Bisaillon v. Canada
A-315-99
Létourneau J.A.
10/6/99
18 pp.
Motion for directions and for temporary stay of execution-Applicants sought stay of execution of requirement of production of documents until judgment rendered by this Court on appeal from order made by T.D. Judge on May 12, 1999-Applicant Bisaillon businessman with interests in two applicant companies, Hypnat Ltée and Hypnat Ltée Courtier-Hypnat owed Revenue Canada large sums of money in respect of 1989 to 1992 taxation years, against which objections filed-Courtier, founded in 1993, owed Hypnat sum of $1,664,078.80 at close of its fiscal year, January 31, 1996-Revenue Canada sent Laurentian Bank requirement to provide information and documents concerning affairs of customer Courtier pursuant to Income Tax Act, s. 231.2(1)-Requirement to provide information made to Laurentian Bank sought information on Courtier's banking activities and to determine whether it had made payments to Hypnat despite peremptory requirement of payment made to it-Applicants asked Court to declare request made to Laurentian Bank illegal and void on ground unduly vague and in fact merely fishing expedition not authorized by Act, s. 231.2(1)-Motions Judge dismissed application by applicants to stay production of documents requested until judgment rendered by Federal Court in case T-291-99-Applicants properly argued Motions Judge did not consider arguments as to vague and imprecise nature of requirement of production of documents and hence legality of said requirement-Question of whether Motions Judge erred in not taking into account applicants' argument regarding standards of precision applicable to requirements for production of documents and information under s. 231.1 and vague and imprecise nature of requirement serious question raised by appeal-Irreparable harm that for which damages cannot compensate or can only compensate with difficulty-Applicants likely to suffer such harm if stay not granted-Applicants' appeal would become moot or futile from execution of very order from which appealing-Applicants are ones who would suffer greatest harm if stay not granted-Could find themselves unable to forestall and prevent infringement of constitutional rights-Application allowed-Income Tax Act, R.S.C., 1985 (5th Supp.), c. 1, s. 231.2(1).