International Relief Fund for the Afflicted and Needy (Canada) v. Minister of National Revenue, 2013 FCA 178

Judge:Stratas, J.A.
Court:Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
Case Date:July 04, 2013
Jurisdiction:Canada (Federal)
Citations:2013 FCA 178;(2013), 449 N.R. 95 (FCA)
 
FREE EXCERPT

Intl. Relief Fund v. MNR (2013), 449 N.R. 95 (FCA)

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: [2013] N.R. TBEd. OC.001

International Relief Fund for the Afflicted and Needy (Canada) (appellant) v. Minister of National Revenue (respondent)

(A-20-13; 2013 FCA 178; 2013 CAF 178)

Indexed As: International Relief Fund for the Afflicted and Needy (Canada) v. Minister of National Revenue

Federal Court of Appeal

Stratas, J.A.

July 5, 2013.

Summary:

The International Relief Fund for the Afflicted and Needy (IRFAN) was a registered charity. In December 2012, the Minister of National Revenue issued a Notice of Confirmation of her decision to revoke the registration. IRFAN applied for an administrative law review, arguing that the Minister's decision was unreasonable, procedurally unfair, and a violation of IRFAN's ss. 2 and 15 Charter rights. IRFAN moved to introduce as fresh evidence several documents, some of which post-dated the December 2012 Notice.

The Federal Court of Appeal, per Stratas, J.A., dismissed the motion.

Administrative Law - Topic 2100.1

Natural justice - Constitution of board or tribunal (considerations incl. bias) - Evidence and proof - [See second Administrative Law - Topic 3345.1 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 2266

Natural justice - The duty of fairness - What constitutes procedural fairness - [See Administrative Law - Topic 9119 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 3345.1

Judicial review - General - Practice - Evidence (incl. new evidence) - The International Relief Fund for the Afflicted and Needy (IRFAN) was a registered charity - In December 2012, the Minister of National Revenue issued a Notice of Confirmation of her decision to revoke the registration - IRFAN applied for a review, arguing that the Minister's decision was unreasonable, procedurally unfair, and a violation of IRFAN's ss. 2 and 15 Charter rights - IRFAN moved to introduce fresh evidence, including materials that were available to IRFAN before the December 2012 Notice - The Federal Court of Appeal, per Stratas, J.A., held that these materials were not admissible - The Minister had shown a willingness and flexibility in receiving further information and submissions before she decided the matter in December 2012 - With diligence, IRFAN could have provided this material to the Minister before she issued the notice - See paragraphs 11 to 16.

Administrative Law - Topic 3345.1

Judicial review - General - Practice - Evidence (incl. new evidence) - The International Relief Fund for the Afflicted and Needy (IRFAN) was a registered charity - In December 2012, the Minister of National Revenue issued a Notice of Confirmation of her decision to revoke the registration - IRFAN applied for a review, arguing that the Minister's decision was unreasonable, procedurally unfair, and a violation of IRFAN's ss. 2 and 15 Charter rights - IRFAN moved to introduce fresh evidence, including news reports that became available after the December 2012 Notice - IRFAN submitted that the news reports showed that the Minister was biased - The Federal Court of Appeal, per Stratas, J.A., held that the news reports were inadmissible - IRFAN had not raised the allegations of bias at the earliest possible opportunity - IRFAN knew many of the facts that it now sought to put before the court in support of a claim of bias, and could have clearly raised bias before the Notice was issued - In its October 2012 submissions, IRFAN asserted some limited facts that could demonstrate a certain mindset on the part of some government officials, but that was not an allegation of bias - Further, IRFAN had not demonstrated that the reports were relevant or material - The reports tended to show the state of international relations at the time they were written, which was after the December 2012 Notice - They did not speak to the apparent orientation of the Minister when she issued the Notice - See paragraphs 17 to 24.

Administrative Law - Topic 3345.1

Judicial review - General - Practice - Evidence (incl. new evidence) - The International Relief Fund for the Afflicted and Needy (IRFAN) was a registered charity - In December 2012, the Minister of National Revenue issued a Notice of Confirmation of her decision to revoke the registration - IRFAN applied for a review, arguing that the Minister's decision was unreasonable, procedurally unfair, and a violation of IRFAN's ss. 2 and 15 Charter rights - IRFAN moved to introduce fresh evidence, including documents that post-dated the December 2012 Notice and pertained to a book that was said to be defamatory - The Federal Court of Appeal, per Stratas, J.A., held that the documents were inadmissible - They had no bearing on the legality of the Minister's decision and did not affect the question of whether the Minister had sufficient material before her to make a decision within a range of reasonable outcomes - The attempt to adduce these materials appeared to be an attempt to introduce more information of the sort that was already before the Minister when she made her decision - The documents had no relevance to IRFAN's other grounds for review - See paragraphs 25 to 28.

