Baron et al. v. Minister of National Revenue et al.,

• Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction (Canada)
• Judge: La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Cory, McLachlin, Stevenson and Iacobucci, JJ.
• Citation: (1993), 146 N.R. 270 (SCC),[1993] 1 SCR 416,93 DTC 5018,1993 CanLII 154 (SCC),99 DLR (4th) 350,18 CR (4th) 374,78 CCC (3d) 510,146 NR 270,[1993] 1 CTC 111,JE 93-242,[1993] FCJ No 6 (QL),[1993] SCJ No 6 (QL),13 CRR (2d) 65,18 WCB (2d) 355,[1993] ACS no 6,37 ACWS (3d) 1297,47 DTC 5018
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Date: 21 January 1993

Baron v. MNR (1993), 146 N.R. 270 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

R. and Attorney General of Canada and the Honourable Otto Jelinek in his capacity as Minister of National Revenue (appellants) v. Berl Baron and Howard Baron, C.A. (respondents) and Attorney General for Ontario and Attorney General for Quebec (interveners)

(22298)

Indexed As: Baron et al. v. Minister of National Revenue et al.

Supreme Court of Canada

La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Cory, McLachlin, Stevenson and Iacobucci, JJ.

January 21, 1993.

Summary:

The plaintiffs brought an action challeng­ing the constitutional validity of the search and seizure provisions set out in s. 231.3 of the Income Tax Act, S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 63, and the validity of certain search war­rants issued thereunder.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, in a judgment reported [1990] F.C. 262; 30 F.T.R. 188; [1990] 1 C.T.C. 84; 90 D.T.C. 6040, dismissed the plaintiffs' action. They appealed.

The Federal Court of Appeal, in a judg­ment reported [1991] 1 F.C. 688; 122 N.R. 47; [1991] 1 C.T.C. 125; 91 D.T.C. 5055, allowed the appeal, set aside the decision of the Trial Division, quashed the search war­rants and ordered the return of everything seized thereunder. The court also declared s. 231.3 of the Income Tax Act to be of no force and effect, because it was contrary to ss. 7 and 8 of the Charter. The Ministers appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal and affirmed that the removal of the constitutionally required residual discre­tion of the issuing judge by s. 231.3 violated s. 8 of the Charter.

Civil Rights - Topic 1603

Property - Search warrants - Judicial discretion to refuse to issue warrant or add conditions - The Income Tax Act, s. 231.3(3), provided that a judge "shall" issue a search warrant in certain situations - The Supreme Court of Canada construed "shall" as mandatory and that, accordingly, s. 231.3(3) specifically excluded a judge's residual discretion to issue a warrant, which violated s. 8 of the Charter and rendered the section invalid - See para­graphs 24 to 42.

Civil Rights - Topic 1604

Property - Search warrants - Validity of - [See Civil Rights - Topics 1603 and 1607].

Civil Rights - Topic 1607

Property - Search warrants - Standard for authorization - The Income Tax Act, s. 231.3(3), authorized a judge to issue a search warrant "on reasonable grounds" - The Supreme Court of Canada equated "reasonable grounds" and "reasonable and probable grounds" and held that the stan­dard of "reasonable grounds" did not vio­late s. 8 of the Charter - See paragraphs 43 to 45 - Further, the court held that the standard of discovery in s. 231.3(3)(b) of where something which "may afford evi­dence ... is likely to be found" did not violate s. 8, nor did s. 231.3(5) authorize wholesale search and seizure contrary to s. 8 in authorizing the seizure of items other than those listed in the warrant - See paragraphs 46 to 54.

Civil Rights - Topic 1646

Property - Search and seizure - Unrea­sonable search and seizure - Defined - [See Civil Rights - Topics 1603 and 1607].

Income Tax - Topic 9302

Enforcement - Search and seizure - Search warrants - [See Civil Rights - Topics 1603 and 1607].

Statutes - Topic 2417

Interpretation - "May" and "shall" - The Income Tax Act, s. 231.3(3), provided that a judge "shall" issue a search warrant in certain situations - The Supreme Court of Canada construed "shall" as mandatory - See paragraphs 31 to 36.

Cases Noticed:

Baron v. Canada, [1991] 1 F.C. 688; [1991] 1 C.T.C. 125; 122 N.R. 47; 91 D.T.C. 5055, consd. [para. 9].

Solvent Petroleum Extraction Inc. v. Min­ister of National Revenue, [1990] 1 F.C. 20; 99 N.R. 22; 89 D.T.C. 5381 (C.A.), affing. [1988] 3 F.C. 465 (leave to appeal refused), [1989] 2 S.C.R. xi, disapprvd. [paras. 13, 23].

Kourtessis v. Minister of National Revenue (1989), 39 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

Southam Inc. v. Hunter, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291; [1984] 6 W.W.R. 577; 11 D.L.R.(4th) 641; 14 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 41 C.R.(3d) 97; 9 C.R.R. 355; 33 Alta. L.R.(2d) 193; 27 B.L.R. 297; 84 D.T.C. 6467; 2 C.P.R.(3d) 1, consd. [para. 13].

Kruger Inc. v. Minister of National Reve­nue, [1984] 2 F.C. 535; 55 N.R. 255, consd. [para. 14].

