ADRIAN ROBINSON Applicant v. THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE, 2024 FC 208

Date: 20240208 Docket: T-1567-22 Citation: 2024 FC 208 Toronto, Ontario, February 8, 2024 PRESENT: Associate Judge Trent Horne BETWEEN: ADRIAN ROBINSON Applicant and THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE Respondent ORDER AND REASONS I. Overview [ 1 ] This application for judicial review challenges a decision of the Minister of National Revenue that denied the applicant’s request for relief under a " “mutual agreement procedure” " in a taxation treaty with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. [ 2 ] I am satisfied that the certified tribunal record is incomplete.

The applicant’s motion for production of documents will be granted in part, and the respondent ordered to serve and file a supplementary certified tribunal record. II.

Background [ 3 ] In 1978, Canada and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ( " “UK” " ) entered into a treaty to avoid double taxation on the part of their respective taxpayers, specifically the Convention Between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion With Respect to Taxes on Income and Capital Gains , signed on September 8, 1978, enacted in Canada by S.C. 1980-81-82-83, c. 44,

Part X, in force December 18, 1980, as amended by the Protocols signed on April 15, 1980 (enacted in Canada by S.C. 1980-81-82-83, c. 44,

Part XI, in force December 18, 1980), October 16, 1985 (enacted in Canada by SI/86-47, in force December 23, 1985), May 7, 2003 (enacted in Canada by P.C. 2003-1374, in force May 4, 2004) and July 21, 2014 (enacted in Canada by SI/2015-82 , in force December 18, 2014) (the " “Convention” " ). [ 4 ]

Article 23 of the Convention sets out a mutual agreement procedure ( " “MAP” " ). In very general terms, the MAP is a dispute resolution mechanism that allows Canadian officials to interact with tax officials in the UK to resolve issues of taxation, including double taxation, not in accordance with the Convention. [ 5 ] The decision being challenged is dated June 30, 2022 ( " “Decision” " ), and is asserted to have been made by the Minister of National Revenue ( " “Minister” " ).

It denied the applicant’s request for relief under the MAP on the basis that the request was not filed within three years from the first notification of the action resulting in taxation not in accordance with the provisions of the Convention. [ 6 ] The respondent brought a motion to strike the notice of application, which I dismissed ( 2023 FC 248 ). An appeal of that decision was withdrawn at the commencement of the hearing. [ 7 ] The notice of application includes a request made under Rule 317 of the Federal Courts Rules , SOR/98-106 ( " “ Rules ” " ).

The documents requested are: (1) the Minister’s and the Agency’s internal and external reports and working papers related to the Minister’s Decision; (2) all internal and external emails, notes, diary entries, and other correspondence related to the Minister’s Decision; (3) specifically all reports, working papers, emails, notes, diary entries, and all other correspondence related to the Minister’s request for the UK Competent Authority's position, the UK Competent Authority’s response, and all other communication with the UK Competent Authority; and (4) all other correspondence, information, and documents that the Minister or the Agency contemplated, considered or reviewed during the Minister’s Decision. [ 8 ] The respondent filed a certified tribunal record ( " “CTR” " ) on August 26, 2022.

It includes two documents: a one page " “file synopsis” " , and the Decision.

The accompanying certificate states: I, Jennifer Paul, Senior Technical Advisor, in the Competent Authority Services Division of the Canada Revenue Agency’s International and Large Business Directorate, certify that the documents listed below and enclosed herewith are true copies of the material requested by the applicant, which are relevant to the application and are in the possession of the Canada Revenue Agency, and may not be in the possession of the applicant. [ 9 ] The applicant was not satisfied with the CTR, and brought a motion in writing under Rule 369 for further production.

The respondent opposed the motion, and requested an oral hearing. The applicant filed written representations in reply. I had a number of questions arising from the motion materials, and an oral hearing was scheduled.

