Canada: Judicial Review Of Discretionary Decisions By CRA

Last Updated: December 11 2015
Article by David Rotfleisch

Introduction

The Canada Revenue Agency ("CRA") is an administrative body and, as a result, it may only exercise powers given to it expressly by statute, of which the provisions of the Income Tax Act are the most relevant to the majority of taxpayers.

The Minister of National Revenue ("Minister") is CRA's representative for the purposes of administering and enforcing the Income Tax Act and any mention of "the Minister" is in effect a reference to CRA. There are many sections of the Tax Act that direct the CRA to exercise its powers in a specific way in particular circumstances, often indicated by mandatory language such as "the Minister shall". However, there are also several provisions of the Tax Act which allow the CRA to decide whether or not to act, or how to act, in certain situations, usually containing phrases like "the Minister may". The presence of "shall" means that Revenue Canada has little lee-way in deciding how to perform its duties under the Tax Act, whereas the use of "may" is strong evidence that the drafters of the Tax Act, Parliament, intended to give considerable discretion to the CRA in determining how to perform its income tax duties.

This article will analyze the standard of review applied by the Courts when undertaking a judicial review of certain discretionary decisions made by Revenue Canada under the Tax Act.

Discretionary Decisions of the CRA are Appealed to the Federal Courts

Discretionary decisions made by the CRA are appealed by a Canadian income tax lawyer to the Federal Courts, not to the Tax Court of Canada. This is because the Tax Court of Canada is a creature of statute, in other words it was created by the Canadian government through the legislative process, rather than through common law, and, accordingly, is only empowered to offer relief that is expressly set out in its constituting statute, the Tax Court of Canada Act, RSC 1985, c T-2. For example, when a Toronto income tax litigation lawyer appeals an assessment or reassessment to the Tax Court of Canada, the Court is limited by the in the ways in which it can deal with the appeal:

  • The Tax Court judge may confirm the assessment or reassessment issued by the CRA;
  • The Canada Tax Court judge can vacate the assessment, ordering the CRA to reconsider its decision and issue a reassessment to the taxpayer; and
  • The Tax judge may also direct the Minister to reassess the taxpayer in accordance with his or her instructions, based on findings of fact determined at trial.

Additionally, the Tax Court and its judges are limited by the enabling statute to making decisions in accordance with the statutory provisions of the Tax Act. The Tax Court of Canada does not have the power to tell CRA what to do when the issue in question is within the Minister's discretion, and has no ability to make a decision based upon what it believes to be a fair and reasonable outcome for a given scenario. Essentially, the Tax Court judge is only capable of applying the law as written in the Income Tax Act as interpreted by binding authority of more senior courts. In summary, an Ottawa income tax lawyer will appeal Canadian income tax assessments or GST assessments to the Tax Court.

On the other hand, the Federal Courts have either exclusive jurisdiction or concurrent jurisdiction with the provincial Superior Courts to adjudicate completely in areas of law in the federal sphere that fall within their statutory jurisdiction, such as taxation and immigration. The remedies that can be asked of, and granted by, the Federal Courts are extremely broad. The Federal Courts have the ability to grant "extraordinary" remedies in the form of prerogative writs, such as injunctions and mandamus orders, and the remedies available are often only limited by the imagination of the Canadian tax appeal lawyer requesting them. As mentioned above, the only power that a Tax Court of Canada judge has in terms of influencing the minister's discretion is to have the matter sent back to the minister to "reconsider". A judge of the Federal Court or Federal Court of Appeal, however, can issue a mandamus order directing the minister to act, or not act, in a specific way. In essence, a Federal Court judge can tell the Revenue Canada how to exercise its discretion if they believe the Minister has made an unreasonable or incorrect ruling, situations which are discussed in more detail below.

However, even though the remedies available from a Federal Court judge are broad, Canadian taxation lawyers face a high bar in persuading the Court to actually exercise their remedial powers on judicial review, as explained below.

