Livaditis v. Canada (Revenue Agency)

Livaditis v. Canada (Revenue Agency)

Although the Delegate lacked proper explained reasons for preferring the CRA official's account regarding the telephone call (making that ground unreasonable and procedurally unfair), the decision was nonetheless reasonable and sustainable because enforcement action in the form of an unnamed person requirement and court order had been initiated against LaCaille Fifth Avenue Inc., a company associated with the Applicant, before disclosure and was sufficiently related and likely to have uncovered the same information, rendering the disclosure not voluntary under the VDP.

Citation
2010 FC 950
Parties
Applicant: Peter Livaditis; Respondent: Canada Revenue Agency
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 September 2010
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review of Administrative Decision (vdp Penalty Waiver) / Final Judgment (dismissed)
Outcome
Application for judicial review dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Voluntary Disclosure Program, Penalty Waiver Under S.220(3.1), Reasonableness Review, Procedural Fairness, Unnamed Person Requirement (upr)
Source Language
English
Tax Law Administrative Law Judicial Review Voluntary Disclosure Program Penalty Waiver Under S.220(3.1) Reasonableness Review Procedural Fairness Unnamed Person Requirement (upr)

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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Livaditis

Applicant

Canada Revenue Agency

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review of Administrative Decision (vdp Penalty Waiver) / Final Judgment (dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Applicant's disclosure was 'voluntary' under the CRA VDP
  2. 2 Whether the Delegate's refusal to waive/cancel penalties was reasonable
  3. 3 Whether the Delegate unfairly preferred the CRA official's version without reasons

Ratio Decidendi

Although the Delegate lacked proper explained reasons for preferring the CRA official's account regarding the telephone call (making that ground unreasonable and procedurally unfair), the decision was nonetheless reasonable and sustainable because enforcement action in the form of an unnamed person requirement and court order had been initiated against LaCaille Fifth Avenue Inc., a company associated with the Applicant, before disclosure and was sufficiently related and likely to have uncovered the same information, rendering the disclosure not voluntary under the VDP.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Application for judicial review dismissed with costs.
  • Delegate's decision denying VDP relief dated December 1, 2009 is upheld.