Date:
20060906
Docket:
T-1080-05
Citation:
2006 FC 1069
Ottawa, Ontario, September 6, 2006
Present: The Honourable Madam
Justice Johanne Gauthier
BETWEEN:
MINISTER
OF NATIONAL REVENUE
Applicant
and
GREATER
MONTRÉAL
REAL
ESTATE BOARD
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] The Greater Montréal Real Estate
Board (GMREB) is asking that the Court cancel my order dated June 28, 2005,
made ex parte under subsection 231.2(3) of the Income Tax Act,
R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.) (the ITA), authorizing the Minister of
National Revenue to require that the GMREB provide information and documents
(electronic files) concerning a group of unnamed taxpayers.
[2] In its original application, the
GMREB asked the Court to declare that subsection 231.2(3) of the ITA and
the order of June 28, 2005 were in conflict with sections 7, 8 and 15(1) of the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution
Act, 1982, enacted as Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.) 1982,
c. 11, and that the order raised some problems in the light of the Act
Respecting the Protection of Personal Information in the Private Sector,
R.S.Q c. P-39. The GMREB confirmed at the hearing that it was no longer raising
these arguments and was no longer making submissions in this respect, even
though a notice of constitutional question was served on the Attorney General
of Canada as well as the attorneys general of the provinces and territories
concerned. In view of this modification, the Court will refer only to the information
relevant to the issues still in dispute.
Context
[3] The GMREB is a non-profit
organization incorporated in 1954 that counts close to 8,500 members, that is,
about 71% of the real estate agents and brokers in Quebec. Some 21% of the
GMREB’s members have their place of business in the Montérégie/Rive-Sud region.
[4] The GMREB is one of the 12 real
estate boards in Quebec. Its basic mission is to promote and protect its
members’ professional and business interests so that they successfully meet
their business objectives. The GMREB operates an inter-agency services network
dubbed EDGARD. In the course of the transactions made within this system
between competing members, the GMREB collects information of various types in a
databank that can be consulted by its members. The GMREB is in possession of a
number of elements of information of a personal nature concerning its members
as well as 63% of all properties sold in Quebec.
[5] In her affidavit filed in support
of the Minister’s ex parte motion, Ms. Christiane Joly, an auditor of
small and medium-sized businesses in the Montérégie/South Bank office of the
Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA), stated that, in October 2004, she
embarked on a project to audit certified real estate agents and brokers living
or having their place of business in the territory served by the CCRA’s
Montérégie/South Bank tax services office.
[6] The purpose of this project was to
determine, pursuant to subsection 9(1) and paragraphs 12(1)(a) and (b) of
the ITA, whether the commissions received or receivable from the sale of
properties were indeed being reported, and thus to assess whether the taxpayers
concerned had complied with their duties and obligations under the ITA.
[7] During the start-up period for this
project, Ms. Joly examined the GMREB’s web site and established that it held a
lot of relevant information. The relevance of this information was confirmed in
March 2005, during the audit of a broker specifically named in the context of
the project being led by Ms. Joly.
[8] The GMREB acknowledged that it had
complied with some requests for information by the CCRA in the past because
they were directed at designated individuals.
[9] At paragraph 17 of her sworn
information, Ms. Joly stated:
[translation]
To determine whether the real estate agents and brokers, members of the GMREB,
living or having their place of business in the territory served by the CCRA’s
Montérégie/South Bank tax services office, have complied with the aforesaid
provisions of the ITA, it is essential that the GMREB provide the Minister of
National Revenue with the following information . . .
(i) The list of GMREB members registered as real estate
agents or as brokers or certified brokers.
[10] The minister provided electronic
files to the GMREB and asked it to state thereon the first and last names, date
of birth, address, telephone number, member code, certificate number, social
insurance number and other information pertaining to these individuals.
Finally, the Minister asked to be provided with the list of properties sold by
each real estate agent in 2002, 2003 and 2004, including various information
described in the requirement to provide information.
[11] At paragraph 18 of her sworn
information, Ms. Joly added that she had reasonable grounds to believe that all
of the individuals with respect to whom the information was demanded constitute
an ascertainable group within the meaning of paragraph 231.2(3)(a) of the ITA
(i.e. real estate agents and brokers who are members of the GMREB, living or
having their place of business in the serviced territory, and whose postal
codes are described in the requirement to provide information).
