Canada: Supreme Court Of Canada Upholds Solicitor-Client Privilege In Tax Administration And Enforcement

Last Updated: June 10 2016
Article by Jeff Beedell and Stevan Novoselac

Most Read Contributor in Canada, October 2018

Overview

The Supreme Court released two unanimous decisions on June 3, 2016 upholding solicitor-client privilege in the context of requirements (Requirements) by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) to produce documents or information for tax administration or enforcement purposes. Both cases resolve the issue of the extent to which the state can narrow the common law definition of solicitor-client privilege in a statutory scheme with no notice provision to an affected client and no opportunity for the client to submit why the information should remain protected. These cases were heard almost a full year apart on December 4, 2014 and November 3, 2015 and the Court delayed its usual reserve of 6 months to write these together.

The Canadian Bar Association, the Federation of Law Societies of Canada and the Criminal Lawyers' Association intervened in both appeals, while the Advocates' Society intervened in the Quebec appeal only, all to challenge the Income Tax Act (ITA) Requirement provisions and seek to safeguard solicitor-client privilege as a principle of fundamental justice.

Section 231.2(1) of the ITA authorizes the Minister of National Revenue (Minister) to require, by means of a simple letter, that any person provide information or documents that might be of assistance in the administration or enforcement of the ITA. It applies, among others, to lawyers and notaries.

Should anyone refuse to comply with such a Requirement, the Minister can apply to the Federal Court under s. 231.7 for a compliance order requiring the person to do so. The court may grant the application if the information or documents being sought is not protected from disclosure by "solicitor-client privilege", which is defined in s. 232(1) of the ITA as "the right, if any, that a person has in a superior court in the province where the matter arises to refuse to disclose an oral or documentary communication on the ground that the communication is one passing between the person and the person's lawyer in professional confidence". This definition was enacted in its current form in 1965, well ahead of the more modern jurisprudence on solicitor-client privilege. The statutory definition of the privilege goes on to purport to exclude, however, "an accounting record of a lawyer, including any supporting voucher or cheque".

Under s. 238(1) of the ITA, any person who does not provide the required information or documents in the manner and within the reasonable time specified in the Minister's notice is guilty of an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine of not less than $1,000 and not more than $25,000, or to both a fine and imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months. A lawyer or notary who is prosecuted will be acquitted if the lawyer or notary (1) had reasonable grounds to believe that the required information or document was protected from disclosure by solicitor-client privilege; and (2) expressly communicated the refusal and the reason behind it to the Minister (s. 232(2) ITA).

Thompson

In the first case of Minister of National Revenue v. Duncan Thompson, the Court was asked to interpret the ITA provision that purports to create an exception to privilege for accounting records of lawyers. The issue was whether courts are required to apply this exception without further inquiry and, if not, whether the Court of Appeal erred in imposing a procedure to determine whether solicitor-client privilege applies to information or documents once Parliament has legislated, with clear and explicit language, a narrowing of the definition of solicitor-client privilege.

The respondent Duncan is a lawyer who, as a taxpayer in arrears of taxes, faced CRA collection proceedings pursuant to the ITA. The CRA issued a Requirement seeking information and documents pertaining to the lawyer's income and expenses, and assets and liabilities, including a current accounts receivable listing. The lawyer provided some, but not all, of the information and documents set out in the Requirement. The CRA subsequently found that he had provided no details regarding his accounts receivable, other than a total balance owing.

The lawyer challenged the Requirement, based on a claim of solicitor-client privilege. He sought a determination of whether s. 231.2(1) of the ITA can be interpreted, applied or enforced so as to require a lawyer who is the subject of enforcement proceedings by the CRA to divulge information about his clients, information which he argued is protected by solicitor-client privilege. He also submitted that the Requirement was akin to an unreasonable search or seizure and thus was contrary to s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter).

The Application Judge of the Federal Court rejected the claim of solicitor-client privilege on the basis that the financial records of the lawyer's payables and receivables were "accounting records" and by statutory definition a valid exception to solicitor-client privilege. Despite the fact that client names might be included, the Judge reasoned that the Requirement did not seek disclosure of the content of solicitor-client consultations or communications.

