Thackray,
J.:—
The
remaining
issue
is
the
matter
of
the
obligation
of
the
Court
to
report
apparent
tax
evasion
to
Revenue
Canada.
In
my
earlier
reasons
I
expressed
concern
in
this
regard.
In
this
case
counsel
for
both
parties
announced
that
not
only
the
parties
but
their
company
had
filed
income
tax
returns
that
were
less
than
honest.
Counsel
for
the
parties
submitted
that
there
not
only
was
no
obligation
on
the
Court,
but
that
it
would
be
inappropriate
for
the
Court
to
take
such
a
step.
The
reasoning
was
much
the
same
as
counsel's
submissions
in
Ferretti
v.
Johnson,
[1992]
2
C.T.C.
306,
60
B.C.L.R.
(2d)
108
in
which
I
am
concurrently
releasing
reasons.
This
case
has
a
feature
that
was
not
present
in
Ferretti
and
deserves
comment.
In
a
personal
injury
action,
the
Court
is
in
a
position
to
take
some
affirmative
action
against
a
plaintiff
who
is
found,
or
admits,
to
tax
evasion
(see
lannone
v.
Hoogenraad
(1990),
50
B.C.L.R.
(2d)
390
(S.C.)
[aff'd
(1992),
66
B.C.L.R.
(2d)
906
(C.A.)]).
However,
in
a
family
law
case
where
the
parties
are
seeking
a
division
of
assets,
the
Court
has
no
room
within
the
judgment
to
assess
any
penalty”.
The
Court
is
thereby
left
with
only
the
small
satisfaction
of
letting
the
parties
know
that
their
conduct
is
unacceptable.
In
my
earlier
reasons
I
said:
I
doubt
that
they
[the
parties]
have
given
any
thought
to
the
expense
to
which
they
have
put
the
public,
to
whose
assets
they
aid
not
contribute,
by
asking
the
Court
to
sort
out
their
matrimonial
problems.
It
would
be
fitting
to
deny
them
access
to
the
Courts
until
such
time
as
they
make
a
proper
disclosure
and
settlement
with
the
tax
department.
For
the
reasons
expressed
in
Ferretti
I
am
not
going
to
take
any
further
steps.
Order
accordingly.
Email this Content