[12] Ms. Joly was examined on her
affidavit by the GMREB’s attorneys.
[13] For its part, the GMREB filed the
affidavit of Mr. Beauséjour for the purpose of establishing that the
information it holds is neither complete nor reliable because it is given on a
voluntary basis, that the information on commissions may not be up-to-date, and
that its members do not include the totality of real estate agents and brokers
residing in the territory described by Ms. Joly.
[14] Mr. Beauséjour also stated that the
GMREB would have to spend between 1,500 and 2,000 hours of work in order to
provide the required information. However, since the filing of this evidence,
the Minister has varied his position and the parties have agreed that if the
order is declared valid, it will nevertheless have to be amended by the Court
under the powers conferred on it by subsection 231.2(6) so as to exclude
certain postal codes and specify in what form the information may be provided.
Issues
[15] As I have stated, the GMREB is now
only raising the following issues:
(i) Has the Minister established which group of unnamed
persons in the request is ascertainable, as required by paragraph 231.2(3)(a)
of the ITA?
(ii) Has the Minister established the existence of a genuine
and serious inquiry in relation to the persons in the group covered by the
request?
(iii) Is the information that is sought sufficiently
conclusive to warrant an authorization under subsection 231.2(3)?
Analysis
(a) Ascertainable group
[16] In the order dated June 28, 2005,
the Court stated that it was satisfied that the information requested of the
GMREB concerned an ascertainable group of unnamed persons. In this case it was
real estate brokers and agents, members of the GMREB, whose postal codes were
listed in Appendix A of the request for information attached to the order.
[17] The GMREB challenged this finding.
Although it acknowledged that this group is composed of persons it can clearly
identify, it submitted that the case law (in particular Fédération des
Caisses populaires Desjardins de Québec v. Minister of National Revenue,
Superior Court, [1997] 2 C.T.C. 159, at paragraphs 13, 14, and 16 (S.C.); Canada
(Minister of National Revenue) v. National Foundation for Christian Leadership,
2004 FC 1753, at paragraph 9, [2004] F.C.J. No. 2139 (QL); Canada
(Minister of National Revenue) v. Sand Exploration Ltd. et al., [1995] 3
F.C. 44 [Sand]; Artistic Ideas Inc. v. Canada (Customs and Revenue
Agency), 2005 FCA 68, at paragraphs 2, 10, [2005] F.C.J. No. 350 (QL);
Redeemer Foundation v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue), 2005 FC
1361, at paragraph 10, [2005] F.C.J. No. 1678 (QL), and Canada
(Minister of National Revenue) v. Welton Parent Inc., 2006 FC 67, at
paragraph 30, [2006] F.C.J. No. 117 (QL)) requires that, in order to have
a group within the meaning of paragraph 231.2(3)(a), there must be a set of
persons who have each done something specific in the pursuit of an identical or
common objective, for example the acquisition of the same tax shelter or an
investment in the same real estate project.
[18] The GMREB submitted that the
Minister cannot choose or identify his group on the basis of an arbitrary
criterion such as membership in the GMREB or the holding of a postal code in a
given territory. The GMREB noted that in its circular letter IC 71-14R3,
entitled “The Tax Audit”, dated June 18, 1984, the Minister confirmed in
paragraph 5(f) that categorizing taxpayers for audit purposes should be done on
a rational and impartial basis. In this case, the identified group is only a
part of the group of persons who are presumably the subject of a genuine and
serious inquiry by the Minister.
[19] The GMREB argued that if we accept
the kind of identifier proposed here, it would necessarily follow that some
groups described by such vague terms as, for example, [translation] “all
persons residing in Quebec” or “all persons who are members of the Bar”, are
identifiable groups within the meaning of paragraph 231.2(3)(a), and that
cannot be a reasonable interpretation.
[20] The Court has
carefully reviewed all of the cases cited, as well as the language of the
relevant provision, which reads as follows:
|
231.2(3) On ex parte
application by the Minister, a judge may, subject to such conditions as the
judge considers appropriate, authorize the Minister to impose on a third
party a requirement under subsection 231.2(1) relating to an unnamed person
or more than one unnamed person (in this section referred to as the “group”)
where the judge is satisfied by information on oath that
(a) the person or group is
ascertainable; and
(b) the requirement is made to
verify compliance by the person or persons in the group with any duty or
obligation under this Act.
