Azouz v. Canada (Procureur général), (2000) 195 F.T.R. 1 (TD)

• Judge: Blais, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: April 06, 2000
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2000), 195 F.T.R. 1 (TD)

Azouz v. Can. (P.g.) (2000), 195 F.T.R. 1 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Temp. Cite: [2000] F.T.R. TBEd. MY.045

Gabriel Azouz (demandeur) v. Le Procureur Général du Canada (défendeur)

(T-34-99)

Indexed As: Azouz v. Canada (Procureur général)

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Blais, J.

April 17, 2000.

Summary:

Azouz applied for judicial review to quash a request for information by Revenue Can­ada to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service. The Crown moved for leave to file four supplementary affidavits.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, dismissed the motion.

Administrative Law - Topic 3345

Judicial review - Practice - Affidavit evi­dence - In January 1999, Azouz applied for judicial review to quash a request for information by Revenue Canada to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service - The Crown applied for leave to file four sup­plementary affidavits related to a Decem­ber 1999 meeting between Azouz's tax consultant and a Crown representative - Azouz argued that the affidavits were inadmissible because, inter alia, the con­sultant was discussing settlement and dis­closed some information in a confiden­tial context - The meeting took place in the absence of counsel for both parties - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, refused to admit the affidavits - The con­sultant could reasonably have believed that the information conveyed would be con­sidered confidential - Further, the affidavits related to events that occurred subsequent to the filing of the application for judicial review and were irrelevant to the decision sought to be reviewed.

Administrative Law - Topic 3345.1

Judicial review - Practice - Evidence (incl. new evidence) - [See Administra­tive Law - Topic 3345 ].

Evidence - Topic 4166

Witnesses - Privilege - Communications - General - Offers of settlement or settle­ment negotiations - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3345 ].

Cases Noticed:

Home Juice Co. v. Orange Maison ltée, [1968] 1 Ex. C.R. 163, refd to. [para. 12].

Andres Wines Ltd. v. Canadian Marketing International Ltd. (1986), 2 F.T.R. 292 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 13].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Sopinka, John, Lederman, Sydney N., and Bryant, Alan W., The Law of Evidence in Canada (1992), pp. 719-734 [para. 18].

Counsel:

Michel Matthieu, for the applicant;

Maria Grazia Bittichesu, for the respon­dent.

Solicitors of Record:

Sweibel Novek, Montreal, Quebec, for the applicant;

Morris Rosenberg, Deputy Attorney Gen­eral of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.

This motion was heard at Montreal, Que­bec, on April 6, 2000, by Blais, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following decision on April 17, 2000, at Vancouver, British Col­umbia.