III. Rules 317 and 318 [ 10 ] The principles guiding Rule 317 disclosure were recently summarized by Justice Pentney in GCT Canada Limited Partnership v Vancouver Fraser Port Authority , 2021 FC 624 ( " “ GCT Canada ” " ): [21] Rule 317 provides a means by which a party can request a record to support its application for judicial review, and Rule 318 sets out the process for objecting to such a request. The relevant portions of these rules for the purposes of this decision are: Material from tribunal Matériel en la possession de l’office fédéral 317

(1) A party may request material relevant to an application that is in the possession of a tribunal whose order is the subject of the application and not in the possession of the party by serving on the tribunal and filing a written request, identifying the material requested. 317

(1) Toute

partie peut demander la transmission des documents ou des éléments matériels pertinents quant à la demande, qu’elle n’a pas mais qui sont en la possession de l’office fédéral dont l’ordonnance fait l’objet de la demande, en signifiant à l’office une requête à cet effet puis en la déposant. La requête précise les documents ou les éléments matériels demandés. … […] Objection by tribunal Opposition de l’office fédéral 318

(2) Where a tribunal or party objects to a request under rule 317 , the tribunal or the party shall inform all parties and the Administrator, in writing, of the reasons for the objection. 318

(2) Si l’office fédéral ou une

partie s’opposent à la demande de transmission, ils informent par écrit toutes les parties et l’administrateur des motifs de leur opposition. Directions as to procedure Directives de la Cour

(3) The Court may give directions to the parties and to a tribunal as to the procedure for making submissions with respect to an objection under subsection (2).

(3) La Cour peut donner aux parties et à l’office fédéral des directives sur la façon de procéder pour présenter des observations au sujet d’une opposition à la demande de transmission. Order Ordonnance

(4) The Court may, after hearing submissions with respect to an objection under subsection (2), order that a certified copy, or the original, of all or part of the material requested be forwarded to the Registry.

(4) La Cour peut, après avoir entendu les observations sur l’opposition, ordonner qu’une copie certifiée conforme ou l’original des documents ou que les éléments matériels soient transmis, en totalité ou en partie, au greffe. [22] The general principles governing the extent of the decision-maker’s obligation to disclose under Rule 317 are well- established. These were summarized by the Federal Court of Appeal in Tsleil-Waututh First Nation v Canada (Attorney General) , 2017 FCA 128 at paras 86-115 [ Tsleil-Waututh ] , and more recently in Lukács v Swoop Inc , 2019 FCA 145 [ Lukács ] and Canadian National Railway Company v Canada (Transportation Agency) , 2019 FCA 257 [ Canadian National ] .

[23] Decisions of the Federal Court of Appeal confirm four core elements of the disclosure obligation set out in Rule 317 : (

i) it only requires disclosure of material that is “relevant to an application” defined with reference to the wording of the application for judicial review ( Tsleil-Waututh at paras 106-10 ; Canadian National at para 14 ); (ii) it only requires disclosure of material that is “in the possession” of the administrative decision-maker, not others ( Tsleil- Waututh at para 111 ); (iii) in most cases, it is limited to material that was before the decision-maker when it made the decision under review.

There are certain exceptions to this, including where a party claims a denial of procedural fairness or bias, which may require greater disclosure to enable a court to assess the merits of the claim ( Humane Society of Canada Foundation v Canada (National Revenue) , 2018 FCA 66 at paras 4-6 [ Humane Society ] ); and (iv) it does not serve the same purpose as documentary discovery in an action and cannot be used on a fishing expedition ( Tsleil-Waututh at para 115 ). [24] The decision in Canadian National reminds us that the

interpretation of Rule 317 must be grounded in the fundamental role that the evidentiary record plays in ensuring that courts can conduct meaningful review of administrative decision- makers: [12] Rule 317 embodies the principle that judicial review is premised on review of the record before the tribunal; certiorari means to bring forth the record. It entitles a party to receive everything that the decision maker had before it when it made its decision. The requirement that a tribunal produce, without hesitation, the entire record has long been central to judicial review.

This is tempered by the pragmatic consideration that frequently large portions of the tribunal record, particularly in the case of standing, highly specialized agencies, may not be pertinent to the disposition of the issues on appeal. [Citations omitted.] [25] The Court of Appeal in Tsleil-Waututh sets the rule regarding disclosure of the record into the wider context of the constitutional foundations of judicial review: [78] In judicial review, the reviewing courts are in the business of enforcing the rule of law, one aspect of which is “executive accountability to legal authority” and protecting “individuals from arbitrary [executive] action”.

Put another way, all holders of public power are to be accountable for their exercises of power, something that rests at the heart of our democratic governance and the rule of law. Subject to any concerns about justiciability, when a judicial review of executive action is brought the courts are institutionally and practically capable of assessing whether or not the executive has acted reasonably, i.e. , within a range of acceptability and defensibility. That assessment is the proper, constitutionally guaranteed role of the courts within the constitutional separation of powers.

