Miller v. Canada (National Revenue), 2022 FCA 183

Email this Content

Citations
2022 FCA 183

Case tabs

Text of decision

Date: 20221031

Docket: A-230-21

Citation: 2022 FCA 183

CORAM:

GLEASON J.A.

MACTAVISH J.A.

ROUSSEL J.A.

BETWEEN:

DAVID RANDALL MILER

Appellant

and

MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE

Respondent

Heard at Toronto, Ontario, on May 11, 2022.

Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on October 31, 2022.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:

GLEASON J.A.

CONCURRED IN BY:

MACTAVISH J.A.

ROUSSEL J.A.

Date: 20221031

Docket: A-230-21

Citation: 2022 FCA 183

CORAM:

GLEASON J.A.

MACTAVISH J.A.

ROUSSEL J.A.

BETWEEN:

DAVID RANDALL MILLER

Appellant

and

MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

GLEASON J.A.

[1] This appeal concerns the authority afforded under section 231.7 of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.) (the ITA), to a court to order taxpayers to provide information and documents previously sought in a Request issued under section 231.1 of the ITA that a taxpayer refuses to provide.

[2] In the Order under appeal, reasons for which are reported as Canada (National Revenue) v. Miller, 2021 FC 851, 2021 D.T.C. 5104, the Federal Court (per Walker, J.) issued an order pursuant to section 231.7 of the ITA, ordering the appellant to provide information, produce documents, and seek information and documents from his accountants, his solicitors, and his bank in Luxembourg. The Order followed a series of Requests the Minister issued to the appellant under section 231.1 of the ITA.

[3] The appellant submits that the Federal Court’s Order should be set aside principally because the decision of this Court in Canada (National Revenue) v. Cameco Corporation, 2019 FCA 67, [2020] 4 F.C.R. 254 [Cameco] establishes that the Federal Court lacked authority to make the Order. The appellant more specifically contends that Cameco stands for the proposition that, where a Request has been issued under section 231.1 of the ITA, a court may only order production of documents in a taxpayer’s possession and may only require a taxpayer to provide information about the provenance, location or maintenance of the taxpayer’s books and records or other documents. Since the Federal Court’s Order in the present case was broader, the appellant submits that it must be set aside. The appellant also contends that the Federal Court’s remedial authority was circumscribed by the terms of the Requests made under section 231.1 of the ITA, and that the Federal Court erred in requiring the appellant to provide documents that had not been sought or that he already provided.

[4] For the reasons that follow, I conclude that the Federal Court did not err in finding that the documents and information in question were the subject of Requests made under section 231.1 of the ITA, with which the appellant did not comply. I also conclude that the Federal Court did not err in holding that Cameco does not limit the jurisdiction of the Federal Court in the way the appellant submits and that the relevant provisions in the ITA afforded the Federal Court jurisdiction to make the Order under appeal. I would therefore dismiss this appeal, with costs fixed in the agreed-upon all-inclusive amount of $2,000.00.

I. Relevant Statutory Provisions

[5] It is useful to commence by setting out the relevant statutory provisions.

[6] The ITA establishes a system for the collection of income tax in this country based on self-reporting by taxpayers. As noted by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. McKinlay Transport Ltd., [1990] 1 S.C.R. 627 at 637, 90 D.T.C. 6243 [McKinlay Transport], it would be naïve to think that all taxpayers will properly self-report and pay the taxes they owe. In recognition of this reality, the ITA contains a broad suite of enforcement mechanisms.

[7] The first of these measures relevant to this appeal is set out in subsection 230(1) of the ITA. It requires taxpayers to maintain books and records in Canada containing the information required to determine the amount of taxes payable by them and provides as follows:

230 (1) Every person carrying on business and every person who is required, by or pursuant to this Act, to pay or collect taxes or other amounts shall keep records and books of account (including an annual inventory kept in prescribed manner) at the person’s place of business or residence in Canada or at such other place as may be designated by the Minister, in such form and containing such information as will enable the taxes payable under this Act or the taxes or other amounts that should have been deducted, withheld or collected to be determined.

230 (1) Quiconque exploite une entreprise et quiconque est obligé, par ou selon la présente loi, de payer ou de percevoir des impôts ou autres montants doit tenir des registres et des livres de comptes (y compris un inventaire annuel, selon les modalités réglementaires) à son lieu d’affaires ou de résidence au Canada ou à tout autre lieu que le ministre peut désigner, dans la forme et renfermant les renseignements qui permettent d’établir le montant des impôts payables en vertu de la présente loi, ou des impôts ou autres sommes qui auraient dû être déduites, retenues ou perçues.

[8] Sections 230 to 232 of the ITA set out the authority of the Minister of National Revenue (the Minister) to conduct audits, require production of information and documents, and obtain compliance orders. In general terms, these provisions allow either the Minister (in practice, through a delegate) or those authorized to act on the Minister’s behalf to audit taxpayers, request documents and information from taxpayers or third parties, and, if the information or documents are not forthcoming, allow the Minister to seek a compliance order from a superior court in a province or from the Federal Court. Section 231.6 of the ITA contains specific provisions relating to obtaining documents located outside of Canada, and section 232 of the ITA relates to certain matters concerning documents held by lawyers in respect of which claims for solicitor-client privilege pertain.

[9] The full text of the provisions in the ITA relevant to this appeal are set out in the Appendix to these Reasons. The portions of those provisions of particular relevance are set out below.

Definitions

Définitions

231 In sections 231.1 to 231.8,

231 Les définitions qui suivent s’appliquent aux articles 231.1 à 231.8.

authorized person means a person authorized by the Minister for the purposes of sections 231.1 to 231.5; (personne autorisée)

[…]

document includes money, a security and a record; (document)

document Sont compris parmi les documents les registres. Y sont assimilés les titres et les espèces. (document)

[…]

[…] personne autorisée Personne autorisée par le ministre pour l’application des articles 231.1 à 231.5 (authorized person)

Inspections

Enquêtes

231.1 (1) An authorized person may, at all reasonable times, for any purpose related to the administration or enforcement of this Act,

231.1 (1) Une personne autorisée peut, à tout moment raisonnable, pour l’application et l’exécution de la présente loi, à la fois :

(a) inspect, audit or examine the books and records of a taxpayer and any document of the taxpayer or of any other person that relates or may relate to the information that is or should be in the books or records of the taxpayer or to any amount payable by the taxpayer under this Act, and

a) inspecter, vérifier ou examiner les livres et registres d’un contribuable ainsi que tous documents du contribuable ou d’une autre personne qui se rapportent ou peuvent se rapporter soit aux renseignements qui figurent dans les livres ou registres du contribuable ou qui devraient y figurer, soit à tout montant payable par le contribuable en vertu de la présente loi;

(b) examine property in an inventory of a taxpayer and any property or process of, or matter relating to, the taxpayer or any other person, an examination of which may assist the authorized person in determining the accuracy of the inventory of the taxpayer or in ascertaining the information that is or should be in the books or records of the taxpayer or any amount payable by the taxpayer under this Act,

b) examiner les biens à porter à l’inventaire d’un contribuable, ainsi que tout bien ou tout procédé du contribuable ou d’une autre personne ou toute matière concernant l’un ou l’autre dont l’examen peut aider la personne autorisée à établir l’exactitude de l’inventaire du contribuable ou à contrôler soit les renseignements qui figurent dans les livres ou registres du contribuable ou qui devraient y figurer, soit tout montant payable par le contribuable en vertu de la présente loi;

and for those purposes the authorized person may

à ces fins, la personne autorisée peut :

(c) subject to subsection 231.1(2), enter into any premises or place where any business is carried on, any property is kept, anything is done in connection with any business or any books or records are or should be kept, and

c) sous réserve du paragraphe (2), pénétrer dans un lieu où est exploitée une entreprise, est gardé un bien, est faite une chose en rapport avec une entreprise ou sont tenus ou devraient l’être des livres ou registres;

(d) require the owner or manager of the property or business and any other person on the premises or place to give the authorized person all reasonable assistance and to answer all proper questions relating to the administration or enforcement of this Act and, for that purpose, require the owner or manager to attend at the premises or place with the authorized person.

d) requérir le propriétaire, ou la personne ayant la gestion, du bien ou de l’entreprise ainsi que toute autre personne présente sur les lieux de lui fournir toute l’aide raisonnable et de répondre à toutes les questions pertinentes à l’application et l’exécution de la présente loi et, à cette fin, requérir le propriétaire, ou la personne ayant la gestion, de l’accompagner sur les lieux.

[…]

Requirement to provide documents or information

Production de documents ou fourniture de renseignements

231.2 (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the Minister may, subject to subsection (2), for any purpose related to the administration or enforcement of this Act (including the collection of any amount payable under this Act by any person), of a listed international agreement or, for greater certainty, of a tax treaty with another country, by notice sent or served in accordance with subsection (1.1), require that any person provide, within such reasonable time as is stipulated in the notice,

231.2 (1) Malgré les autres dispositions de la présente loi, le ministre peut, sous réserve du paragraphe (2) et, pour l’application ou l’exécution de la présente loi (y compris la perception d’un montant payable par une personne en vertu de la présente loi), d’un accord international désigné ou d’un traité fiscal conclu avec un autre pays, par avis signifié ou envoyé conformément au paragraphe (1.1), exiger d’une personne, dans le délai raisonnable que précise l’avis :

(a) any information or additional information, including a return of income or a supplementary return; or

a) qu’elle fournisse tout renseignement ou tout renseignement supplémentaire, y compris une déclaration de revenu ou une déclaration supplémentaire;

(b) any document.

b) qu’elle produise des documents.

Notice

Avis

(1.1) A notice referred to in subsection (1) may be

(1.1) L’avis visé au paragraphe (1) peut être :

(a) served personally;

a) soit signifié à personne;

(b) sent by registered or certified mail; or

b) soit envoyé par courrier recommandé ou certifié;

(c) sent electronically to a bank or credit union that has provided written consent to receive notices under subsection (1) electronically.

c) soit envoyé par voie électronique à une banque ou une caisse de crédit qui a consenti par écrit à recevoir les avis visés au paragraphe (1) par voie électronique.

[…]

Inquiry

Enquête

231.4 (1) The Minister may, for any purpose related to the administration or enforcement of this Act, authorize any person, whether or not the person is an officer of the Canada Revenue Agency, to make such inquiry as the person may deem necessary with reference to anything relating to the administration or enforcement of this Act.

