Docket: A-545-15
Citation:
2016 FCA 256
|
CORAM:
|
NADON J.A.
RENNIE J.A.
WOODS J.A.
|
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
V. ROSS
MORRISON
|
|
Appellant
|
|
and
|
|
HER MAJESTY THE
QUEEN
|
|
Respondent
|
REASONS
FOR JUDGMENT
WOODS J.A.
[1]
The appellant, V. Ross Morrison, has outstanding
appeals in the Tax Court of Canada relating to the disallowance of charitable
donation tax credits claimed by him under the Income Tax Act, R.S.C.
1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.) (the Act). A large number of other
taxpayers were similarly reassessed.
[2]
The appeals by Mr. Morrison, a litigation
lawyer, have been designated by a Tax Court judge as lead cases under section
146.1 of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure) (the Rules).
The effect of this designation is that Mr. Morrison’s appeals will proceed to
trial with other lead cases in advance of other taxpayers’ appeals which are
held in abeyance.
[3]
Mr. Morrison brought a motion in the Tax Court for
various types of relief, including that the Crown provide him with the names
and contact information of taxpayers who received similar reassessments and who
have outstanding objections with the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA).
[4]
By way of an order of Justice Pizzitelli (the
motions judge), the motion was dismissed in its entirety (2015 TCC 319; 2015
D.T.C. 1238). This is an appeal from that order.
Background
[5]
In reassessments issued for Mr. Morrison’s 2003,
2004, and 2005 taxation years, the Minister of National Revenue disallowed tax
credits claimed by Mr. Morrison in relation to his participation in donation
programs referred to as the Canadian Humanitarian Trust and the Canadian Gift
Initiatives donation programs.
[6]
A large number of taxpayers received reassessments
relating to the same donation programs. A relatively small number have appealed
to the Tax Court, and many more have objections pending with the CRA.
[7]
With respect to the outstanding objections, if
the CRA has not dealt with an objection within 90 days, a taxpayer has the
option to pre-empt the objections process and institute an appeal in the Tax
Court. It appears that most of the taxpayers with outstanding objections have
not chosen this route to date.
[8]
For several years, Mr. Morrison’s appeals in the
Tax Court were held in abeyance while other appeals proceeded as lead cases.
Recently, the case management judge ordered that Mr. Morrison’s appeals no
longer be held in abeyance and that they be added to the list of lead cases.
This prompted Mr. Morrison to bring the motion that is at issue in this appeal.
Discussion
[9]
Mr. Morrison submits that the motions judge
erred in rejecting the following submissions:
(a)
he is entitled to the names and contact
information of taxpayers who have outstanding objections. For clarity, Mr.
Morrison already has the names of taxpayers with appeals in the Tax Court and
he is only seeking the names of the objectors;
(b)
taxpayers with outstanding objections should be
informed as to the status of outstanding appeals in the Tax Court. In
particular, the objectors should be informed that a law firm which had carriage
of some of the lead cases has withdrawn and that his own appeals are now lead
cases; and
(c)
he is entitled to a copy of the transcripts of
the examinations for discovery of the Crown that were held in connection with
other appeals that have now settled.
[10]
I do not agree that the motions judge erred in rejecting
these submissions, and substantially for the reasons that the motions judge
gave. I would comment in particular on some of the arguments that were raised
in this appeal.
[11]
Mr. Morrison submits that the motions judge
erred by relying on the prohibition against third party disclosure in section
241 of the Act. He submits that his appeals are exempt from this prohibition
because they are legal proceedings relating to the administration or
enforcement of the Act (paragraph 241(3)(b) of the Act).
[12]
Mr. Morrison also submits that the relief sought
is proper pursuant to the lead case rule in section 146.1 of the Rules.
[13]
Further, Mr. Morrison submits that the motions
judge should have provided a remedy for the Minister’s failure to deal with
objections “with all due dispatch,” as required
by subsection 165(3) of the Act. As I understand the argument, Mr. Morrison
submits that he is prejudiced by this breach of the Act by the Minister because
many of the objectors likely would have filed appeals in the Tax Court if their
objections had been dealt with on a timely basis. This would have enabled Mr.
Morrison to contact these individuals, it is suggested.
[14]
I reject these submissions because they fail to
address the principle that disclosure is limited to relevant information and
the fact that the Tax Court does not have jurisdiction over objections.
[15]
In an appeal to the Tax Court, a taxpayer is entitled
to information from the Crown only if it is relevant to the taxpayer’s appeal (The
Queen v. 9005-6342 Québec Inc., 2011 FCA 196; 2011 G.T.C. 2037). In
this case, the motions judge determined that the contact information sought by
Mr. Morrison was not relevant to his appeals (paragraph 11). Since there is no
reason to disturb this finding, Mr. Morrison has no entitlement to the contact
information.
[16]
Second, Mr. Morrison’s reliance on the lead case
rule is misplaced. Section 146.1 of the Rules is intended to assist in the case
management of groups of similar appeals in the Tax Court. The provision has no
application to taxpayers who have outstanding objections with the CRA, which
reflects the fact that the Tax Court’s jurisdiction is limited to appeals in
that Court.
[17]
Accordingly, I agree with the disposition of the
motion by the motions judge and would dismiss this appeal with costs.
"Judith M. Woods"
“I agree
M. Nadon J.A.”
“I agree
Donald J.
Rennie J.A.”
Email this Content