Cullen,
J.:—On
May
29,
1990,
$56,641
U.S.
currency
and
$17,000
Canadian
currency
was
seized
from
the
plaintiff
by
the
R.C.M.P.
pursuant
to
an
order
of
the
justice
of
the
peace.
The
basis
for
the
seizure
was
the
possibility
that
an
offence
or
offences
had
been
committed
under
the
Narcotics
Control
Act,
R.S.C.
1985,
c.
N-1.
To
date
no
charges
have
been
laid,
but
the
plaintiff
knows
that
an
“investigation
for
offences
in
relation
to
the
Criminal
Code
of
Canada,
[R.S.C.
1985,
c.
C-46
(as
amended)]
and
the
Narcotics
Control
Act"
are
ongoing.
The
plaintiff
has
appealed
to
the
Provincial
Court
of
British
Columbia
at
Burnaby
to
have
the
seized
moneys
returned.
The
Crown
has
applied
for
an
order
to
have
the
seized
moneys
forfeited
to
Her
Majesty
in
right
of
Canada.
Both
applications
were
argued
before
Her
Honour
Judge
Holmes
on
September
4,
1990,
who
will
apparently
deliver
her
decision
on
September
21,
1990.
In
this
Court,
the
plaintiff
by
way
of
an
originating
notice
of
motion
seeks
to
secure
orders
of,
inter
alia:
(1)
action
to
quash
or
set
aside
demands
for
information
made
by
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
(M.N.R.).
(2)
prohibition
to
prevent
the
M.N.R.
enforcing
the
aforesaid
claims
for
information.
The
plaintiff
had
been
served
with
five
separate
demands
for
information
purporting
to
be
related
to
the
administration
or
enforcement
of
the
Income
Tax
Act,
R.S.C.
1952,
c.
148
(am.
S.C.
1970-71-72,
c.
63)
(the
"Act").
These
demands
are
shown
as
Exhibits
F
to
J,
inclusive,
of
his
affidavit
in
support
of
his
motion
of
September
12,
1990
seeking
to
have
the
deadline
for
compliance
by
the
plaintiff
with
demands
for
information
made
by
the
M.N.R.
suspended
pending
a
hearing
on
the
originating
notice
of
motion
above
referred
to.
The
M.N.R.
has
significant
powers
under
the
Income
Tax
Act
to,
among
other
things,
secure
or
demand
information
from
a
taxpayer.
Here
four
demands
for
information
were
required
to
be
met
in
60
days
and
the
plaintiff
has
no
quarrel
with
that.
However,
the
demands
for
information
under
Exhibit
F
to
the
plaintiff's
affidavit
had
to
be
provided
in
ten
days.
Answering
the
questions
asked
needed
care
and
attention
and,
yes,
the
services
of
an
accountant
(see
Exhibit
K
to
the
plaintiff's
affidavit).
If
he
failed
to
comply,
he
was
advised
he
was
liable
to
prosecution
"without
further
notification
under
subsection
238(1)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act,
which
provides
a
fine
of
not
less
than
$1,000
and
not
exceeding
$25,000
or
such
fine
and
imprisonment
for
a
term
not
exceeding
12
months”.
The
Crown
could
offer
no
evidence
of
irreparable
harm
if
the
time
to
reply
was
extended.
On
the
other
hand,
the
plaintiff
faces
the
possibility
of
prosecution
under
the
Income
Tax
Act
even
if
he
complies
with
the
demand
for
information,
and
so
should
be
allowed
reasonable
time
to
reply.
In
the
circumstances
here,
the
plaintiff
is
entitled
to
60
days
from
the
date
of
receipt
of
the
notice
(Exhibit
F
to
his
affidavit
sworn
September
12,
1990)
to
comply
with
the
request
for
information
related
to
the
seizure
hereinbefore
referred
to.
In
the
circumstances,
there
will
be
no
order
as
to
costs.
Order
accordingly.
Email this Content