http://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/fca-caf/decisions/en/item/230438/index.do
Beima v. Canada (National Revenue) April 25, 2017 – 2017 FCA 85, Stratas, Near (author), De Montigny).
Précis: CRA sought and obtained a compliance order in the Federal Court after Mr. Beima interfered with the conduct of an audit in various ways, e.g., attempting to limit the number of persons working on the audit, refusing to allow the making of copies, etc. Mr. Beima appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal and the appeal was dismissed from the bench, with costs, on the basis that Mr. Beima had failed to demonstrate any reversible error on the part of the Federal Court Judge.
Decision: CRA sought a compliance order in response to Mr. Beima’s conduct:
[3] The parties agreed to commence the audit on May 6, 2014. The assigned auditor gave evidence that, when she, a second auditor, and her Team Leader arrived at the agreed upon location, the appellant stated that he would only allow one auditor to enter the premises and no other person. He also stated that he intended to videotape the audit process. CRA decided not to proceed with the audit at that time as it was not confident that the appellant would allow the audit to proceed without interference.
[4] On May 28, 2014, CRA notified the appellant, by letter, that section 231.1 of the ITA provided it with the authority to inspect the requested records and that the appellant had failed to comply with CRA’s request to submit the records. CRA advised that a failure to submit the requested records by the specified date would result in CRA seeking a compliance order pursuant to section 231.7 of the ITA.
[5] When the requested records were not received, the Department of Justice (DOJ) informed the appellant, by letter, that CRA had asked it to obtain a compliance order and requested that the appellant provide the records by a specified date. The appellant replied to DOJ after the specified date denying that he had withheld access to the requested records and alleging that CRA had refused to conduct the audit. The appellant indicated that CRA was welcome to perform the audit but he would not give CRA his consent to copy the records. As the appellant did not provide the requested records, CRA sought a compliance order.
The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal from the bench, with costs, finding that Mr. Beima had failed to demonstrate any reversible error on the part of the Federal Court Judge:
[8] We see no reviewable error in the Judge’s finding that the appellant did not provide the required access, assistance or information sought by the respondent under section 231.1 of the ITA. The Judge found that, contrary to the appellant’s understanding, CRA did not require the appellant’s consent to copy his records: reasons at paragraphs 22-23. The Judge also found that the appellant, as a taxpayer, could not dictate how CRA conducts an audit or frustrate the respondent’s ability to carry out its statutory duties by refusing entry to a second auditor or insisting on videotaping an audit process: reasons at paragraphs 21, 23. We are unable to identify any reviewable error in the Judge’s findings. As such, we see no grounds upon which the compliance order under section 231.7 of the ITA should be set aside.
[9] The appellant also takes issue with the Federal Court directing, prior to the hearing of the application for the compliance order, that his proposed motion be treated as additional responding submissions to the application as opposed to a separate motion. The appellant sought to move to strike the application for the compliance order, strike the affidavit of a CRA auditor, and adjourn the application on the basis that the audit was commenced for an improper purpose. The Judge considered these submissions and, in our view, made no reviewable error in dismissing the appellant’s requested relief: reasons at paragraphs 12, 25.
[10] Even treating the motion on its own, we see no grounds upon which the application should have been struck. As the Judge found at paragraphs 19-24 of her reasons, the prerequisites for the making of a compliance order under section 231.7 were met.