http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/110427/index.do 
Canada (National Revenue) v. Lee (May 13, 2015 – 2015 FC 634, Mandamin J.).
Précis: The Crown issued a requirement to Mr. Lee and then brought this application for a compliance order. The Court found that the language used in the requirement was so broad that it could not determine whether it was addressed to Mr. Lee or would include documentation about corporate assets that he would only have access to in his capacity as a director or officer of a number of corporations. As a result the application was dismissed, but without costs.
Decision: The exact language used in the requirement was held by the Court to be extremely broad:
[5] The exact wording of the Requirement is set out in the July 15, 2014 affidavit of the Minister’s Case Officer Ms. Arlene Dowdall who states Mr. Lee was given 90 days to provide information as follows:
a) the names and braches of all banks in which he maintained either accounts or safety deposit boxes or both, including information of amounts on deposit as at May 31, 2012;
b) details of all brokerage accounts maintained by him, whether or not registered in his name, providing names and addresses of brokers, balances due as at May 31, 2012;
c) details of all bonds, common shares, and preferred shares owned by him, whether or not registered in his name, including the individual cost per share and current location of each security;
d) details of all real property owned by him, whether or not registered in his name, including the legal descriptions, amounts of encumbrances, names and addresses of encumbrances, and the location of the applicable registry office;
e) details of all insurance carried by him, with names of insurance companies, face value of policies, policy numbers, cash surrender values and accrued dividends where applicable, and locations of policies;
f) details of all mortgages and loans receivable in which he has a beneficial interest, giving details of amounts due to him as at May 31, 2012, dates of registration, registry office where registered, and legal description of property encumbered, including, where applicable the terms of repayment, maturity date, and names and addresses of all mortgagors or other debtors;
g) details of all loans and mortgages payable by him at May 31, 2012, including the current market value of all security given, together with the legal description of all property pledged;
h) details of all automobiles owned by him as at May 31, 2012, including year, style, and make of car, license number, names and addresses of lien holders or encumbrances, and cost of each vehicle;
i) full details of any other assets owned by him, whether or not registered in his name, but not included in the foregoing;
j) a net worth statement as of May 31, 2012, complete with supporting schedules, showing full details of all his assets, liabilities, household expenses;
k) details of all moneys received by him from employment and other sources during the period of January 1, 2009 to May 31, 2012, including the names and addresses of the payer, and the nature of the payments;
l) details of all unsatisfied judgments against him, including the nature of the debt and the names and addresses of judgment creditors; and
m) for the period of January 1, 2009 to May 31, 2012, a list with dates and individual amounts of all payments made to any pension trust, fund, or other type of annuity, giving the exact location of such pension trust, and the current amount standing to his credit and/or the credit of the beneficiaries.
[6] Although Ms. Dowdall states that the Requirement is in standard form, I find it overly expansive in breadth and in depth. For example, the phrase “whether or not registered in his name” is repeated in the demand for a listing of brokerage accounts, bonds and shares, real property, and any other assets not already included in the listing.
The Court denied the Crownʼs application on the basis that it was not clear whether the requirement was directed to Mr. Lee or whether it would include documentation about corporate assets that he would only have access to in his capacity as a director or officer of a number of corporations with which he was involved:
[44] Thus, in respect of the Requirement, I am satisfied that the Minister has failed to satisfy one of three pre-conditions required by subsection 231.7(1) of the Act; the specific condition being that the Court must be satisfied that the person against whom the order is sought “was required under section 231.1 or 231.2 to provide the access, assistance, information or document” sought by the Minister. I am not satisfied, notwithstanding the Minister’s assertions that, the Minister has proven that the Respondent was required in his personal capacity only to comply with the Requirement.
[45] Given the serious consequences for non-compliance described by Justice Tremblay-Lamer in SML Operations, this Court requires certainty as to who is served with the requirement and what is required of that named person. Comingling personal tax obligations with corporate tax obligations through a single requirement offends the certainty which this Court requires before it will consider granting the Minister a compliance order under subsection 231.7(1) of the Act.
As a result the Crown`s application for a compliance order was dismissed. The Respondent was also denied its motion for cross-examination of the Crown affiants. These was no order as to costs.