Gregory P. Delbigio

The Minister of National Revenue moved to strike the plaintiffs' claims challenging third-party information requirements issued under the Income Tax Act.

The plaintiffs alleged the requirements were improperly issued to gather evidence for an ongoing tax evasion investigation, contrary to R. v. Jarvis.

The plaintiffs also sought declarations that statutory provisions allowing the sharing of audit information with law enforcement violate their Charter rights.

The Court found the pleadings alleging an improper predominant purpose were sufficient to survive a motion to strike, but struck the broad, hypothetical Charter challenges regarding information sharing as bereft of factual basis.

The appellant was convicted of murder after a trial where the jury became deadlocked.

During an exhortation to the deadlocked jury, the trial judge offered his opinion that the Crown had a very powerful case if the jury accepted a police officer's evidence.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that a trial judge should generally refrain from offering opinions on issues of fact during an exhortation to a deadlocked jury, as it may prejudicially influence the jury's deliberative process.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.