Court order required Minister of National Revenue to reply to taxpayers’ letter requesting pre-discovery document disclosure by specific date. Minister replied by offering to provide over 16,000 documents, subject to conditions. Taxpayers brought motions for order pursuant to R. 126(4)(b) of Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure) for judgment on basis that Minister did not reply to taxpayers’ request for documents by date specified in court order, and for order pursuant to R. 16.1 of Rules to treat affidavits filed in support of first motion as confidential documents. Motions dismissed. Private information in affidavits were not relevant to determining issue of whether Minister failed to comply with issue. Court order only required Minister to reply to taxpayers’ request for documents, and did not require Minister to disclose any document. Order was intended to move matter along so taxpayers could bring motion for document disclosure beyond list of documents that had been exchanged. Fact that taxpayers were not satisfied with reply did not mean that Minister did not comply with order. Taxpayers mischaracterized nature and effect of order. Minister had been very accommodating to taxpayers and had acted quickly to deal with issues. Taxpayers claimed Minister’s action amounted to abuse of process but it was taxpayers who committed abuse of process in bringing this motion without any merit and filing 15 affidavits that had nothing to do with issue.
Simard v. The Queen (2018), 2018 CarswellNat 7805, 2018 TCC 237, F.J. Pizzitelli J. (T.C.C. [General Procedure]).