The Supreme Court of Canada granted leave to appeal this week from one case of interest to Canadian businesses and professions: Thompson v. Canada (National Revenue), 2013 FCA 197. The Thompson appeal concerns whether a lawyer who received a Requirement to produce information under s. 231.2(1) of the Income Tax Act relating to his accounts receivable can be compelled to divulge the names of his clients. The Court will be asked to determine whether s. 231.2(1) gives lawyers the opportunity to resist disclosure by first establishing that solicitor-client privilege protects the names of their individual clients before a judge.
The Court also denied leave to appeal from several other cases of interest, including the following:
1) 861808 Ontario Inc. v. Canada (Revenue Agency), 2013 ONCA 604, in which the Ontario Court of Appeal found that the Federal Court has exclusive jurisdiction to award interim and interlocutory injunctions against federal boards, commissions and other tribunals, pursuant to s. 18 of the Federal Courts Act.
2) Central Sun Mining Inc. v. Vector Engineering Inc., 2013 ONCA 601, which raised questions regarding how the Van Breda framework for assumed jurisdiction over non-resident defendants applies to claims involving allegations of negligent misrepresentation.
3) Arora v. Whirlpool Canada LP, 2013 ONCA 657, where the Court declined to certify a proposed consumer class action relating to allegedly defective washing machines, including on the basis that it is plain and obvious the manufacturer of a defective but non-dangerous product owes consumers no duty of care to prevent pure economic losses based on negligent design.
To view original article please click here
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.