Administrative Law - Topic 3345.1

Judicial review - General - Practice - Evidence (incl. new evidence) - The International Relief Fund for the Afflicted and Needy (IRFAN) was a registered charity - In December 2012, the Minister of National Revenue issued a Notice of Confirmation of her decision to revoke the registration - IRFAN applied for a review, arguing that the Minister's decision was unreasonable, procedurally unfair, and a violation of IRFAN's ss. 2 and 15 Charter rights - IRFAN submitted that the Minister's allegations that it was associated with a certain terrorist group caused it harm, such as the termination of its banking privileges, effects on its finances, and the termination of its involvement in the "Reviving the Islamic Spirit" event - IRFAN moved to introduce as fresh evidence documents that post-dated the December 2012 Notice, including (1) documents relating to bank termination notices; (2) documents relating to IRFAN's 2012 finances; and (3) documents concerning the "Reviving the Islamic Spirit" event - The Federal Court of Appeal, per Stratas, J.A., held that the documents were inadmissible - The documents had no bearing on whether the Minister made a reasonable decision, committed procedural unfairness, was biased, or violated IRFAN's Charter rights - The evidence showed that although the Minister alleged that IRFAN was associated with a terrorist group, she had not disseminated those allegations to anyone but IRFAN for the purpose of obtaining IRFAN's evidence and submissions on the matter - The Notice did not refer to the allegations - The mere making of allegations was not a decision susceptible to review under the Federal Courts Act - Only the legality of the Notice was before the court in this review - The effects of the allegations were irrelevant to the analysis of the legality of the Notice and the reasonableness of the Minister's decision - Either the Minister had sufficient material before her to make a decision within a range of reasonable outcomes, or she did not - See paragraphs 34 to 48.

Administrative Law - Topic 3345.2

Judicial review - General - Practice - Issues not raised before tribunal - [See second Administrative Law - Topic 3345.1 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 3357

Judicial review - General - Practice - Interlocutory proceedings - The International Relief Fund for the Afflicted and Needy (IRFAN) was a registered charity - In 2012, the Minister of National Revenue issued a Notice of Confirmation of her decision to revoke the registration - IRFAN applied for an administrative law review, arguing that the Minister's decision was unreasonable, procedurally unfair, and a violation of IRFAN's ss. 2 and 15 Charter rights - IRFAN moved to introduce fresh evidence - A question arose as to whether the motion should be determined now or deferred to the panel hearing the merits of the review - The Federal Court of Appeal, per Stratas, J.A., held that the motion could be determined at this time - It raised questions that were clear cut and non-discretionary - Resolving them now would allow the hearing to proceed in a more timely, orderly and efficient way - See paragraphs 6 to 8.

Administrative Law - Topic 9119

Boards and tribunals - Judicial review - Material required to be produced on review - The International Relief Fund for the Afflicted and Needy (IRFAN) was a registered charity - In December 2012, the Minister of National Revenue issued a Notice of Confirmation of her decision to revoke the registration - When making her decision, the Minister had certain Access to Information documents in redacted form - IRFAN applied for a review, arguing that the Minister's decision was unreasonable, procedurally unfair, and a violation of IRFAN's ss. 2 and 15 Charter rights - IRFAN moved for an order that the Minister produce the Access to Information records in unredacted form - It submitted that the failure of the Minister to produce the documents in unredacted form before issuing the Notice constituted procedural unfairness - The Federal Court of Appeal, per Stratas, J.A., dismissed the motion - It was not appropriate to order the Minister to produce information beyond what was before her when she made her decision - There was no procedural unfairness, as IRFAN had not previously asked the Minister to produce the documents in unredacted form - See paragraphs 29 to 33.

Income Tax - Topic 8043

Returns, assessments, payment and appeals - Appeals to courts - Practice - Evidence - [See all Administrative Law - Topic 3345.1 and Administrative Law - Topic 9119 ].

Practice - Topic 3054

Applications and motions - General - Time for - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3357 ].

Cases Noticed:

Canadian Committee for the Tel Aviv Foundation v. Minister of National Revenue (2002), 287 N.R. 82; 2002 FCA 72, refd to. [para. 4].

Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada et al. v. Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (2012), 428 N.R. 297; 2012 FCA 22, refd to. [para. 7].

P.S. Partsource Inc. v. Canadian Tire Corp. (2001), 267 N.R. 135; 2001 FCA 8, refd to. [para. 7].

McConnell v. Canadian Human Rights Commission et al., [2004] F.T.R. Uned. 667; 2004 FC 817, affd. [2005] N.R. Uned. 188; 2005 FCA 389, refd to. [para. 7].

Renaissance International v. Minister of National Revenue, [1983] 1 F.C. 860; 47 N.R. 1 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

Stawicki v. Minister of National Revenue, [2006] N.R. Uned. 102; 2006 FCA 262, refd to. [para. 9].

United Scottish Cultural Society v. Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, [2004] N.R. Uned. 247; 2004 FCA 324, refd to. [para. 9].

McFadyen v. Canada (Attorney General) (2005), 341 N.R. 345; 2005 FCA 360, refd to. [para. 10].

Keeprite Workers' Independent Union v. Keeprite Products Ltd. (1980), 114 D.L.R.(3d) 162 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

Johnson v. Canada (Attorney General) (2011), 414 N.R. 321; 2011 FCA 76, refd to. [para. 15].

Taylor and Western Guard Party v. Canadian Human Rights Commission, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 892; 117 N.R. 191, consd. [para. 19].

Energy and Chemical Workers' Union and Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., Re, [1986] 1 F.C. 103; 64 N.R. 126 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

Ominayak v. Verre - See Ominayak v. Lubicon Lake Nation.

Ominayak v. Lubicon Lake Nation (2000), 267 N.R. 96 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

Counsel:

Akbar Mohamed and Yavar Hameed, for the appellant;

Rosemary Fincham and April Tate, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Akbar Mohamed, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellant;

Hameed & Farrokhzad, Ottawa, Ontario, for the appellant;

William F. Pentney, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.

This motion was dealt with in writing and by teleconference on July 4, 2013, before Stratas, J.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal, who delivered the following reasons for order at Ottawa, Ontario, on July 5, 2013.

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP