Clients must be notified when court considering order requiring disclosure

Supreme court | Taxation

Income tax

Clients must be notified when court considering order requiring disclosure

Canada Revenue Agency sent requirement pursuant to s. 231.2(1) of Income Tax Act (Can.) to taxpayer lawyer, requesting documents regarding income and expenses. Taxpayer claimed that details such as clients’ names in accounts receivable listing were protected by solicitor-client privilege. Federal Court granted Minister of National Revenue’s application for compliance order. Federal Court of Appeal allowed taxpayer’s appeal in part, dismissed taxpayer’s arguments based on s. 8 of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and sent matter back to Federal Court. Minister appealed. Appeal allowed. Federal Court of Appeal’s order was set aside and Minister’s application for compliance order was dismissed, given holding in companion case that accounting records exception in s. 232(1) of Act was constitutionally invalid. Definition of “solicitor-client privilege” in s. 232(1) of Act was clearly intended to permit Minister to have access to lawyers’ accounting records even if they contained otherwise privileged information. While taxpayer’s challenge was based on argument that definition of “solicitor-client privilege” in s. 232(1) of Act did not satisfy jurisprudential criteria, in companion case, s. 232(1) of Act was found to be constitutionally invalid. In companion case, Act’s requirement scheme as it applied to lawyers and notaries unjustifiably infringed s. 8 of Charter, which meant that request made to taxpayer under scheme was now foreclosed. To properly safeguard clients’ right to solicitor-client privilege, clients must be notified when court considered making order requiring disclosure of possibly privileged information, and be given opportunity to contest disclosure of information.
Minister of National Revenue v. Thompson (Jun. 3, 2016, S.C.C., McLachlin C.J.C., Abella J., Rothstein J., Cromwell J., Karakatsanis J., Wagner J., and Gascon J., 35590) Decision at 230 A.C.W.S. (3d) 736 was reversed. 265 A.C.W.S. (3d) 1083.


Free newsletter

Our newsletter is FREE and keeps you up to date on all the developments in the Ontario legal community. Please enter your email address below to subscribe.

Recent articles & video

Relocation disputes surge in family law litigation, says Lerners LLP’s Ryan McNeil

Ont. CA confirms future harm risk not compensable in contaminated medication class action

Law Commission of Ontario announces new board of governors appointments

Ontario Superior Court upholds ‘fair dealing’ in franchise dispute

Ontario Superior Court orders retrial for catastrophic impairment case due to procedural unfairness

LEAF celebrates 39 years fighting gender-based discrimination at annual Evening for Equality gala

Most Read Articles

Ontario Superior Court confirms License Appeal Tribunal cannot award punitive damages

Ontario Court of Appeal denies builder's request for a trial on damages in a real estate dispute

Ontario Superior Court grants extension for service of expert reports in medical negligence case

Ontario Superior Court denies late motion to transfer car accident case to simplified procedure