This motion dealt with the scope of documentary discovery in a case involving the Banyan Tree tax donation scheme. The taxpayer seems to be well funded.
On this motion for enhanced disclosure, Justice Jorre lists the factors to consider in ordering disclosure without redactions. Among the interesting passages are these:
“[22] . . . 1. The examining party is entitled to “any information, and production of any documents, that may fairly lead to a train of inquiry that may directly or indirectly advance his case, or damage that of the opposing party”: Teelucksingh v. The Queen.
“2. The court should preclude only questions that are “(1) clearly abusive; (2) clearly a delaying tactic; or (3) clearly irrelevant”: John Fluevog Boots & Shoes Ltd. v. The Queen.
“15 Finally in the recent decision of 4145356 Canada Limited v. The Queen I [i.e., Campbell Miller] concluded:
“(a) Documents that lead to an assessment are relevant;
“[26] In section 241 of the Act, Parliament has clearly expressed a strong policy protecting privacy in income tax matters. However, paragraph 241(3)(b) clearly allows for the production of evidence in “any legal proceedings relating to the administration or enforcement of” the Act.
“[27] Accordingly, while the privacy of tax information is, of course, an important consideration, section 241 has no direct application here.
“[37] I think it is also important to bear in mind that much of the knowledge of what is at stake in this appeal is in the hands of third parties and some of those parties are offshore. While that does not change the appellant’s general onus, it also militates in favour of the appellant having access to all of the Minister’s knowledge and documentation relevant to the case.”
Dominion Nickel Investments Ltd v. The Queen, 2015 TCC 14 (Jorre)