Donald H. Jack

The appellant invested in limited partnerships marketed as tax shelters and made monthly interest payments on loans used to purchase the units.

The partnerships were later revealed to be a sham, and Revenue Canada disallowed the appellant's tax deductions.

The appellant sued the respondent accounting firm for negligence, alleging they breached the standard of care for a review engagement by failing to include a 'going concern' note in the financial statements, which he claimed would have prompted him to stop making interest payments earlier.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that the accountants met the standard of care for a review engagement and that, even if a going concern note had been included, the appellant would not have noticed it or acted upon it.

The appellants, former senior officers and directors of Hollinger Inc., appealed an order compelling them to submit to questioning by an Inspector appointed under the Canada Business Corporations Act.

They argued that being compelled to answer questions in Canada would violate their Charter rights against self-incrimination, as their answers could be used against them in ongoing criminal proceedings in the United States.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellants were not entitled to a constitutional exemption because the Canadian inquiry was fact-finding rather than prosecutorial.

The Court also declined to stay the order, noting that the application judge had established a procedure to rule on specific questions and craft protective mechanisms on a case-by-case basis.