231.4 (1) Le ministre peut, pour l’application et l’exécution de la présente loi, autoriser une personne, qu’il s’agisse ou non d’un fonctionnaire de l’Agence du revenu du Canada, à faire toute enquête que celle-ci estime nécessaire sur quoi que ce soit qui se rapporte à l’application et l’exécution de la présente loi.

Appointment of hearing officer

Nomination d’un président d’enquête

(2) Where the Minister, pursuant to subsection 231.4(1), authorizes a person to make an inquiry, the Minister shall forthwith apply to the Tax Court of Canada for an order appointing a hearing officer before whom the inquiry will be held.

(2) Le ministre qui, conformément au paragraphe (1), autorise une personne à faire enquête doit immédiatement demander à la Cour canadienne de l’impôt une ordonnance où soit nommé un président d’enquête.

[…]

Definition of foreign-based information or document

Sens de renseignement ou document étranger

231.6 (1) For the purposes of this section, foreign-based information or document means any information or document that is available or located outside Canada and that may be relevant to the administration or enforcement of this Act, including the collection of any amount payable under this Act by any person.

231.6 (1) Pour l’application du présent article, un renseignement ou document étranger s’entend d’un renseignement accessible, ou d’un document situé, à l’étranger, qui peut être pris en compte pour l’application ou l’exécution de la présente loi, y compris la perception d’un montant payable par une personne en vertu de la présente loi.

Requirement to provide foreign-based information

Obligation de fournir des renseignements ou documents étrangers

(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the Minister may, by notice sent or served in accordance with subsection (3.1), require that a person resident in Canada or a non-resident person carrying on business in Canada provide any foreign-based information or document.

(2) Malgré les autres dispositions de la présente loi, le ministre peut, par avis signifié ou envoyé conformément au paragraphe (3.1), exiger d’une personne résidant au Canada ou d’une personne n’y résidant pas mais y exploitant une entreprise de fournir des renseignements ou documents étrangers.

[…]

Review of foreign information requirement

Révision par un juge

(4) The person who is sent or served with a notice of a requirement under subsection (2) may, within 90 days after the notice is sent or served, apply to a judge for a review of the requirement.

(4) La personne à qui l’avis est signifié ou envoyé peut, dans les 90 jours suivant la date de signification ou d’envoi, contester, par requête à un juge, la mise en demeure du ministre.

[…]

Compliance order

Ordonnance

231.7 (1) On summary application by the Minister, a judge may, notwithstanding subsection 238(2), order a person to provide any access, assistance, information or document sought by the Minister under section 231.1 or 231.2 if the judge is satisfied that

231.7 (1) Sur demande sommaire du ministre, un juge peut, malgré le paragraphe 238(2), ordonner à une personne de fournir l’accès, l’aide, les renseignements ou les documents que le ministre cherche à obtenir en vertu des articles 231.1 ou 231.2 s’il est convaincu de ce qui suit :

(a) the person was required under section 231.1 or 231.2 to provide the access, assistance, information or document and did not do so; and

a) la personne n’a pas fourni l’accès, l’aide, les renseignements ou les documents bien qu’elle en soit tenue par les articles 231.1 ou 231.2;

(b) in the case of information or a document, the information or document is not protected from disclosure by solicitor-client privilege (within the meaning of subsection 232(1)).

b) s’agissant de renseignements ou de documents, le privilège des communications entre client et avocat, au sens du paragraphe 232(1), ne peut être invoqué à leur égard.

[…]

Judge may impose conditions

Conditions

(3) A judge making an order under subsection (1) may impose any conditions in respect of the order that the judge considers appropriate.

(3) Le juge peut imposer, à l’égard de l’ordonnance, les conditions qu’il estime indiquées.

[…]

Definitions

Définitions

232 (1) In this section,

232 (1) Les définitions qui suivent s’appliquent au présent article.

[…] lawyer means, in the province of Quebec, an advocate or notary and, in any other province, a barrister or solicitor; (avocat) […]

avocat Dans la province de Québec, un avocat ou notaire et, dans toute autre province, un barrister ou un solicitor. (lawyer) […]

solicitor-client privilege means the right, if any, that a person has in a superior court in the province where the matter arises to refuse to disclose an oral or documentary communication on the ground that the communication is one passing between the person and the person’s lawyer in professional confidence, except that for the purposes of this section an accounting record of a lawyer, including any supporting voucher or cheque, shall be deemed not to be such a communication. (privilège des communications entre client et avocat)

privilège des communications entre client et avocat Droit qu’une personne peut posséder, devant une cour supérieure de la province où la question a pris naissance, de refuser de divulguer une communication orale ou documentaire pour le motif que celle-ci est une communication entre elle et son avocat en confidence professionnelle sauf que, pour l’application du présent article, un relevé comptable d’un avocat, y compris toute pièce justificative ou tout chèque, ne peut être considéré comme une communication de cette nature. (solicitor-client privilege)

[…]

Examination of certain documents where privilege claimed

Secret professionnel invoqué lors de l’examen de documents

(3.1) Where, pursuant to section 231.1, an officer is about to inspect or examine a document in the possession of a lawyer or where, pursuant to section 231.2, the Minister has required provision of a document by a lawyer, and the lawyer claims that a named client or former client of the lawyer has a solicitor-client privilege in respect of the document, no officer shall inspect or examine the document and the lawyer shall

(3.1) Lorsque, conformément à l’article 231.1, un fonctionnaire est sur le point d’inspecter ou d’examiner un document en la possession d’un avocat ou que, conformément à l’article 231.2, le ministre exige la fourniture ou la production d’un document, et que l’avocat invoque le privilège des communications entre client et avocat en ce qui concerne le document au nom d’un de ses client ou anciens clients nommément désigné, aucun fonctionnaire ne peut inspecter ou examiner le document et l’avocat doit :

(a) place the document, together with any other document in respect of which the lawyer at the same time makes the same claim on behalf of the same client, in a package and suitably seal and identify the package or, if the officer and the lawyer agree, allow the pages of the document to be initialed and numbered or otherwise suitably identified; and

a) d’une part, faire un colis du document ainsi que de tout autre document pour lequel il invoque, en même temps, le même privilège au nom du même client, bien sceller ce colis et bien le marquer, ou, si le fonctionnaire et l’avocat en conviennent, faire en sorte que les pages du document soient paraphées et numérotées ou autrement bien marquées;

(b) retain it and ensure that it is preserved until it is produced to a judge as required under this section and an order is issued under this section in respect of the document.

b) d’autre part, retenir le document et s’assurer de sa conservation jusqu’à ce que, conformément au présent article, le document soit produit devant un juge et une ordonnance rendue concernant le document.

Application to judge

Requête présentée par l’avocat ou son client

(4) Where a document has been seized and placed in custody under subsection 232(3) or is being retained under subsection 232(3.1), the client, or the lawyer on behalf of the client, may

(4) En cas de saisie et mise sous garde d’un document en vertu du paragraphe (3) ou de rétention d’un document en vertu du paragraphe (3.1), le client ou l’avocat au nom de celui-ci peut :

(a) within 14 days after the day the document was so placed in custody or commenced to be so retained apply, on three clear days notice of motion to the Deputy Attorney General of Canada, to a judge for an order

a) dans les 14 jours suivant la date où le document a ainsi été mis sous garde ou a ainsi commencé à être retenu, après avis au sous-procureur général du Canada au moins trois jours francs avant qu’il soit procédé à cette requête, demander à un juge de rendre une ordonnance qui :

(i) fixing a day, not later than 21 days after the date of the order, and place for the determination of the question whether the client has a solicitor-client privilege in respect of the document, and

(i) d’une part, fixe la date — tombant au plus 21 jours après la date de l’ordonnance — et le lieu où il sera statué sur la question de savoir si le client bénéficie du privilège des communications entre client et avocat en ce qui concerne le document,

[…]

[…]

II. Order and Reasons of the Federal Court

[10] I turn next to discuss the Order and Reasons of the Federal Court in the instant case.

[11] The Federal Court had before it an application from the Minister under section 231.7 of the ITA for a compliance order, requiring the appellant to comply with Requests the Minister asserted were previously made under section 231.1 of the ITA. The Minister sought orders in respect of several items, and the Federal Court granted an order in respect of seven of them, dismissing the application in respect of several other items. More specifically, the Federal Court ordered the appellant, who carried on a consulting business and was being audited in respect of several taxation years, to provide:

a response to the request for invoices issued by the appellant to one of his clients, Casala Limited (Casala), during the years that were under audit, outlining the services provided (Order, paragraph 1(a)(i));
information regarding the terms and conditions of the appellant’s oral contract(s) with Casala and the invoices submitted to Casala for the audit period (Order, paragraph 1(a)(ii));
a detailed schedule outlining the compensation received from Casala for the audit period (Order, paragraph 1(a)(iii));
information and documents from the appellant’s bank accounts in Luxembourg, listed in the Requests issued to the appellant, unless the bank were to provide a statement that the requested items were not available or could only be made available if the appellant were to go to Luxembourg, in which event the appellant was ordered to provide an explanation and supporting documentation regarding the bank’s response (Order, paragraph 1(b)(i));
an accounting of all funds deposited to the appellant’s Luxembourg accounts and the source(s) of the deposited funds (Order, paragraph 1(b)(ii));
a copy of the trust ledgers for the appellant, maintained by the appellant’s solicitors in Canada, evidencing the information sought in the Minister’s Requests regarding payments received by the law firms, unless the law firm(s) in question refused to release the documents to the appellant, in which event the appellant was ordered to provide the written correspondence in this regard from the law firm(s) (Order, paragraph 1(c)); and
details of the appellant’s gross professional income reported on line 164 of his 2016 tax return as set out in the Minister’s Request made May 1, 2019 (Order, paragraph 1(d)).

[12] Before the Federal Court, the appellant made much the same arguments as he made before us, namely, that he could not be required to provide under section 231.1 of the ITA:

(a) any information beyond information relating to the provenance, location or maintenance of his books and records or other documents;
(b) documents that were outside of his possession and that were in the hands of third parties, who acted on the appellant’s behalf; and
(c) documents and information that the appellant alleges were not sought in the demands made under section 231.1 of the ITA.

[13] In certain instances, he also claimed that he had complied with the Requests.

[14] The Minister, on the other hand, argued that subsection 231.1(1) of the ITA afforded the Court the requisite authority to issue the compliance order and relied on the entirety of the subsection in support of her position.