But, at least in the situation where the evidentiary record of the administrative decision-maker is not before the reviewing court in any way whatsoever— i.e. , there is not even a

summary or hint of what was before the administrative decision-maker—or the record is completely lacking on an essential element, concerns about immunization of administrative decision-making can come to the fore. [Citations omitted.] [26] The overarching consideration is whether the disclosure will permit meaningful judicial review of the decision, and “[i]t is important that neither party’s ability to advance arguments… be constrained or prejudiced by an inadequate record.

There is also an interest in ensuring that the Court has the necessary evidence, or lack of evidence, to decide the matter” ( Canadian National at para 23 ). This will generally tip the balance in favour of production, if the material is relevant to a ground of review. [27] In reviewing an objection to disclosure under Rule 318, a court must seek to balance, as much as possible, three objectives: (

i) providing meaningful review of administrative decisions, which the reviewing court will be unable to engage in without being satisfied that the record before it is sufficient to proceed with the review; (ii) procedural fairness; and (iii) the protection of any legitimate confidentiality interests while ensuring that court proceedings are as open as possible ( Girouard v Canadian Judicial Council , 2019 FCA 252 at para 18 , citing Lukács at para 15 [ Girouard ]) IV.

Analysis [ 11 ] In addition to requesting production of a letter dated June 29, 2022 from Her [as it then was] Majesty’s Revenue and Customs ( " “HMRC” " ), the applicant’s notice of motion also requests an order " “granting the applicant’s request under Rule 317 .” " A.

The Letter [ 12 ] The Decision is a letter dated June 30, 2022 from the Canada Revenue Agency ( " “CRA” " ) to the applicant. [ 13 ] The respondent specifically objects to disclosure of the Minister’s communications with the UK that were considered by the decision-maker, and asserts that there was only one such document: a letter from HMRC dated June 29, 2022 ( " “Letter” " ). [ 14 ] The first question is whether or not the Letter is relevant.

The principles for assessing relevance on a Rule 317 motion were recently addressed by the Federal Court of Appeal in Canadian National Railway Company v Canada (Transportation Agency) , 2023 FCA 245

( " “ Canadian National ” " ): [17] In assessing relevance, the Court must also remember that Rule 317 is not a

summary judgment provision. It is not meant to be a tactical opportunity for a respondent to nip in the bud a judicial review or statutory appeal before complete disclosure is made and analyzed. If there is an arguable case that the documents sought might well be relevant to the grounds or relief set out in the pleading, they should be disclosed. Fine, precise and final determinations of relevance are for the judge or panel hearing the merits of the application or appeal.

By then, the judge or panel will have the benefit of the parties’ submissions on the complete evidentiary and legal picture and, thus, will be empowered to make the best possible decision on relevance. [ 15 ] I am satisfied that the Letter was before the decision-maker, and it is self-evident that the Letter is relevant to the Decision. [ 16 ] The respondent asserts that I should refuse to order production of the Letter on the basis that the Minister has a legal obligation to keep information exchanged under international treaties secret.

I am not satisfied that the respondent has demonstrated that there is such an obligation relating to the Letter, or that there will be any adverse consequences arising from including the Letter in the CTR. [ 17 ] Article 24(2) of the Convention states: Any information received under paragraph 1 by a Contracting State shall be treated as secret in the same manner as information obtained under the domestic laws of that State and shall be disclosed only to persons or authorities (including courts and administrative bodies) concerned with the assessment or collection of, the enforcement or prosecution in respect of, the determination of appeals in relation to taxes of every kind and description imposed by or on behalf of the Contracting States or of their political subdivisions, or the oversight of the above.

Such persons or authorities shall use the information only for such purposes. They may disclose the information in public court proceedings or in judicial decisions. Notwithstanding the foregoing, information received by a Contracting State may be used for other purposes when such information may be used for such other purposes under the laws of both States and the competent authority of the supplying State authorises such use. [ 18 ] I do not read Article 24(2) as prohibiting disclosure of information exchanged between Contracting States in judicial proceedings. Indeed, this

Article contemplates disclosure of information in such circumstances.

