|
Docket: 2004-4599(GST)G
|
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
MANJINDER GARCHA,
|
|
Appellant,
|
|
and
|
|
|
|
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
|
|
Respondent.
|
____________________________________________________________________
Motion heard on common evidence with the appeal of Manjinder Garcha (2004-4600(IT)G) on July 11, 2006 at Vancouver, British Columbia
|
Before: The Honourable Justice L.M. Little
|
|
|
|
Appearances:
|
|
Counsel for the Appellant:
|
Terry Gill
|
|
Counsel for the Respondent:
|
Michael Taylor
|
____________________________________________________________________
ORDER
Upon motion made by the Appellant for an Order requiring the Respondent to produce for discovery copies of certain documents;
And upon reading the Affidavit of Craig Sturrock, filed;
It is ordered that the motion be allowed, in part, in accordance with the attached Reasons for Order.
The costs of this motion shall be costs in the cause.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 21st day of July 2006.
Little J.
|
Docket: 2004-4600(IT)G
|
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
MANJINDER GARCHA,
|
|
Appellant,
|
|
and
|
|
|
|
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
|
|
Respondent.
|
____________________________________________________________________
Motion heard on common evidence with the appeal of Manjinder Garcha (2004-4599(GST)G) on July 11, 2006 at Vancouver, British Columbia
|
Before: The Honourable Justice L.M. Little
|
|
|
|
Appearances:
|
|
Counsel for the Appellant:
|
Terry Gill
|
|
Counsel for the Respondent:
|
Michael Taylor
|
____________________________________________________________________
ORDER
Upon motion made by the Appellant for an Order requiring the Respondent to produce for discovery copies of certain documents;
And upon reading the Affidavit of Craig Sturrock, filed;
It is ordered that the motion be allowed, in part, in accordance with the attached Reasons for Order.
The costs of this motion shall be costs in the cause.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 21st day of July 2006.
Little J.
|
Citation: 2006TCC419
|
|
Date: 20060721
|
|
Dockets: 2004-4599(GST)G
2004-4600(IT)G
|
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
MANJINDER GARCHA,
|
|
Appellant,
|
|
and
|
|
|
|
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
|
|
Respondent.
|
REASONS FOR ORDER
Little J.
A. FACTS
[1] The Appellant was Reassessed by the Minister of National Revenue (the "Minister") with respect to income tax and Goods and Services Tax ("GST") for the 2000 and 2001 taxation years. The Minister used the net worth procedure when he prepared the assessments.
[2] On April 25, 2006 counsel for the Appellant commenced an Examination for Discovery of Jason McCrea, an auditor with the Canada Revenue Agency (the "CRA").
[3] During the Examination for Discovery, counsel for the Appellant asked Jason McCrea to provide, among other things, the following documents and information:
(a) any documents that define the relationship between the SEP and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police ("RCMP");
(b) the police files on the Appellant or his wife related to the money exchange matter; and
(c) details as to how the police obtained the currency exchange records.
[4] The Examination for Discovery of Jason McCrea was adjourned by consent of both parties and subsequently the Appellant advised the Respondent that the Appellant would be seeking production of, among other things, the following documents upon the continuation of the Examination for Discovery:
(a) the "Investigations Training Manual" which is apparently held in the CRA Headquarters Library under #HQ1301-000; and
(b) all "timesheets" currently identified as Time/Activity Records (RC509) and previously identified as Regular Activity Records (RC500).
[5] On June 30, 2006 counsel for the Appellant filed a Notice of Motion with the Court. The Notice of Motion provides as follows:
THE MOTION IS FOR:
1. An order requiring the Respondent to produce for discovery copies of the following documents or answers to the following questions:
a) the "Investigations Training Manual" which is apparently held in the CRA Headquarters Library under #HQ1301-000;
b) all "timesheets" currently identified as Time/Activity Records (RC509) and previously identified as Regular Activity Records (RC500);
c) the Memorandum of Understanding providing for the secondment of CRA personnel to RCMP Integrated Proceeds of Crime units;
d) the police files on the Appellant or his wife relating to the money exchange matter; and
e) details as to how the police obtained the Collectibles currency exchange records.
2. An order that costs of this motion be awarded to the Appellant.
[6] Counsel for the Respondent maintains that the documents requested or the questions that have been answered are not relevant to the issues under appeal.
B. ISSUE
[7] Should the Appellant's Notice of Motion be granted?
C. ANALYSIS
[8] The Appellant maintains that at all material times the Minister was undertaking a penal liability investigation of the Appellant and that all evidence gathered by the Minister pursuant to the civil audit powers under the Act and relied upon in preparing the Notices of Reassessment in issue was directly or indirectly obtained as a result of a violation of the rights of the Appellant under section 7 or 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
[9] In considering the requests made by counsel for the Appellant I have reviewed a number of Court decisions. I note the following judicial comments:
1. In Owen Holdings Ltd. v. R., [1997] 3 C.T.C. 351 the Federal Court of Appeal said at page 361:
... relevancy exists only where the documents sought may lead the party seeking discovery to a train of inquiry which may directly or indirectly advance its case or damage that of the adversary.
2. In AGT Ltd. v. Canada, [1997] 2 C.T.C. 275 the Federal Court of Appeal said at page 284:
The fact that the documents in issue were prepared for another forum, namely providing the CRTC with information required under a rate setting process, does not prevent the Minister from having access to them since they are relevant to the potential tax liability of the taxpayer.
[10] From an analysis of these cases plus other Court decisions I have concluded that in relation to documents requested at an Examination for Discovery the relevancy threshold is low.
[11] In the Notice of Motion counsel for the Appellant has requested the following:
(a) Re: The Investigation Training Manual
COMMENT: I am not convinced that this document is relevant for the purpose of this appeal.
(b) All "timesheets" currently identified as Time/Activity Records (RC509) and previously identified as Regular Activity Records (RC500);
COMMENT: I am convinced that copies of the timesheets are relevant and should be provided to counsel for the Appellant.
(c) The Memorandum of Understanding providing for the secondment of CRA personnel to RCMP Integrated Proceeds of Crime.
COMMENT: I am convinced that this document is relevant to this appeal and a copy of it should be provided to counsel for the Appellant.
(d) The police files on the Appellant or his wife relating to the money exchange matter.
COMMENT: I am not convinced that the police files are relevant.
(e) Details as to how the police obtained the Collectibles currency exchange records.
COMMENT: I am convinced that counsel for the Appellant is entitled to obtain details on how the police obtained the currency exchange records of Collectibles and I order that the Respondent provide this information to counsel for the Appellant.
[12] I order that costs of this Motion shall be costs in the cause.
Signed at Vancouver, British Columbia, this 21st day of July 2006.
Little J.
Email this Content