Owen Holdings Ltd. v. Canada
A-542-96
Isaac C.J. (dissenting), Marceau J.A.
19/6/97
17 pp.
Appeal from Tax Court's refusal to order Crown to produce certain documents for discovery in appeal against reassessment-Cross-appeal against order to produce advance rulings, technical interpretations-Action concerning disallowance by Minister of appellant's claim under ss. 85(5.1), 69(5)(d) for loss transferred from related corporation-Appeal dismissed-Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure), R. 82 requiring each party to file list of documents "relating to" any matter in question-"Relating to" necessarily imparting element of relevance, otherwise parties licensed to enter into fishing expeditions achieving no productive goal, wasting judicial resources-Tax Court not intending to abandon well-established principles giving rise to relatively low relevance threshold at discovery stage (versus higher threshold required at trial for admission of evidence)-Adopted proper approach in assessment documents not tending to establish "legislative facts", but setting forth "opinions of writers" so remotely related to issues in controversy could not lead to line of inquiry of any use to appellant-Crossappeal concerning advance rulings allowed; dismissed with respect to technical interpretations (Isaac C.J. dissenting)-Notice to taxpayers to whom advance rulings, technical interpretations issued not pre-condition to validity of appeal proceedings-As Tax Court specifically requiring names, other personal details respecting taxpayers be removed from documents to be disclosed, taxpayers not affected by order, appeal: no confidentiality to be waived, all interested parties before Court-Advance ruling applicable to proposed transactions considered in context of factual situation of particular taxpayer-Technical interpretations focussing on specific problems of interpretation relating to words, clauses, sentences in provision-Neither having binding legal effect-Possible to use relatively simple, direct technical interpretations to establish inconsistency in Minister's interpretation, application of provisions, but almost impossible to so use advance rulings, given difficulties in establishing similarities between different, complex factual situations-Possible relevance of advance rulings too problematic, remote to satisfy requirement of R. 82(1)-Per Isaac C.J. dissenting: neither technical interpretations nor advance rulings capable of advancing appellant's or damaging respondent's case-Administrative interpretations admissible as aids to statutory interpretation-Illuminating legislative context, purpose, background-Intra departmental memoranda, opinions of individual departmental officials not reflecting Parliament's intention in enacting section-Technical interpretations, unpublished advance rulings of no assistance in proper interpretation of legislative provision-Technical interpretations issued by particular departmental official in respect of hypothetical question posed by particular taxpayer not endorsed by Department-Not administrative interpretation relevant to interpretation, application of legislative provision of another taxpayer-Advance rulings issued for guidance of individual taxpayers in respect of specific proposed transaction-Since taxpayer not entitled to rely on treatment of another taxpayer to establish eligibility for tax benefit, similar treatment of similarly situated taxpayers irrelevant to appellant's claim Minister erred in finding appellant's loss falling within scope of s. 245(2)-Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure), SOR/90-688, R. 82 (as am. by SOR/93-96, s. 12)-Income Tax Act, R.S.C., 1985 (5th Supp.), c. 1, ss. 69(5)(d), 85(5.1), 245(2).