Brief Overview of Leading Canadian Cases Concerning the Standards of Review for Judicial Review

Historically, the actions of Canadian administrative bodies were assessed using three standards of review: correctness, reasonableness and patent unreasonableness. However, in 2008 with the landmark Supreme Court of Canada ("SCC") decision of Dunsmuir v New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9, the standard of review framework was simplified by the SCC, with patent unreasonableness, a malleable and often unhelpful standard, being dropped in favour of a two-pronged standard of review consisting of correctness and reasonableness.

According to the SCC in Dunsmuir, questions of fact, discretionary decisions, matters of policy and instances where questions of fact cannot be easily separated from the legal issues will most often attract a standard of reasonableness. An administrative decision assessed on a standard of reasonableness will not be interfered with so long as it falls within the range of possible outcomes, even if the reviewing judge disagrees with the decision-maker's conclusion.

On the other hand, questions of law, especially those that are of central importance to the legal system, will attract a standard of correctness. Questions of jurisdiction, which ask whether the decision-maker in question even has the authority to deal with a particular issue, will also be assessed on the basis of their "correctness". With these types of administrative decisions, a reviewing judge will put themselves in the decision-maker's shoes and assess their actions based on what the judge believes to be the "correct" answer. Little to no deference will be shown to the original decision-maker when a "correctness" standard is the applicable standard of review for a given decision.

The Applicable Standard of Review for Discretionary Decisions of the CRA

The Federal Courts, which are responsible for review of the CRA as indicated above, have consistently applied the aforementioned judicial review framework from Dunsmuir to discretionary decisions made by the Revenue Canada under the Income Tax Act.

A reasonableness standard of review was applied by the federal court In Charky v Canada (Minister of National Resources), 2010 FC 1327, which concerned the review of a ministerial decision made under subsection 220(3.1) of the Tax Act, a provision applicable during the voluntary disclosure process. Subsection 220(3.1) gives the Canadian tax department the discretion to waive or cancel all or any portion of any penalties or interest that became payable by the taxpayer in the ten years preceding the taxpayer's voluntary disclosure application. In Charky, the CRA rejected a taxpayer's voluntary disclosure application for lack of voluntariness. In evaluating the Minister's decision, the Court was mostly concerned with whether the Minister "considered all the evidence before him fairly" and, having answered that question in the affirmative, concluded that the decision fell well "within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes", and was therefore reasonable.

Similarly, in Canada (Attorney General) v Abraham, 2012 FCA 266, the Federal Court of Appeal assessed a discretionary decision made by a delegate of the Canada Revenue Agency with respect to subsection 152(4.2) of the Tax Act using a standard of reasonableness. Subsection 152(4.2) allows taxpayers to apply to the Minister, subsequent to the normal assessment period, to have taxes, interest or penalties owed by the taxpayer with respect to a particular taxation year reassessed by the Minister, as long as the application is brought within ten calendar years of the end of the taxation year being put forth by the taxpayer for reassessment. In Abraham, the Minister's delegate, after reviewing a taxpayer application for relief under 152(4.2), elected to deny the relief sought by the taxpayer. The Federal Court of Appeal showed a high level of deference to the delegate's decision; this, despite the fact that the delegate, in carrying out their analysis, was required to determine the taxpayer's rights in relation to the Indian Act, which is inarguably a question of law, before deciding whether or not to exercise their statutory discretion in favour of the taxpayer. The Court in Abraham was seemingly unconcerned with the legal component of the delegate's decision-making process in arriving at the conclusion that the applicable standard of review was reasonableness, and in support of its reasoning relied upon previous case law that held that the discretion granted by section 152(4.2) was to be interpreted "broadly".

These cases make it clear that the Federal Courts will respect discretionary decisions made by Revenue Canada and its delegates as long as decisions are reasonably transparent and not the result of bad faith or fraud.