[15] The Federal Court commenced its legal analysis by noting that, in order to succeed in the application for a compliance order, the Minister was required to establish that: (1) the items had been sought under section 231.1 of the ITA, and the appellant was required to provide them under that provision; (2) the appellant had not done so within a reasonable period of time; and (3) the requested items were not protected by solicitor-client privilege.

[16] The final condition was not in issue before the Federal Court and is not in issue before us.

[17] As concerns the first of the foregoing conditions, the Federal Court accepted that all the items it ordered the appellant to provide had been requested under section 231.1 of the ITA. The Federal Court further determined that such items were matters that a taxpayer could be required to provide under section 231.1 and thus could be the subject of a compliance order under section 231.7 of the ITA.

[18] More specifically, the Federal Court rejected the appellant’s reading of the decision of this Court in Cameco, finding that the ruling in that case was limited to a finding that a taxpayer cannot be compelled to submit to an oral interview and answer questions posed during the interview.

[19] After reviewing the relevant statutory provisions, the Federal Court concluded that the broad wording used in subsection 231.1(1) of the ITA and, in particular, the reference to information that ought to have been in a taxpayer’s books and records in that subsection afforded the Court the authority to make the Order it made because the items in question were properly the subject of a Request under subsection 231.1(1) of the ITA. In this regard, the Federal Court determined that subsection 231.1(1) of the ITA affords the Minister the authority to require production of information of the sort the Court ordered the appellant to provide, which went beyond the provenance, location or maintenance of the appellant’s books and records or other documents. The Federal Court also determined that, for the same reasons, subsection 231.1(1) of the ITA afforded the Minister the authority to require the appellant to attempt to obtain the requested documents and information from his bank in Luxembourg, his accountant, and his solicitors.

[20] As concerns the requirement to make such efforts, the Federal Court noted that “[…] a taxpayer is required to make reasonable efforts to accurately respond to requests for documents and information that are within the scope of subsection 231.1(1)” (at paragraph 50).

[21] The Federal Court determined that the second of the above-listed conditions was also met in respect of each of the items covered by its Order. In each instance, the Federal Court reviewed the evidence and, where it made an Order, determined that the appellant had not complied with Requests that had been issued under section 231.1 of the ITA.

III. Analysis

[22] I turn next to review the appellant’s arguments. In discussing them, it is useful to commence by detailing the points that are not in dispute.

A. Matters Not in Dispute

[23] The first of the points not in dispute concerns the standard of review to be applied by this Court. As this is an appeal from the Federal Court, the appellate standard of review applies. Accordingly, errors of law are reviewable for correctness, whereas errors of fact or of mixed fact and law from which a legal issue cannot be extricated are reviewable for palpable and overriding error (Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33 at paras. 8, 37, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235; BP Canada Energy Company v. Canada (National Revenue), 2017 FCA 61 at para. 56, [2017] 4 F.C.R. 310).

[24] The second matter that is not in dispute concerns the appellant’s failure to maintain books and records as required by subsection 230(1) of the ITA. The respondent asserts that the various items that the Federal Court ordered the appellant to provide should have been recorded in his books and records in Canada in conformity with subsection 230(1) of the ITA. This is not contested by the appellant. Thus, had the appellant complied with his record-keeping obligations, there is no dispute that the Minister would have been entitled to obtain an order for production of the books and records in which such information was contained if the Minister had issued a Request for them and the appellant had not produced them voluntarily.

[25] Third, it is uncontested that subsection 231.7(1) of the ITA sets out the items the Minister must establish to be entitled to a compliance order. Prior to listing these items, it is helpful to set out the subsection again. Subsection 231.7(1) of the ITA provides:

(a) the person was required under section 231.1 or 231.2 to provide the access, assistance, information or document and did not do so; and

a) la personne n’a pas fourni l’accès, l’aide, les renseignements ou les documents bien qu’elle en soit tenue par les articles 231.1 ou 231.2;

(b) in the case of information or a document, the information or document is not protected from disclosure by solicitor-client privilege (within the meaning of subsection 232(1)).

b) s’agissant de renseignements ou de documents, le privilège des communications entre client et avocat, au sens du paragraphe 232(1), ne peut être invoqué à leur égard.

[26] As is apparent from this provision, the conditions precedent for the issuance of a compliance order by the Federal Court are that:

the person against whom the order is made must have been required under section 231.1 or 231.2 of the ITA to provide the access, assistance, information or document that is the subject of the order;
that person must have failed to provide the access, assistance, information or document in question; and
in the case of information or a document, it must not be subject to solicitor-client privilege.

B. Points in Issue

[27] Where the parties part company is on whether the appellant was entitled to refuse to comply with the Canada Revenue Agency (the CRA)’s Requests in issue in this appeal, which is determinative of whether the Federal Court possessed authority under the ITA to order compliance in the manner it did. As noted, the appellant’s arguments rest primarily on the decision of this Court in Cameco. The appellant more specifically submits that Cameco establishes that the Federal Court lacked authority to make all parts of the Order under appeal, with the exception of paragraph 1(a)(i). With regard to that paragraph of the Federal Court’s Order, as is more fully discussed below, the appellant primarily contends that he has complied and there are no documents responsive to the Requests issued to him. The appellant also makes subsidiary arguments premised on sections 231.6 and 232 of the ITA.

[28] The appellant’s arguments premised on Cameco and on sections 231.6 and 232 of the ITA raise issues of law, whereas his other arguments raise matters of fact. Given the centrality of this Court’s decision in Cameco to the appellant’s arguments, it is useful to commence the discussion by considering precisely what was decided in that case.

(1) What Does Cameco Decide?

[29] In Cameco, where Woods J.A. issued concurring reasons, Rennie J.A. wrote for the majority. In paragraph 1 of the majority reasons, Rennie J.A. set out the issues before the Court as follows:

The issue in this appeal is whether the Minister of National Revenue can require employees of a corporation to attend for interviews and compel oral answers to questions posed by auditors of the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA). The Minister says that paragraph 231.1(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.) (Act) provides her the authority to do so.

[30] In terms of the facts that were before the Court in Cameco, the CRA had requested 25 employees of Cameco and its subsidiaries to attend interviews and answer orally various categories of questions that the CRA believed were relevant to its audit into Cameco’s compliance with the transfer pricing rules set out in the ITA. This followed a lengthy audit process during which Cameco had already provided extensive information to the CRA. Cameco indicated to the CRA that it was willing to answer the questions in writing but declined to have the employees attend the interviews and answer orally.

[31] The Federal Court dismissed the request for an order requiring their attendance at the interviews under section 231.7 of the ITA, finding both that section 231.7 of the ITA did not afford the Court authority to compel oral interviews and that certain discretionary considerations militated in any event against issuing the compliance order.

[32] This Court dismissed the appeal. Woods J.A. would have dismissed the appeal on the basis of the discretionary authority of the Federal Court. The majority, on the other hand, determined that the Federal Court lacked the authority to order the employees to attend the interviews. The Minister in that case, unlike the present one, relied only on paragraph 231.1(1)(a) of the ITA in support of the Request. In the case at bar, as noted, the Minister relies on the entirety of subsection 231.1(1) in support of her authority to issue the Requests at issue in this appeal.

[33] A central component of the majority’s reasons in Cameco involved the amendments to the ITA in 1986, which removed from section 231.1 the reference to the right of the Minister to require oral answers under oath to questions and added to what is now section 231.4 to the ITA. Under section 231.4 of the ITA, the Minister may seek an order from the Tax Court for an inquiry before a hearing officer, during which evidence may be obtained under oath from any person.

[34] Prior to its amendment in 1986, subsection 231.1(1) (then subsection 231(1)) of the ITA provided:

231. (1) Any person thereunto authorized by the Minister, for any purpose related to the administration or enforcement of this Act, may, at all reasonable times, enter into any premises or place where any business is carried on or any property is kept or anything is done in connection with any business or any books or records are or should be kept, and

231. (1) Toute personne qui y est autorisée par le Ministre, pour toute fin relative à l'application ou à l'exécution de la présente loi, peut, en tout temps raisonnable, pénétrer dans tous lieux ou endroits dans lesquels l'entreprise est exploitée ou des biens sont gardés, ou dans lesquels il se fait quelque chose se rapportant à des affaires quelconques, ou dans lesquels sont ou devraient être tenus des livres ou registres, et

(a) audit or examine the books and records and any account, voucher, letter, telegram or other document which relates or may relate to the information that is or should be in the books or records or the amount of tax payable under this Act,

a) vérifier ou examiner les livres et registres, et tout compte, pièce justificative, lettre, télégramme ou autre document qui se rapporte ou qui peut se rapporter aux renseignements qui se trouvent ou devraient se trouver dans les livres ou registres, ou le montant de l'impôt exigible en vertu de la présente loi,

(b) examine property described by an inventory or any property, process or matter an examination of which may, in his opinion, assist him in determining the accuracy of an inventory or in ascertaining the information that is or should be in the books or records or the amount of any tax payable under this Act,

b) examiner les biens décrits dans un inventaire ou tous biens, procédures ou matière dont l'examen peut, à son avis, lui aider à déterminer l'exactitude d'un inventaire ou à contrôler les renseignements qui se trouvent ou devraient se trouver dans les livres ou registres, ou le montant de tout impôt exigible en vertu de la présente loi,

(c) require the owner or manager of the property or business and any other person on the premises or place to give him all reasonable assistance with his audit or examination and to answer all proper questions relating to the audit or examination either orally or, if he so requires, in writing, on oath or by statutory declaration and, for that purpose, require the owner or manager to attend at the premises or place with him, and

c) obliger le propriétaire ou le gérant des biens ou de l'entreprise et toute autre personne présente sur les lieux de lui prêter toute aide raisonnable dans sa vérification ou son examen, et de répondre à toutes questions appropriées se rapportant à la vérification ou à l'examen, soit oralement, soit, si cette personne l'exige, par écrit, sous serment ou par déclaration exigée par la loi et, à cette fin, obliger le propriétaire ou le gérant de l'accompagner sur les lieux, et

(d) if, during the course of an audit or examination, it appears to him that there has been a violation of this Act or a regulation, seize and take away any of the documents, books, records, papers or things that may be required as evidence as to the violation of any provision of this Act or a regulation.

d) si, au cours d'une vérification ou d'un examen, il lui semble qu'une infraction à la présente loi ou à un règlement a été commise, cette personne autorisée peut saisir et emporter tous documents, registres, livres, pièces ou choses qui peuvent être requis comme preuves de l'infraction à toute disposition de la présente loi ou d'un règlement.

[Emphasis from Cameco.]

[Soulignements de Cameco.]

