Federal appeal | Taxation
INCOME TAX
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.).
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.).
