Matthew Boadi Professional Corporation v. Canada (Attorney General)

Matthew Boadi Professional Corporation v. Canada (Attorney General)

The Court allowed the judicial review: the Minister's Delegate's decision was unreasonable because it rested on erroneous findings of fact and failed to provide adequate reasons why CRA enforcement would likely have uncovered the Applicant's 2005-2010 T1135 obligations; the 2011-2013 disclosures could reasonably be...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2018 FC 53
Parties
Applicant: Matthew Boadi Professional Corporation; Respondent: The Attorney General of Canada
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 January 2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review — Tax (vdp) / Judgment and Reasons (federal Court)
Outcome
Application for judicial review allowed; Decision set aside in part and remitted to a different delegate for redetermination; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Voluntary Disclosure Program, Taxpayer Relief Under S.220(3.1), T1135 Foreign Reporting, Reasonableness Standard of Review
Source Language
english
Tax Law Administrative Law Judicial Review Voluntary Disclosure Program Taxpayer Relief Under S.220(3.1) T1135 Foreign Reporting Reasonableness Standard of Review

Source-derived case record

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Matthew Boadi Professional Corporation

Applicant

The Attorney General of Canada

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review — Tax (vdp) / Judgment and Reasons (federal Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Minister's Delegate reasonably concluded the disclosure was not voluntary
  2. 2 Whether CRA enforcement action was ongoing
  3. 3 Whether the enforcement action was likely to uncover T1135 failures for 2005-2010 and 2011-2013

Ratio Decidendi

The Court allowed the judicial review: the Minister's Delegate's decision was unreasonable because it rested on erroneous findings of fact and failed to provide adequate reasons why CRA enforcement would likely have uncovered the Applicant's 2005-2010 T1135 obligations; the 2011-2013 disclosures could reasonably be non‑voluntary but the 2005-2010 disclosures required separate assessment; the matter is remitted to a different delegate for redetermination.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review allowed; Decision set aside in part and remitted to a different delegate for redetermination; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • Application for judicial review allowed.
  • Decision referred back to a different delegate authorized by the Minister for redetermination.