Poon v. Canada

Poon v. Canada

The Director’s factual finding that the Applicant received the Form TX14D and thus was aware of enforcement action was reasonable, but the Decision failed to provide adequate reasons because it did not address whether the enforcement action would likely have uncovered the Applicant’s personal disclosures as required by VDP Guidelines s.8.3.5; accordingly the Decision was set aside and the Personal Disclosure remitted for reconsideration by a Director in another CRA office with reasons addressing both guideline questions and the exercise of discretion.

Citation
2009 FC 432
Parties
Applicant: William Poon; Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 April 2009
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (federal Court) Under Federal Courts Act S.18.1 of CRA Decision Under VDP / Reasons for Order and Order; Decision Set Aside and Remitted for Reconsideration
Outcome
Decision set aside and remitted for reconsideration; costs awarded to Applicant.
Legal Topics
Voluntary Disclosures Program (vdp), Waiver/cancellation of Penalties and Interest, Enforcement Action and Voluntariness, Adequacy of Reasons, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Tax Law Administrative Law Judicial Review Procedural Fairness Voluntary Disclosures Program (vdp) Waiver/cancellation of Penalties and Interest Enforcement Action and Voluntariness Adequacy of Reasons +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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Poon

Applicant

Her Majesty the Queen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (federal Court) Under Federal Courts Act S.18.1 of CRA Decision Under VDP / Reasons for Order and Order; Decision Set Aside and Remitted for Reconsideration

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Applicant was aware that enforcement action had been commenced against his related corporation, APS
  2. 2 Whether the Director provided adequate reasons addressing the VDP Guidelines (s.8.3.5) including whether the CRA would likely have uncovered the information disclosed — i.e. adequacy of decision and exercise of discretion

Ratio Decidendi

The Director’s factual finding that the Applicant received the Form TX14D and thus was aware of enforcement action was reasonable, but the Decision failed to provide adequate reasons because it did not address whether the enforcement action would likely have uncovered the Applicant’s personal disclosures as required by VDP Guidelines s.8.3.5; accordingly the Decision was set aside and the Personal Disclosure remitted for reconsideration by a Director in another CRA office with reasons addressing both guideline questions and the exercise of discretion.

Court Disposition

Decision set aside and remitted for reconsideration; costs awarded to Applicant.

Orders

  • The Decision is set aside.
  • The Applicant's Personal Disclosure is to be reconsidered by a Director in another CRA office and reasons are to be provided explaining conclusions about the two questions in the VDP Guidelines (s.8.3.5) and the final exercise of discretion.