Guindon v. Canada

Guindon v. Canada
Collection
Supreme Court Judgments
Date
2015-07-31
Neutral citation
2015 SCC 41
Report
[2015] 3 SCR 3
Case number
35519
Judges
Abella, Rosalie Silberman; Rothstein, Marshall; Cromwell, Thomas Albert; Moldaver, Michael J.; Karakatsanis, Andromache; Wagner, Richard; Gascon, Clément
On appeal from
Federal Court of Appeal
Subjects
Constitutional law
Notes
SCC Case Information: 35519
Decision Content
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
Citation: Guindon v. Canada, 2015 SCC 41, [2015] 3 S.C.R. 3
Date: 20150731
Docket: 35519
Between:
Julie Guindon
Appellant
and
Her Majesty The Queen
Respondent
- and -
Attorney General of Ontario, Attorney General of Quebec, Chartered Professional Accountants Canada and Canadian Constitution Foundation
Interveners
Coram: Abella, Rothstein, Cromwell, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Wagner and Gascon JJ.
Joint Reasons for Judgment:
(paras. 1 to 91)
Rothstein and Cromwell JJ. (Moldaver and Gascon JJ. concurring)
Joint Reasons Concurring That the Appeal Be Dismissed but Dissenting as to Whether the Court Should Exercise Its Discretion to Address the Merits of the Constitutional Issue:
(paras. 92 to 142)
Abella and Wagner JJ. (Karakatsanis J. concurring)
Guindon v. Canada, 2015 SCC 41, [2015] 3 S.C.R. 3
Julie Guindon Appellant
v.
Her Majesty The Queen Respondent
and
Attorney General of Ontario,
Attorney General of Quebec,
Chartered Professional Accountants Canada and
Canadian Constitution Foundation Interveners
Indexed as: Guindon v. Canada
2015 SCC 41
File No.: 35519.
2014: December 5; 2015: July 31.
Present: Abella, Rothstein, Cromwell, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Wagner and Gascon JJ.
on appeal from the federal court of appeal
Constitutional law — Charter of Rights — Income tax — Penalty for misrepresentation — Individual assessed for penalties under s. 163.2 of Income Tax Act, which imposes monetary penalties on every person who makes false statement that could be used by another person for purpose of Act — Whether proceeding under s. 163.2 is criminal in nature or leads to imposition of true penal consequences — Whether individual assessed for penalties is person “charged with an offence” within meaning of s. 11 of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms — Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp .), s. 163.2 .
Constitutional law — Courts — Procedure — Notice of constitutional question given to attorneys general in this Court but not in courts below — Whether this Court should exercise its discretion to address merits of constitutional issue —Tax Court of Canada Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. T‑2, s. 19.2 .
The Minister of National Revenue assessed G for penalties under s. 163.2 of the Income Tax Act for statements she made in donation receipts issued on behalf of a charity, which she knew or would reasonably be expected to have known could be used by taxpayers to claim an unwarranted tax credit. G appealed the Minister’s assessment to the Tax Court of Canada. In her oral submissions, she argued that the penalties imposed under s. 163.2 are criminal and that she is therefore a person “charged with an offence” who is entitled to the procedural safeguards of s. 11 of the Charter . In her notice of appeal, however, she did not raise any Charter issue and did not provide notice of a constitutional question to the attorneys general as required by s. 19.2 of the Tax Court of Canada Act . The Tax Court accepted G’s argument and vacated the penalty assessment. The Federal Court of Appeal set aside that decision and restored the assessment against G.
Held: The appeal should be dismissed.
Per Rothstein, Cromwell, Moldaver and Gascon JJ.: This Court has a well‑established discretion, albeit one that is narrow and should be exercised sparingly, to address the merits of a constitutional issue when proper notice of constitutional question has been given in this Court, even though the issue was not properly raised in the courts below. That discretion should be exercised taking into account all of the circumstances, including the state of the record, fairness to all parties, the importance of having the issue resolved by this Court, its suitability for decision and the broader interests of the administration of justice. The burden is on the appellant to persuade the Court that in light of all of the circumstances, it should exercise its discretion.
