Date: 19980113
Docket: T-159-97
BETWEEN:
GEORGE VEALE
Applicant
- and -
MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
DUBÉ, J.
[1] On January 30, 1997, the Applicant filed an Originating Notice of Motion seeking a review of the Respondent's (the "Minister") decision denying interest relief under section 220(3.1) of the Income Tax Act (the "Fairness Legislation"). Within his application, the Applicant requested documents and statistics made under the Fairness Legislation since its inception by Canadian taxpayers from all district offices in the country. Presumably the purpose of this information is to show that the Penticton Office in British Columbia applies the Fairness Legislation in a manner not consistent with other districts across the country.
[2] The Minister objected to providing such material relating to taxpayers other than the Applicant on the grounds that the material is irrelevant and confidential.
[3] Pursuant to directions of Noël, J., dated March 26, 1997, the parties were ordered to proceed under Rule 1613(4), which reads as follows:
| "A judge may, after hearing the submissions, order that a certified copy of all or part of the material requested be forwarded to the party making the request and to the Registry.". |
The Court further provided a schedule for submissions. The parties filed submissions in a timely manner.
[4] The Minister agrees that the Applicant is entitled to review confidential material in his own taxpayer's file maintained by the Minister. Said material is covered by the Applicant's request under the Privacy Act and was forwarded to him in March, 1997. However, the Minister maintains that documents relating to other taxpayers is confidential information. I agree with the Minister's position on three grounds.
[5] First, Rules 1612 and 1613 may not be used to obtain disclosure of confidential information provided to a board, by a third party, without notice to that third party: see Pfizer Canada Inc. v. Nu-Pharm Inc. (1993) 72 F.T.R. 103 at 110.
[6] Second, there is no statistical information showing how the Fairness Legislation is working across the country. In the absence of such statistics, providing case material on a Canada-wide basis would be a massive undertaking that an Applicant cannot impose upon a Respondent under Rules 1612 and 1613. And even if confidential material were available, its production could be a violation of the Income Tax Act.
[7] Section 241 of the Income Tax Act prohibits any official from providing taxpayer information to any person or persons. Subsection 241.2 stipulates that notwithstanding any other Act of Parliament or other law, no official shall be required in connection with any legal proceeding to produce evidence relating to any taxpayer information.
[8] Third, to prepare and produce generalized and sanitized sample case material would go beyond what the Federal Court of Appeal required in Québec Port Terminals Inc. v. Canada (1994) 164 N.R. 60, when it considered Rules 1612 and 1613. Moreover it would be of little assistance to the Applicant because such information is not relevant.
[9] Under the Fairness Legislation each case is to be decided on its own merits in accordance with the particular circumstances of each taxpayer, whether that taxpayer is from the Penticton District Office or other districts. A document is only relevant in an application for judicial review if it may affect the decision that the Court will make on such an application. The only question to be decided in the present application for judicial review is whether the Minister acted in accordance with the rules of natural justice and procedural fairness with respect to this particular taxpayer in exercising his discretion under subsection 220(3.1) of the Income Tax Act. The purpose of the Fairness Legislation is to allow for discretionary decisions to be made on the individual circumstances of each case.
[10] Consequently, it is hereby ordered that the Respondent need only provide the Applicant with existing relevant material in his own taxpayer's file.
[11] Under paragraph 4 of Noël. J.'s directions, it was also ordered that the time for the Applicant to file and serve his application record be extended to a time to be fixed by the judge who will adjudicate the matter pursuant to Rule 1613(4). It is hereby ordered that the Applicant shall file and serve his record within the next twenty (20) days.
(Sgd.) "J.E. Dubé"
JUDGE
January 13, 1998
Vancouver, British Columbia
FEDERAL COURT TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DATED: January 13, 1998
COURT NO.: T-159-97
STYLE OF CAUSE: George Veale
v.
Minister of National Revenue
MOTION DEALT WITH IN WRITING WITHOUT
APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL.
REASONS FOR ORDER OF DUBÉ, J.
dated January 13, 1998
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY:
Mr. Michael Beninger for Applicant
Ms. Karen Truscott for Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Michael Beninger for Applicant
Barrister & Solicitor
Kelowna, BC
George Thomson for Respondent
Deputy Attorney General
of Canada