[35] In large part due to the disappearance of the previous requirement to answer questions under oath from what is now section 231.1 of the ITA, the majority in Cameco determined that, subsequent to the amendments, the Minister could not require that individuals attend the oral interviews under paragraph 231.1(1)(a) of the ITA. The Court’s determination that paragraph 231.1(1)(a) of the ITA did not authorize the issuance of the Request at issue in Cameco, in turn, meant that the Federal Court was correct in declining to issue an order under section 231.7 of the ITA, which would have required the employees’ attendance at oral interviews.

[36] As is apparent from the foregoing, the issue before the Court in Cameco concerned only the Minister’s right to compel attendance at oral interviews to answer questions under paragraph 231.1(1)(a) of the ITA. The broader statements made in Cameco (for example, at paragraphs 18 to 23, upon which the appellant relies) have to be understood in the context of and are limited to the issue that was before the Court in that case.

[37] Thus, Cameco does not determine the result in this appeal but, rather, only held that the Minister cannot compel oral interviews under paragraph 231.1(1)(a) of the ITA. Accordingly, it is necessary for this panel to determine whether the Federal Court erred in its interpretation of section 231.1 of the ITA in the case at bar.

(2) Text, Context and Purpose of the Relevant Provisions in the ITA

[38] The principles governing statutory interpretation are well settled and require a court to consider the text, context and purpose of a provision to determine its meaning. As was stated in the oft-cited passage from Canada Trustco Mortgage Co. v. Canada, 2005 SCC 54 at para. 10, [2005] 2 S.C.R. 601:

It has been long established as a matter of statutory interpretation that “the words of an Act are to be read in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament”: see 65302 British Columbia Ltd. v. Canada, 1999 CanLII 639 (SCC), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 804, at para. 50. The interpretation of a statutory provision must be made according to a textual, contextual and purposive analysis to find a meaning that is harmonious with the Act as a whole.

(See also, to similar effect, CIBC World Markets Inc. v. Canada, 2019 FCA 147 at paras. 27-28, A.C.W.S. (3d) 208; and Hillier v. Canada (Attorney General), 2019 FCA 44 at para. 24, 431 D.L.R. (4th) 556).

(a) Text

[39] In discussing the text of the provisions at issue in the present appeal, the appropriate starting point involves consideration of the meaning of the term “document” in section 231.1 of the ITA and the related provisions that follow. Section 231 of the ITA provides that, for purposes of sections 231.1 to 231.8 of the ITA, a “document” “includes money, a security and a record”. The term therefore means much more than a record that can be physically inspected and includes funds received by a taxpayer, to which the matters ordered by the Federal Court in the case at bar all pertained.

[40] The next important point in the textual analysis of these provisions involves consideration of the meaning to be given to the term “audit” in the paragraph 231.1(1)(a) of the ITA (or “vérifier” in the French version of the paragraph). Unlike the term “document”, the provisions at issue contain no definition of what is meant by an audit.

[41] Dictionary definitions do not support the conclusion urged by the appellant, namely, that an audit precludes asking for information about the funds in a taxpayer’s bank account, his lawyer’s trust accounts or detailed in invoices sent to clients. To the contrary, such definitions ascribe a much broader meaning to the terms “audit” and “vérifier” that would include inquiries of the sort posed in the case at bar.

[42] The Canadian Oxford Dictionary, 2nd ed. by Katrine Barber (Don Mills, Ont.: Oxford University Press Canada, 2004), defines the meaning of the noun “audit” as including “a detailed examination or analysis, [especially] to assess strengths and weaknesses,” and the verb “audit” as the act of conducting an audit. The Collins English Dictionary, 13th ed. by Ian Brooks et al. (Glasgow: HarperCollins Publishers, 2018), provides the broad “audit” definition of “any thoroughgoing check or examination [emphasis added].”

[43] Similarly, the meaning of the French term “vérifier” is not limited to the meaning urged by the appellant. The French dictionary, Le Petit Robert, ed. by Alain Rey & Josette Rey-Debove (Paris: Dictionnaires Le Robert — SEJER, 2022) at 2693, defines “vérifier” as: “Examiner la valeur de (qqch.), par une confrontation avec les faits ou par un contrôle de la cohérence interne” (Examine something’s value, by confronting the facts or by reviewing the internal coherence). Le Petit Larousse illustré, ed. by Claude Nimmo & Julie Pelpel-Moulian (Paris: Larousse, 2018), also defines the verb “vérifier” as “contrôler” and “[s]oumettre à un contrôle” (i.e., to review and examine).

[44] Thus, the terms “audit” or “vérifier” are broad and encompass more than the physical examination of a record in the possession of a taxpayer.

[45] At this point in the analysis, it is helpful to once more set out subsection 231.1(1) of the ITA. It provides:

231.1 (1) An authorized person may, at all reasonable times, for any purpose related to the administration or enforcement of this Act,

231.1 (1) Une personne autorisée peut, à tout moment raisonnable, pour l’application et l’exécution de la présente loi, à la fois :

and for those purposes the authorized person may

à ces fins, la personne autorisée peut :

[Emphasis added.]

[Nos soulignements.]

[46] The plain wording of paragraph 231.1(1)(a) permits individuals authorized by the Minister to “audit” “documents” (i.e., money) of the taxpayer or of third parties that relate or may relate to information that should be in the books and records of a taxpayer or that relate to any amount payable by the taxpayer under the ITA.

[47] Given the broad statutory definition of “document” which includes money, the dictionary definitions of “audit” (or “vérifier”), and the recognition in paragraph 231.1(1)(a) of the ITA that what may be audited includes information that should be in the books and records of the taxpayer or that relate to amounts payable by the taxpayer under the ITA, it is my view that the plain wording of this paragraph supports the authority of the CRA to seek the sort of information sought in the case at bar.

[48] I am not alone in this view.

[49] In Redeemer Foundation v. Canada (National Revenue), 2008 SCC 46, [2008] 2 S.C.R. 643 [Redeemer], the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed an application for judicial review that sought to set aside a request made by the CRA under paragraph 231.1(1)(a) of the ITA for a registered charity to provide information about its donors. In paragraph 1 of the reasons of the Supreme Court, McLachlin C.J. and LeBel J., who wrote for the majority, noted that the issue before the Court was “[…] whether the Minister was required under s. 231.2(2) of the [ITA] to obtain judicial authorization before asking the [appellant] for information about the identity of its donors”. The Supreme Court concluded that such authorization was not required, and that “[t]he Minister was entitled to information about the identity of the donors through the combined effect of s. 230(2)(a) [the record-keeping obligation applicable to registered charities] and s. 231.1” (at paragraph 1).

[50] While the appellant in Redeemer did not make the same argument as the appellant makes in the instant case, the reasons of this Court in Redeemer Foundation v. M.N.R., 2006 FCA 325, [2007] 3 F.C.R. 40, make it clear that the CRA sought information from the appellant, as opposed to merely written records, and had asked the appellant to compile a list from its donation receipts. At paragraph 37, Pelletier J.A., who wrote for this Court, stated:

It is not contested that, in the exercise of the audit power set out in section 231.1, the CRA auditor was entitled to examine all the books and records of the Foundation, including the duplicate receipts, and on the basis of that inspection, to prepare a list of the names and addresses of the donors to the Foundation in various taxation years. If the auditor is entitled to obtain information by means of his own examination of the Foundation’s books and records, I can think of no principle which would require him to obtain a court order before asking for the Foundation’s assistance in obtaining the very same information.

[51] In dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court of Canada held in very clear terms that the Minister may obtain information under paragraph 231.1(1)(a) of the ITA. In paragraph 13 of its reasons, the majority in Redeemer, after quoting paragraph 231.1(1)(a) of the ITA, wrote as follows:

On its face, this section covers the situation at bar. It authorizes the Minister to examine “information that is or should be” in the Foundation’s books. The information at issue regarding third party taxpayers who had contributed to the Foundation was either in the Foundation’s books, or “should” have been in its books pursuant to the broad record-keeping requirements created by s. 230(2)[…]

[Emphasis added.]

[52] In paragraph 24, after discussing the purpose of section 231.1, the majority stated:

[…] s. 231.1(1) is broadly worded. It allows access to “information that is or should be in the books or records of the taxpayer”. It thus gives access to information about third parties that is required to be kept by the taxpayer, as well as information that may not be required to be kept but happens to be in the taxpayer’s records.

[Emphasis added.]

[53] It appears that this holding in Redeemer was not sufficiently drawn to the attention of the panel in Cameco as the Reasons in Cameco make no reference to it. This omission affords a further reason for reading Cameco as being narrowly confined to holding that the Minister cannot compel attendance at oral interviews under paragraph 231.1(1)(a) of the ITA.

[54] In my view, the decision of the Supreme Court in Redeemer is a complete answer to the appellant’s arguments in the present case and entirely supports the Minister’s position. It holds that information that should have been contained in the appellant’s books and records, but is not, may be sought in a Request under paragraph 231.1(1)(a) of the ITA.

[55] In addition, my interpretation of paragraph 231.1(1)(a) of the ITA accords with the post-Cameco decision of this Court in Friedman v. Canada (National Revenue), 2021 FCA 101, 2021 D.T.C. 5056, as the respondent rightly notes at paragraph 31 of its memorandum of fact and law. In that case, this Court upheld a compliance order of the Federal Court, requiring written answers to a CRA questionnaire that sought information similar to the information that the appellant was ordered to produce in the case at bar. There, the CRA had proceeded under paragraph 231.1(1)(a) in issuing in the Requirement to answer the questionnaire.

[56] In addition to paragraph 231.1(1)(a) of the ITA, the text of paragraph 231.1(1)(b) of the ITA also supports the Minister’s right to require the information the appellant was ordered to provide in the instant case. Paragraph 231.1(1)(b) of the ITA allows the person authorized by the Minister to “examine” any “matter relating to […] the taxpayer” that “may assist” in “ascertaining the information that should be in the books or records of the taxpayer” or that “may assist” in “ascertaining […] any amount payable by the taxpayer”. It is hard to see how this provision could be drafted more broadly.

[57] Dictionary definitions of “examine” and “examiner” are not limited to the physical review of items in the taxpayer’s possession and include inquiries of the sort made in the case at bar. For example, the Canadian Oxford Dictionary defines the verb “examine” broadly as to “inquire into the nature or condition etc. of”; the Collins English Dictionary summarizes it as “investigate”. Le Petit Robert, at page 966, defines “examiner” as “[c]onsidérer avec attention, avec réflexion” (consider with attention, with reflection), and Le Petit Larousse illustré provides “[é]tudier attentivement, minutieusement” (study attentively, meticulously).