I am satisfied that the broad language of Article 24(2) (which permits disclosure to persons or authorities " “concerned with the assessment or collection of, the enforcement or prosecution in respect of, the determination of appeals in relation to taxes of every kind and description imposed by or on behalf of the Contracting States or of their political subdivisions, or the oversight of the above” " ) includes an application for judicial review in this Court. [ 19 ] The respondent submits that the Letter was provided to Canada with an expectation of confidentiality, and that compelled disclosure could result in adverse consequences, including the possibility that the UK may suspend further assistance. [ 20 ] The respondent filed two affidavits on the motion.

The first was affirmed by Michael Jennings, the Director responsible for Mutual Agreement Procedure, Technical Cases Section, Competent Authority Services Division, International and Large Business Directorate, Compliance Programs Branch with the CRA. [ 21 ] Mr Jennings’ affidavit is four paragraphs long. It attaches a letter from HMRC, and the decision under review. What is most noteworthy about Mr Jennings’ affidavit is what is not there.

Given his title, Mr Jennings seems well-placed to speak to whether communications between CRA and HRMC are expected to be kept secret, and any perception within CRA as to adverse consequences that could arise from compelled disclosure the Letter or related communications. I have difficulty accepting the respondent’s submissions that compelled disclosure of the Letter may result in adverse consequences when the supporting affidavit on the motion is silent in this respect.

In light of the fact that Mr Jennings could have spoken to the issue, and did not, I draw an adverse inference. [ 22 ] The respondent cites OECD Commentary on the Model Convention: Reciprocal assistance between tax administrations is feasible only if each administration is assured that the other administration will treat with proper confidence the information which it will receive in the course of their co-operation … the confidentiality rules cover, for instance, competent authority letters including the letter requesting the information. … If, however, court proceedings or the like under the domestic laws of the requested State necessitate the disclosure of the competent authority letter itself, the competent authority of the requested State may disclose such a letter unless the requesting State otherwise specifies . … In situations in which the requested State determines that the requesting State does not comply with its duties regarding the confidentiality of information exchanged under this Article, the requested State may suspend assistance under this

Article until such time as proper assurance is given by the requesting State that those duties will indeed be respected. (Emphasis added.) [ 23 ] So what did the requesting state (UK) specify? [ 24 ] Mr Jennings’ affidavit attaches a letter from HMRC. I will reproduce it in full: Dear Mr Jennings, Thank you for your letter requesting permission to disclose MAP correspondence dated 29 June 2022, from my predecessor David Clarke. If the court orders the disclosure of this document, then I would be happy for the document to be disclosed to the court as this is already envisaged in Article 24(2) of our DTA.

However, if there is no legal requirement for the correspondence to be disclosed, even in court proceedings or for judicial decisions, then we would prefer that it was not disclosed. This is on the basis that all correspondence in relation to MAP is regarded as secret ensuring that there is an open and frank exchange of views to try and come to a mutual agreement to resolve the issue. If you have any further questions about this case, please feel free to contact me at ukrnap.individuals@hmrc.gov.uk.

Yours sincerely Mrs Kelly Grisdale Delegated Competent Authority, United Kingdom. [ 25 ] There is nothing in this letter to suggest that the relationship between Canada and the UK would be negatively impacted in the event the Letter was disclosed as part of the CTR. Mrs Grisdale goes so far as to say she would be " “happy” " for the document to be disclosed to the court if such an order was made.

This letter does not support the respondent’s argument of adverse consequences that could arise from disclosure. [ 26 ] The respondent relies on McCabe v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs , [2020] UKUT 0266 (TCC), a decision of the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber). This was an appeal of a decision of the First-tier Tribunal ( " “FTT” " ) regarding disclosure of documents in a MAP dispute involving the UK and Belgium.

The Upper Tribunal considered relevance and confidentiality and dismissed the appeal, essentially on consideration of the applicable standard of review, and deference owed to the FTT’s exercise of discretion. I find this decision to be of little assistance. If anything, this decision affirms that disclosure of communications between treaty partners in MAP negotiations is discretionary ( ie not prohibited). In assessing relevance, I am bound by the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal. [ 27 ] The respondent’s other affidavit on the motion was affirmed by a legal assistant employed by the Department of Justice.

The affidavit attaches certain correspondence, but does not speak to any adverse consequences that could arise if the Letter was included in the CTR. [ 28 ] I am not satisfied that there is any prohibition on disclosure of the Letter, or any legal obligation to keep it secret. [ 29 ] To the extent I have discretion to refuse production of the Letter, an otherwise relevant document, I will not exercise it. As seen in GCT Canada above, Rule 317 entitles a party to receive everything that the decision-maker had before it when it made its decision.