This is a case in which this Court’s discretion ought to be exercised. The issue raised is important to the administration of the Income Tax Act and it is in the public interest to decide it. All attorneys general were given notice of constitutional question in this Court. Two intervened, the attorneys general of Ontario and Quebec. No provincial or territorial attorney general suggested that he or she was deprived of the opportunity to adduce evidence or was prejudiced in any other way. No one has suggested that any additional evidence is required, let alone requested permission to supplement the record. The attorneys general of Ontario and of Quebec addressed the merits of the constitutional argument. This Court also has the benefit of fully developed reasons for judgment on the constitutional point in both of the courts below. Finally, there was no deliberate flouting of the notice requirement: G had advanced an arguable, although not ultimately successful, position that notice was not required in the circumstances of this case.
As for the merits, or the constitutional issue itself, it should be decided in favour of the respondent. Proceedings under s. 163.2 of the Income Tax Act are of an administrative nature. They are not criminal in nature and do not lead to the imposition of true penal consequences. Therefore, G is not a person “charged with an offence” and accordingly, the protections under s. 11 of the Charter do not apply.
A proceeding is criminal in nature when it is aimed at promoting public order and welfare within a public sphere of activity. Proceedings of an administrative nature, on the other hand, are primarily intended to maintain compliance or to regulate conduct within a limited sphere of activity. The focus of the inquiry is not on the nature of the act which is the subject of the proceedings, but on the nature of the proceedings themselves, taking into account their purpose as well as their procedure.
The purpose of the proceedings in issue is to promote honesty and deter gross negligence, or worse, on the part of the preparers. Enacted in 2000, s. 163.2 contains two administrative penalties: the “planner penalty” in subs. (2) and the “preparer penalty” in subs. (4). The planner penalty is not at issue in this appeal. The preparer penalty is intended to apply when an individual has made, participated in, assented to, or acquiesced in the making of a false statement. The preparer penalty is narrow: the false statement must be made knowingly or in circumstances amounting to culpable conduct. Culpable conduct is defined in s. 163.2(1) as “conduct, whether an act or a failure to act, that (a) is tantamount to intentional conduct; (b) shows an indifference as to whether [the Income Tax Act ] is complied with; or (c) shows a wilful, reckless or wanton disregard of the law”. While there has been debate as to the scope of “culpable conduct”, the standard must be at least as high as gross negligence. The third party penalties are meant to capture serious conduct, not ordinary negligence or simple mistakes on the part of a tax preparer or planner.
With respect to the process itself, the analysis is concerned with the extent to which it bears the traditional hallmarks of a criminal proceeding. Here, the Canada Revenue Agency auditors conduct a penalty audit, advise the preparer or planner in writing of the audit, and consider any representation that the individual chooses to make before imposing the penalty. This administrative process can be contrasted with the process which applies to criminal offences. No one is charged. No information is laid against anyone. No one is arrested. No one is summoned to appear before a court of criminal jurisdiction. No criminal record will result from the proceedings. At worst, once the administrative proceeding is complete and all appeals are exhausted, if the penalty is upheld and the person liable to pay still refuses to do so, he or she risks being forced to pay by way of a civil action.
In addition to not being criminal in nature, the process under s. 163.2 of the Income Tax Act does not lead to the imposition of any “true penal consequence”. A true penal consequence is imprisonment or a fine which, having regard to its magnitude and other relevant factors, is imposed to redress the wrong done to society at large rather than simply to secure compliance. A monetary penalty may or may not be a true penal consequence. It will be so when it is, in purpose or effect, punitive. Whether this is the case is assessed by looking at considerations such as the magnitude of the fine, to whom it is paid, whether its magnitude is determined by regulatory considerations rather than principles of criminal sentencing, and whether stigma is associated with the penalty.
In this case, the penalties assessed against G do not impose a true penal consequence — the magnitude reflects the objective of deterring conduct of the type she engaged in. The Tax Court found that G wrote and endorsed a legal opinion that she knew was flawed and misleading: in the opinion, she stated that she had reviewed supporting material which had in fact never been provided to her. Later, when she signed donation receipts for charity, she chose to rely on her own legal opinion which she knew to be incomplete. In short, the Tax Court found that G’s conduct was indicative either of complete disregard of the law and whether it was complied with or not or of wilful blindness.
Per Abella, Karakatsanis and Wagner JJ.: There is no ambiguity in the text of s. 19.2 of the Tax Court of Canada Act . It explicitly states that the court shall not adjudge a law to be invalid, inapplicable or inoperative unless the notice requirements are satisfied. Because G failed to satisfy those requirements, the Tax Court judge was not entitled to deal with the constitutional issue. This Court, however, has the discretion to entertain new issues. The question in this case, therefore, is how that discretion should be exercised when the new issue raised is a constitutional one which was subject to a mandatory notice requirement in the court or tribunal of first instance. The existence of such a notice requirement argues for the discretion being a very narrow one which should only sparingly be exercised to avoid the practice and perception that such mandatory provisions can be circumvented by raising constitutional arguments as new issues and giving notice for the first time in this Court.
