2276230 Ontario – Federal Court states that a CRA requirement for information need not be demonstrated by it to be proportional to the matter at issue
CRA had requested that three taxpayers provide information (characterized by it as routine business information) pursuant to ETA s. 288(1) (similar to ITA s. 231.2(1)) and when many of the requests were either not answered at all or only partially by the last of the extended deadlines, it sought a compliance order.
Before granting the compliance order, Pentney J cited (at para. 19) Cameco for the proposition that “the fact that the requests may involve substantial documentation which the taxpayer may view as not proportional to the matter is not a relevant consideration,” and further stated (at para. 29):
[T]here is no evidence to suggest that the CRA audit has been launched for any purpose other than to ensure compliance with the ETA, or that the request for information was so wide, extraordinary, or unusual as to give rise to questions about its legitimacy in the context of the audit (assuming that such a claim could be brought, in the face of the wide authority granted to the Minister to set the timing, scope, and nature of the audit …).
Neal Armstrong. Summary of Canada (National Revenue) v. 2276230 Ontario Inc., 2021 FC 242 under ETA s. 289.1(1).