Precedent Not Binding on the Minister

In order to properly exercise a discretionary power given to them by statute, administrative decision-makers actually have to exercise such discretion in considering the specific facts and circumstances of each case: they cannot fetter their discretion with established policies, "rules of thumb" or previous decisions. For example, CRA's Information Circular 07-1 ("IC07-1) lists some examples of situations which might amount to "extraordinary circumstances", the occurrence of which might entitle a taxpayer to interest or penalty relief under subsection 220(3.1) of the Tax Act. The examples listed in IC07-1 are:

  • natural or man-made disasters, such as floor or fire;
  • civil disturbances or disruptions in services, such as a postal strike;
  • a serious illness or accident; or
  • serious mental illness or distress, such as death in the immediate family.

In Canada v Guindon, the Federal Court of Appeal discussed the nature of the discretionary power given to the Minister under subsection 220(3.1) of the Income Tax Act and stated that the discretion "must be based upon the purposes of the act, the fairness purposes that lie behind subsection 220(3.1), and a rational assessment of all the relevant circumstances". The Court in Guindon also emphasized that such discretion "must be genuinely exercised and must not be fettered or dictated by policy statements such as Information Circular 07-1". For instance, if a taxpayer with a significant income incurred significant interest and penalties as a result of unpaid income tax and then subsequently lost their job, it would be an improper exercise of discretion if the Minister denied penalty relief solely because the taxpayer's circumstances were not mentioned in IC07-1. Such a taxpayer is not necessarily entitled to interest and penalty relief under 220(3.1), but the Minister is still required to fully consider the taxpayer's circumstances in exercising their discretion and avoid a mechanical application of policy guidelines such as IC07-1 in determining what is truly a fair outcome.

Because CRA is required to exercise its discretion by turning their mind to the facts of each case that comes before it, the Minister is not bound by past decisions. This of course leaves open the possibility that two different taxpayers in similar circumstances could receive different treat under a discretionary provision such as subsection 220(3.1). However, as mentioned above, so long at the Minister's decisions were transparent and within the range of acceptable outcomes, the differential treatment will not be grounds for judicial review of the decision(s).

Hypothetical Discretionary Decisions Within Voluntary Disclosure and Taxpayer Relief Framework

A Canadian resident taxpayer with substantial unreported foreign assets invested overseas may decide to have his Ontario tax lawyer prepare a Voluntary Disclosure application to the CRA, fearing the penalties and interest or prosecution that might follow if they are eventually audited or investigated by the CRA. Typically, Revenue Canada grants total penalty relief in addition to partial interest relief upon the filing of a successful voluntary disclosure. However, the granting of interest relief in a Voluntary Disclosure is discretionary and the taxpayer might not be satisfied with the amount of interest relief given by Revenue Canada. Since this is a discretionary decision, CRA's determination will be reviewed by the Federal Courts using a standard of reasonableness and our hypothetical taxpayer would face a high hurdle in having the Minister's decision overturned by the Federal Courts on judicial review, unless the reasoning of the decision is suspect and open to attack.

Now, imagine that same taxpayer, except in this scenario the taxpayer is audited and assessed for gross negligence penalties and interest for the 10 prior taxation years. If the amount of unreported foreign assets is significant, the associated penalties and interest payable by the taxpayer could easily be hundreds of thousands of dollars, perhaps even more. Such a taxpayer's Canadian tax litigation law firm might file a taxpayer relief application (formerly called a fairness application) and seek to have the penalties and/or interest owing reduced by demonstrating the disastrous effects paying them in full would have on the taxpayer's lifestyle. If the Revenue Canada exercises its discretion to deny the quantum of relief desired by the taxpayer, any review of the Minister's decision is going to be assessed on a reasonableness standard by the Federal Courts. Absent the presence of bad faith on the behalf of the Minister, such a decision will likely not be interfered with so long as it falls within the "range of possible, acceptable outcomes".

Conclusion

In light of the governing SCC decision in Dunsmuir and the subsequent body of case law, it is clear that reviewing Federal Courts have become increasingly wary of striking down administrative decisions solely on the basis that they would have come to a different conclusion given the same set of facts. Because many of the powers given to the Minister in the Income Tax Act are discretionary, taxpayers have no right to the relief contemplated by the wording of the particular section and they certainly do not have the right to have ministerial discretion exercised in their favour.

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 Mondaq.com.

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

Authors
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
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
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

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 or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq 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 of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions