Minister of National Revenue v. Revcon Oilfield Constructors Inc., 2015 FC 524

• Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction (Canada)
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Judge: Mosley, J.
• Citation: 2015 FC 524,(2015), 479 F.T.R. 150 (FC)
• Date: 19 March 2015
• Subject Matter: INCOME TAX

MNR v. Revcon Oilfield Constructors (2015), 479 F.T.R. 150 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] F.T.R. TBEd. AP.063

The Minister of National Revenue (applicant) v. Revcon Oilfield Constructors Incorporated (respondent)

(T-1272-14; 2015 FC 524)

Indexed As: Minister of National Revenue v. Revcon Oilfield Constructors Inc.

Federal Court

Mosley, J.

April 23, 2015.

Summary:

The Minister of National Revenue applied for a compliance order in respect to Requests for Information issued to the respondent, an Alberta corporation (Revcon). The Canada Revenue Agency was auditing Revcon with regard to a corporate restructuring. Revcon asserted solicitor-client privilege with respect to the requested information (the retained documents).

The Federal Court agreed to review the retained documents and, in the result, granted the application subject to the Court's findings of solicitor-client privilege as set out in its reasons.

Income Tax - Topic 9256

Enforcement - Production of information - Demand of information - Compliance - The Minister of National Revenue applied for a compliance order in respect to Requests for Information issued to the respondent, an Alberta corporation (Revcon) - The Canada Revenue Agency was auditing Revcon with regard to a corporate restructuring - Revcon asserted solicitor-client privilege with respect to the requested information (the retained documents) - The Federal Court, in granting the application, stated that "it is clear that the Respondent shared some of the Retained Documents with accountants and commodity traders. There is nothing in the record before the Court to suggest that these individuals are anything other than third parties. Privilege does not attach to communications shared with such persons." - See paragraph 24.

Income Tax - Topic 9256

Enforcement - Production of information - Demand of information - Compliance - The Minister of National Revenue applied for a compliance order in respect to Requests for Information issued to the respondent, an Alberta corporation (Revcon) - The Canada Revenue Agency was auditing Revcon with regard to a corporate restructuring - Revcon claimed solicitor-client privilege over items that would identify a law firm retained by the respondent's counsel for the restructuring transactions (the Law Firm X claim), and over items which included "shorthand tax law language used by Law Firm X that describes the Transactions in a manner that could potentially be prejudicial to the Respondent's interests" (the Nomenclature claim) - The Federal Court, in granting the application, stated that "[t]he idea that the identity of a law firm or lawyer retained by a client to provide tax planning advice is privileged finds no support in the law. It does not matter whether the law firm was retained 'indirectly' by another firm directly retained by the client. A communication revealing the name of a law firm or lawyer - without anything else, such as actual legal advice - is not a confidential communication made for the purpose of receiving legal advice from a lawyer acting in a legal capacity. The name of a law firm, without more, is not protected by solicitor-client privilege. Nor is the revelation of shorthand tax language used by tax planning advisors." - See paragraph 25.

Income Tax - Topic 9281

Enforcement - Lawyer-client privilege from disclosure - General - [See both Income Tax - Topic 9256 ].

Cases Noticed:

Federation of Law Societies of Canada v. Canada (Attorney General) (2015), 365 B.C.A.C. 3; 627 W.A.C. 3; 2015 SCC 7, refd to. [para. 10].

Thompson v. Minister of National Revenue (2013), 448 N.R. 339; 2013 FCA 197, refd to. [para. 10].

Blood Tribe Department of Health v. Privacy Commissioner (Can.) et al., [2008] 2 S.C.R. 574; 376 N.R. 327; 2008 SCC 44, refd to. [para. 12].

Descôteaux et al. v. Mierzwinski et al., [1982] 1 S.C.R. 860; 44 N.R. 462, refd to. [para. 18].

Belgravia Investments Ltd. et al. v. Canada (2002), 220 F.T.R. 246; 2002 FCT 649, refd to. [para. 19].

Tower et al. v. Minister of National Revenue et al., [2004] 1 F.C.R. 183; 310 N.R. 280; 2003 FCA 307, refd to. [para. 21].

Canada (National Revenue) v. Kitsch - see Tower et al. v. Minister of National Revenue et al.

Minister of National Revenue v. Grant Thornton (2012), 421 F.T.R. 79; 2012 FC 1313, refd to. [para. 21].

Taxpro Professional Corp. et al. v. Minister of National Revenue (2011), 385 F.T.R. 103; 2011 FC 224, affd. (2011), 427 N.R. 354; 2011 FCA 306, refd to. [para. 23].

Minister of National Revenue v. Reddy, [2006] F.T.R. Uned. 165; 2006 FC 277, refd to. [para. 34].

Maranda v. Leblanc, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 193; 311 N.R. 357; 2003 SCC 67, refd to. [para. 41].

Statutes Noticed:

Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985 (5th Supp.), c. 1, sect. 231.7 [para. 1]; sect. 232(1) [para. 16].

Counsel:

Wendy J. Bridges, for the applicant;

Douglas J. Forer, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

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

McLennan Ross LLP, Edmonton, Alberta, for the respondent.

This application was heard at Edmonton, Alberta, on March 19, 2015, before Mosley, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following order and reasons, dated April 23, 2015, at Ottawa, Ontario.