Canada: How To Sue The CRA


A taxpayer's interaction with the Canada Revenue Agency (the "CRA") can give rise to two distinct legal proceedings. The first is a court proceeding to determine whether the amount of tax assessed is correct. The second is a court proceeding to challenge the behaviour of the CRA's personnel in carrying out their work.1

This article is concerned with the second type of court proceeding: instances where the actions of the CRA (or provincial revenue authorities) are called into question. Generally, the taxpayers lose these lawsuits. Many of these types of lawsuits are probably frivolous: CRA personnel are generally reasonable. There are, however, a number of suits in which CRA personnel have engaged in behaviours that are fundamentally incompatible with the rule of law and shock the conscience of the reader.

Only recently have taxpayers had some success against the revenue authorities in civil suits. In these cases, the taxpayer has typically been rendered impecunious. The result is an injustice – a pauper plaintiff fighting Leviathan. These cases are very much manifestations of Thomas Hobbes, Friedrich Hayek and John Rawl's reflections on the coercive power of the state. Only with Archambault and Leroux, each considered below, does it now appear that courts may be willing to take the CRA and provincial revenue authorities to task for instances of misconduct.


It is important to distinguish between taxes assessed and the conduct of the CRA. They are two very different things, although the facts are generally intertwined. While the CRA may act unfairly or even illegally in arriving at an assessment or reassessment of taxes, that conduct is generally not relevant to determining whether the underlying tax liability is valid. A survey of the case law reveals that taxpayers often conflate these issues.

Indeed, in Main Rehabilitation Co. v. Canada,2 the Federal Court of Appeal has explained that section 169 of the Income Tax Act (the "ITA"),3 which provides the statutory basis of appeals to the Tax Court of Canada (the "TCC"), is the vehicle by which the TCC establishes the validity or invalidity of an assessment. The issue on appeal is not the process by which the assessment is established.4 What is in issue at the TCC is whether amounts can be properly shown to be owing in accordance with the provisions of the ITA.5 This logic undoubtedly extends to Excise Tax Act assessments and reassessments.


The case law reviewed herein reveals that civil actions taken against the CRA are generally launched in provincial superior courts. However, there exists concurrent jurisdiction with the Federal Court of Canada. It is important that an aggrieved taxpayer not attempt to commence a civil suit (or attempt to graft the underpinnings of a civil suit) onto a proceeding at the TCC. This is because the TCC lacks the jurisdiction to grant any such relief.

It remains to be seen – although the author is very doubtful of the same – whether conduct so egregious by the CRA would ever come before the TCC that the TCC would vary or set aside an assessment on the basis of the impropriety or misconduct of the CRA. In any case, the jurisdiction of the TCC is specifically circumscribed by the Tax Court of Canada Act, which limits the court to the consideration of matters arising, generally speaking, from federal revenue statutes.6As such, a decision of the TCC rendered on the basis of CRA impropriety would be an error of law.7

Cases against the CRA typically allege negligence and misfeasance. These claims can be brought in either provincial superior court or the Federal Court of Canada. If the claim is brought in a provincial superior court, then the province of residence of the taxpayer would be the appropriate forum in which to launch the claim, unless circumstances would otherwise dictate.

The Supreme Court of Canada has explicitly endorsed concurrent jurisdiction.8The Crown Liability and Proceedings Act (the "CLPA") provides for concurrent jurisdiction.9 Under the CLPA, the Crown is liable for damages resulting from torts by servants of the Crown.10 The Federal Courts Act, in turn, provides that the Federal Court has concurrent original jurisdiction in respect of claims for damages under the CLPA.11


No Duty of Care in Respect of another Taxpayer's Assessment (783783 Alberta Ltd. v. Canada)

This case involved a competition between Edmonton's free weekly newspapers. Vue Weekly sued the CRA in an attempt to force the CRA to deny deductions to advertisers in its competitor, SEE Magazine. This suit was brought on the basis that Conrad Black, SEE Magazine's ultimate owner, had renounced his citizenship.12

Section 19 of the ITA enables taxpayers to deduct expenses incurred from advertising in a Canadian newspaper, but not from advertising in a non-Canadian newspaper. In this way, if it could be shown that SEE Magazine was non-Canadian, then the deductions should not be allowed.

Ultimately, the Alberta Court of Appeal (the "ABCA") did not endorse Vue Weekly's anti-competitive behaviour. The decision engaged in an analysis of the elements of a negligence action. The ABCA noted that there "was no prior case establishing liability on the part of tax collectors to one group of taxpayers based on the taxes imposed on another group of taxpayers"13 and "the relationship is not one where the tax assessors should be responsible for protecting taxpayers from losses arising from competitive disadvantages of the type pleaded".14 The ABCA concluded that policy considerations precluded a private law duty in tort (but see Leroux, below) and that the relationship between each taxpayer and the assessor is personal and private.15

The ABCA can be commended in this judgment for their practical approach to the problem of tax assessing. It would be practically impossible to assure that tax laws are applied consistently from taxpayer to taxpayer. Further, the plaintiff in this case was actuated by a desire to stymie their market competitor. Even if the arguments of the plaintiff were correct as a matter of law (which was not relevant to the disposition of the case) there is a strong public policy rationale to deny the relief sought.

The Use of Information Obtain in Discoveries (506913 N.B. Ltd. v. McIntyre)

In 506913 N.B. Ltd. v. McIntyre,16 the taxpayer sought to rely on answers given by a CRA representative in the TCC proceeding at his examination for discovery for a separate civil proceeding. Tax appeals were ongoing in respect of input tax credits under the Excise Tax Act.17

Normally, and as was the case here, there is an implied undertaking that answers given to questions at examinations for discovery are to be used only in the litigation to which they relate. The plaintiff, however, argued that it was in the public interest to set aside the implied undertaking. Justice Rideout disagreed.18

Charter Equality Rights Not Infringed by Differing Assessments (Tennant v. Minister of National Revenue)

Although not explicitly stated in the judgment, the Tennant case19 appears to involve subsection 15(1) of the ITA – a benefit conferred by a corporation on the taxpayer. The plaintiff taxpayer sued on the basis that, while he was assessed for the benefit, a similarly situated taxpayer who had engaged in a very similar transaction had not been assessed as having received a benefit.

The lawsuit was brought on the basis of section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,20 which provides for equality before and under the law, except to the extent it is circumscribed by section 1. Justice Sanderman held that section 15 was intended to cover differential treatment based on immutable personal characteristics, such as race, religion, sex or disability. The plaintiff failed because he was unable to show that the differing treatment resulted from an immutable personal characteristic.21

Tax Court does not have Jurisdiction to Hear Civil Claim (Ereiser v. Canada)

As explained, the validity of a tax assessment is separate and apart from any liability of the CRA. In Ereiser, the Federal Court of Appeal considered this issue.22 The Crown had successfully moved to strike a number of paragraphs of Ereiser's Notice of Appeal.

The underlying allegations of fact were this: the CRA officer attempted to have the taxpayer plead guilty to criminal charges, rather than face an assessment nearing $2 million, despite the fact that the taxpayer was never actually the subject of a criminal investigation. There were other abuses by the CRA officers.

Justice Sharlow provided a useful overview of this area of law. She explained that the Federal Court and provincial superior courts will often decline to entertain an application that is a collateral attack on the validity of an assessment.23 She also used the Leroux appeal (related proceedings considered herein) to illustrate that actions against tax officials may raise justiciable issues apart from the correctness of the assessment.24The latter is not justiciable in such a forum.

She arguably provides the clearest, most precise statement of this area of law:25

It may be that in this case, the reassessments under appeal will be found to be valid and correct. In that case, they will represent a correct statement of Mr. Ereiser's statutory obligations under the Income Tax Act, and they will not be vacated as part of the statutory appeal process for income tax appeals. However, they will be vacated if they are found to be invalid or entirely incorrect. If they are found to be incorrect in part, they will be vacated and referred back to the Minister for reassessment. But regardless of the outcome of Mr. Ereiser's income tax appeal, it will remain open to him to seek a remedy in the Federal Court or the superior court of a province, depending upon the circumstances, if he has a tort claim or an administrative law claim arising from the wrongful conduct of one or more tax officials.

Faulty Pleadings and Limitations Issues Can Bar an Action (Foote v. Canada)

The Foote decision26 stands as an important reminder that pleadings and limitations issues must be considered. In this case, the taxpayer was assessed for underreported income. The CRA's investigation included searches at his home and place of business. Upon declaring bankruptcy, the taxpayer's objections were abandoned.

Much of the claim was struck as challenging the underlying assessment, which was outside of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of British Columbia.27 In the case of the negligence claim, it was struck as the facts to support such a claim were not properly pleaded.28 As the misfeasance claim related to actions that were limitation barred (the execution of the search warrant in 2007), that claim could not proceed.29 Ultimately, most of the claim was struck, but the misfeasance action was allowed to proceed.30

The CRA Commences Criminal Proceeding against Taxpayer on Invalid Basis (McCreight v. Canada (Attorney General))

This case represents astonishing allegations of misfeasance against the CRA. It is also a warning to professional advisors about the lengths to which the CRA will go. In McCreight,31 the CRA investigated the use of research and development tax credits. The investigation included tax advisers in a large accounting firm.32 There were wranglings over the retention of seized documents by the CRA.

Ultimately, and somewhat shockingly, Justice Quinn found that the CRA investigator had sworn an information alleging fraud and conspiracy against, inter alia, the accountants "primarily to retain possession of the seized documents".33 The charges were dismissed against the accountants and the corporate taxpayers on the basis of unreasonable delay pursuant to section 11(b) of the Charter.34 The litigation is ongoing, and the claims for misfeasance in public office, negligence, and abuse of process have been allowed to proceed.35

Freeman/Natural Person/OPCA-based Claims are Frivolous (Sinclair-McDonald v. Her Majesty the Queen)

This case was bound to fail. The taxpayer, Sinclair-McDonald, asserted that she had waived her rights as a person under the law.36 The notion that someone can unilaterally waive the state's jurisdiction to tax is risible, but that was the taxpayer's position. She further sought an order that the CRA pay back all taxes collected from her for the past 10 years.37 This latter position was also incorrect.

