Reed
J.
(orally):
It
is
agreed
that
I
do
not
have
jurisdiction
to
set
aside
the
warrant
issued
by
the
Ontario
J.P.
My
jurisdiction
is
limited
to
a
consideration
of
Mde
Justice
Tremblay-Larner’s
order,
issued
pursuant
to
s.
225.1
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
(the
jeopardy
order).
I
am
not
persuaded
that
there
was
a
material
misstatement,
or
material
non-disclosure
in
the
affidavits
relied
upon
by
her
in
issuing
the
order.
With
respect
to
the
assertion
that
the
case
against
the
applicant
for
failure
to
comply
with
a
Requirement
to
Provide
Information
and
Documents
was
dismissed
because
of
the
non-attendance
of
Revenue
Canada’s
employees,
at
the
required
time
and
place,
and
therefore
the
plaintiff
could
not
be
said
to
have
failed
to
comply
with
the
Requirement
Notice,
the
statement
in
the
affidavits
that
there
was
a
failure
to
comply,
as
with
others
set
out
in
the
affidavits,
must
be
read
in
context.
The
case
against
the
applicant
was
dismissed
on
a
technicality.
The
applicant
had
repeatedly
taken
the
position
that
Revenue
Canada
was
without
jurisdiction
to
collect
income
tax
from
him,
that
he
would
not
co-operate
with
them,
that
he
refused
to
provide
them
with
the
documents
they
were
seeking.
In
that
context
the
statements
in
the
affidavits
are
not
misleading.
With
respect
to
the
statements
that
the
applicant
had
given
instructions
to
his
bank
to
close
his
Visa
account,
that
he
was
severing
all
relationships
with
Lens
Crafters
and
was
terminating
his
lease,
these
were
all
true
statements.
While
he
now
states
that
these
actions
were
being
taken
for
business
reasons,
there
is
other
evidence
in
the
relevant
affidavit
material
that
supports
a
conclusion
that
the
applicant
was
refusing
to
pay
taxes,
refusing
to
co-operate
with
Revenue
Canada,
and
at
the
same
time
moving
his
assets
out
of
the
country.
There
was
no
material
misrepresentation,
or
material
non-disclosure.
With
respect
to
the
letter
written
by
the
applicant
to
his
counsel,
which
it
is
claimed
was
privileged,
and
the
statement
in
the
affidavit
that
counsel
was
associated
with
an
organization
whose
purpose
is
to
resist
the
payment
of
federal
income
tax,
even
if
the
first
is
privileged
and
the
second
is
incorrect,
neither
are
important
in
the
context
of
the
affidavits
and
the
evidence
as
a
whole.
Neither
could
support
a
conclusion
that
there
had
been
a
serious
non-disclosure
or
a
material
misrepresentation.
The
affidavit
evidence
before
Mde
Justice
Tremblay-Lamer
would
lead
a
reasonable
person
to
conclude
that
the
applicant
was
refusing
to
pay
his
taxes,
refusing
to
co-operate
with
Revenue
Canada,
and
at
the
same
time
removing
all
his
assets
from
the
jurisdiction.
Thus
a
conclusion
that
delay
in
collection
would
prejudice
Revenue
Canada’s
ability
to
collect
the
taxes
owed,
was
well-founded.
Application
dismissed.
Email this Content