R. v. Simmons, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 495; 89 N.R. 1; 30 O.A.C. 241, consd. [para. 15].

R. v. McKinlay Transport Ltd. and C.T. Transport Inc., [1990] 1 S.C.R. 627; 106 N.R. 385; 39 O.A.C. 385, consd. [paras. 17, 37].

Descôteaux v. Mierzwinski, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 860; 44 N.R. 462, consd. [para. 18].

R. v. Print Three Inc., Laserdata Technol­ogy Inc. and Benquesus (1985), 10 O.A.C. 220; 20 C.C.C.(3d) 392, leave to appeal refused, [1985] 2 S.C.R. x, consd. [paras. 21, 52].

Kohli v. Moase et al. (1987), 86 N.B.R.(2d) 15; 219 A.P.R. 15; 219 A.P.R. 15; affd. 93 N.B.R.(2d) 426; 238 A.P.R. 426; 55 D.L.R.(4th) 740, disapprvd. [para. 23].

Société Radio-Canada c. Lessard, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 421; 130 N.R. 321; 43 Q.A.C. 161, consd. [para. 28].

Société Radio-Canada c. Nouveau-Bruns­wick (Procureur général) et autres, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 459; 130 N.R. 362; 119 N.B.R.(2d) 271; 300 A.P.R. 271, consd. [paras. 28, 40].

R. v. Thompson et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1111; 114 N.R. 1, consd. [para. 29].

Minister of National Revenue v. Paroian, [1980] C.T.C. 131, consd. [para. 30].

Selye v. Quebec, [1982] R.D.F.Q. 173, consd. [para. 30].

Beauregard v. Canada, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 56; 70 N.R. 1, consd. [para. 30].

Reference Re Manitoba Language Rights, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 721; 59 N.R. 321; 35 Man.R.(2d) 83, consd. [para. 32].

R. v. Wholesale Travel Group Inc. and Chedore, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 154; 130 N.R. 1; 49 O.A.C. 161, consd. [para. 38].

Thomson Newspapers Ltd. v. Director of Investigation and Research, Combines Investigation Act, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 425; 106 N.R. 161; 39 O.A.C. 161, consd. [para. 38].

R. v. Rao (1984), 4 O.A.C. 162; 12 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 9 D.L.R.(4th) 542; 46 O.R.(2d) 80; 40 C.R.(3d) 1, leave to appeal refused, [1984] 2 S.C.R. ix, consd. [para. 44].

R. v. Debot, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1140; 102 N.R. 161; 37 O.A.C. 1; 52 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 73 C.R.(3d) 129, affing. 30 C.C.C.(3d) 207, consd. [para. 45].

Goguen et al. v. Shannon and Murphy (1989), 97 N.B.R.(2d) 44; 245 A.P.R. 44; 50 C.C.C.(3d) 45, dist. [para. 49].

Nima v. McInnes (1988), 45 C.C.C.(3d) 419, dist. [para. 49].

Wiens v. R. (1973), 24 C.R.N.S. 341, consd. [para. 51].

R. v. Burnett, [1985] 2 C.T.C. 227, consd. [para. 52].

Danson v. Ontario (Attorney General), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1086; 112 N.R. 362; 41 O.A.C. 250, consd. [para. 54].

MacKay et al. v. Manitoba, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 357; 99 N.R. 116; 61 Man.R.(2d) 270, consd. [para. 54].

R. v. Videoflicks Ltd. et al., [1986] 2 S.C.R. 713; 71 N.R. 161; 19 O.A.C. 239; 30 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 55 C.R.(3d) 193; 35 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 28 C.R.R. 1, consd. [para. 54].

R. v. Edwards Books and Art Ltd. - see R. v. Videoflicks Ltd.

Davidson v. Slaight Communications Inc., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1038; 93 N.R. 183; 59 D.L.R.(4th) 416, consd. [para. 54].

Osborne, Millar and Barnhart et al. v. Canada (Treasury Board), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 69; 125 N.R. 241, consd. [para. 57].

Schachter v. Canada, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 679; 139 N.R. 1, consd. [para. 57].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 8 [para. 12].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 487 [para. 43].

Income Tax Act, S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 63, sect. 231.3 [para. 11].

Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-21, sect. 11 [para. 31].

Counsel:

John R. Power, Q.C., Pierre Loiselle, Q.C., and Robert Frater, for the appellants;

Guy Dupont, Basile Angelopoulos and Ariane Bourque, for the respondents;

Janet E. Minor and Tanya Lee, for the intervener, Attorney General of Ontario;

Yves Ouellette, Judith Kucharsky and Diane Bouchard, for the intervener, Attorney General of Quebec.

Solicitors of Record:

John C. Tait, Q.C., Deputy Attorney Gen­eral of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the appellants;

Phillips & Vineberg, Montreal, Quebec, for the respondents;

Attorney General for Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, Attorney General for Ontario;

Attorney General of Quebec, Montreal, Quebec, for the intervener, Attorney General of Quebec.

This case was heard on February 6, 1992, at Ottawa, Ontario, before La Forest, L'Heu­reux-Dubé, Sopinka, Cory, McLachlin, Stevenson and Iacobucci, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On January 21, 1993, Sopinka, J., delivered the following judgment for the court in both official languages. (Stevenson, J., took no part in the judgment).