http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/100676/index.do 
Canada (National Revenue) v. Bélanger (May 14, 2015 – 2015 FC 35, Annis J.).
Précis: The taxpayer failed to comply with an earlier Federal Court compliance order and was held in contempt in 2014 by Justice Boivin. This was the second contempt proceeding against him for the same compliance order. The Court found him in contempt again and ordered him to comply with the terms of the original order, pay fines and costs or failing compliance, that he be committed to jail for 15 days or until he had paid his fines.
Decision: The taxpayer had a series of run ins with the Federal Court:
[4] On March 3, 2013, the applicant served on the respondent seven requests to provide information or to produce documents within 30 days, so as to verify the compliance with tax laws as authorized by paragraph 231.1(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, RSC 1985, c 1 (5th supp). Following the respondent’s failure to produce all the documents requested, the applicant obtained an order against the respondent from Justice de Montigny of this Court, dated July 12, 2013, requiring the respondent to produce the documents requested by the applicant.
[5] Since the respondent failed to comply with the order of Justice de Montigny, on February 4, 2014, Justice Boivin issued an order finding the respondent in contempt of court, ordering him to comply with the order issued by Justice de Montigny, to pay a fine of $1,500 and costs in the amount of $2,500.
[6] July 8, 2014, following the filing of an ex parte application by the applicant in accordance with section 467 of the Rules, Prothonotary Morneau ordered the respondent to appear before this Court dated December 11, 2014, and ordered that he be ready to present a defense for failing to comply with the order of Justice Boivin, in the sense that:
1. The respondent did not provide all the information and documents required in the order of February 4, 2014, within the deadlines stipulated, or at any time afterward;
2. The respondent neglected to disclose the existence of some banking information;
3. The respondent neglected to pay the fine and the costs that he was sentenced to pay by the order of February 4, 2014;
4. On the date of this hearing, the respondent was still failing to comply with the order of Justice de Montigny and that of Justice Boivin.
His request for an adjournment to hire a lawyer was rejected:
[7] During the hearing, the applicant requested an adjournment from the Court so as to allow him to retain the services of a lawyer. The Court refused to grant such an adjournment to the respondent by weighing the interests of the applicant, those of the respondent and that of the Court. The Court noted that the applicant had filed before the Court strong evidence showing that the respondent had committed contempt of court and, furthermore, that this is his second contempt of court. The Court also noted that the respondent did not show diligence in making the decision not to retain the services of a lawyer and in subsequently requesting of the Court, during the hearing, an adjournment so as to remedy this defect. Therefore, the Court considered it appropriate to dismiss the respondent’s application for adjournment in the interest of the proper administration of justice.
The Court sentenced the taxpayer for continued and deliberate contempt:
[17] Following the analysis of the factors in Marshall, supra, the Court found that it is justified in this case to impose a sentence that reflects the importance of respecting the orders of the Court so as to maintain the proper administration of justice. Indeed, in this case, it is the second situation where the respondent is found in contempt of court, the respondent willfully and deliberately failed to comply with the orders of the Court and continued to hide information and documents even after two orders requiring the production of these documents were issued, at no time did the respondent show regret for his actions and the circumstances of this case do not involve any mitigating factors.
V. Conclusion
[18] For the reasons stated above, the Court would sentence the respondent to pay a fine of $2,000 and costs of $3,000 in addition to the amounts already required by Justice Boivin’s order of February 4, 2014.
ORDER
THE COURT:
1. ORDERS FINDS the respondent in contempt of Justice Boivin’s order dated February 4, 2014;
2. the respondent to comply with Justice Boivin’s order of February 4, 2014, by paying to the applicant the fine of $1,500 and to the applicant the costs of $2,500 to which he has already been sentenced;
3. SENTENCES the respondent to pay the applicant to the Court a fine of $2,000 and to applicant costs of $3,000;
4. The amounts due by the respondent to the applicant should be paid to the Receiver General of Canada. The fines payable by the respondent to the Court for an amount of $3,500 are payable within 6 months of the date of service of this order. The respondent’s failure to pay this amount will result in his imprisonment. If the respondent fails to comply with this order, the Court will issue a warrant of committal against the respondent so that he will be imprisoned for a period of 15 days or until he pays his fines totalling $3,500.
TAGS: Income Tax Act, Compliance Order, Contempt Proceedings