(c) (Repealed by S.C. 1996, c.
21, s. 58(1).)
(d) (Repealed by S.C. 1996, c.
21, s. 58(1).)
|
231.2(3) Sur requête ex parte du
ministre, un juge peut, aux conditions qu’il estime indiquées, autoriser le ministre
à exiger d’un tiers la fourniture de renseignements ou production de
documents prévue au paragraphe (1) concernant une personne non désignée
nommément ou plus d’une personne non désignée nommément -- appelée “groupe”
au présent article --, s’il est convaincu, sur dénonciation sous serment, de
ce qui suit:
a) cette personne ou ce groupe est
identifiable;
b) la fourniture ou la production est
exigée pour vérifier si cette personne ou les personnes de ce groupe ont
respecté quelque devoir ou obligation prévu par la présente loi;
c) (Abrogé par L.C. 1996, ch. 21, art.
58(1).)
d)
(Abrogé par L.C. 1996, ch. 21, art. 58(1).)
|
[21] It is fairly
clear that in enacting subsection 231.2(3) in 1986, Parliament intended to
remedy to the various deficiencies identified by the Supreme Court of Canada in
James Richardson & Sons, Ltd. v. Canada
(Minister of National Revenue), [1984] 1 S.C.R. 614
[Richardson] and Canadian Bank of Commerce v. Canada (Attorney
General), [1962] S.C.R. 729 [Bank of Commerce].
[22] In Bank of Commerce, supra,
Mr. Justice John Robert Cartwright, writing for the majority, stated at pages
738 and 739 that the former subsection 231.2(3), which gave the Minister the
right to impose a requirement to provide information, should be strictly construed,
that is, that the information should be relevant to the tax liability of some
specific person or persons.
[23] In Richardson, supra,
at paragraph 9, the Supreme Court of Canada quoted
Mr. Justice Gerald Eric Le Dain, then in the Federal Court of Appeal,
when he explained that:
. . . In the majority opinion of Cartwright
J. (as he then was) the words “some specific person or persons” are obviously
understood as referring not to named person but merely to existing identifiable
persons. A reference to all of the commodity trading customers of the appellant
comes within this meaning of the words.
[24] It is evident, from the remarks by
Mr. Justice Cartwright at the bottom of page 738 of the Bank of
Commerce case, supra, that if a genuine and serious inquiry was
being conducted concerning the customers of the broker Richardson, the Minister
would have been entitled to order the disclosure of documentation in regard to
them. This means therefore that, in the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada,
a group defined as [translation] “clients of Richardson who trade on the commodities
futures market” constituted an acceptable group or a group of specific persons.
[25] There is nothing
in the words used in paragraph 231.2(3)(a) or in Parliament’s intention in enacting
this provision that would warrant restricting the usual meaning of the word
“identifiable” — capable of identification. That interpretation reflects the
intent of Parliament, in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court of
Canada, which held that the Court must be able to determine whether the persons
concerned are the object of a genuine and serious inquiry.
[26] In Sand, supra,
Mr. Justice Marshall Rothstein rejected the argument that, for a group to be
ascertainable, the Minister must establish that he is aware of the existence of
at least one person in the group. He states at paragraph 25:
. . . I see no logical reason, and nothing
in the wording of paragraph 231.2(3)(a), which indicates ascertainability
requires the Minister to show he knows one or more individuals exist. The
group, purchasers of seismic data from the four respondents, is ascertainable.
If there are only 12 purchasers, the respondents will say so. If there are
more, they can be identified from the respondents’ records.
[27] As the Supreme
Court of Canada held in R. v. McKinlay Transport Ltd., [1990] 1 S.C.R.
627, at paragraph 33, it is essential to the proper functioning of a tax
system based on self‑reporting and self-assessment that the Minister of
National Revenue have
broad powers . . . to audit taxpayers’
returns and inspect all records which may be relevant to the preparation of
these returns. The Minister must be capable of exercising these powers whether
or not he has reasonable grounds for believing that a particular taxpayer has
breached the Act. Often it will be impossible to determine from the face of
the return whether any impropriety has occurred in its preparation. A spot
check or a system of random monitoring may be the only way in which the
integrity of the tax system can be maintained.