As this Court explained in Eaton v. Brant County Board of Education, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 241, provisions that require litigants to file notice of a constitutional question serve two central purposes: extending a full opportunity to governments to defend their legislation and ensuring that an evidentiary record that is the result of thorough examination is before the court.
Eaton remains the only case in which this Court has explicitly and fully considered the policy and evidentiary consequences of the failure to give the requisite notice of a constitutional issue in the court or tribunal where it was required. With the exception of cases where de facto notice was given or the Attorneys General consented to proceeding in the absence of notice, the Court concluded that such notice provisions were mandatory and failure to give the notice invalidates a decision made in its absence. There was, the Court held, no need to show actual prejudice since absence of notice is in itself prejudicial to the public interest. Prejudice is assumed from the failure to give notice since it means that a party entitled to make representations has been denied the opportunity to do so.
In Eaton, this Court declined to hear the constitutional issue because the required notice had not been given in previous proceedings. There is no suggestion in any subsequent decision of this Court that the notice issue was wrongly decided in Eaton. As a result, as Eaton directs, the mandatory language of s. 19.2 of the Tax Court of Canada Act and its underlying policy rationales support the conclusion that this Court should not, absent exceptional circumstances, adjudicate the constitutionality of s. 163.2 of the Income Tax Act in the absence of notice in the Tax Court.
Notice provisions play a particularly crucial role in Charter litigation, where, if an applicant successfully establishes a violation of an enumerated right, the burden shifts to the government to demonstrate on a balance of probabilities that the legislation in question is justified under s. 1 of the Charter . Notice provisions therefore protect the public interest by giving Attorneys General an opportunity to present evidence so that a court can assess the constitutionality of the law fully and fairly. Bypassing this crucial evidentiary step in a first instance forum where the evidence can be properly tested and challenged, erodes not only the credibility of the outcome, but also public confidence that Charter compliance will be robustly reviewed. And notice is essential not just for the Attorney General whose legislation is being challenged, but also for the other Attorneys General whose legislation may be incidentally affected by the outcome of the case and who, as a result, may wish to intervene. Prejudice to the public is presumed from the failure to have full Charter scrutiny when it is first required. The central role notice provisions play in our constitutional democracy is reflected in the fact that every province and territory has a law requiring that notice of a constitutional question be served on the provincial and territorial Attorneys General, and, at times, also requiring that the Attorney General of Canada be served.
The failure to notify Attorneys General in the forum where notice is required and doing so only for the first time in this Court undermines the purposes underlying the notice provisions. Most significantly, it undermines public confidence because it extinguishes the legislative assurances that this Court will have the benefit of a complete and tested record when scrutinizing the constitutionality of legislation.
Moreover, if this Court arrogates to itself a broad authority to retroactively remedy a failure to give notice in the Tax Court where it is required, the mandatory character of s. 19.2 is eroded. Permitting the artifice of notice at this Court to replace notice in the forum from which an appeal is taken would, in effect, permit parties to do an “end run” around these mandatory notice provisions. Such an approach would have the effect of replacing Eaton’s presumption of prejudice with an assumption of no prejudice if notice is eventually given in this Court. Not only does this send the message that compliance with mandatory notice provisions is merely optional, it also has the effect of making them essentially discretionary.
The mandatory wording of the Tax Court of Canada Act and the policy reasons underlying notice provisions therefore lead to the conclusion that, in addition to the two exceptions set out in Eaton — de facto notice and the consent of the Attorneys General — absent exceptional circumstances, this Court should not entertain a constitutional argument where notice was not properly provided in the court or tribunal of first instance. Exceptional circumstances include those where the constitutional issue has an overwhelming urgency or public importance that justifies hearing it in this Court, or where the party bringing the constitutional challenge had little choice but to raise it for the first time in this Court.
In this case, G failed to serve notice of a constitutional question before the Tax Court. She once again failed to serve the notice required by s. 57 of the Federal Courts Act in proceedings before the Federal Court of Appeal. Before this Court, G filed notice for the first time. She attempted to bring her case outside the scope of s. 19.2 by arguing that she was merely asserting her Charter rights, as opposed to seeking a declaration of invalidity, inapplicability or inoperability. Having raised a constitutional argument, however, G was bound by the notice requirements that govern its determination. The protections set out in s. 11 of the Charter cannot simply be read into the regulatory scheme without rendering s. 163.2 invalid, inapplicable or inoperative. The Income Tax Act provides a set of procedures and processes that are distinct from those set out in the Criminal Code . Section 34(2) of the Interpretation Act , as a result, does not apply.
Neither exception from Eaton applies in this case. Nor are there any exceptional circumstances: there is no particular urgency or overwhelming public importance that distinguishes this case from other constitutional cases, and there is virtually no explanation for why notice was not given where required in the prior proceedings.
At the Tax Court, the Attorney General of Canada objected to G’s constitutional argument, arguing that notice was required. Neither the Attorney General of Canada, nor the provincial Attorneys General whose own regulatory schemes could clearly be affected by the outcome, had the opportunity to fully participate in building the necessary evidentiary record before the Tax Court. And two of the three Attorneys General who participated in this Court objected to the failure to provide notice at the Tax Court. Far from conceding that there was no prejudice, the Attorney General of Canada in fact insisted that there was prejudice to the public from the failure to provide notice. The burden of showing the contrary is on G, not on the Attorneys General. Moreover, it is impossible in the absence of a full evidentiary record and argument, to conclude that this Court has the benefit of full developed reasons for judgment on the constitutional point from both of the courts below.
To consider the constitutional issue in this case, as the majority does, essentially means that it could be exercised in any case where the Court is sufficiently attracted by the constitutional issue, notwithstanding the public importance of notice provisions, the wording of s. 19.2 , and the binding precedent of Eaton. G knew that the Attorney General of Canada had objected to her failure to file notice before the Tax Court when she made her closing argument, yet even in the Federal Court of Appeal, she failed to file the required notice. Essentially, she took the risk of gambling with public resources, rather than simply complying with plain statutory requirements.
Cases Cited
By Rothstein and Cromwell JJ.
Applied: R. v. Wigglesworth, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 541; Martineau v. M.N.R., 2004 SCC 81, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 737; discussed: Eaton v. Brant County Board of Education, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 241; referred to: Morine v. Parker (L & J) Equipment Inc., 2001 NSCA 53, 193 N.S.R. (2d) 51; Mohr v. North American Life Assurance Co., [1941] 1 D.L.R. 427; Citation Industries Ltd. v. C.J.A., Loc. 1928 (1988), 53 D.L.R. (4th) 360; R. v. Brown, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 918; Corporation professionnelle des médecins du Québec v. Thibault, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 1033; Performance Industries Ltd. v. Sylvan Lake Golf & Tennis Club Ltd., 2002 SCC 19, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 678; Bank of Montreal v. Hall (1985), 46 Sask. R. 182, rev’d [1990] 1 S.C.R. 121; Artell Developments Ltd. v. 677950 Ontario Ltd., [1993] 2 S.C.R. 443, aff’g (1992), 93 D.L.R. (4th) 334; Tseshaht v. British Columbia, S.C.C., No. 23234, May 2, 1994 (Bulletin of Proceedings of the Supreme Court of Canada, 1994, p. 756), notice of discontinuance filed, [1995] 1 S.C.R. xi; Penetanguishene Mental Health Centre v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2004 SCC 20, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 498, rev’g (2001), 158 C.C.C. (3d) 325; Pinet v. St. Thomas Psychiatric Hospital, 2004 SCC 21, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 528, rev’g 2002 CanLII 16257; Kirkbi AG v. Ritvik Holdings Inc., 2005 SCC 65, [2005] 3 S.C.R. 302; Marine Services International Ltd. v. Ryan Estate, 2013 SCC 44, [2013] 3 S.C.R. 53, rev’g 2011 NLCA 42, 308 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1; Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex, 2002 SCC 42, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 559; R. v. Kapp, 2008 SCC 41, [2008] 2 S.C.R. 483; Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 87; R. v. Shubley, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 3; R. v. McKinlay Transport Ltd., [1990] 1 S.C.R. 627; Venne v. The Queen, [1984] C.T.C. 223; Sirois (L.C.) v. Canada, 1995 CarswellNat 555 (WL Can.); Keller v. Canada, 1995 CarswellNat 569 (WL Can.); Sidhu v. R., 2004 TCC 174, [2004] 2 C.T.C. 3167; Canada (Attorney General) v. United States Steel Corp., 2011 FCA 176, 333 D.L.R. (4th) 1; Rowan v. Ontario Securities Commission, 2012 ONCA 208, 110 O.R. (3d) 492; Lavallee v. Alberta Securities Commission, 2010 ABCA 48, 474 A.R. 295; Canada (Commissioner of Competition) v. Chatr Wireless Inc., 2013 ONSC 5315, 288 C.R.R. (2d) 297.