It was correctly held that Parliament has the authority to legislate with respect to taxation and that Crown employees cannot be held liable for doing something that they are authorized to do by statute.38 For these reasons, the statement of claim was struck as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.39 For more on the puerility of tax protestor arguments see Meads v. Meads.40

Damages Assessed against Revenu Québec for Malicious Behaviour (Archambault v. Revenu Québec)

The Archambault case,41 currently under appeal, is one example of substantial success in Canada against a revenue authority – in this case Revenu Québec. The case involves successful allegations of bad faith brought against Revenu Québec. Justice Reimnitz held that Revenu Québec acted intentionally and breached the taxpayer's rights under the Québec Charter.42

Revenu Québec was held to have withheld the taxpayer's research and development tax credits to put financial pressure on the taxpayer, seized the taxpayer's bank account when it had no right to do so and kept the taxpayer in the dark about proceedings, making a defence difficult or impossible.43 Justice Reimnitz explained that this case was far from a simple error: it was malicious and intentional.44

Damages were assessed at $4,000,000, of which $2,000,000 constituted punitive damages. This is the only case of which the author is aware in which a Canadian revenue authority has been reasonably punished for highhanded abuse.

CRA Owed Duty of Care and Breached that Duty (Leroux v. Canada Revenue Agency)

The Leroux decision is the second case in which the CRA has been found to be in breach of a legal standard.45 However, liability was not assessed in this case.

The CRA took the position that it owed no private law duty of care to an individual taxpayer.46 However, Justice Humphries held that CRA auditors owe a duty of care to taxpayers.47 This duty includes a duty of care to take reasonable care in assessing penalties.48 She further explained that the gross negligence penalties, as were considered and assessed in this case evidenced a clear breach of the standard of care.49 The issues were in fact highly complex.50

The taxpayer was ultimately unsuccessful on the basis that no causation was shown, in combination with issues of contributory negligence and failure to mitigate.51 The case, however, remains important as specifically describing a standard of care owed to the taxpayer.



The primary considerations when suing the CRA are as follows: Ensure that the claim is brought in the proper jurisdiction. Ensure that the claim is supportable at law. Ensure that the actions of the CRA are actually highhanded or malicious and there is strong underlying evidence to support such a claim. Ensure that the claim is brought in a timely fashion. Ensure that the claim is does not conflate the issue of the validity of an assessment with the issue of CRA liability. Ensure that the facts and elements necessary to sustain each cause of action are sufficiently pleaded.


1 See Notes to D. Sherman's Annotated Income Tax Act at ss. 171(1).

2 Main Rehabilitation Co. v. Canada, 2004 FCA 403.

3 Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.).

4 Supra note 2 at para. 8.

5 Ibid.

6 Tax Court of Canada Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. T-2, s. 12.

7 As the TCC lacks jurisdiction to grant equitable remedies, a wronged taxpayer would have to look elsewhere for relief.

8 Canada (Attorney General) v. TeleZone Inc., 2010 SCC 62. See, inter alia, para. 22.

9 Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-50, s. 21(1).

10 Ibid., s. 3(b)(i).

11 Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, s. 17(2)(d).

12 783783 Alberta Ltd. v. Canada, 2010 ABCA 226, para. 5.

13 Ibid., para. 44.

14 Ibid., para. 45.

15 Ibid., para. 46.

16 506913 N.B. Ltd. v. McIntyre, 2012 NBQB 225.

17 Ibid., para. 4.

18 Ibid., para. 26.

19 Tennant v. Minister of National Revenue, 2012 ABQB 108.

20 Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c. 11.

21 Tennant, supra note 19 at para. 17.

22 Ereiser v. Canada, 2013 FCA 20.

23 Ibid., para. 35.

24 Ibid., para. 36.

25 Ibid., para. 38.

26 Foote v. Canada, 2013 BCCA 135.

27 Ibid., at para. 8.

28 Ibid.

29 Ibid., at para. 16.

30 Ibid., at para. 17.

31 McCreight v. Canada (Attorney General), 2013 ONCA 483.

32 Ibid., para. 3.

33 Ibid., para. 6.

34 Ibid., para. 8.

35 Ibid., para. 74.

36 Sinclair-McDonald v. Her Majesty the Queen, 2013 ONSC 4900, para. 1.

37 Ibid., para. 1.

38 Ibid., para. 22.

39 Sinclair-McDonald, supra note 36 at para. 23.

40 Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571.

41 Archambault v. Revenu Québec, 2013 QCCS 5189.

42 Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, C.Q.L.R., c. C-12.

43 I would like to thank my colleague Romain Baudemont for his assistance in translating a case summary of the Archambault decision into English for me.

44 Archambault v. Revenu Québec, supra note 41 at para. 699.

45 Leroux v. Canada Revenue Agency, 2014 BCSC 720.

46 Ibid., para. 6.

47 Ibid., at para. 305.

48 Ibid., at para. 306.

49 Ibid., at para. 355.

50 Ibid., at para. 348.

51 Ibid., at para. 375.

Originally published by Taxes & Wealth Management, May 2015.

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.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.