http://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/fca-caf/decisions/en/item/143743/index.do
Ford v. Canada (Attorney General) (April 26, 2016 – 2016 FCA 128, Dawson, Stratas (author), Near JJ. A.).
Précis: This case arose out of a voluntary disclosure that Mr. Ford made in 2003 in respect of his 2000, 2001 and 2002 taxation years. CRA asked for backup documentation which was never provided. He applied for taxpayer relief in 2010 and he was again asked for backup documentation which he did not provide. His request was denied and he applied for second level relief in 2012. He did provide some documentation with that application. In 2014 his application for second level relief was denied and he applied to the Federal Court for judicial review. The decision of the Federal Court denying his application was blogged earlier on this site. Mr. Ford appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal which dismissed the appeal from the bench, with costs to the Crown.
Decision: Quite simply the Court of Appeal found no reviewable error on the part of the Federal Court Judge:
[4] In support of his application for relief under subsection 152(4.2), Mr. Ford offered some evidence to support his allegations. But the Minister, in a second-level decision—the decision under review in this case—described the evidence as “minimal” and found it to be insufficient to establish a claim for relief. The Minister also concluded on the evidence before her that Mr. Ford’s application for relief under subsection 152(4.2) was an objection or appeal aimed at bypassing the regular process under the Act for challenging assessments.
[5] In dismissing Mr. Ford’s application for judicial review, the Federal Court found the Minister’s fact-based, discretionary decision to be reasonable, i.e., acceptable and defensible on the applicable law and the evidence before the Minister. The Federal Court also rejected Mr. Ford’s submission that the Minister improperly fettered her discretion by regarding Information Circular IC07-1, a non-binding guideline, as binding.
[6] On appeal, Mr. Ford has not persuaded us that there is any ground to interfere with the reasoning of the Federal Court or the result it reached.
In the result the appeal was dismissed with costs to the Crown.