Brochu – Quebec Superior Court decision suggests that a requirement to provide documents “immediately” is contrary to s. 231.2

The Sherbrooke police seized $1.4M in cash and jewels, along with guns, of the plaintiff (“Brochu”), who had “underworld dealings.” The ARQ then arrived at the same premises (his residence) at 10 p.m. and served him with a requirement pursuant to the Quebec equivalent of ITA s. 231.2 to produce a wide range of documents “immediately,” and then carted away 13 boxes of documents. Before finding that this requirement was a disguised seizure made without judicial authorization, and awarding Brochu $10,000 in damages for “trouble, vexation and inconvenience,” as well as $100,000 in punitive damages “in order to make the ARQ and its auditors understand that ‘the end does not justify the means’,” Villeneuve JCS stated:

[W]hen the ARQ required that Brochu provide documents “immediately,” it infringed the spirit of the TAA as it provided absolutely no period in which the latter could comply, and furthermore imposed its ultimatum in a place serving as a taxpayer’s residence.

The absence of any period within which to produce by itself rendered the Requirements abusive.

Furthermore, the impressive quantity of particulars and documents demanded of Brochu rendered it impossible to respond immediately, particularly when taking into account that the Requirements extended to five companies as well as the personal affairs of Brochu over a period of almost 15 years. …

[A] requirement certainly cannot be used to disguise a seizure made without judicial authorization.

In such circumstances, section 8 of the Charter … was infringed by the ARQ… .

Although the ARQ acted hastily because it was concerned about the destruction of evidence, the correct remedy for this was an Anton Pillar order, which required judicial authorization (none was obtained)

Neal Armstrong. Summary of Brochu v. Agence du revenu du Québec, 2018 QCCS 722 under s. 231.2(1).