As will be discussed in more detail below, the CTR filed by the respondent in August 2022 does not include anything that was before the decision-maker at the time the decision was made. This is not an instance of an applicant fishing for distant or peripheral materials, rather a proper request for a document that was before the decision-maker at the time the decision was made. [ 30 ] The respondent will be ordered to disclose the Letter in a supplementary CTR. B. Other Documents [ 31 ] It was apparent at the hearing that there may have been a misunderstanding as to the scope of relief sought by the applicant.

The applicant is of the view that the motion is to compel production of all documents requested in the notice of application.

The respondent was of the view that only the Letter was the subject of the motion, and points to the absence of detailed evidence and argument directed to each part of the Rule 317 request. [ 32 ] The principal relief sought in the notice of motion is: 1 . granting the applicant’s request under Rule 317 of the Federal Courts Rules and ordering the respondent to transmit the material to the applicant. [ 33 ] The applicant’s written representations are brief, but the issue on the motion is described in those representations as " “whether the respondent has met their burden to prove that a portion or all of the 317 material should remain exempt from production.” " [ 34 ] In light of the notice of motion and written representations, I am satisfied that the respondent was given adequate notice that the entirety of the applicant’s Rule 317 request was in issue.

Whether the evidence and argument is sufficient to result in an order granting the relief sought is another matter. [ 35 ] The CTR has two documents in it. One is the Decision. The other is a one page “file synopsis.” The executive

summary of that document states: Informing the Taxpayer’s representative that this request is not admissible to MAP since it is the view of both UK and Canadian Competent Authorities that it was introduced outside the Convention time limit. [ 36 ] It appears that the file synopsis was created after the Decision was made. [ 37 ] As it stands, the CTR does not include any documents that were before the decision-maker at the time the decision was made. There was at least one such document (the Letter), and am satisfied that there could be others. [ 38 ] At the hearing, the respondent relied on Denso Manufacturing Canada, Inc v Canada (National Revenue) , 2021 FCA 236 at para 52

for the proposition that there is no duty to disclose every document created by any person who may have been involved with the matter. While the applicant’s Rule 317 request may be overly broad in some respects, that does not take away from the fact that what was before the decision-maker was apparently not included in the CTR. [ 39 ] As a general rule, only the evidentiary record before the administrative decision-maker is admissible before the reviewing court. There are exceptions.

One of these exceptions is the ability for a Court to receive evidence to bring to the attention of the judicial review court procedural defects that cannot be found in the evidentiary record of the administrative decision-maker, so that the judicial review court can engage in meaningful review for procedural unfairness ( Tsleil-Waututh First Nation v Canada (Attorney General) , 2017 FCA 128 at paras 97-98 ). [ 40 ] The grounds in the notice of application regarding procedural fairness are that the Minister: (3) failed to observe a principle of natural justice, procedural fairness, or other procedure by - after informing the Applicant of the Minister’s Decision - refusing to provide the correspondence or reasons that the United Kingdom authority provided to the Minister, and which the Minister relied on to make the decision; […] (5) failed to observe the rules of procedural fairness in rendering a decision that is substantively unacceptable because the Minister’s provided inconsistent or untenable reasons, arguments, evidence, and legal inference to support the decision. [ 41 ] Using the words " “procedural fairness” " in a notice of application is not enough to open the doors to wide production of materials that were not before the administrative decision-maker.

The allegations of procedural fairness in the notice of application speak to the refusal to produce the Letter (events occurring after the Decision was made), and the content of the Decision itself. The procedural fairness allegations do not allege that the process leading up to the Decision was unfair. I am therefore not satisfied that the procedural fairness allegations require production of documents beyond what was before the decision-maker. [ 42 ] I do have a concern that the Rule 317 request in the notice of application is overly broad.

Among other things, it could encompass documents that are protected by privilege, or were not before the decision-maker. This, however, does not diminish the respondent’s obligation to include within the CTR all materials that were before the decision-maker.

The appropriate remedy is to limit the order to require production of a supplementary CTR that includes material that was before the decision-maker. [ 43 ] I decline to frame the order as being limited to material that may be " “relevant.” " In light of the certificate that accompanied the CTR in August 2023, there appears to be a possibility that there will be a principled disagreement over what " “relevant” " means in the context of this proceeding. Giving the number of interlocutory motions in this matter so far, I am motivated to avoid another.

