http://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/site/fca-caf/decisions/en/item/66558/index.do 
Soft-Moc Inc. v. Canada (National Revenue)[1] (January 21, 2014) involved an appeal from a decision of the Federal Court dismissing the applicant’s application for judicial review of the Minister’s requirement to provide foreign-based information from four suppliers in the Bahamas (MWF, ITPC, SoftPOS and Manser):
[6] On 6 October 2009, the Applicant received an audit query from the Minister. The Applicant provided a binder of material in response. The Applicant received a second audit query on 28 January 2010, to which it responded on 26 March 2010. On 21 December 2011, the Minister issued the Requirement to the Applicant for foreign-based information pursuant to subsection 231.6(2) of the ITA.
[7] In addition to the Requirement, the Applicant was served with a request to provide certain domestic information dated 16 January 2012. On 20 March 2012, the Applicant provided the Minister with a binder of material in response to this request.
[8] On 24 January 2012, Mr. Bardocz wrote to Terry North, counsel for Mr. Krista, Manser, ITPC, MWF and SoftPOS in the Bahamas, informing him of the Requirement. On 5 March 2012, Mr. North responded to a portion of the 74 questions issued in the Requirement. MWF, ITPC, SoftPOS and Manser declined to provide some of the requested information on the basis that such information did not exist or was confidential and proprietary, or that the release of such information would detrimentally affect the competitive advantage of each corporation.
[9] The following information was not provided by the Applicant in response to the Requirement:
a. Minute books, personnel charts, information relating to the organizational structure and financial statements of ITPC, Manser, MWF and SoftPOS;
b. The names of independent buyers and purchasing agents with whom ITPC networked and any correspondence exchanged with them;
c. The names of industry experts contacted by ITPC in 2005 and 2006;
d. The names of information technology specialists who were involved in providing services, and documents supporting payments made to these specialists;
e. Documents to support payments to a U.S.-based company from Manser, and correspondence exchanged between it and Manser;
f. Whether Manser and SoftPOS provided services to other arm’s length or non-arm’s length customers and, if so, the names of those customers and a detailed description of the services provided; and
g. The names of employees or external computer contractors hired by Manser and their telephone numbers.
[10] Mr. Bardocz, on behalf of the Applicant, says that he does not know why the information is confidential or proprietary in nature, or how it would affect the competitive advantage of the four companies. Upon receiving the answers provided by the four companies, the Applicant commenced this judicial review.
In a nutshell, the Federal Court dismissed the application because it held that the Minister’s requirement was not overly broad in scope:
[84] Given these arrangements, it is obvious that the information which the CRA seeks may well be part of the corporate and other documents requested in the Requirement, and it is not for the Applicant to say that such information could be ascertained by other means. See Saipem, above, at paragraph 36. Even an interview with Mr. Krista would not have provided the CRA with the objective confirmation it requires to complete the TPA. In my view, then, the Requirement is not overly broad in scope because it seeks relevant and necessary information to properly conduct the TPA for the 2005 and 2006 taxation years and assess the Applicant’s tax liability and whether the transfer price paid by the Applicant to the four Bahamian companies for the services was an arms-length transfer price. Documentation and information requested in the Requirement are both relevant and reasonable.
http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/site/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/62009/index.do
The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal from the bench:
[1] This is an appeal of the decision of Justice Russell (2013 FC 291) dismissing the application of Soft-Moc Inc. for judicial review of a requirement for foreign-based information.
[2] We have not been persuaded that Justice Russell’s decision discloses any error of law or any other error warranting the intervention of this Court.
[3] The appeal will be dismissed with costs.
[1] 2014 FCA 10.