[58] Similarly, the use of the words “matter” and, in French, “toute matière” indicates the breadth of the inquiry contemplated by Parliament.

[59] Perhaps most importantly, paragraph 231.1(1)(b) extends the scope of the examination not only to matters contained in the taxpayer’s books and records but also to the matters that should be contained in them, and to any matter that would assist the authorized person in ascertaining the amount payable by the taxpayer under the ITA. I agree with the Minister that the breadth of this language supports her position. Information that should be but is not included in a taxpayer’s books and records is frequently undocumented. An authorized person could only examine such information by asking for a response to questions.

[60] I thus conclude that the text of paragraphs 231.1(1)(a) and (b) of the ITA supports the authority of the Minister to have issued the Requests at issue in this appeal.

(b) Context

[61] The relevant context includes, first, the balance of subsection 231.1(1) of the ITA.

[62] I agree with the appellant that the mid-amble of subsection 231.1(1) of the ITA limits paragraphs 231.1(1)(c) and (d) to the exercise of authority afforded under subsection 231.1(1) of the ITA preceding the mid-amble. Thus, paragraphs 231.1(1)(c) and (d) of the ITA must be read in conjunction with earlier portions of the subsection. While this may well mean that neither paragraph 231.1(1)(c) nor paragraph 231.1(1)(d) of the ITA affords an independent source of authority in and of itself in the present case, these paragraphs cannot be ignored.

[63] For our purposes, paragraph 231.1(1)(d) of the ITA is particularly relevant. This provision in its current form was adopted in 1986, at the same time that the obligation to provide oral answers to questions, including those under oath, was removed from the section and section 231.4 was added to the ITA. The current version of paragraph 231.1(1)(d) is worded in broad terms and requires any person whom the auditor encounters, or requires to be present at the taxpayer’s place of business, to provide answers to “all proper questions relating to the administration or enforcement of the [ITA]”. Once again, it is hard to conceive how the provision could be more broadly drafted. I agree with the Minister that the breadth of this provision supports her interpretation of paragraphs 231.1(1)(a) and (b) of the ITA.

[64] Relevant context also includes sections 231.2, 231.6 and 232 of the ITA.

[65] Section 231.2 sets out the authority of the Minister to require that taxpayers and third parties provide information and documents. Unlike section 231.1, section 231.2 vests authority in the Minister, as opposed to individuals authorized by the Minister. In practice, the Minister delegates her authority to act under this and other provisions in the ITA to “an officer or a class of officers” pursuant to subsection 220(2.01) of the ITA. However, it is to be anticipated that delegations under subsection 220(2.01) of the ITA would be made to fewer employees of the CRA than the “persons” authorized to carry out audits.

[66] Section 231.2 also contains procedural requirements that are absent in section 231.1 of the ITA. These include the requirement to provide a notice served personally or sent by registered mail that sets out what information must be provided (subsections 231.2(1) and (1.1)). If the Minister were required to proceed under section 231.2 of the ITA every time information that should have been recorded in the taxpayer’s books and records is required from a taxpayer, it is likely that the audit process would be significantly hindered.

[67] I also note that section 231.2 of the ITA is stated to apply “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of [the ITA]”. Given this wording, it is not necessary to read section 231.2 as providing authority distinct from that set out elsewhere. Indeed, the need for this clause points to the opposite conclusion and contemplates that there is overlap between the provisions.

[68] The effect of the appellant’s argument in this case is to make an assertion that sections 231.1 and 231.2 of the ITA are each a complete code, such that powers afforded under section 231.2 cannot be exercised under section 231.1. In my view, this is an untenable argument in light of the holding of the Supreme Court of Canada in Redeemer. That decision establishes that the various provisions at issue in this appeal are not watertight compartments, and that there is overlap between them.

[69] The existence of such overlap also forecloses the appellant’s reliance on sections 231.6 and 232 of the ITA. Because overlap is possible, one cannot read section 232 as setting out the only process for obtaining documents from the appellant’s solicitors or section 231.6 as setting out the only process for obtaining documents from the appellant’s bank in Luxembourg.

[70] Moreover, as concerns documents held by a taxpayer’s solicitors, this Court affirmed in Revcon Oilfield Constructors Inc. v. Canada (National Revenue), 2017 FCA 22, 2017 D.T.C. 5019 [Revcon], that the Minister may obtain an order like that issued in the case at bar, which requires the appellant to seek the documents requested from his solicitors. Stratas J.A., who wrote for this Court in Revcon, noted that the order in that case legitimately required the appellant to disclose all documents in its possession, control or power (at paragraph 9). These included non-privileged documents the appellant was entitled to receive from its lawyers.

[71] The Federal Court has also confirmed that orders under section 231.1 of the ITA are legitimately directed at documents within the possession, control or power of a taxpayer (see, for example, Canada (National Revenue) v. Amdocs Canadian Managed Services Inc., 2015 FC 1234 at paras. 33-34, 75-76, 2015 D.T.C. 5117; and Canada (National Revenue) v. Ghermezian, 2022 FC 236 at paras. 73-78, 2022 D.T.C. 5029).

[72] In the instant case, the Federal Court carefully fashioned its Order to not overreach. The appellant was not ordered to produce the documents held by the appellant’s solicitors, but rather to seek them and, if they were not forthcoming, to provide the correspondence received by the appellant explaining why the documents would not be disclosed by the persons holding them. Likewise, the portion of the Order regarding obtaining details of the appellant’s professional income reported at line 164 of his 2016 tax return required that the appellant pursue inquiries with his accountant.

[73] Given the broad wording of paragraphs 231.1(1)(a), (b) and (d) of the ITA, the Federal Court was entitled to require that the appellant make these inquiries, which are consistent with his making reasonable efforts to comply with the Minister’s Requests.

[74] Similarly, the order issued by the Federal Court in respect of the documents and information held by the appellant’s bank in Switzerland does not require their production, but rather only that the appellant make the request for them and, if refused, provide the explanation the appellant was given for their refusal. In light of the way the Federal Court fashioned its Order, the decision of this Court in eBay Canada Ltd. v. M.N.R., 2008 FCA 348, [2010] 1 F.C.R. 145 [eBay], upon which the appellant relies, actually assists the Minister in the instant case. Here, as in eBay, the appellant has not been ordered to produce foreign-based documents.

[75] I also believe that the decision of this Court in BP Canada Energy Co. v. Canada (National Revenue), 2017 FCA 61, [2017] 4 F.C.R. 310 [BP], which the appellant relies on, is of no assistance to him. BP concerned a wholly different situation. In BP, the CRA sought portions of the working papers prepared by a public company’s auditors for purposes of the preparation of financial statements required by provincial securities legislation. The portions of the audit papers in question detailed the reasons for the reserves taken in the financial statements for possible exposure for unpaid income taxes. Such possible taxes were not the subject of the CRA’s audit. This Court held that they need not be disclosed in part because it would do violence to the audit function and to the integrity of the financial reporting process required under securities legislation. In reaching this determination, Noël C.J., who wrote for this Court, stated that the “obligation to ‘self-assess’ [under the ITA] does not require taxpayers to tax themselves on amounts which they do not believe to be taxable”, and they therefore cannot be required to reveal their “soft spots” (at paragraph 82). These considerations are worlds away from the matters ordered in the case at bar, which merely concern revenues received by the appellant and the bases for their payment.

[76] Thus, the relevant context in the ITA, as well as the case law interpreting it, supports the Federal Court’s authority to issue the Order under appeal in the present case.

(c) Purpose

[77] The provisions at issue in this appeal serve the purpose of affording a mechanism to the Minister, through the CRA, to monitor and ensure compliance with the ITA. The need for such mechanism is self-evident given the self-assessment scheme established under the ITA, as noted by the Supreme Court of Canada in McKinlay Transport at 636-637, 648, and R v. Jarvis, 2002 SCC 73 at paras. 49-51, [2002] 3 S.C.R. 757.

[78] Such purpose supports my interpretation of section 231.1 and is inconsistent with the appellant’s reading of the section, which, as already noted, would hinder the CRA’s ability to exercise its audit functions.

[79] I accordingly determine that the text, context and purpose of section 231.1 of the ITA leads to the conclusion that the Federal Court was correct in finding that it possessed the requisite authority to order the appellant to provide the information it did and to seek to obtain documents and information from his accountants, his solicitors, and his bank in Luxembourg.

[80] The Federal Court therefore did not err in law.

(3) Additional Errors Alleged by the Appellant

[81] I turn finally to the additional arguments raised by the appellant, which involve matters of fact and are reviewable under the deferential standard of palpable and overriding error.

[82] The appellant alleges in this regard that: (1) he has complied with the Request to produce invoices, and that the scope of paragraph 1(a)(i) of the Federal Court’s Order would lead to an answer that he has no such invoices; (2) he has complied with the request for a detailed schedule of the compensation received from Casala as required by paragraph 1(a)(iii) of the Federal Court’s Order; and (3) he has already provided to a limited degree the information required by paragraph 1(d) of the Federal Court’s Order or does not appear to have such information.

[83] In terms of the first of the foregoing issues, the Federal Court found that the appellant “ha[d] not furnished the Minister with a statement that no written invoices, in any form, exist” (at paragraph 39). I see no error in this determination. In his replies to the Requests, the appellant did not clearly state that there were no such invoices. Thus, it was open to the Federal Court to order their production. As for the response to the Order to produce the invoices issued to Casala that the Federal Court ordered be produced, the appellant is required to determine if such invoices exist and, if so, to produce them.

[84] As regards the second of the above points, the Federal Court found that the appellant’s responses were “incomplete and equivocal” as the appellant had only replied that he believed he was paid by Casala via two wire transfers in the approximate amount of €20,000 and via the amounts paid to his solicitors. Given this response, the Federal Court did not err in terming it “incomplete and unequivocal”, and it was accordingly open to the Federal Court to make the Order it made in paragraph 1(a)(iii) of its Order.

[85] Finally, with regard to paragraph 1(d) of the Federal Court’s Order, the Federal Court found that the appellant had requested this information but had not yet received a response from his accountants due to delays associated with the COVID 19 pandemic. The evidence before the Federal Court supports this determination. I accordingly see no error in the Federal Court ordering the appellant to seek this information and, if received, to produce it.

IV. Proposed Disposition

[86] I therefore would dismiss this appeal with costs. The parties have agreed that costs should follow the event and should be fixed at $2000, which I find to be reasonable. I would therefore fix them in that amount.

"Mary J.L. Gleason"

J.A.

“I agree.

Anne L. Mactavish J.A.”

“I agree.

Sylvie E. Roussel J.A.”

Appendix: ITA Provisions Relevant to this Appeal

*Income Tax Act*	*Loi de l’impôt sur le revenu*
R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.)	L.R.C. (1985), ch. 1 (5^e suppl.)
[…]	[…]
General	Généralités
Records and books	Livre de comptes et registres
230 (1) Every person carrying on business and every person who is required, by or pursuant to this Act, to pay or collect taxes or other amounts shall keep records and books of account (including an annual inventory kept in prescribed manner) ant the person’s place of business or residence in Canada or at such other place as may be designated by the Minister, in such form and containing such information as will enable the taxes payable under this Act or the taxes or other amounts that should have been deducted, withheld or collected to be determined.	230 (1) Quiconque exploite une entreprise et quiconque est obligé, par ou selon la présente loi, de payer ou de percevoir des impôts ou autres montants doit tenir des registres et des livres de comptes (y compris un inventaire annuel, selon les modalités réglementaires) à son lieu d’affaires ou de résidence au Canada ou à tout autre lieu que le ministre peut désigner, dans la forme et renfermant les renseignements qui permettent d’établir le montant des impôts payables en vertu de la présente loi, ou des impôts ou autres sommes qui auraient dû être déduites, retenues ou perçues.
[…]	[…]
Definitions	Définitions
231 In sections 231.1 to 231.8,	231 Les définitions qui suivent s’appliquent aux articles 231.1 à 231.8.
*authorized person* means a person authorized by the Minister for the purposes of sections 231.1 to 231.5; (personne autorisée)	[…]
*document* includes money, a security and a record; (document)	*document* Sont compris parmi les documents les registres. Y sont assimilés les titres et les espèces. (document)
[…] *judge* means a judge of a superior court having jurisdiction in the province where the matter arises or a judge of the Federal Court. (juge)	*juge* Juge d’une cour supérieure compétente de la province où l’affaire prend naissance ou juge de la Cour fédérale. (judge)
[…]	[…] *personne autorisée* Personne autorisée par le ministre pour l’application des articles 231.1 à 231.5 (authorized person)
Inspections	Enquêtes
231.1 (1) An authorized person may, at all reasonable times, for any purpose related to the administration or enforcement of this Act,	231.1 (1) Une personne autorisée peut, à tout moment raisonnable, pour l’application et l’exécution de la présente loi, à la fois :
(a) inspect, audit or examine the books and records of a taxpayer and any document of the taxpayer or of any other person that relates or may relate to the information that is or should be in the books or records of the taxpayer or to any amount payable by the taxpayer under this Act, and	a) inspecter, vérifier ou examiner les livres et registres d’un contribuable ainsi que tous documents du contribuable ou d’une autre personne qui se rapportent ou peuvent se rapporter soit aux renseignements qui figurent dans les livres ou registres du contribuable ou qui devraient y figurer, soit à tout montant payable par le contribuable en vertu de la présente loi;
(b) examine property in an inventory of a taxpayer and any property or process of, or matter relating to, the taxpayer or any other person, an examination of which may assist the authorized person in determining the accuracy of the inventory of the taxpayer or in ascertaining the information that is or should be in the books or records of the taxpayer or any amount payable by the taxpayer under this Act,	b) examiner les biens à porter à l’inventaire d’un contribuable, ainsi que tout bien ou tout procédé du contribuable ou d’une autre personne ou toute matière concernant l’un ou l’autre dont l’examen peut aider la personne autorisée à établir l’exactitude de l’inventaire du contribuable ou à contrôler soit les renseignements qui figurent dans les livres ou registres du contribuable ou qui devraient y figurer, soit tout montant payable par le contribuable en vertu de la présente loi;
and for those purposes the authorized person may	à ces fins, la personne autorisée peut :
(c) subject to subsection 231.1(2), enter into any premises or place where any business is carried on, any property is kept, anything is done in connection with any business or any books or records are or should be kept, and	c) sous réserve du paragraphe (2), pénétrer dans un lieu où est exploitée une entreprise, est gardé un bien, est faite une chose en rapport avec une entreprise ou sont tenus ou devraient l’être des livres ou registres;
(d) require the owner or manager of the property or business and any other person on the premises or place to give the authorized person all reasonable assistance and to answer all proper questions relating to the administration or enforcement of this Act and, for that purpose, require the owner or manager to attend at the premises or place with the authorized person.	d) requérir le propriétaire, ou la personne ayant la gestion, du bien ou de l’entreprise ainsi que toute autre personne présente sur les lieux de lui fournir toute l’aide raisonnable et de répondre à toutes les questions pertinentes à l’application et l’exécution de la présente loi et, à cette fin, requérir le propriétaire, ou la personne ayant la gestion, de l’accompagner sur les lieux.
[…]	[…]
Requirement to provide documents or information	Production de documents ou fourniture de renseignements
231.2 (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the Minister may, subject to subsection (2), for any purpose related to the administration or enforcement of this Act (including the collection of any amount payable under this Act by any person), of a listed international agreement or, for greater certainty, of a tax treaty with another country, by notice sent or served in accordance with subsection (1.1), require that any person provide, within such reasonable time as is stipulated in the notice,	231.2 (1) Malgré les autres dispositions de la présente loi, le ministre peut, sous réserve du paragraphe (2) et, pour l’application ou l’exécution de la présente loi (y compris la perception d’un montant payable par une personne en vertu de la présente loi), d’un accord international désigné ou d’un traité fiscal conclu avec un autre pays, par avis signifié ou envoyé conformément au paragraphe (1.1), exiger d’une personne, dans le délai raisonnable que précise l’avis :
(a) any information or additional information, including a return of income or a supplementary return; or	a) qu’elle fournisse tout renseignement ou tout renseignement supplémentaire, y compris une déclaration de revenu ou une déclaration supplémentaire;
(b) any document.	b) qu’elle produise des documents.
Notice	Avis
(1.1) A notice referred to in subsection (1) may be	(1.1) L’avis visé au paragraphe (1) peut être :
(a) served personally;	a) soit signifié à personne;
(b) sent by registered or certified mail; or	b) soit envoyé par courrier recommandé ou certifié;
(c) sent electronically to a bank or credit union that has provided written consent to receive notices under subsection (1) electronically.	c) soit envoyé par voie électronique à une banque ou une caisse de crédit qui a consenti par écrit à recevoir les avis visés au paragraphe (1) par voie électronique.
Unnamed persons	Personnes non désignées nommément
(2) The Minister shall not impose on any person (in this section referred to as a “third party”) a requirement under subsection 231.2(1) to provide information or any document relating to one or more unnamed persons unless the Minister first obtains the authorization of a judge under subsection 231.2(3).	(2) Le ministre ne peut exiger de quiconque — appelé « tiers » au présent article — la fourniture de renseignements ou production de documents prévue au paragraphe (1) concernant une ou plusieurs personnes non désignées nommément, sans y être au préalable autorisé par un juge en vertu du paragraphe (3).
Judicial authorization	Autorisation judiciaire
(3) A judge of the Federal Court may, on application by the Minister and subject to any conditions that the judge considers appropriate, authorize the Minister to impose on a third party a requirement under subsection (1) relating to an unnamed person or more than one unnamed person (in this section referred to as the “group”) if the judge is satisfied by information on oath that	(3) Sur requête du ministre, un juge de la Cour fédérale peut, aux conditions qu’il estime indiquées, autoriser le ministre à exiger d’un tiers la fourniture de renseignements ou la production de documents prévues au paragraphe (1) concernant une personne non désignée nommément ou plus d’une personne non désignée nommément — appelée « groupe » au présent article —, s’il est convaincu, sur dénonciation sous serment, de ce qui suit :
(a) the person or group is ascertainable; and	a) cette personne ou ce groupe est identifiable;
(b) the requirement is made to verify compliance by the person or persons in the group with any duty or obligation under this Act.	b) la fourniture ou la production est exigée pour vérifier si cette personne ou les personnes de ce groupe ont respecté quelque devoir ou obligation prévu par la présente loi;
(c) and (d) [Repealed, 1996, c. 21, s. 58(1)]	c) et d) [Abrogés, 1996, ch. 21, art. 58(1)]
(4) to (6) [Repealed, 2013, c. 33, s. 21]	(4) à (6) [Abrogés, 2013, ch. 33, art. 21]
[…]	[…]
Inquiry	Enquête
231.4 (1) The Minister may, for any purpose related to the administration or enforcement of this Act, authorize any person, whether or not the person is an officer of the Canada Revenue Agency, to make such inquiry as the person may deem necessary with reference to anything relating to the administration or enforcement of this Act.	231.4 (1) Le ministre peut, pour l’application et l’exécution de la présente loi, autoriser une personne, qu’il s’agisse ou non d’un fonctionnaire de l’Agence du revenu du Canada, à faire toute enquête que celle-ci estime nécessaire sur quoi que ce soit qui se rapporte à l’application et l’exécution de la présente loi.
Appointment of hearing officer	Nomination d’un président d’enquête
(2) Where the Minister, pursuant to subsection 231.4(1), authorizes a person to make an inquiry, the Minister shall forthwith apply to the Tax Court of Canada for an order appointing a hearing officer before whom the inquiry will be held.	(2) Le ministre qui, conformément au paragraphe (1), autorise une personne à faire enquête doit immédiatement demander à la Cour canadienne de l’impôt une ordonnance où soit nommé un président d’enquête.
Powers of hearing officer	Pouvoirs du président d’enquête
(3) For the purposes of an inquiry authorized under subsection 231.4(1), a hearing officer appointed under subsection 231.4(2) in relation thereto has all the powers conferred on a commissioner by sections 4 and 5 of the Inquiries Act and that may be conferred on a commissioner under section 11 thereof.	(3) Dans le cadre d’une enquête autorisée par le paragraphe (1), le président d’enquête nommé en vertu du paragraphe (2) a les pouvoirs conférés à un commissaire par les articles 4 et 5 de la Loi sur les enquêtes et ceux qui sont susceptibles de l’être par l’article 11 de cette loi.
When powers to be exercised	Exercice des pouvoirs du président d’enquête
(4) A hearing officer appointed under subsection 231.4(2) in relation to an inquiry shall exercise the powers conferred on a commissioner by section 4 of the Inquiries Act in relation to such persons as the person authorized to make the inquiry considers appropriate for the conduct thereof but the hearing officer shall not exercise the power to punish any person unless, on application by the hearing officer, a judge of a superior or county court certifies that the power may be exercised in the matter disclosed in the application and the applicant has given to the person in respect of whom the applicant proposes to exercise the power 24 hours notice of the hearing of the application or such shorter notice as the judge considers reasonable.	(4) Le président d’enquête nommé en vertu du paragraphe (2) exerce les pouvoirs conférés à un commissaire par l’article 4 de la Loi sur les enquêtes à l’égard des personnes que la personne autorisée à faire enquête considère comme appropriées pour la conduite de celle-ci; toutefois, le président d’enquête ne peut exercer le pouvoir de punir une personne que si, à la requête de celui-ci, un juge d’une cour supérieure ou d’une cour de comté atteste que ce pouvoir peut être exercé dans l’affaire exposée dans la requête et que si le requérant donne à la personne à l’égard de laquelle il se propose d’exercer ce pouvoir avis de l’audition de la requête 24 heures avant ou dans le délai plus court que le juge estime raisonnable.
Rights of witness at inquiry	Droits des témoins à l’enquête
(5) Any person who gives evidence in an inquiry authorized under subsection 231.4(1) is entitled to be represented by counsel and, on request made by the person to the Minister, to receive a transcript of the evidence given by the person.	(5) Quiconque témoigne à une enquête autorisée par le paragraphe (1) a le droit d’être représenté par avocat et, sur demande faite au ministre, de recevoir transcription de sa déposition.
Rights of person whose affairs are investigated	Droits des personnes dont les affaires donnent lieu à enquête
(6) Any person whose affairs are investigated in the course of an inquiry authorized under subsection 231.4(1) is entitled to be present and to be represented by counsel throughout the inquiry unless the hearing officer appointed under subsection 231.4(2) in relation to the inquiry, on application by the Minister or a person giving evidence, orders otherwise in relation to the whole or any part of the inquiry on the ground that the presence of the person and the person’s counsel, or either of them, would be prejudicial to the effective conduct of the inquiry.	(6) Toute personne dont les affaires donnent lieu à une enquête autorisée par le paragraphe (1) a le droit d’être présente et d’être représentée par avocat tout au long de l’enquête, sauf si le président d’enquête nommé en vertu du paragraphe (2) en décide autrement, sur demande du ministre ou d’un témoin, pour tout ou partie de l’enquête, pour le motif que la présence de cette personne et de son avocat ou de l’un d’eux nuirait à la bonne conduite de l’enquête.
Copies	Copies
231.5 (1) Where any document is seized, inspected, audited, examined or provided under any of sections 231.1 to 231.4, the person by whom it is seized, inspected, audited or examined or to whom it is provided or any officer of the Canada Revenue Agency may make, or cause to be made, one or more copies thereof and, in the case of an electronic document, make or cause to be made a print-out of the electronic document, and any document purporting to be certified by the Minister or an authorized person to be a copy of the document, or to be a print-out of an electronic document, made pursuant to this section is evidence of the nature and content of the original document and has the same probative force as the original document would have if it were proven in the ordinary way.	231.5 (1) Lorsque, en vertu de l’un des articles 231.1 à 231.4, des documents font l’objet d’une opération de saisie, d’inspection, de vérification ou d’examen ou sont produits, la personne qui effectue cette opération ou auprès de qui est faite cette production ou tout fonctionnaire de l’Agence du revenu du Canada peut en faire ou en faire faire des copies et, s’il s’agit de documents électroniques, les imprimer ou les faire imprimer. Les documents présentés comme documents que le ministre ou une personne autorisée atteste être des copies des documents, ou des imprimés de documents électroniques, faits conformément au présent article font preuve de la nature et du contenu des documents originaux et ont la même force probante qu’auraient ceux-ci si leur authenticité était prouvée de la façon usuelle.
Compliance	Observation
(2) No person shall, physically or otherwise, interfere with, hinder or molest an official (in this subsection having the meaning assigned by subsection 241(10)) doing anything that the official is authorized to do under this Act or attempt to interfere with, hinder or molest any official doing or prevent or attempt to prevent an official from doing, anything that the official is authorized to do under this Act, and every person shall, unless the person is unable to do so, do everything that the person is required to do by or under subsection (1) or sections 231.1 to 231.4.	(2) Nul ne peut, physiquement ou autrement, entraver, rudoyer ou contrecarrer, ou tenter d’entraver, de rudoyer ou de contrecarrer, un fonctionnaire (cette expression s’entendant, au présent paragraphe, au sens du paragraphe 241(10)) qui fait une chose qu’il est autorisé à faire en vertu de la présente loi, ni empêcher ou tenter d’empêcher un fonctionnaire de faire une telle chose. Quiconque est tenu par le paragraphe (1) ou les articles 231.1 à 231.4 de faire quelque chose doit le faire, sauf impossibilité.
Definition of foreign-based information or document	Sens de renseignement ou document étranger
231.6 (1) For the purposes of this section, foreign-based information or document means any information or document that is available or located outside Canada and that may be relevant to the administration or enforcement of this Act, including the collection of any amount payable under this Act by any person.	231.6 (1) Pour l’application du présent article, un renseignement ou document étranger s’entend d’un renseignement accessible, ou d’un document situé, à l’étranger, qui peut être pris en compte pour l’application ou l’exécution de la présente loi, y compris la perception d’un montant payable par une personne en vertu de la présente loi.
Requirement to provide foreign-based information	Obligation de fournir des renseignements ou documents étrangers
(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the Minister may, by notice sent or served in accordance with subsection (3.1), require that a person resident in Canada or a non-resident person carrying on business in Canada provide any foreign-based information or document.	(2) Malgré les autres dispositions de la présente loi, le ministre peut, par avis signifié ou envoyé conformément au paragraphe (3.1), exiger d’une personne résidant au Canada ou d’une personne n’y résidant pas mais y exploitant une entreprise de fournir des renseignements ou documents étrangers.
Notice	Contenu de l’avis
(3) The notice referred to in subsection 231.6(2) shall set out	(3) L’avis doit :
(a) a reasonable period of time of not less than 90 days for the production of the information or document;	a) indiquer le délai raisonnable, d’au moins 90 jours, dans lequel les renseignements ou documents étrangers doivent être fournis;
(b) a description of the information or document being sought; and	b) décrire les renseignements ou documents étrangers recherchés;
(c) the consequences under subsection 231.6(8) to the person of the failure to provide the information or documents being sought within the period of time set out in the notice.	c) préciser les conséquences prévues au paragraphe (8) du défaut de fournir les renseignements ou documents étrangers recherchés dans le délai ci-dessus.
Notice	Avis
(3.1) A notice referred to in subsection (2) may be	(3.1) L’avis visé au paragraphe (2) peut être :
(a) served personally;	a) soit signifié à personne;
(b) sent by registered or certified mail; or	b) soit envoyé par courrier recommandé ou certifié;
(c) sent electronically to a bank or credit union that has provided written consent to receive notices under subsection (2) electronically.	c) soit envoyé par voie électronique à une banque ou une caisse de crédit qui a consenti par écrit à recevoir les avis visés au paragraphe (2) par voie électronique.
Review of foreign information requirement	Révision par un juge
(4) The person who is sent or served with a notice of a requirement under subsection (2) may, within 90 days after the notice is sent or served, apply to a judge for a review of the requirement.	(4) La personne à qui l’avis est signifié ou envoyé peut, dans les 90 jours suivant la date de signification ou d’envoi, contester, par requête à un juge, la mise en demeure du ministre.
Powers on review	Pouvoirs de révision
(5) On hearing an application under subsection 231.6(4) in respect of a requirement, a judge may	(5) À l’audition de la requête, le juge peut :
(a) confirm the requirement;	a) confirmer la mise en demeure;
(b) vary the requirement as the judge considers appropriate in the circumstances; or	b) modifier la mise en demeure de la façon qu’il estime indiquée dans les circonstances;
(c) set aside the requirement if the judge is satisfied that the requirement is unreasonable.	c) déclarer sans effet la mise en demeure s’il est convaincu que celle-ci est déraisonnable.
Unreasonableness	Précision
(6) For the purposes of paragraph (5)(c), the requirement to provide the information or document shall not be considered to be unreasonable because the information or document is under the control of or available to a non-resident person that is not controlled by the person who is sent or served with the notice of the requirement under subsection (2) if that person is related to the non-resident person.	(6) Pour l’application de l’alinéa (5)c), le fait que des renseignements ou documents étrangers soient accessibles ou situés chez une personne non-résidente qui n’est pas contrôlée par la personne à qui l’avis est signifié ou envoyé, ou soient sous la garde de cette personne non-résidente, ne rend pas déraisonnable la mise en demeure de fournir ces renseignements ou documents, si ces deux personnes sont liées.
[…]	[…]
Compliance order	Ordonnance
231.7 (1) On summary application by the Minister, a judge may, notwithstanding subsection 238(2), order a person to provide any access, assistance, information or document sought by the Minister under section 231.1 or 231.2 if the judge is satisfied that	231.7 (1) Sur demande sommaire du ministre, un juge peut, malgré le paragraphe 238(2), ordonner à une personne de fournir l’accès, l’aide, les renseignements ou les documents que le ministre cherche à obtenir en vertu des articles 231.1 ou 231.2 s’il est convaincu de ce qui suit :
(a) the person was required under section 231.1 or 231.2 to provide the access, assistance, information or document and did not do so; and	a) la personne n’a pas fourni l’accès, l’aide, les renseignements ou les documents bien qu’elle en soit tenue par les articles 231.1 ou 231.2;
(b) in the case of information or a document, the information or document is not protected from disclosure by solicitor-client privilege (within the meaning of subsection 232(1)).	b) s’agissant de renseignements ou de documents, le privilège des communications entre client et avocat, au sens du paragraphe 232(1), ne peut être invoqué à leur égard.
[…]	[…]
Judge may impose conditions	Conditions
(3) A judge making an order under subsection (1) may impose any conditions in respect of the order that the judge considers appropriate.	(3) Le juge peut imposer, à l’égard de l’ordonnance, les conditions qu’il estime indiquées.
[…]	[…]
Definitions	Définitions
232 (1) In this section,	232 (1) Les définitions qui suivent s’appliquent au présent article.
[…] *lawyer* means, in the province of Quebec, an advocate or notary and, in any other province, a barrister or solicitor; (avocat)	*avocat* Dans la province de Québec, un avocat ou notaire et, dans toute autre province, un barrister ou un solicitor. (lawyer)
*officer* means a person acting under the authority conferred by or under sections 231.1 to 231.5; (fonctionnaire)	*fonctionnaire* Personne qui exerce les pouvoirs conférés par les articles 231.1 à 231.5 (officer)
*solicitor-client privilege* means the right, if any, that a person has in a superior court in the province where the matter arises to refuse to disclose an oral or documentary communication on the ground that the communication is one passing between the person and the person’s lawyer in professional confidence, except that for the purposes of this section an accounting record of a lawyer, including any supporting voucher or cheque, shall be deemed not to be such a communication. (privilège des communications entre client et avocat)	[…] privilège des communications entre client et avocat Droit qu’une personne peut posséder, devant une cour supérieure de la province où la question a pris naissance, de refuser de divulguer une communication orale ou documentaire pour le motif que celle-ci est une communication entre elle et son avocat en confidence professionnelle sauf que, pour l’application du présent article, un relevé comptable d’un avocat, y compris toute pièce justificative ou tout chèque, ne peut être considéré comme une communication de cette nature. (solicitor-client privilege)
Solicitor-client privilege defence	Secret professionnel invoqué en défense
(2) Where a lawyer is prosecuted for failure to comply with a requirement under section 231.2 with respect to information or a document, the lawyer shall be acquitted if the lawyer establishes to the satisfaction of the court	(2) L’avocat poursuivi pour n’avoir pas obtempéré à une exigence de fourniture d’un renseignement ou de production d’un document prévue par l’article 231.2 doit être acquitté s’il démontre, à la satisfaction du tribunal, ce qui suit :
(a) that the lawyer, on reasonable grounds, believed that a client of the lawyer had a solicitor-client privilege in respect of the information or document; and	a) pour des motifs raisonnables, il croyait qu’un de ses clients bénéficiait du privilège des communications entre client et avocat en ce qui concerne le renseignement ou le document;
(b) that the lawyer communicated to the Minister, or some person duly authorized to act for the Minister, the lawyer’s refusal to comply with the requirement together with a claim that a named client of the lawyer had a solicitor-client privilege in respect of the information or document.	b) il a indiqué au ministre ou à une personne régulièrement autorisée à agir pour celui-ci son refus d’obtempérer à cette exigence et a invoqué devant l’un ou l’autre le privilège des communications entre client et avocat dont bénéficiait un des ses client nommément désigné en ce qui concerne le renseignement ou le document.
Seizure of certain documents where privilege claimed	Secret professionnel invoqué lors de la saisie de documents
(3) Where, pursuant to section 231.3, an officer is about to seize a document in the possession of a lawyer and the lawyer claims that a named client of the lawyer has a solicitor-client privilege in respect of that document, the officer shall, without inspecting, examining or making copies of the document,	(3) Le fonctionnaire qui, conformément à l’article 231.3, est sur le point de saisir un document en la possession d’un avocat qui invoque le privilège des communications entre client et avocat au nom d’un de ses clients nommément désigné en ce qui concerne ce document doit, sans inspecter ou examiner celui-ci ni en faire de copies :
(a) seize the document and place it, together with any other document in respect of which the lawyer at the same time makes the same claim on behalf of the same client, in a package and suitably seal and identify the package; and	a) d’une part, le saisir, ainsi que tout autre document pour lequel l’avocat invoque, en même temps, le même privilège au nom du même client, en faire un colis qu’il doit bien sceller et bien marquer;
(b) place the package in the custody of the sheriff of the district or county in which the seizure was made or, if the officer and the lawyer agree in writing on a person to act as custodian, in the custody of that person.	b) d’autre part, confier le colis à la garde soit du shérif du district ou du comté où la saisie a été opérée, soit de la personne que le fonctionnaire et l’avocat conviennent par écrit de désigner comme gardien.
Examination of certain documents where privilege claimed	Secret professionnel invoqué lors de l’examen de documents
(3.1) Where, pursuant to section 231.1, an officer is about to inspect or examine a document in the possession of a lawyer or where, pursuant to section 231.2, the Minister has required provision of a document by a lawyer, and the lawyer claims that a named client or former client of the lawyer has a solicitor-client privilege in respect of the document, no officer shall inspect or examine the document and the lawyer shall	(3.1) Lorsque, conformément à l’article 231.1, un fonctionnaire est sur le point d’inspecter ou d’examiner un document en la possession d’un avocat ou que, conformément à l’article 231.2, le ministre exige la fourniture ou la production d’un document, et que l’avocat invoque le privilège des communications entre client et avocat en ce qui concerne le document au nom d’un de ses client ou anciens clients nommément désigné, aucun fonctionnaire ne peut inspecter ou examiner le document et l’avocat doit :
(a) place the document, together with any other document in respect of which the lawyer at the same time makes the same claim on behalf of the same client, in a package and suitably seal and identify the package or, if the officer and the lawyer agree, allow the pages of the document to be initialed and numbered or otherwise suitably identified; and	a) d’une part, faire un colis du document ainsi que de tout autre document pour lequel il invoque, en même temps, le même privilège au nom du même client, bien sceller ce colis et bien le marquer, ou, si le fonctionnaire et l’avocat en conviennent, faire en sorte que les pages du document soient paraphées et numérotées ou autrement bien marquées;
(b) retain it and ensure that it is preserved until it is produced to a judge as required under this section and an order is issued under this section in respect of the document.	b) d’autre part, retenir le document et s’assurer de sa conservation jusqu’à ce que, conformément au présent article, le document soit produit devant un juge et une ordonnance rendue concernant le document.
Application to judge	Requête présentée par l’avocat ou son client
(4) Where a document has been seized and placed in custody under subsection 232(3) or is being retained under subsection 232(3.1), the client, or the lawyer on behalf of the client, may	(4) En cas de saisie et mise sous garde d’un document en vertu du paragraphe (3) ou de rétention d’un document en vertu du paragraphe (3.1), le client ou l’avocat au nom de celui-ci peut :
(a) within 14 days after the day the document was so placed in custody or commenced to be so retained apply, on three clear days notice of motion to the Deputy Attorney General of Canada, to a judge for an order	a) dans les 14 jours suivant la date où le document a ainsi été mis sous garde ou a ainsi commencé à être retenu, après avis au sous-procureur général du Canada au moins trois jours francs avant qu’il soit procédé à cette requête, demander à un juge de rendre une ordonnance qui :
(i) fixing a day, not later than 21 days after the date of the order, and place for the determination of the question whether the client has a solicitor-client privilege in respect of the document, and	(i) d’une part, fixe la date — tombant au plus 21 jours après la date de l’ordonnance — et le lieu où il sera statué sur la question de savoir si le client bénéficie du privilège des communications entre client et avocat en ce qui concerne le document,
[…]	[…]
Disposition of application	Ordonnance sur requête de l’avocat ou de son client
(5) An application under paragraph 232(4)(c) shall be heard in camera, and on the application	(5) Une requête présentée en vertu de l’alinéa (4)c) doit être entendue à huis clos. Le juge qui en est saisi :
(a) the judge may, if the judge considers it necessary to determine the question, inspect the document and, if the judge does so, the judge shall ensure that it is repackaged and resealed; and	a) peut, s’il l’estime nécessaire pour statuer sur la question, examiner le document et, dans ce cas, s’assure ensuite qu’un colis du document soit refait et que ce colis soit rescellé;
(b) the judge shall decide the matter summarily and,	b) statue sur la question de façon sommaire :
(i) if the judge is of the opinion that the client has a solicitor-client privilege in respect of the document, shall order the release of the document to the lawyer, and	(i) s’il est d’avis que le client bénéficie du privilège des communications entre client et avocat en ce qui concerne le document, il ordonne la restitution du document à l’avocat ou libère l’avocat de son obligation de le retenir, selon le cas,
(ii) if the judge is of the opinion that the client does not have a solicitor-client privilege in respect of the document, shall order	(ii) s’il est de l’avis contraire, il ordonne :
(A) that the custodian deliver the document to the officer or some other person designated by the Commissioner of Revenue, in the case of a document that was seized and placed in custody under subsection 232(3), or	(A) au gardien de remettre le document au fonctionnaire ou à quelque autre personne désignée par le commissaire du revenu, en cas de saisie et mise sous garde du document en vertu du paragraphe (3),
(B) that the lawyer make the document available for inspection or examination by the officer or other person designated by the Commissioner of Revenue, in the case of a document that was retained under subsection 232(3.1),	(B) à l’avocat de permettre au fonctionnaire ou à l’autre personne désignée par le commissaire du revenu d’inspecter ou examiner le document, en cas de rétention de celui-ci en vertu du paragraphe (3.1).
and the judge shall, at the same time, deliver concise reasons in which the judge shall identify the document without divulging the details thereof.	Le juge motive brièvement sa décision en indiquant de quel document il s’agit sans en révéler les détails.
[…]	[…]
Idem	Idem
(12) No officer shall inspect, examine or seize a document in the possession of a lawyer without giving the lawyer a reasonable opportunity of making a claim under this section.	(12) Aucun fonctionnaire ne peut inspecter, examiner ou saisir un document en la possession d’un avocat sans donner à celui-ci une occasion raisonnable d’invoquer le privilège des communications entre client et avocat en vertu de présent article.

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:

A-230-21

STYLE OF CAUSE:

DAVID RANDALL MILLER v. MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE

PLACE OF HEARING:

Toronto, Ontario

DATE OF HEARING:

May 11, 2022

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:

GLEASON J.A.

CONCURRED IN BY:

MACTAVISH J.A.

ROUSSEL J.A.

DATED:

OCTOBER 31, 2022

APPEARANCES:

Thang Trieu

Salvatore Mirandola

For The Appellant

Montano Cabezas

For The Respondent

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

KPMG Law LLP

Toronto, Ontario

For The Appellant

A. François Daigle

Deputy Attorney General of Canada

For The Respondenta

You are here

Miller v. Canada (National Revenue), 2022 FCA 183

Citations2022 FCA 183

Case tabs

I. Relevant Statutory Provisions

II. Order and Reasons of the Federal Court

III. Analysis

A. Matters Not in Dispute

B. Points in Issue

(1) What Does Cameco Decide?

(2) Text, Context and Purpose of the Relevant Provisions in the ITA

(a) Text

(b) Context

(c) Purpose

(3) Additional Errors Alleged by the Appellant

IV. Proposed Disposition

Citations
2022 FCA 183