By Abella and Wagner JJ.
Applied: Eaton v. Brant County Board of Education, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 241; referred to: R. v. Wigglesworth, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 541; Corbiere v. Canada (Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 203; Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford, 2013 SCC 72, [2013] 3 S.C.R. 1101; MacKay v. Manitoba, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 357; Northern Telecom Ltd. v. Communications Workers of Canada, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 115; Bekker v. Minister of National Revenue, 2004 FCA 186, 323 N.R. 195; B.C.T.F. v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2009 BCSC 436, 94 B.C.L.R. (4th) 267; Paluska v. Cava (2002), 59 O.R. (3d) 469; Maurice v. Crédit Trans Canada Ltée, [1996] R.J.Q. 894; R. v. Nome, 2010 SKCA 147, 362 Sask. R. 241; D.N. v. New Brunswick (Minister of Health and Community Services) (1992), 127 N.B.R. (2d) 383; Gitxsan Treaty Society v. Hospital Employees’ Union, [2000] 1 F.C. 135; Mercier v. Canada (Correctional Service), 2010 FCA 167, [2012] 1 F.C.R. 72; R. v. Lord, 2011 BCCA 295, 307 B.C.A.C. 285; Ardoch Algonquin First Nation v. Canada (Attorney General), 2003 FCA 473, [2004] 2 F.C.R. 108; R. v. Brown, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 918; Quan v. Cusson, 2009 SCC 62, [2009] 3 S.C.R. 712; Re:Sound v. Motion Picture Theatre Associations of Canada, 2012 SCC 38, [2012] 2 S.C.R. 376; Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 963 v. New Brunswick Liquor Corp., [1979] 2 S.C.R. 227; Reference re Remuneration of Judges of the Provincial Court of Prince Edward Island, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 3; Morine v. Parker (L & J) Equipment Inc., 2001 NSCA 53, 193 N.S.R. (2d) 51; Kirkbi AG v. Ritvik Holdings Inc., 2005 SCC 65, [2005] 3 S.C.R. 302; Penetanguishene Mental Health Centre v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2004 SCC 20, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 498; Pinet v. St. Thomas Psychiatric Hospital, 2004 SCC 21, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 528; Marine Services International Ltd. v. Ryan Estate, 2013 SCC 44, [2013] 3 S.C.R. 53.
Statutes and Regulations Cited
Banks and Banking Law Revision Act, 1980, S.C. 1980‑81‑82‑83, c. 40, s. 178(3).
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 1 , 11 , 15 , 25 .
Code of Civil Procedure, CQLR, c. C‑25, art. 95.
Competition Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C‑34, s. 36 , Part VI.
Constitution Act, 1867, s. 92(15) .
Constitutional Question Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 68, s. 8.
Constitutional Questions Act, C.C.S.M., c. C180, s. 7(2).
Constitutional Questions Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 89, s. 10(2).
Constitutional Questions Act, R.S.Y. 2002, c. 39, s. 2(1).
Constitutional Questions Act, 2012, S.S. 2012, c. C‑29.01, s. 13.
Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19 .
Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 109.
Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C‑46 .
Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F‑7, s. 57(1) .
Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp .), Part I, Division I, ss. 163(2), 163.2, 165, 169, Part XV, ss. 220(3.1), 238, 239, 244.
Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I‑21, s. 34(2) .
Investment Canada Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 28 (1st Supp .).
Judicature Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. J‑2, s. 24(1).
Judicature Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. J‑2, s. 22(3).
Judicature Act, R.S.N.L. 1990, c. J‑4, s. 57.
Judicature Act, R.S.N.W.T. 1988, c. J‑1, s. 59(2).
Judicature Act, S.N.W.T. (Nu.) 1998, c. 34, s. 58(1).
Judicature Act, S.P.E.I. 2008, c. J‑2.1, s. 49(1).
Limitation of Civil Rights Act, R.S.S. 1978, c. L‑16.
Securities Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. S‑4.
Securities Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.5, ss. 122(1), 127(1)9, 134(4).
Supreme Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S-26, s. 43(1.1) .