The process leading to the Decision appears relatively brief and streamlined. The Decision (dated June 30, 2022) refers to a request made on January 25, 2022. I am satisfied that requiring production of material that was before the decision-maker will not result in a burdensome or overwhelming number of documents. Put another way, there is no reason to depart from the principle that the CTR should include the materials that were before the decision-maker. V.

Costs [ 44 ] The Court has full discretionary power over the amount and allocation of costs (subrule 400(1)). [ 45 ] In correspondence to the Court dated October 4, 2023, the respondent advised that, should the Court allow the applicant’s motion, the respondent has instructions to challenge that order in a hearing convened under

section 38.04 of the Evidence Act , RSC 1985, c C-5 . Parties are always free to exercise rights of appeal, and the respondent is at liberty to bring an application under the Evidence Act . [ 46 ] I will not presume that such an application will be brought, or what evidence may be filed in support of it. However, the kind of information that is described in

section 38.01 of the Evidence Act is " “sensitive” " and " “potentially injurious” " . If the respondent has an intention to bring a " “section 38” " application in the event the applicant’s motion is granted, I do not understand why affidavit evidence of potential harm and injury was not presented on this motion, particularly when Mr Jennings’ affidavit was affirmed after the respondent’s letter to the Court, and this was the respondent’s basis for resisting disclosure of the Letter. [ 47 ] Judicial review is meant to be a timely,

summary proceeding allowing the state to implement its administrative decisions with minimal delay if the decision is challenged and found lawful or, if found unlawful, to quickly make corrective measures so that the decision complies with law and can take effect ( Wildchild Stockholm, Inc v Canada (Attorney General) , 2019 FC 874 at para 50 ). Reserving any evidence of harm or injury for another forum is inherently inefficient. [ 48 ] Judicial review of MAP decisions may be infrequent or even novel.

The respondent may have great discomfort in disclosing the record that was before the decision-maker in these circumstances. Who will prevail on the merits remains to be seen. But the respondent attempted to stop this proceeding in its tracks with a motion to strike, and was unsuccessful. This application for judicial review is moving ahead, and the general rules of procedure and disclosure apply to it.

Particularly in light of the absence of affidavit evidence from the Minister on potential harm, and a CTR that contained no materials that were before the decision-maker, I am not satisfied that the motion should have been opposed in its entirety. [ 49 ] Costs will be awarded to the applicant, fixed at $3,500.00, payable forthwith and in any event of the cause. This is slightly more than what would be awarded at the high end of Column V of the Tariff. ORDER in T-1567-22 THIS COURT ORDERS that :

1 . Within 30 days of the date of this order, the respondent shall serve and file a supplementary certified tribunal record. 2 . The supplementary certified tribunal record shall include the letter dated June 29, 2022 from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. 3 . The supplementary certified tribunal record shall include all documents that were before the person or persons who made the decision that is the subject of this application for judicial review. 4 .

The supplementary certified tribunal record shall be accompanied by a certificate, certifying that all documents that were before the person or persons who made the decision that is the subject of this application for judicial review have been included. 5 . If the respondent claims privilege over any documents that are the subject of this order, other than the June 29, 2022 letter for which no privilege claim was made on this motion, those documents need not be included in the certified tribunal record.

If privilege is claimed, the supplementary certified tribunal record shall be accompanied by a detailed objection that sets out all claims for privilege in the form of a privilege log. The privilege log shall enumerate each document for which privilege is claimed, the nature of the privilege, and the basis for the privilege claim. The applicant may challenge any claim for privilege. 6 . The applicant’s motion is otherwise dismissed. 7 .

Costs are payable by the respondent to the applicant, fixed at $3,500.00, payable forthwith and in any event of the cause. blank “Trent Horne” blank Associate Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: T-1567-22 STYLE OF CAUSE: ADRIAN ROBINSON v THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO DATE OF HEARING: FEBRUARY 2, 2024 ORDER and REASONS: HORNE A.J.

DATED: February 8, 2024 WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY : Peter Aprile James Roberts Jennifer Mak For The Applicant Samantha Hurst Isida Ranxi For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Counter Tax Lawyers PC Barristers and Solicitors Toronto, Ontario For The Applicant Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario For The Respondent