Charky v. Canada (Attorney General)

Charky v. Canada (Attorney General)

Applying the reasonableness standard the Court concluded the Assistant Director reasonably found the disclosure was not voluntary because CRA contact with an employee of the related company and extraction of accounting data were likely to uncover the information disclosed, and the denial fell within the range of defensible outcomes under s.220(3.1).

Citation
2010 FC 1327
Parties
Applicant: Gabriel Charky; Respondent: Attorney General of Canada
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 December 2010
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Under Federal Courts Act S.18.1 / Application for Judicial Review — Judgment Dismissing Application
Outcome
Application for judicial review dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Voluntary Disclosures Program, Income Tax Act S.220(3.1), Standard of Review Reasonableness, Waiver of Penalties and Interest, Audit and Enforcement Activity
Source Language
English
Tax Law Administrative Law Judicial Review Voluntary Disclosures Program Income Tax Act S.220(3.1) Standard of Review Reasonableness Waiver of Penalties and Interest Audit and Enforcement Activity

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gabriel Charky

Applicant

Attorney General of Canada

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Under Federal Courts Act S.18.1 / Application for Judicial Review — Judgment Dismissing Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What standard of review applies to decisions under s.220(3.1)?
  2. 2 Was the Assistant Director’s denial of the voluntary disclosure request reasonable?
  3. 3 Was the disclosure voluntary given CRA contact with a related corporation and extraction of accounting data?

Ratio Decidendi

Applying the reasonableness standard the Court concluded the Assistant Director reasonably found the disclosure was not voluntary because CRA contact with an employee of the related company and extraction of accounting data were likely to uncover the information disclosed, and the denial fell within the range of defensible outcomes under s.220(3.1).

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Application for judicial review dismissed with costs.