Tax Court of Canada Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. T‑2, s. 19.2 .
Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act, R.S.N.L. 1990, c. W‑11.
Youth Criminal Justice Act, S.C. 2002, c. 1 .
Authors Cited
Aylward, Stephen, and Luisa Ritacca. “In Defence of Administrative Law: Procedural Fairness for Administrative Monetary Penalties” (2015), 28 C.J.A.L.P. 35.
Brown, Henry S. Supreme Court of Canada Practice 2015, 15th ed. Toronto: Thomson/Carswell, 2014.
Canada. Canada Revenue Agency. “Third‑Party Civil Penalties”, IC 01-1, September 18, 2001 (online: http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pub/tp/ic01-1/ic01-1-e.pdf).
McLeod, Doug. “Facing the Consequences: Should the Charter Apply to Administrative Proceedings Involving Monetary Penalties?” (2012), 30 N.J.C.L. 59.
Osborne, Philip H. The Law of Torts, 4th ed. Toronto: Irwin Law, 2011.
Roach, Kent. Criminal Law, 5th ed. Toronto: Irwin Law, 2012.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal (Noël, Gauthier and Stratas JJ.A.), 2013 FCA 153, [2014] 4 F.C.R. 786, 285 C.R.R. (2d) 220, 298 C.C.C. (3d) 304, [2013] 5 C.T.C. 1, 360 D.L.R. (4th) 515, 2013 DTC 5113, 446 N.R. 154, [2013] F.C.J. No. 673 (QL), 2013 CarswellNat 1832 (WL Can.), setting aside a decision of Bédard J., 2012 TCC 287, 2012 DTC 1283, [2013] 1 C.T.C. 2007, [2012] T.C.J. No. 272 (QL), 2012 CarswellNat 3708 (WL Can.). Appeal dismissed.
Adam Aptowitzer, Alexandra Tzannidakis, Arthur B. C. Drache, Q.C., and Kenneth Jull, for the appellant.
Gordon Bourgard and Eric Noble, for the respondent.
S. Zachary Green, for the intervener the Attorney General of Ontario.
Written submissions only by Abdou Thiaw, for the intervener the Attorney General of Quebec.
Dominic C. Belley and Vincent Dionne, for the intervener Chartered Professional Accountants Canada.
Written submissions only by Darryl Cruz, Brandon Kain and Kate Findlay, for the intervener the Canadian Constitution Foundation.
The judgment of Rothstein, Cromwell, Moldaver and Gascon JJ. was delivered by
Rothstein and Cromwell JJ. —
I. Introduction
[1] Income tax law is notoriously complex and many taxpayers rely on tax advisors to help them comply. Given the important role played by tax advisors and other individuals involved in transactions affected by income tax considerations, Parliament enacted s. 163.2 of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp .) (‟ITAˮ), which imposes monetary penalties on every person who makes a false statement that could be used by another person for the purpose of the Act.
[2] Julie Guindon, the appellant, was assessed penalties under s. 163.2(4) totalling $546,747 in respect of false statements made by her in donation receipts issued by her on behalf of a charity which, it is alleged, she knew or would reasonably be expected to have known could be used by taxpayers to claim an unwarranted tax credit.
[3] Ms. Guindon says that the penalty imposed under s. 163.2(4) is criminal and that she is therefore a person “charged with an offence” who is entitled to the procedural safeguards provided for in s. 11 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms . Accordingly, she argues that the matter should not have proceeded in the Tax Court of Canada and that the penalty against her should be vacated.
[4] She was successful in the Tax Court of Canada but the Federal Court of Appeal set that decision aside. Her final appeal to this Court raises two issues, one procedural and one substantive. The procedural issue concerns the consequences of Ms. Guindon’s failure in the courts below to give the required notice of constitutional question in relation to her claims under s. 11 of the Charter . Proper notice has been given in this Court. The substantive issue is whether s. 163.2(4) creates a true criminal offence and therefore engages the protections provided for under s. 11 .
[5] In our view, this Court has a well-established discretion, albeit one that is narrow and should be exercised sparingly, to address the merits of the constitutional issue when proper notice of constitutional question has been given in this Court, even though the issue was not properly raised in the courts below. We would exercise that discretion in this case. However, we would decide the substantive issue in favour of the respondent. In our view, proceedings under s. 163.2 are of an administrative nature. Ms. Guindon therefore is not a person “charged with an offence” and accordingly the protections under s. 11 of the Charter do not apply. In the result, we would dismiss the appeal.