The Federal Court of Appeal allowed the lawyer's appeal in part, on the basis that there may be rare circumstances where such records contain solicitor-client privileged information with respect to client names. The Federal Court of Appeal therefore sent the matter back to the Federal Court for a new hearing to assess whether any individual documents and client names contained in those documents were actually protected by solicitor-client privilege. However, it dismissed the lawyer's Charter argument under s. 8. The Court of Appeal further directed that in circumstances where a court is exercising discretion that may limit solicitor-client privilege, the holders of any potentially privileged information should be notified and have an opportunity to participate in determining whether the information should be disclosed. This framework for judicial discretion would allow for different treatment of a document that is entirely an accounting record of a lawyer, as opposed to one including solicitor-client privileged information, in which case appropriate redacting may be required.

The Supreme Court decision was written jointly by Wagner and Gascon JJ. (McLachlin C.J. and Abella, Cromwell and Karakatsanis JJ. concurring; Rothstein J. at the hearing, but not participating in the judgment due to his retirement). They found Parliament's intention to exclude "an accounting record of a lawyer" from the scope of solicitor-client privilege to be clear and unequivocal. However, even though s. 8 of the Charter was not a live ground of appeal in this case, the Court's decision in the companion Chambre des notaires case also determined this appeal. In Chambre des notaires, the Court concluded that the statutory exception as it applied to lawyers and notaries was constitutionally invalid as an unjustified breach of s. 8 of the Charter. As the Requirement scheme was declared invalid, there was no reason to send this back to the Federal Court to assess each document for solicitor-client privileged information.

While the Court's Chambre des notaires decision on the s. 8 analysis was determinative of both appeals, the Court did emphasize these points in the Thompson decision:

  1. solicitor-client privilege has evolved since the ITA Requirement provisions were enacted, from a mere evidentiary rule to a rule of substance and principle of fundamental justice;
  2. the express language in the ITA, together with the Requirement provisions' legislative history, unlike the statutory provision of the PIPEDA interpreted in the Blood Tribe decision, made clear and unambiguous Parliament's intention to exclude a lawyer's accounting records from solicitor-client protection; and
  3. a lawyer is not the alter ego of his or her client and should Parliament choose to modify the existing ITA to remedy its constitutional defects, any new scheme must allow for a court to assess a request for access to such presumptively privileged information on the basis that clients whose information is being sought are notified and given the opportunity to participate and assert the protections that apply to them.

Chambre des notaires

In the second case of Attorney General of Canada v. Chambre des notaires du Québec, the Court was asked whether s. 231.2(1), s. 231.7 and the definition of "solicitor-client privilege" in s. 232(1) of the ITA infringe rights guaranteed by s. 7 of the Charter or infringe rights against unreasonable search and seizure guaranteed by s. 8 of the Charter insofar as they apply to a lawyer or notary. If so, can such infringements be justified under s. 1 of the Charter?

The Chambre des notaries, as a result of its members' practice concerns about professional secrecy, brought an action under art. 453 of the Code of Civil Procedure for a declaration that s. 231.2(1) and 231.7, together with the exception set out in the definition of "solicitor-client privilege" in s. 232(1), are unconstitutional in relation to notaries of the province of Quebec on the basis that they are contrary to the Charter.

The Barreau, on behalf of lawyers in Quebec, joined in the action in the lower courts by intervening in support of the Chambre. Both the Superior Court and the Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the Chambre and the Barreau. The Court of Appeal found that, pursuant to s. 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982, ss. 231.2(1) and 231.7 and the exception in s. 232(1) are unconstitutional and of no force or effect with respect to Quebec lawyers and notaries for all information and documents protected by professional secrecy.

Being in substantial agreement with the Court of Appeal, the Court dismissed the appeal. To address whether the impugned ITA provisions were contrary to s. 8 of the Charter, the Court addressed two questions: first, whether the CRA's action intruded upon an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy, so as to constitute a seizure within the meaning of s. 8; and second, whether the seizure was an unreasonable intrusion on that right of privacy.

For the first question, the Court simply relied on its previous decision holding that a Requirement under what is now s. 231.2(1) of the ITA constitutes a seizure within the meaning of s. 8. The Court firmly and unequivocally reinforced the right to professional secrecy as a rule having "deep significance and a unique status in our legal system": "[t]he fundamental importance of the right to professional secrecy of lawyers is a cornerstone not only of our judicial system but, more broadly, of our legal system". This right is not diminished by the administrative context (rather than criminal context) within which the ITA Requirement provisions operate. The expectation of privacy in solicitor-client privileged communications is always high, regardless of the reasons why disclosure is being sought. Barring rare exceptions, information protected by professional secrecy that is in the possession of a lawyer is immune from disclosure.

