CRA investigated Mr. Taylor for criminal tax evasion but didn’t lay charges. The case involved business and employment expenses, loans and embezzlement. After 3 years of negotiations, Mr. Taylor, eager to have “the matter concluded quickly” signed a waiver of his appeal rights in exchange for CRA’s agreeing to remove gross negligence penalties. Within days of signing his waiver, Mr. Taylor wrote the CRA that it was invalid “because he was under extreme duress at the meeting and he had not been able to obtain legal advice.” (Para. 36, Taylor v. The Queen, (2010 TCC Woods J.))
Mr. Taylor did appeal to the TCC and the parties agreed to ask the court to decide whether, as a matter of law, Mr. Taylor could deny the agreement with CRA on the basis that it had been extracted from him under undue pressure. Justice Woods didn’t believe Mr. Taylor; she noted that he had experienced legal advice and months to think about CRA’s offer.
Noting that the context of the meeting was important, Justice Woods said:
[60] First, I conclude that the agreement was freely made. Mr. Taylor understood what he was agreeing to, and he had ample opportunity to consider his options and consult with his lawyer prior to the meeting. …
[61] I also find that Mr. Taylor was not unduly pressured into making the settlement. Pressure was exerted, but it was not undue.
She rejected other complaints Mr. Taylor’s lawyers raised. They appealed to the FCA, which dismissed the appeal. Next, they sought “leave” (permission) to appeal to the SCC; a panel of three SCC judges refused to hear the appeal. So, Mr. Taylor must accept the deal he made.