[Emphasis
added]
[28] The Minister has
full discretion, therefore, to choose which taxpayers will be subjected to an
inquiry or audit in regard to their tax liability. He must have elbow room. The
determination of the size of the group to be audited is also entirely
discretionary. Furthermore, there is no indication that the Minister is not
complying with the guidelines laid down in circular IC 71‑14R3 and
that the choice he made was not impartial. As in Sand, supra,
there is no logical reason to accept the GMREB’s argument.
[29] The Court
confirmed that the Minister had established to its satisfaction that, when he
required the GMREB to provide information as per the authorization dated June
28, 2005, it concerned an ascertainable group of persons within the meaning of
paragraph 231.2(3)(a).
(b) Genuine
and serious inquiry
[30] The GMREB
submitted that the project to which Ms. Joly referred in her affidavit was not
a genuine and serious inquiry in the sense it was understood by the Supreme
Court of Canada in Richardson, supra.
[31] It stated that
Ms. Joly confirmed on her examination on her affidavit that it was a very
extensive project directed at the brokerage community “at large” and that she
knew the requested information was not sufficiently specific to enable her to
assess any taxpayer covered by the request to provide information.
[32] Ms. Joly also
confirmed, the GMREB stated, that the requested information would provide her
with the data to serve as [translation]
“basic tools” at a subsequent stage in the project. Ms. Joly did not know why
the CCRA had asked her to target this community and had no information to the
effect that the taxpayers who were members of the GMREB were not abiding by the
law.
[33] In Richardson,
the Supreme Court of Canada held that if the Minister wished to audit in a
general manner whether the commodity futures traders were complying with the
law, he could not do so by means of a fishing expedition. It was under the
former section 232.1 of the ITA (then 231(3)) that the Minister could make
inquiries into the affairs of the customers of a commodities broker like
Richardson.
[34] The GMREB noted
that, in Richardson, at paragraph 20, the Court stated that if the
Minister seriously thought the traders were as a rule not reporting their
income, then he could, under the former s. 221(1)(d) of the ITA, require them
to file returns relating to “their transactions in the commodities futures
market. Having obtained such a regulation, he is then in a position to demand
such returns at large without regard to whether or not any specific person or
persons are currently under investigation.”
[35] The GMREB argued
that the Minister was, in this case, trying to do exactly what the Supreme
Court of Canada said he could not do in Richardson. And it relied as
well on the information circular IC 71-14R3, supra, to establish that an
“audit project” is not an audit.
[36] Information
circular IC 71-14R3, which describes the role of the tax audit and the relevant
policies and practices, describes at paragraphs 14 to 19 the process of
selection of files for audit.
[37] At paragraph 16,
it states:
While the majority of files audited are
selected in the screening process
described above, there are three other common
means of selection. These are:
(a) Audit projects - Frequently, the
compliance of a particular group of
taxpayers is tested. If the test results
indicate that there is significant
non-compliance within the group, its
members may come under audit on a project basis which may have local, regional
or national application.
(b) Leads - Information from other files,
from audits or investigations or
from outside sources including informers may
lead to the selection of a
particular file for audit;
(c) Secondary files - A file may be selected
for audit because of its
association with another file previously
selected. For example, if several
taxpayers share a single place of business
and are under the same control, and
one of their files has been selected for
audit, it is usually more convenient
both for the Department and the taxpayers to
have all the records examined
during the same audit engagement. In
addition, the affairs of such taxpayers
are often so interwoven as to require the
auditor to examine them together.
[Emphasis
added]
[38] Although the
screening process is one of the CCRA’s activities, the GMREB argued, it is only
a preliminary step. At that point, there is no genuine and serious inquiry or
audit of a taxpayer within the doctrine propounded in Richardson.
[39] The GMREB stated
it was not disputing the lawfulness of subsection 231.2(3), even though two
conditions that had been added to the Act after the Richardson judgment
were repealed in 1996. It did submit, however, that the Minister, by repealing
these conditions that he had himself adopted in response to the decision in Richardson,
cannot disregard that judgment, which clearly limits his latitude.
[40] The Minister
argued that Ms. Joly’s project is clearly not a survey to determine compliance
by a group of taxpayers. Indeed, the applicant submitted that, during her
examination, Ms. Joly clearly stated that the decision had already been made to
audit the group of taxpayers identified in the affidavit. She even said that if
there are 300 members of the GMREB, she would have to examine 300 files.
