T-419-97
Toronto, Ontario, Monday the 17th day of March, 1997
Present:
Between:
PAUL GUPTA, C.A.
Applicant
- and -
REVENUE CANADA, THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE
and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA,
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Respondents
REASONS FOR ORDER
The applicant has filed an originating notice of motion which appears to be an application for judicial review of the decision of March 5, 1997 of the A/Chief of Appeals of Revenue Canada.
The applicant has brought before the Court today a motion for an interim order. Pursuant to section 18.2 of the Federal Court Act, the Trial Division may make such interim orders as it deems appropriate on an application for judicial review.
| The applicant's motion for interim order seeks the following relief: |
| The motion is that I obtain an E-file number and discounter numbers immediately so as to not further the damage to my practice and so that I can salvage some business this tax season which may save may practice. |
| The test for granting the interim relief sought by the applicant is set out RJR-MacDonald, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311 and Manitoba (A.G.) v. Metropolitain Stores, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 110. |
- 2 -
The applicant's principal submissions were on the issue of irreparable harm. His concern is that his not having an E-file number for the 1997 filing season will not only affect his ability to serve properly his clients concerning the filing of their income tax returns but, more importantly, may jeopardize his more substantive audit work for certain other clients. In my view, the applicant's evidence is this regard falls short of the "clear and not speculative" threshold set by the Court of Appeal. (See Syntex v. Novopharm Ltd. (1991), 36 C.P.R. (3d) 129 at 135 and Nature Co. v. Sci-Tech Educational Inc. (1992), 41 C.P.R. (3d) 359 at 367.) The evidence of irreparable harm must be more than "vague and self-serving" assertions. (See Eli Lilly and Co. v. Novopharm Ltd. (1996), 69 C.R.P. (3d) 455 at 458.)
In addition, the balance of convenience in the present case would not favor the applicant. The decision under review was made in the exercise the Minister's discretion to identify persons who meet the criteria specified in writing by the Minister pursuant to subsection 150.1(2) of the Income Tax Act.
Finally, because of my findings on irreparable harm and balance of convenience, I need not address definitively the issue of serious issue. Even if the applicant had met the low threshold of "serious issue" as enumerated by the Supreme Court of Canada, he would still have to meet the respondent's argument in law against a mandatory injunction in the circumstances of this case.
For these reasons, the motion for the interim order is dismissed.
"A. Lutfy"
Judge
Toronto, Ontario
March 17, 1997
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
COURT NO: T-419-97
STYLE OF CAUSE: PAUL GUPTA, C.A.
- and -
| REVENUE CANADA, THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE |
DATE OF HEARING: MARCH 17, 1997
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: LUTFY, J.
DATED: MARCH 17, 1997
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Paul Gupta, C.A.
For the Applicant
Mr. John C. Spencer
For the Respondents
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Paul Gupta, C.A.
2156 Lumberman Lane
Oakville, Ontario
L6M 2Y9
For the Applicant
Department of Justice
George Thomson
Deputy Attorney General
of Canada
For the Respondents
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Court No.: T-419-97
Between:
PAUL GUPTA, C.A.
Applicant
- and -
| REVENUE CANADA, THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE |
Respondents
REASONS FOR ORDER