Minister of National Revenue v. The Money Stop Ltd. et al., (2013) 427 F.T.R. 107 (FC)

• Judge: Zinn, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: January 29, 2013
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2013), 427 F.T.R. 107 (FC);2013 FC 133

MNR v. Money Stop Ltd. (2013), 427 F.T.R. 107 (FC)

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] F.T.R. TBEd. FE.039

The Minister of National Revenue (applicant) v. The Money Stop Ltd. and Tel Sutherland (respondents)

(T-2045-11; 2013 FC 133; 2013 CF 133)

Indexed As: Minister of National Revenue v. The Money Stop Ltd. et al.

Federal Court

Zinn, J.

February 7, 2013.

Summary:

The respondents did not comply with the Minister of National Revenue's request for financial information or with a compliance order issued pursuant to the Income Tax Act. They were found guilty of contempt, but were given a further 30 days to provide the requested information. They did not comply. The Minister asked that the respondents be sentenced.

The Federal Court ordered the respondents to pay a $5,000 fine and the Minister's legal costs of $19,905. They were also ordered to provide the requested financial information within 30 days, failing which the respondent director would be imprisoned for three years.

Contempt - Topic 3301

Punishment - General (incl. considerations) - The Minister of National Revenue requested financial information from the respondents on three occasions in 2011, in order to conduct an audit - The respondents did not comply - An order of compliance was issued by Harrington, J., in February 2012 - The respondents did not comply - The Minister initiated contempt proceedings - At the contempt hearing, the respondents admitted that they had not complied with Harrington, J.'s order - Zinn, J., issued an order finding the respondents in contempt, but permitted them a further 30 days to provide the requested information - The respondents did not comply - The Minister asked that the respondents be sentenced - The respondents did not appear at the sentencing hearing - The Federal Court held that compliance with the Income Tax Act was a fundamental civic duty that could not be taken lightly or ignored - The breach had been intentional and deliberate - The respondents had already received the benefit of lenience shown in the earlier orders that granted them time to comply and purge their contempt - Having failed to take advantage of that and having failed to appear to explain their contempt or provide evidence of compliance, they were deserving of little more - A swift and serious penalty was appropriate to compel compliance, act as a general deterrent, and maintain the public's confidence in the administration of justice - The court ordered the respondents to pay a $5,000 fine and the Minister's legal costs of $19,905 - The Minister should not be out of pocket for having to enforce the court's orders - The respondents were also ordered to provide the requested financial information within 30 days, failing which the respondent director would be imprisoned for three years.

Contempt - Topic 3315

Punishment - Fines - [See Contempt - Topic 3301 ].

Contempt - Topic 3325

Punishment - Imprisonment - When appropriate - [See Contempt - Topic 3301 ].

Contempt - Topic 5115

Practice - Hearing - Costs - [See Contempt - Topic 3301 ].

Income Tax - Topic 5

General - Income Tax Act - Nature of - [See Contempt - Topic 3301 ].

Cases Noticed:

Canadian Human Rights Commission v. Winnicki (2007), 359 N.R. 101; 2007 FCA 52, refd to. [para. 12].

Minister of National Revenue v. Marshall (2006), 294 F.T.R. 297; 2006 FC 788, refd to. [para. 13].

Counsel:

Wendy Bridges, for the applicant;

In person, for the respondents.

Solicitors of Record:

William F. Pentney, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Edmonton, Alberta, for the applicant.

This matter was heard via videoconference on January 29, 2013, from Ottawa, Ontario and Edmonton, Alberta, before Zinn J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following order and reasons for order on February 7, 2013.