II. Facts and Judicial History
[6] Julie Guindon is a lawyer, practising mainly in the area of family law and wills and estates; she has no expertise in income tax law. In May 2001, she was approached by promoters of a leveraged donation program. Each participant in the program would acquire timeshare units of a resort in the Turks and Caicos Islands. The participants would donate these units to a charity at a fair market value greater than their cash payment for the timeshares. Ms. Guindon agreed, for a fee of $1,000, to provide an opinion letter on the tax consequences of this program on the basis of a precedent provided by the promoters. She recommended that the promoters have a tax lawyer and an accountant review her opinion to ensure its accuracy, as the opinion did not fall within her field of expertise, but nonetheless provided the letter knowing that it was intended to be part of the promotional package for the scheme. She wrote that the transactions would be implemented based on supporting documents that she had been provided with and had reviewed. She had not reviewed the supporting documents.
[7] Ms. Guindon was also the president and administrator of a registered charity, Les Guides Franco-Canadiennes District d’Ottawa. In November 2001, this charity agreed to become the recipient of the donated timeshares. The promoters would then sell the timeshares on behalf of the charity which would receive a minimum of $500 per unit sold.
[8] The scheme was a sham: no timeshare units were created and no transfers from the donors to the charity occurred. The promoters prepared 135 tax receipts, which were issued by the charity and signed by Ms. Guindon and the treasurer of the charity. The total receipted amount was $3,972,775. The Minister of National Revenue disallowed the charitable donation tax credits claimed by the donors. On August 1, 2008, the Minister assessed Ms. Guindon for penalties under s. 163.2 of the ITA for each of the tax receipts issued on the basis that she knew, or would have known but for wilful disregard of the ITA, that the tax receipts constituted false statements.
[9] Ms. Guindon appealed this assessment to the Tax Court of Canada. Her counsel, for the first time, relied on s. 11 of the Charter during his oral submissions. It was submitted that s. 163.2 created a criminal offence and that, as a result, Ms. Guindon was a person “charged with an offence” entitled to the protections of s. 11 of the Charter . Her notice of appeal to the Tax Court did not raise any Charter issue and she did not provide notice of a constitutional question to the Attorney General of Canada and the provincial attorneys general as required by s. 19.2 of the Tax Court of Canada Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. T-2 . The respondent objected to the Charter point being raised, but was overruled.
[10] The Tax Court found that Ms. Guindon’s conduct was culpable within the meaning of s. 163.2 of the ITA, but vacated the penalty assessment, ruling that the provision is both “by its very nature a criminal proceeding” and “involves a sanction that is a true penal consequence”: 2012 TCC 287, 2012 DTC 1283, at para. 53. However, the Tax Court also found that, if the penalty were a civil one, it would be applicable to Ms. Guindon, as she engaged in culpable conduct.
[11] Before the Federal Court of Appeal, Ms. Guindon failed to give notice of a constitutional question to the provincial and federal attorneys general. She argued that no notice of constitutional question was required as she was not questioning the “constitutional validity, applicability or operability” of s. 163.2 of the ITA: Tax Court of Canada Act, s. 19.2 . Instead, she claimed that s. 34(2) of the Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-21 , operates such that s. 163.2 of the ITA can be interpreted in a constitutionally compliant manner. Section 34(2) reads:
All the provisions of the Criminal Code [R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 ] relating to indictable offences apply to indictable offences created by an enactment, and all the provisions of that Code relating to summary conviction offences apply to all other offences created by an enactment, except to the extent that the enactment otherwise provides.
By applying Criminal Code procedures to the penalty instead of the administrative procedures provided for in the ITA, the penalty in s. 163.2 can be preserved as a criminal offence.
[12] The Federal Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the Tax Court, and restored the assessment against Ms. Guindon: 2013 FCA 153, [2014] 4 F.C.R. 786. Stratas J.A., writing for the court, found that Ms. Guindon’s failure to serve notice of a constitutional question was fatal to the Tax Court’s jurisdiction. He noted, however, that the Tax Court and the Federal Court of Appeal, if asked to do so, could have exercised their discretion to adjourn the appeal to allow a notice to be served to address that matter. Ms. Guindon did not make that request in either of the courts below. The Federal Court of Appeal nonetheless went on to address the substantive issue and concluded that s. 163.2 of the ITA is not a criminal offence and therefore does not engage s. 11 of the Charter .
