Lee – Federal Court of Appeal states that non-judicially authorized requirements made under s. 231.2(1) can be used to obtain documents about third parties

Mandamin J in the Federal Court appears to have interpreted a requirement issued to the individual taxpayer under s. 231.2(1) as potentially asking him to include documentation about assets of corporations of which he was the principal shareholder “that he would only have access to in his capacity as a director or officer of the corporations.” He considered this to be objectionable, perhaps because it looked rather like a disguised third-party demand but without advance judicial authorization (and without the corporations being specifically named, as required by s. 231.2(2)).

Dawson J.A. did not share these concerns, stating:

[T]he scope or breadth of the Requirement is a matter for the Minister, so long as the information requested is required for any purpose related to the administration or enforcement of the Act. Moreover, it is not improper for a requirement to issue that requires information to be provided about a third party.

Neal Armstrong. Summary of MNR v. Lee, 2016 FCA 53 under s. 231.2(1).