In addressing the second question, the Court balanced the interests at stake, being the individual's right to privacy versus the CRA's interest in carrying out the search and seizure. In considering this question, the Court reiterated that the right to maintain solicitor-client privilege "is a principle of fundamental justice and a legal principle of supreme importance". This right trumped the CRA's interest in obtaining the information and the balancing exercise was therefore considered unhelpful in this case. The Court also rejected the appellant's submission that the excluded information found in the lawyer's accounting records constitutes facts rather than communications and is therefore always excluded from the protection of solicitor-client privilege as defined in s. 232(1). The line between so called facts and communications was impractical to draw.

The Court went on to describe several serious constitutional defects in the ITA Requirement scheme: the client is given no notice of the Requirement; an inappropriate burden is placed on the notary or lawyer; compelling disclosure of the information being sought is not absolutely necessary; and no measures have been taken to help mitigate the impairment of professional secrecy.

The Court also agreed with the Court of Appeal's conclusion that the accounting records exception infringes the rights guaranteed by s. 8 of the Charter. "It is well established that the accounting records of notaries and lawyers are inherently capable of containing information that is protected by professional secrecy." This principle applies even where the accounting record contains no description of the work performed and only the fee amount. Citing an article authored by Gowling WLG partner Gloria Geddes entitled: "The Fragile Privilege: Establishing and Safeguarding Solicitor-Client Privilege", the Court explained numerous instances where accounting records could contain privileged information. The mere fact that such accounting records could potentially involve a breach of professional secrecy was identified as problematic. The expression "accounting record of a lawyer" used in the exception was overly broad, being open to many interpretations. The risk that a client's privileged information might be exposed therefore varies greatly. Professional secrecy will only be set aside when absolutely necessary, only for a very specific purpose and only where the exceptions are precisely defined.

Having determined infringements to s. 8 of the Charter, the Court turned to considering whether the impugned ITA provisions (ss. 231.2(1) and 231.7 and the accounting records exception in s. 232(1)) could be justified by the state under s. 1. For the reasons given earlier, the Court held that the ITA Requirement scheme, as it applies to notaries and lawyers, fails to minimally impair the s. 8 Charter rights and therefore cannot be saved by s. 1.

In conclusion, the Court declared the Requirement scheme in the ITA unconstitutional insofar as it applies to notaries and lawyers in Quebec. The appropriate remedy was to "read down" the provisions, so as to exclude notaries and lawyers from the scope of their operation. Therefore, the Requirement scheme is now prohibited in its application to notaries and lawyers in their capacity as legal advisors. Further, the exception for a lawyer's accounting records set out in the definition of "solicitor-client privilege" was held to be unconstitutional and invalid.

Courts have consistently maintained solicitor-client privilege as a foundational right to our legal system. The privilege belongs to the client and can only be waived by the client. The ITA Requirement scheme, as it purported to apply to lawyers and notaries, effectively resulted in privileged information and documents being compelled to be produced to the CRA, with no notice to the client and consequently no opportunity for the client to challenge its release. The Court rightly found this to be an intolerably overreaching intrusion by the CRA.

Implications

There was no suspension of the declaration of constitutional invalidity, so s. 231.2(1) of the ITA immediately has no application to the accounting records of lawyers and notaries in Canada. This means that the CRA must drop tools in respect of all such Requirements currently directed at lawyers and notaries and use other administration and enforcement actions to pursue these tax audit and collection files.

The Court has invited Parliament to draft remedial provisions compliant with the modern scope of solicitor-client privilege and, at minimum, has provided guidance to Parliament on the procedural safeguards necessary to ensure that the clients of lawyers and notaries have participation rights in any court examination of what records are protected.

One can quickly appreciate that in the case of a large law practice, the number of client names and other privileged information and documents in a lawyer's accounting records for a particular time period of interest to the CRA could be very lengthy. Exactly how cumbersome any new process may become awaits new legislation, but even the means by which lawyers would notify clients of a court hearing that may affect them and the decision of clients to participate is problematic, if the goal is to not to disclose to the CRA the identity of clients or their privileged information in the hands of their lawyer.

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
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Rotfleisch & Samulovitch P.C.
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Rotfleisch & Samulovitch P.C.
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