Sherman v. Canada (Ministre du revenu national), 2003 CAF 202 (2003)
Linked as:
Extract
Sherman v. Canada (Ministre du revenu national), 2003 CAF 202 (2003)
Date: 20030506
Docket: A-387-02Neutral citation: 2003 FCA 202CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A.LÉTOURNEAU J.A.EVANS J.A.BETWEEN:DAVID M. SHERMANAppellantandTHE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUERespondentHeard at Toronto, Ontario, on February 18, 2003.Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on May 6, 2003.REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.CONCURRED IN BY: DESJARDINS J.A.EVANS J.A.Date: 20030506Docket: A-387-02Neutral citation: 2003 FCA 202CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A.LÉTOURNEAU J.A.EVANS J.A.BETWEEN:DAVID M. SHERMANAppellantandTHE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUERespondentREASONS FOR JUDGMENTLÉTOURNEAU J.A.[1] This appeal raises a question of public and governmental interest and concern: to what extent, pursuant to paragraph 13(1)( a ) of the Access to Information Act , R.S.C. 1985, c. A-1 (Act) and clause 1 of Article XXVII relating to Article XXVIA of the Protocol amending the Convention Between Canada and the United States of America with respect to Taxes on Income and on Capital (Convention), can the minister of National Revenue (minister) deny the appellant access to information in the hands of Revenue Canada relating to tax collection assistance sought from and provided to the U.S. Internal Revenue Services (IRS)? At issue is the scope of the respondent's right under paragraph 13(1)( a ) of the Act to refuse access to information obtained in confidence from the IRS. Clause 1 of Article XXVII is relevant to the interpretation of paragraph 13(1)( a ) as it determines the conditions under which information exchanged under the Convention is confidential. The Convention and the amending Protocol were implemented respectively by an act known as the Canada-United States Tax Convention Act, 1984 , S.C. 1984, c. 20 and an Act to amend the Canada-United States Tax Convention Act, 1984 , S.C. 1995, c. 34.[2] I should state at the outset that my assessment of the issue raised by this appeal has been made more difficult, and has been somewhat hampered, by the fact that the material to which the appellant seeks access has not been filed with us in confidential form as a result of a misunderstanding. It remains possible, however, to review the decision under appeal and to determine under paragraph 13(1)( a ) of the Act the principles governing disclosure of information obtained pursuant to the Convention. Without indulging in speculation, it may be possible to apply these principles to some of the requests made by the appellant.[3] I should als...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
