Federal Appeal


Proposed amendments constituted collateral attack on warrant

Canada Revenue Agency investigated appellant for variety of offences under Income Tax Act (Can.), and Excise Tax Act (Can.). In course of its investigation, agency applied for and obtained search warrant pursuant to s. 487 of Criminal Code (Can.). In his notice of application, appellant challenged his tax liability, warrant’s validity and agency’s decision to apply for warrant under Code rather than Acts. He subsequently sought to amend his notice of application. Prothonotary dismissed motion. Appellant appealed prothonotary’s decision to Federal Court. Judge dismissed appeal and determined that prothonotary’s decision was correct. Judge held that proposed amendments constituted collateral attack on warrant, challenged primarily administrative investigatory steps, had no hope of success and were not in interests of justice. Appeal was dismissed. Proposed amendments, to extent that they may peripherally touch on warrant application issue, were superfluous. Appellant’s challenge to agency’s policy of obtaining warrants under Code, rather than under Acts, was on table by virtue of original notice of application. Neither prothonotary nor judge erred in denying appellant leave to amend his notice of application.

Lawson v. M.N.R.

(Mar. 7, 2012, F.C.A., Blais C.J., Evans and Layden-Stevenson JJ.A., File No. A-192-11) 212 A.C.W.S. (3d) 872 (6 pp.).

cover image


Subscribers get early and easy access to Law Times.

Law Times Poll

Law Times reports that there is the highest number of lawyer candidates in the upcoming Law Society of Ontario Bencher election since 1995, but turn-out is declining. Do you think voting should be mandatory for all lawyers and paralegals in this election?