Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The court ordered Harish Tak to comply with a BC Securities Commission summons, rejecting his claim that compelled testimony should be exempted under the Charter.
Les demandes fondées sur Jarvis survivent au rejet, mais les larges contestations constitutionnelles de l’échange d’information sous la LIR sont radiées faute de faits matériels.
The Federal Court granted a compliance order under the Income Tax Act, finding the CRA’s requests were for a civil audit, not a criminal investigation.
Leave to appeal was denied because the Court concluded the Summary Conviction Appeal Court did not commit a clear error of law: its reweighing of the evidence to determine that the trial judge's findings were unreasonable was correct and the issuing justice had sufficient grounds for the search warrant, so there was no proper basis to grant further appeal.
Source excerpt
The court allowed a summary trial application and dismissed the civil conspiracy claim against eight defendants for lack of evidence of a predominant purpose to injure the plaintiff.
The trial judge unreasonably concluded the audit had become a criminal investigation prior to February 20, 2008 and misapplied the Jarvis predominant purpose test by overemphasizing relevance to penal liability and discounting the auditor’s subjective audit purpose; on the evidence the auditor was conducting a legitimate audit until the formal referral in February 2008, there were no Charter breaches warranting excision, the Information to Obtain contained some evidence, and the acquittal could have been materially affected, therefore the appeal is allowed and a new trial ordered.
Source excerpt
The Federal Court’s factual findings that the Minister’s predominant purpose in issuing the requirement was civil, not criminal, were defensible on the evidence; the appellant failed to show a palpable and overriding error in those mixed fact and law findings, so the appeal is dismissed.
Source excerpt
Assuming the proposed facts were true, it was plain and obvious the proposed amendments disclosed no reasonable cause of action because under Jarvis CRA may use audit powers for administration and the Tax Court's jurisdiction is limited to the validity of the reassessment; questions about predominant purpose for prosecution belong to a criminal court, not the Tax Court.
Source excerpt
The motion to amend was dismissed because the proposed amendment did not disclose a reasonable cause of action: the appellant failed to identify a personal Charter right violated, the material did not demonstrate that CRA used coercive audit powers after a criminal investigation commenced, and the predominant purpose of CRA’s actions was a civil audit under the Income Tax Act as guided by R. v. Jarvis; accordingly leave to amend was denied and costs awarded to the respondent.
Source excerpt
Crown appeal allowed from acquittal on Fisheries Act charges. The court held the DFO inspection did not breach s. 8 and remitted the matter for retrial.
Explore more