[41] The Minister
further stated that the expression “project to audit” was not used as a term of
art and did not refer to the “audit project” referred to in this directive,
which he did not even have in mind and which in any event is not binding.
[42] The applicant
Minister stated that it is clear that, when the CCRA conducts such an important
program or audit plan, it must, as an initial step, obtain the information that
will enable it to establish some priorities, as well as the basic information
that will be used in the course of the audits performed both in the office and
on site.
[43] The Minister
argued that the CCRA has a duty to secure compliance with the Act, and this
means that it often conducts random audits. It must have the same power when it
is auditing records selected by a computer as when it chooses to target a
locally situated group, as in the Montérégie region.
[44] An inquiry is
genuine and serious, the Minister stated, if it is conducted solely for the
purpose described in paragraph 231.2(3)(b) and applies to an ascertainable
group within the meaning of paragraph 231.2(3)(a). He submitted that Ms. Joly’s
testimony and her affidavit clearly show that the request for information made
to the GMREB was not done capriciously and that it met both of these
requirements.
[45] The parties
agree that, notwithstanding the changes made in the Act since the Supreme Court
decisions in Bank of Commerce and Richardson, the strict construction
of section 231.2 still holds, since it is penal in nature (see R. v. Jarvis,
[2002] 3 S.C.R. 757, at paragraph 80).
[46] However, the
Supreme Court provided few indications in Richardson of what would
constitute a genuine and serious inquiry. It provided only some
counter-examples, for instance a fishing expedition. It also stated that the
compilation of general data on a class of persons does not amount to a genuine
and serious inquiry that can bring section 231.2 into play.
[47] Two years later,
Parliament enacted subsection 231.2(3). The Minister now had to obtain judicial
authorization before imposing a requirement on a third party to provide
documents relating to an unnamed taxpayer. He had to fill four conditions in
order to obtain that authorization. In addition to the two that still stand,
the Minister had to establish that he had reasonable grounds to believe that
there was non-compliance with the Act, and that the information was not
otherwise more readily available.
[48] In Canadian
Forest Products Ltd. v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue), [1996]
F.C.J. No. 1147, at paragraph 7, Associate Chief Justice James Alexander
Jerome noted that these four conditions were designed to protect taxpayers and
third parties from abusive investigations.
[49] In Sand, supra,
Mr. Justice Marshall Rothstein made the same point, stating that these four
conditions were designed to ensure that the request was made in the course of a
genuine and serious inquiry:
14. While Richardson and Bruyneel
provide a useful background, it is important to note that the relevant
legislation is different today than at the time of those decisions. The strict
approach adopted in those decisions was necessitated by a broad statutory
provision which, if interpreted too broadly, left open the possibility of abuse
by tax enforcement officials. In Richardson, at page 622 Wilson J.
outlines the mischief that could result from a broad interpretation of the
former subsection 231(3):
The language of s. 231(3) of the Income Tax Act is
unquestionably very broad and on its face would cover any demand for
information made to anyone having knowledge of someone else’s affairs relevant
to that other person’s tax liability. It would, in other words, if construed
broadly, authorize an exploratory sortie into any taxpayer’s affairs and
require anyone having anything to contribute to the exploration to participate.
It would not be necessary for the Minister to suspect non-compliance with the
Act, let alone to have reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the Act
was being violated as required in s. 231(4). Provided the information sought
had a bearing (or perhaps even could conceivably have a bearing) on a
taxpayer’s tax liability it could be called for under the subsection.
15. Counsel for the Minister submits, and I accept,
that section 231.2 was enacted to address these difficulties. By contrast with
subsection 231(3), subsections 231.2(2) and (3) expressly provide a process
with which the Minister must comply in order to require third parties to
provide information or documents relating to unnamed taxpayers. A ministerial
requirement to third parties to provide information about another person’s tax
affairs now requires a court authorization. Pursuant to subsection 231.2(3)
there must be evidence on oath that: the person is ascertainable; the purpose
is to verify compliance by the person with the Act; it is reasonable to expect,
on any grounds, non-compliance with the Act; and the information is not
otherwise more readily available. Forcing the Minister to comply with this
procedure addresses the mischief identified in Richardson and is
intended to prevent fishing expeditions.
