the section 182 deeming rule for GST/HST purposes should be reviewed by an experienced Canadian tax lawyer before a commercial settlement is finalized, not after the payment has already changed hands.
Comparison: How Common Settlement Types Are Taxed
| Type of Settlement | Typical Tax Treatment | Why |
| Personal injury or wrongful death damages | Not taxable | Falls under the personal injury exception; compensates for injury, not income |
| Interest added to a personal injury settlement | Not taxable | Takes on the tax-free character of the underlying damages |
| Interest that accrued while damages sat in a deposit account | Taxable | Treated as investment income earned on funds, not as part of the damages themselves |
| Lost business income (breach of contract) | Taxable as business income | Replaces income that would have been taxable if earned in the ordinary course |
| Damage to or loss of a capital asset | Capital receipt; may qualify for capital gains treatment | Replaces a capital asset rather than income |
| Severance for discrimination or harassment | Generally not taxable | Resembles punitive damages rather than a replacement for wages |
| Severance for back pay, unpaid overtime, or notice period | Taxable as employment income | Replaces remuneration that would have been taxable if actually earned or worked |
| Investment losses due to negligent management | Non-taxable for the capital-loss portion; taxable for the lost-investment-income portion | Follows the surrogatum principle applied separately to each component |
| Commercial settlement involving a taxable supply | May include a deemed GST/HST component under ETA s. 182 | Applies where the payment compensates a supplier following breach, modification, or termination of a contract for a taxable supply |
Practical Implications for Canadian Taxpayers
The practical takeaway is that the label the parties put on a settlement matters far less than the economic substance of what it replaces. Two settlements of identical dollar amounts can have very different after-tax outcomes depending on how the payment is allocated among heads of damage, whether it compensates for personal injury, lost income, lost capital, or something else entirely, and whether the settlement documentation reflects that allocation clearly enough to withstand CRA scrutiny.
Pro Tax Tips – Engage a Canadian Tax Lawyer Before Finalizing a Settlement
In most settlements there is real flexibility in how the total payment is allocated among possible heads of damage. For the party paying the settlement, the allocation often makes little practical difference, since the total outlay is the same either way. For the recipient, however, the allocation can be the difference between receiving funds entirely tax-free and facing a significant tax bill. It is sometimes possible to amend the pleadings even at the point of settlement to better reflect the true nature of the claim, but once the settlement is concluded, it is generally too late to maximize the amount allocated to tax-free sources.
“Taxpayers frequently come to us after a settlement has already been signed, hoping to fix the tax result after the fact. By that point our options are far more limited than if we had been involved in structuring the settlement from the start.” Engaging an experienced Canadian tax lawyer before a settlement is finalized allows the allocation, the release language, and the reporting obligations to be addressed while there is still room to negotiate.
- David J. Rotfleisch, founding Toronto tax lawyer and CPA at Rotfleisch & Samulovitch, and a Law Society of Ontario Certified Specialist in Taxation.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is a settlement payment taxable in Canada?
It depends on what the settlement replaces. Under the surrogatum principle, a settlement takes on the tax character of the item it substitutes for. A settlement that replaces taxable income, such as lost wages or lost business income, is taxable. A settlement for personal injury or for the loss of a capital asset may not be.
What is the surrogatum principle?
The surrogatum principle is the common law rule, adopted for Canadian tax purposes, that a payment takes on the tax attributes of whatever it is intended to replace. It applies equally to court-awarded damages and negotiated settlements.
Are personal injury settlements taxable in Canada?
No. Settlement amounts for personal injury or death, including both special damages such as medical expenses and lost earnings, and general damages such as pain and suffering, are exempt from tax, even when calculated with reference to a taxpayer’s lost income.
Is interest included in a settlement taxable?
Interest included in or added to a personal injury settlement is generally non-taxable. However, if damages are held in a deposit account and interest accrues on that amount before payout, the accrued interest is taxable as income.
Is a severance settlement taxable?
It depends on what the severance settlement compensates for. Amounts resembling punitive damages, such as compensation for discrimination or harassment, are typically not taxable. Amounts that replace back pay, unpaid overtime, or notice-period compensation are generally taxable as employment income.
Is a wrongful dismissal settlement taxable?
The portion of a wrongful dismissal settlement that compensates for lost wages or notice pay is generally taxable as employment income or as a retiring allowance. Portions that compensate for damages unrelated to lost remuneration, such as damage to reputation, may be treated differently and should be reviewed with a Canadian tax lawyer.
Does it matter if my settlement is calculated using my hourly wage or overtime rate?
Yes. In Saunders v. The Queen, 2020 TCC 114, the Tax Court of Canada found that a settlement calculated by multiplying an agreed number of overtime hours by the employees’ hourly rate replaced income that would have been taxable if actually worked, and taxed the settlement the same way, despite the employees’ argument that it should be treated as a tax-free personal injury award.
Are punitive damages taxable in Canada?
Punitive damages are generally not taxable, since they are intended to punish wrongdoing rather than replace an amount that would otherwise have been taxable income.
How is a settlement for lost business income taxed?
A settlement that replaces business income a company would otherwise have earned, such as compensation for a breach of contract that caused lost sales, is taxed as business income to the recipient.
What is Form RC312, and could it apply to my settlement?
Form RC312 is the Reportable Transaction and Notifiable Transaction Information Return, required under sections 237.3 and 237.4 of the Income Tax Act. Employment settlements with confidentiality clauses can trigger this filing obligation, since confidentiality is one of the statutory hallmarks of a reportable transaction.
What happens if I do not file Form RC312 when required?
Penalties for failing to file, or filing late, can reach $500 per week for individual taxpayers, and up to $2,000 per week for corporations with assets of $50 million or more.
Can a settlement be structured to reduce the tax owed?
Often, yes. Because the CRA looks at what a settlement replaces rather than what it is labelled, the way a settlement allocates amounts among different heads of damage can significantly affect the after-tax result. This structuring generally needs to happen before the settlement is finalized.
Does GST/HST apply to a settlement payment?
It can. Under section 182 of the Excise Tax Act, a settlement or damages payment can be deemed to include GST/HST where it compensates a supplier for the breach, modification, or termination of a contract for a taxable supply in Canada, even if the settlement agreement does not mention sales tax at all.
Can I get an input tax credit on the GST/HST portion of a settlement I pay?
Potentially, yes. If section 182 of the Excise Tax Act applies and the payment was made in the course of your commercial activities, you may be able to claim an input tax credit for the deemed GST/HST portion of the payment.
Do I have to report a settlement on my tax return?
If any portion of the settlement is taxable, it must be reported as income in the year it is received. Even if the entire settlement is non-taxable, a related disclosure obligation, such as Form RC312, may still apply depending on the terms of the settlement agreement.
DISCLAIMER: This article provides broad information. It is only accurate as of the posting date. It has not been updated and may be out-of-date. It does not give legal advice and should not be relied on as tax advice. Every tax scenario is unique to its circumstances and will differ from the instances described in the article. If you have specific legal questions, you should seek the advice of a Canadian tax lawyer.
About the Author
