Canada (National Revenue) v. Thompson, [2016] 1 SCR 381

JurisdictionFederal Jurisdiction (Canada)
JudgeMcLachlin, Beverley; Abella, Rosalie Silberman; Rothstein, Marshall; Cromwell, Thomas Albert; Karakatsanis, Andromache; Wagner, Richard; Gascon, Clément
Citation[2016] 1 SCR 381,2016 SCC 21
Docket Number35590
CourtSupreme Court (Canada)
Date03 June 2016
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex
28 practice notes
  • Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner) v. University of Calgary, 2016 SCC 53
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court (Canada)
    • 25 Noviembre 2016
    ...& Heintz v. Canada (Attorney General), 2002 SCC 61 , [2002] 3 S.C.R. 209 ; Canada (National Revenue) v. Thompson, 2016 SCC 21 , [2016] 1 S.C.R. 381; Canadian National Railway Co. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2014 SCC 40 , [2014] 2 S.C.R. 135 ; Legal Services Society v. British Col......
  • Canada (Attorney General) v. Chambre des notaires du Québec, 2016 SCC 20
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court (Canada)
    • 3 Junio 2016
    ...Inc., [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; R. v. Cunningham, 2010 SCC 10, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 331; Canada (National Revenue) v. Thompson, 2016 SCC 21, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 381; Organic Research Inc. v. Minister of National Revenue (1990), 111 A.R. 336; Pritchard v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission), 2004 SCC 31, [2......
  • Lizotte v. Aviva Insurance Company of Canada, 2016 SCC 52
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court (Canada)
    • 25 Noviembre 2016
    ...v. Keable, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 60; R. v. McClure, 2001 SCC 14, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 445; Canada (National Revenue) v. Thompson, 2016 SCC 21, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 381; Penetanguishene Mental Health Centre v. Ontario, 2010 ONCA 197, 260 O.A.C. 125; Slocan Forest Products Ltd. v. Trapper Enterprises Ltd., 2......
  • Ontario Court Of Appeal Summaries (June 12 – 16, 2017)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • 30 Junio 2017
    ...in Blank v. Canada (Minister of Justice), 2006 SCC 39, [2006] 2 S.C.R. 319, and Minister of National Revenue v. Thompson, 2016 SCC 21, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 381, said the Court stated that it was not a reversible error for the Divisional Court to identify one way in which solicitor-client privile......
  • Get Started for Free
26 cases
  • Canada (Attorney General) v. Chambre des notaires du Québec, 2016 SCC 20
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court (Canada)
    • 3 Junio 2016
    ...Inc., [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; R. v. Cunningham, 2010 SCC 10, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 331; Canada (National Revenue) v. Thompson, 2016 SCC 21, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 381; Organic Research Inc. v. Minister of National Revenue (1990), 111 A.R. 336; Pritchard v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission), 2004 SCC 31, [2......
  • Lizotte v. Aviva Insurance Company of Canada, 2016 SCC 52
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court (Canada)
    • 25 Noviembre 2016
    ...v. Keable, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 60; R. v. McClure, 2001 SCC 14, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 445; Canada (National Revenue) v. Thompson, 2016 SCC 21, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 381; Penetanguishene Mental Health Centre v. Ontario, 2010 ONCA 197, 260 O.A.C. 125; Slocan Forest Products Ltd. v. Trapper Enterprises Ltd., 2......
  • Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner) v. University of Calgary, 2016 SCC 53
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court (Canada)
    • 25 Noviembre 2016
    ...& Heintz v. Canada (Attorney General), 2002 SCC 61 , [2002] 3 S.C.R. 209 ; Canada (National Revenue) v. Thompson, 2016 SCC 21 , [2016] 1 S.C.R. 381; Canadian National Railway Co. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2014 SCC 40 , [2014] 2 S.C.R. 135 ; Legal Services Society v. British Col......
  • Algarawi v. Berger; and Porter v. Sutandar,
    • Canada
    • Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
    • 17 Abril 2023
    ...v. Aviva Insurance Company of Canada, 2016 SCC 52, [2016] 2 S.C.R. 521 at para. 5; Canada (National Revenue) v. Thompson, 2016 SCC 21, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 381 at para. 26. [27] Lizotte, at para. 5. [28] Canada (National Revenue) v. Thompson, 2016 SCC 21, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 381. [29] Rizzo & Ri......
  • Get Started for Free
2 firm's commentaries
  • Ontario Court Of Appeal Summaries (June 12 – 16, 2017)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • 30 Junio 2017
    ...in Blank v. Canada (Minister of Justice), 2006 SCC 39, [2006] 2 S.C.R. 319, and Minister of National Revenue v. Thompson, 2016 SCC 21, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 381, said the Court stated that it was not a reversible error for the Divisional Court to identify one way in which solicitor-client privile......
  • Reinforcing The Primacy Of Privilege
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • 27 Septiembre 2017
    ...des notaires du Quebec, 2016 SCC 20, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 336 ["Chambre des notaires"]; Canada (National Revenue) v. Thompson, 2016 SCC 21, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 381 ["Thompson"]. M. (A.) v. Ryan, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 157, at para. 19, citing Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40 (1980), at p. 50; see also......