[50] That is why the
courts have not up to now had to decide whether all these conditions are
necessary in order to satisfy the principle laid down in Richardson.
[51] The GMREB’s
position that the Minister must, notwithstanding the 1996 amendments, establish
that he has a good reason to investigate, that he is not conducting a fishing
expedition and that this information is actually necessary and cannot be
obtained otherwise is not easy to harmonize with the clear intent expressed by
Parliament in 1996.
[52] It appears as
well that the Court’s power to examine this question is limited by
subsection 231.2(6), which describes the role of the judge on a review of
an order made pursuant to subsection 231.2(3).
[53] In view of the
evidence before me, it will not be necessary to answer this question today, for
even if the Court were to adopt the Department’s position that an inquiry is
genuine and serious when it is conducted for the purpose described in paragraph
231.2(3)(b) and is directed to an ascertainable group, the Court must rule that
the order should be vacated.
[54] As the
Minister’s representative stated at the hearing, the Minister chose not to
explain his decision to proceed with the project.
[55] The result is
that the evidence before the Court on the nature of this project is not very
clear. Unfortunately, the GMREB did not confront Ms. Joly with information
circular IC 71‑14R3 and her testimony raised a number of questions
but yielded few answers.
[56] It appears, at
times, that a decision was indeed taken to audit each and every one of the real
estate agents and brokers belonging to the GMREB, and thus that we are
undeniably dealing with a genuine and serious investigation of these
individuals. But, at times, Ms. Joly states she was part of the workload
development team. As she put it, this means that she is the one who will select
the files to be transferred to audit. She stated:
[translation]
A. . . . I was instructed, in
fact, I am part of the workload development team. This means that I am the one,
based on the project, who will select some files and transfer them to the
audit, which will be . . . The files will be assigned to some auditors.
(at page 128 Applicant’s Record)
[Emphasis
added]
[57] She also noted
that once the information is received from the GMREB, she will compare it with
the information already in the CCRA’s possession:
[translation]
A. . . . And that will be the
relative importance of things. In fact, an agent who reported an income that
may not have been very high compared with some transactions that are quite
numerous, that could be the subject matter of some additional work in terms of
that file, which might be selected to go a little farther in the project’s risk
management.
(at page 127 of the Applicant’s Record)
[58] Having read and
reread the evidence, in particular the transcript of Ms. Joly’s examination and
the circular letter, the Court is no longer satisfied that the Minister has
established on a preponderance of the evidence that he is conducting a genuine
and serious inquiry into the group identified in the requirement to provide
information and in the authorization dated June 28, 2005. The Minister has not
established that, at this stage of the project, the request for information is
intended to determine whether each and every one of the GMREB members (real
estate agents and brokers) has complied with the Act by reporting all of their
income (paragraph 231.2(3)(b)).
[59] Clearly, this
finding will not prevent the Minister from obtaining this information if it is
necessary. In fact, the Minister may readily apply for a new authorization
supported this time by more ample evidence in which he will explain that a
genuine audit is under way in regard to each and every one of the members of
this group and not only an investigation or project aimed at selecting the
members of the group who are to be audited later.
(c) Information
likely to be conclusive
[60] The applicant
did not dispute that the requested information is not complete or conclusive in
itself. Ms. Joly indicated, however, that the list of names and transactions
she will receive from the GMREB might be used, first, to establish quickly
whether there are a certain number of non-filers in the group identified in her
sworn information.
[61] The language of
the Act is clear. The information and documents requested must be for the
purpose of verifying whether the persons being investigated have complied with
some duties or obligations set out in the Act. The courts have held that the
information must be “relevant” to the inquiry. Nowhere is there any requirement
that it be likely to be conclusive.
[62] The GMREB has
acknowledged, as of this date, that its argument is not supported by the
doctrine or the case law. The Court cannot accept it. This is not a criterion
that the Court is authorized to take into account under subsection 231.2(6).
(d) Conclusion
[63] The Court rules
that it is not persuaded that the conditions set out in subsection 231.2(3),
and particularly in paragraph (3)(b), have been met. The order dated June 28,
2005 is therefore vacated with costs.
ORDER
THE COURT ORDERS that:
The order dated June 28,
2005 is vacated with costs.
Judge
Certified true
translation
François Brunet,
LLB, BCL
Email this Content