Docket: A-469-12
Citation: 2013
FCA 215
CORAM: SHARLOW J.A.
STRATAS J.A.
NEAR J.A.
BETWEEN:
|
JEAN BREAU
|
Appellant
|
and
|
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE
|
Respondent
|
Heard at Toronto, Ontario, on September 16, 2013.
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on September
16, 2013.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: STRATAS
J.A.
Docket: A-469-12
Citation:
2013 FCA 215
CORAM: SHARLOW J.A.
STRATAS
J.A.
NEAR
J.A.
BETWEEN:
|
JEAN BREAU
|
Appellant
|
and
|
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE
|
Respondent
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the
Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on September 16, 2013).
STRATAS J.A.
[1]
Mr. Breau appeals from the judgment dated
October 17, 2012 of the Federal Court (per O’Reilly J.): 2012 FC 1207.
[2]
In the Federal Court, Mr. Breau applied for
judicial review of the respondent Minister’s decision under the Income Tax
Act, R.S.C. 1985 (5th Supp.), c. 1 to require Mr. Breau and others to
provide information concerning a particular tax plan. The Federal Court
dismissed the application for judicial review.
[3]
Before the Federal Court, Mr. Breau submitted
that the Minister issued the requirement for the improper purpose of gathering
evidence for a criminal investigation, contrary to section 7 of the Charter and
the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in R. v. Jarvis, 2002 SCC 73,
[2002] 3 S.C.R. 757.
[4]
Examining the interactions between the Canadian
Revenue Agency’s audit and enforcement branches and applying Jarvis
(especially paragraph 97), the Federal Court rejected Mr. Breau’s submission. It
held that the Minister’s predominant purpose in issuing the requirement was
civil in nature.
[5]
In this Court, Mr. Breau accepts Jarvis
as the controlling authority. In Mr. Breau’s view, the Federal Court mischaracterized
certain matters, thereby wrongly concluding the requirement was civil in
nature. In particular, Mr. Breau that submitted the audit branch was acting as
an agent for the enforcement branch in collecting evidence, the evidence
gathered by the audit branch was relevant to penal liability, and the contact
between the audit and enforcement branches while the criminal investigation was
ongoing was important and significant.
[6]
In our view, the Federal Court’s rulings on these
matters are questions of mixed fact and law suffused by fact. Therefore, in
this Court, Mr. Breau must demonstrate palpable and overriding error in order
to set them aside.
[7]
This he has not done. In our view, the Federal
Court examined the particular constellation of evidence before it, which
included some isolated incidents of contact between the audit and enforcement
branches after the criminal investigation started. Based on this constellation
of evidence, it made defensible findings.
[8]
In this Court, Mr. Breau also challenged the
Federal Court’s overall conclusion that the Minister’s predominant purpose in
issuing the requirement was civil in nature under the Jarvis test. We
see no reversible error on the part of the Federal Court based on the
particular evidence before it.
[9]
In rejecting Mr. Breau’s submissions, we do not
foreclose a court in any later criminal proceedings from reaching a different
conclusion if, based on the evidence then available, a different light is cast
on the matter.
[10]
For the foregoing reasons, we shall dismiss the
appeal, with costs.
“David Stratas”
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
Docket: A-469-12
APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE
MR. JUSTICE O’REILLY OF THE FEDERAL COURT, DATED OCTOBER 17, 2012, DOCKET NO. T-1623-09.
DOCKET:
|
A-469-12
|
STYLE OF CAUSE:
|
JEAN BREAU v.
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE
|
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: September
16, 2013
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: SHARLOW J.A.
STRATAS J.A.
NEAR J.A.
DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: STRATAS J.A.
APPEARANCES:
Howard J. Alpert
|
FOR THE APPELLANT
|
Samantha Hurst
Margaret Nott
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Alpert Law Firm
Toronto, Ontario
|
For The Appellant
|
William F. Pentney
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|