Wright v. The Queen, 2006 TCC 166

Citation:2006TCC166

Date: 20060315

Docket: 2003-1995(IT)G

                                                                                              

BETWEEN:

WILLIAM H. WRIGHT,

Appellant,

and

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,

Respondent,

AND BETWEEN:

2003-1993(IT)G

DONNA L. WRIGHT,

Appellant,

and

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,

Respondent.

____________________________________________________________________

Motion heard on March 14, 2006, at Victoria, British Columbia

Before: The Honourable Justice D.W. Beaubier

Appearances:

For the Appellants:	William H. Wright
Counsel for the Respondent:	Johanna Russell

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS FOR ORDER ANDORDER

[1]      The motions by the Appellants were heard at Victoria, British Columbia on March 14^th, 2006. They are for documents previously the subjects of motions before Bowman, C.J. and Campbell, J. of this Court in 2005.

[2]      Dealing with the documents by the categories described by Bowman, C.J. in his reasons dated 9 August 2005 and by the lettering contained in paragraph [3] of those reasons, the Court finds:

(a)               The request for organizational charts of Canada Revenue Agency - For the reasons described by Bowman C.J., these are irrelevant to these appeals and the request is denied.

(b)              A request for printouts of documents or accounts of Canada Revenue Agency which, in oral argument, appear to relate to amounts of interest, and calculation of that interest, on taxes claimed by Canada Revenue Agency - Bowman C.J., raised the possibility that the Respondent is stonewalling on this request and suggested that such a request might be valid if the "proper foundation is laid in the examinations for discovery", whereupon "the appellants can renew their motion". No transcript of the examination for discovery of the Respondent's witness was filed in support of this motion and because of that no proper foundation was laid for this request. Therefore, it is denied.

(c)               A request for correspondence and memoranda between Canada Revenue Agency and the Department of Justice - For the reasons described by Bowman C.J. these are covered by solicitor-client privilege and the Appellants have not established a basis for lifting that privilege.

[3]      For these reasons, these motions are dismissed and the Respondent is awarded one set of costs from each Appellant in respect to these motions in any event of the cause.

[4]      Neither Appellant has shown an address for service in Canada. Each Appellant is ordered to file an address for service in Canadawith the Court on or before March 27, 2006.

       Signed at Victoria, British Columbia this 15^th day of March 2006.

"D. W. Beaubier"

CITATION:                                        2006TCC166

COURT FILE NO.:                             2003-1995(IT)G and

                                                          2003-1993(IT)G

STYLE OF CAUSE:                           William H. Wright. v. The Queen

                                                          Donna L. Wright v. The Queen

PLACE OF HEARING:                      Victoria, British Columbia

DATE OF HEARING:                        March 14, 2006

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:     The Honourable Justice D.W. Beaubier

DATE OF JUDGMENT:                     March 15, 2006

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellants:	William H. Wright
Counsel for the Respondent:	Johanna Russell

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

       For the Appellant:

                   Name:

                   Firm:                               

       For the Respondent:                     John H. Sims, Q.C.

                                                          Deputy Attorney General of Canada

                                                          Ottawa, Canada