Brown v. Canada (Customs and Revenue Agency)

Brown v. Canada (Customs and Revenue Agency)

The delegate's finding that no no-name disclosure was initiated in July 2004 was reasonable given lack of written no-name determination or approval; the effective disclosure date was September 7, 2004 which came after the applicant received notice of an audit on September 2, 2004, so the disclosure was not voluntary under the VDP; there was no breach of procedural fairness and the court will not interfere with a reasonable exercise of discretion.

Citation
2005 FC 1639
Parties
Applicant: Roderick Evan Brown; Respondent: Canada Customs and Revenue Agency
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 December 2005
Procedural Posture
Application for Judicial Review / Decision (reasons for Order and Order)
Outcome
Application for judicial review dismissed with costs in favour of the respondent
Legal Topics
Voluntary Disclosures Program, Goods and Services Tax (gst), Excise Tax Act, Procedural Fairness, Standard of Review, Discretion
Source Language
English
Tax Law Administrative Law Judicial Review Voluntary Disclosures Program Goods and Services Tax (gst) Excise Tax Act Procedural Fairness Standard of Review +1 more

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Roderick Evan Brown

Applicant

Canada Customs and Revenue Agency

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Judicial Review / Decision (reasons for Order and Order)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Minister's delegate erred in fact in finding the disclosure was not voluntary
  2. 2 Whether the Minister's delegate failed to observe procedural fairness in rendering his decision

Ratio Decidendi

The delegate's finding that no no-name disclosure was initiated in July 2004 was reasonable given lack of written no-name determination or approval; the effective disclosure date was September 7, 2004 which came after the applicant received notice of an audit on September 2, 2004, so the disclosure was not voluntary under the VDP; there was no breach of procedural fairness and the court will not interfere with a reasonable exercise of discretion.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review dismissed with costs in favour of the respondent

Orders

  • The application for judicial review is dismissed with costs to the respondent.