Boudreau v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue)

Boudreau v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue) Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2006-08-15 Neutral citation 2006 FCA 278 File numbers A-248-05 Decision Content Date: 20060815 Docket: A-248-05 Citation: 2006 FCA 278 Present: LÉTOURNEAU J.A. BETWEEN: SUZANNE BOUDREAU Applicant and MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondents Heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on August 14, 2006. Order delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on August 15, 2006. REASONS FOR ORDER BY: LÉTOURNEAU J.A. Date: 20060815 Docket: A-248-05 Citation: 2006 FCA 278 Present: LÉTOURNEAU J.A. BETWEEN: SUZANNE BOUDREAU Applicant and MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondents REASONS FOR ORDER LÉTOURNEAU J.A. [1] The Order to be issued relates to the production of documents, i.e. those documents relating to the minister of National Revenue’s decision (minister) to issue a notice of intention to revoke and the revocation of the registration of a pension plan established by Cryptic Web Information Technology Security Inc. (Cryptic Web). [2] Concerns were expressed by the respondents from whom disclosure was sought that some of the material could not be part of the record and released because of section 241 of the Income Tax Act (Act). The section states that no official shall provide or release in any legal proceedings information relating to a taxpayer. [3] On June 20, 2006, Malone J.A. issued an Order requiring the respondents to provide the applicant with the documents that she requested, subject to any disclosure restrictions arising pursuant to section 241 of the Act. The disclosure had to be made on or before July 19, 2006. [4] On July 19, 2006, the respondents sought directions from this Court under Rule 318(3) as to the procedure to be followed for making submissions on the issue of disclosure since such disclosure would affect third parties. In addition, the respondents were not convinced that the exempting provision of paragraph 241(3)(b), argued by the applicant, could be relied upon in the circumstances. That paragraph allows for disclosure of taxpayer information in a legal proceeding relating to the administration or enforcement of the Act. [5] The following day, in a letter addressed to the Court, the applicant, exasperated by the fact that the Order of Malone J.A. had not in her view been complied with, renounced to disclosure and filed a Requisition for Hearing. At page 2 of her July 20, 2006 letter, she wrote: “Consequently, I do not believe that it is appropriate to waste this Honourable Court’s time in an endless dispute over documents”. [6] On July 21, 2006, I issued a Directive to the parties whereby I accepted the Requisition for Hearing for filing and gave 30 days to the respondents to serve and file their record. [7] On July 27, the respondents sought clarifications from the Court as to whether they were relieved of their obligations to disclose under Rule 318 of the Federal Courts Rules. Their letter also indicated that they intended to file in their record all documents necessary to their defence, regardless of the fact that they had not released to the applicant the minister’s entire file on Cryptic Web. The applicant then objected to the respondents making any use of the record that was before the minister and that was not disclosed to her. [8] This is the background that gave rise to the oral hearing to sort out the material that could be disclosed to the applicant and used by her and the respondents. [9] The hearing was constructive and permitted to resolve the issues and establish a schedule for the filing of the material as well as the respondents’ record. The respondents informed the Court that they are now in a position to serve and file the material that was before the minister and that led to the notice of intent to revoke and the revocation of Cryptic Web’s registered pension plan. The parties agreed with my suggestion that the applicant be permitted to serve and file an additional record to address some of the questions that might arise from the disclosure of the material. [10] I indicated to the parties my willingness to remain seized with the file should difficulties arise with disclosure or with compliance with the Order that I will issue. In order to save time, I also authorized the parties to proceed by way of letters to formulate their requests. [11] Both parties reiterated their desire to proceed rapidly with the hearing of the application for judicial review. The Requisition for Hearing is already filed and the file will be completed by September 29, 2006. “Gilles Létourneau” J.A. FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-248-05 STYLE OF CAUSE: SUZANNE BOUDREAU v. MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE et al. PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa, Ontario DATE OF HEARING: August 14, 2006 REASONS FOR ORDER BY: LÉTOURNEAU J.A. DATED: August 15, 2006 APPEARANCES: Suzanne Boudreau FOR THE APPLICANT Me Roger Leclaire Me Justine Malone FOR THE RESPONDENTS SOLICITORS OF RECORD: John H. Sims, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada FOR THE RESPONDENTS