Section 8 of the Canadian Charter protects the notaries and lawyers “against unreasonable search or seizure”

By: Rizwan Ahmad Khan Gondal Recently, in two cases Canada (Attorney General) v. Chambre des notaires du Québec, 2016 SCC 20 (« Chambre des notaires ») and Canada (National Revenue) v. Thompson, 2016 SCC 21 (« Thompson »), the Supreme Court grappled with the question whether notices sent to the notaries and lawyers by the Canada Revenue Agency (« CRA ») under certain provisions of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp) (« ITA ») requiring the notaries and the lawyers to disclose documents relating to their finances and accounts receivable violated solicitor-client privilege and, as such, whether the impugned provisions were contrary to section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (« Charter ») which guarantees protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. In both cases the Supreme Court issued an opinion in the affirmative. ContextIn Chambre des notaires, several notaries in Québec received notices from the CRA pursuant to section 231.2 of the ITA… Lire la suite

Case Comment: Tzu-Tsen Lim c The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2016 FC 217.

By Rizwan Ahmad Khan Gondal.Lim c Canada is a case which brings to light the importance of tendering evidence in proving one’s assertion. In this case, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration could not prove his defence that he had indeed mailed a letter to the designated recipient on the date that he claimed that he did. The failure to prove was thus deemed sufficient to the overturning of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration’s administrative order. ContextAfter having received Ms. Lim’s Canadian citizenship application in June of 2010, [Para 5] the Citizenship office sent her a letter on October 22, 2014, requesting additional information. [Para 6] She responded to the letter on time. [Para 6] However, subsequently, on April 13, 2015, the office sent the applicant yet another letter asking for some further information. This letter stated that if the applicant failed to ‘respond on time’, her citizenship application… Lire la suite

Case Comment: R v Hecimovic.

By Rizwan Ahmad Khan GondalOn occasions, as would be the case in appellate courts in most provinces, you would come across Judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada where the Court has not issued separate reasons for reaching its decision. In such cases, the Court simply adopts the reasoning of the lower court’s majority or minority opinion, whatever the case may be. This is a good practice in my opinion simply because such a practice saves a lot of time, energy and effort in duplicating what has already been outlined and analysed before. The November 16, 2015 judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Hecimovic (2015 SCC 54) appears to be a judgment which does exactly that. In dismissing the defendant’s appeal, the Court refers to the reasons given by Mr. Justice Willcock and adopts those reasons as its own for reaching its judgment. Context The case concerns… Lire la suite

The Standard of Review on Appeal

Rizwan Ahmad Khan Gondal.Among other points of law, the Supreme Court case of Mouvement laïque québécois v. Saguenay (City), 2015 SCC 16, is instructive upon the point that there is no one fixed standard of review on appeal whether that appeal be from a decision of a tribunal or from that of a court of law. In particular, the applicable standard of review has been held to rest ‘primarily on the nature of the questions that have been raised’ in the context of the underlying dispute. (Para 45.) ContextIn Mouvement laïque québécois, the claim rested on the allegation that the recitation of a catholic prayer at the City Hall of the City of Saguenay ‘amounted to discriminatory interference with the complainant’s, Mr. Simoneau’s, freedom of conscience and religion, contrary to ss. 3 and 10 of the Quebec Charter.’ The complainantalso alleged that ‘the [said] prayer interfered in a discriminatory manner… Lire la suite

What is the importance of Bhasin v Hrynew?

By Rizwan AhmadKhan Gondal. How many of you enter into a contract knowing that you will only breachit afterwards? If you do that, now it would be a violation of the good faithrequirement. Good faith did not use to be the law uniformly applied throughout thecommon law jurisdictions in Canada. Recently, however, the Supreme Court ofCanada through Bhasin v Hrynew, 2014SCC 71, has incorporated good faith into all contractual obligations throughoutthe Country. Why has the Supreme Court of Canada finally decided to act now? Please note that the Bhasin vHrynew decision has already been summarized on the Blogue du CRL in Frenchand can be read here. For our Englishreaders, however, my effort in this article is to provide a brief overview ofthe case and shed some light on the potential influence of international treatyobligations on the Supreme Court of Canada’sdecision to introduce the principle of good faith in all the common… Lire la suite

The powers of a Court of Appeal judge sitting alone

By Rizwan A. K. Gondal In the case of Pharmaprixinc. c. Régie de l’assurance maladie du Québec (Sandoz Canada inc. c. Régie del’assurance maladie du Québec), 2014 QCCA 1288, the Hon. Justice Morissetteof the Court of Appeal was presented with a motion whereby he was asked torevise and reconsider a judgment rendered by another justice of that Court. Thejudgment subject to review (Régie de l’assurance maladie du Québec v.Pharmaprix inc., 2014 QCCA 1184 )was that of Justice Kasirer, J.C.A. who, sitting alone, had annulled the stay grantedearlier by a Superior Court Justice (Pharmaprixinc. c. Régie de l’assurance maladie duQuébec, 2014 QCCS 2143) of theexecution of subpoenas duces tecumissued against the executives of Shoppers Drug Mart, Inc., Sanis Health Inc.,and Sandoz Canada Inc. (the “Petitioners” in the case at bar). JusticeMorissette had to therefore decide if he had the jurisdiction to grant what wasbeing asked of him by the Petitioners. Context… Lire la suite