Docket: A-419-16
Citation: 2017 FCA 118
|
CORAM:
|
NOËL C.J.
SCOTT J.A.
BOIVIN J.A.
|
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
RONA INC.
|
|
Appellant
|
|
and
|
|
MINISTER OF
NATIONAL REVENUE
|
|
Respondent
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered from the Bench at Montréal,
Quebec, on June 5, 2017)
BOIVIN J.A.
[1]
Rona Inc. (the appellant) is challenging before
this Court an order (T-2059-15) rendered by Mr. Justice Martineau of
the Federal Court (the judge). In his order, the judge authorized the Minister
of National Revenue (the Minister) to serve him a Requirement for Information
(RFI) concerning his business clients pursuant to subsection 231.2(3) of
the Income Tax Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.) (the ITA) and
section 289 of the Excise Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-15.
[2]
Before this Court, the appellant tried to raise
an error in law whereas all of its arguments are essentially directed against
the discretionary power of the judge.
[3]
More specifically, the appellant argues that the
judge committed an error by authorizing the service of an RFI since the
Minister’s officials obtained a copy of a form used to open a commercial credit
on the pretext that they were construction entrepreneurs. This was the form
later used for preparing the RFI.
[4]
However, after considering the behaviour of the
Minister’s officials, which he described as [translation]
“could have been reprehensible,” the judge found
that this behaviour was insufficient to justify the rejection of the RFI (Judge’s
Order, pp. 5–6).
[5]
More specifically, he noted the following: (i)
no consequences flowed from the behaviour of the Minister’s officials; (ii) the
form in question was blank, generally available to the public, and the
appellant was not designated for audit; (iii) there was no risk that the
administration of justice would be discredited if the RFI were served.
[6]
The judge also pointed out that the information sought
by the RFI already existed or was likely to be provided by the appellant. This
information was of a type already covered by other RFIs and the Minister,
during the course of the case, had considerably reduced the scope of the RFI at
issue, dropping from 19 required pieces of information down to three, covering
57 stores—instead of 85—operating under the appellant’s banner.
[7]
Even if the criteria set out in the ITA are met,
the judge has discretionary authority to remedy certain abuses, depending on
the circumstances (Canada (National Revenue) v. RBC Life Insurance Company,
2013 FCA 50, [2013] F.C.J. No. 187 (QL)). Moreover, the
Supreme Court of Canada recently reiterated that when a court of appeal is
faced with the exercise of discretion by a judge, it must “be cautious in intervening, doing so only where it is
established that the discretion was exercised in an abusive, unreasonable or
non-judicial manner” (Quebec (Director
of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions) v. Jodoin, 2017 SCC 26,
[2017] S.C.J. No. 26 at paragraph 52 (QL)).
[8]
In this case, the appellant did not convince us
that the judge erred in exercising his discretion.
[9]
The appeal will be dismissed with costs.
“Richard Boivin”
Certified true translation
François Brunet,
Revisor
Email this Content