In the federal Construction S.Y.L. Tremblay case, Bédard J found that house-repair invoices, that did not give the house address or describe the precise nature of the work performed (and that were rendered in the name of entities that did not remit the GST), failed to satisfy the requirements of s. 3 of the Input Tax Credit Information (GST/HST) Regulations, so that the appellant’s related input tax credit claims were properly denied. Prior to that decision, the appellant in that case had appealed the denial by the ARQ of the input tax refunds claimed by it for QST on those invoices under the equivalent provisions under the Quebec Sales Tax Act, to the Court of Quebec – and also stated that (at para. 25) “I am convinced that the appellant did not truly acquire the supplies for which it claimed ITCs in its net tax calculation.” After the ARQ then made a motion for the Quebec appeal to be dismissed as an abuse of process, the appellant filed a declaration that it intended to file more numerous documents and produce 19 witnesses in support of its appeal.
Before going on to affirm the finding of the Court of Quebec that allowing this (Quebec) appeal to proceed would constitute an abuse of process, Thibault JCA quoted (at para. 29) with approval statements in Toronto (City) v. C.U.P.E., Local 79, 2003 SCC 63, paras. 52-53 (extract from para. 53 quoted below):
… There are many circumstances in which the bar against relitigation, either through the doctrine of res judicata or that of abuse of process, would create unfairness. … An inadequate incentive to defend, the discovery of new evidence in appropriate circumstances, or a tainted original process may all overcome the interest in maintaining the finality of the original decision … .
After noting that the Court of Quebec judge had found at that the proposed new evidence of the appellant “will not provide anything new as to the conformity of the invoices to the prescribed [QSTA and Regulation] requirements,” she stated (at para. 39) that this finding was “conclusive” and (at para. 42):
Even with the additional evidence, the appellant cannot demonstrate the validity of the claimed input tax refunds. The appellant’s provision of numerous witnesses cannot remedy this deficiency since those documents do not satisfy the requirements for obtaining input tax refunds.