[13] The Chief Justice stated the following constitutional questions:
1. Does s. 163.2 of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp .), infringe s. 11 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ?
2. If so, is the infringement a reasonable limit prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society under s. 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ?
[14] The result is that the Attorney General of Canada and all provincial and territorial attorneys general have been given formal notice of the constitutional issue which the appellant seeks to raise in this Court.
III. Analysis
A. Notice
[15] The first issue concerns the impact on this appeal of Ms. Guindon’s failure to give notice, in the courts below, of the constitutional issue that she raised. We agree with the Federal Court of Appeal and our colleagues, Abella and Wagner JJ., that notice was required in this case. We also agree with our colleagues that, proper notice having now been given in this Court, we have a discretion to consider and decide the constitutional issue. We part company with our colleagues, however, on the question of whether we should exercise that discretion in this case. In our view, this is a compelling case to do so in light of an analysis and weighing of the relevant considerations that we will discuss in detail.
[16] To begin, we read Eaton v. Brant County Board of Education, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 241, differently than do our colleagues. Eaton was a case in which no notice or any equivalent had been given and the respondents had specifically disavowed the intention to raise the constitutionality of any provision. The Attorney General of Ontario relied on this position and made no submissions on the constitutionality of the statute in question and had no opportunity to adduce evidence or make submissions on this point. The Court of Appeal addressed the question ex proprio motu. In short, Eaton was a case of actual prejudice to the Attorney General and was expressly decided on that basis.
[17] The main legal debate in Eaton concerned conflicting authority about whether the absence of notice makes the decision invalid, as one strand of authority held, or whether the absence of notice makes the decision voidable upon a showing of prejudice, as held by the other strand. Sopinka J., writing for the Court on this point, expressly declined to decide between these two competing strands of authority. In other words, he did not foreclose the possibility that the constitutional issue could be decided even in the absence of notice. He wrote:
It is not, however, necessary to express a final opinion on these questions in that I am satisfied that under either strand of authority the decision of the Court of Appeal is invalid. No notice or any equivalent was given in this case and in fact the Attorney General and the courts had no reason to believe that the Act was under attack. Clearly, [the notice requirement] was not complied with and the Attorney General was seriously prejudiced by the absence of notice. [Emphasis added; para. 54.]
[18] Justices Abella and Wagner do not explain how a notice provision like the one in issue here can be mandatory, as they say that it is, and yet also be subject to exceptions that have no basis in the statutory language. In our respectful view, Eaton does not support our colleagues’ approach.
[19] Before turning to the other points, we should be clear what the issue is and what it is not. The issue is not whether this Court (or for that matter the courts below) can proceed to adjudicate a constitutional question without notice ever having been given to the attorneys general. Notice requirements serve a vital purpose in ensuring that courts have a full evidentiary record before invalidating legislation and that governments are given the fullest opportunity to support the validity of legislation: see Eaton, at para. 48. Notice has now been given in this case. The question is one of whether this Court should address the matter now that notice has been given, not whether this Court or any other can proceed in the absence of notice: see, e.g., Morine v. Parker (L & J) Equipment Inc., 2001 NSCA 53, 193 N.S.R. (2d) 51; Mohr v. North American Life Assurance Co., [1941] 1 D.L.R. 427 (Sask. C.A.); Citation Industries Ltd. v. C.J.A., Loc. 1928 (1988), 53 D.L.R. (4th) 360 (B.C.C.A.).
[20] The principles that must be applied here are essentially those that govern whether this is a suitable case to hear a constitutional issue that is properly before the court for the first time on appeal. The issue is “new” in the sense that the constitutional issue, by virtue of the absence of notice, was not properly raised before either of the courts below. Whether to hear and decide a constitutional issue when it has not been properly raised in the courts below is a matter for the Court’s discretion, taking into account all of the circumstances, including the state of the record, fairness to all parties, the importance of having the issue resolved by this Court, its suitability for decision and the broader interests of the administration of justice.
[21] The Court has many times affirmed that it may, in appropriate circumstances, allow parties to raise on appeal an argument, even a new constitutional argument, that was not raised, or was not properly raised in the courts below: see, e.g., R. v. Brown, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 918; Corporation professionnelle des médecins du Québec v. Thibault, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 1033; Performance Industries Ltd. v. Sylvan Lake Golf & Tennis Club Ltd., 2002 SCC 19, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 678. The Court has even done so of its own motion, as we shall see.
[22] The test for whether new issues should be cons