Kevin Michael Palframan

The Court of Appeal for Ontario addressed costs and a sealing order following its dismissal of the appellant's Charter challenge to a Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) audit.

The court ordered each party to bear its own costs for both the appeal and the fresh evidence motions, citing divided success on the appeal and reasonable conduct regarding the fresh evidence motions.

Regarding the sealing order for fresh evidence, the court dismissed the appellant's request for a full sealing order, instead ordering limited redactions to the CRA final audit, consistent with a prior Superior Court order, to balance the open court principle with privacy and safety concerns, particularly given allegations of government wrongdoing.

The appellant, a Muslim charity, appealed the dismissal of its application challenging a Canadian Revenue Agency (CRA) audit process, alleging violations of its Charter rights due to discriminatory targeting and Islamophobic attitudes.

The application judge dismissed the challenge as premature, citing an insufficient factual record and the availability of administrative appeal processes under the Income Tax Act.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, affirming the court's discretion to refuse to decide a case based on a preliminary and incomplete factual record, even for Charter relief.

While disagreeing with the lower court's suggestion that the Tax Court's jurisdiction would necessarily bar a subsequent Superior Court Charter challenge, the appellate court found the prematurity finding to be correct given the ongoing administrative process.

The court considered the defendant's request for partial indemnity costs following a successful outcome in the main proceeding.

The plaintiff opposed the costs order, arguing the initial decision was incorrect.

The court exercised its discretion under the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01, finding the requested quantum reasonable given the complexity of the initial litigation.

Costs were awarded to the defendant.

The Attorney General of Canada brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's 40-page statement of claim without leave to amend, arguing it failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action, was frivolous/vexatious, would prejudice a fair trial, and that the plaintiff lacked legal capacity for certain claims.

The plaintiff, Roland Eid, self-represented, alleged negligence, negligent investigation, malicious prosecution, and intentional infliction of mental distress against the AG, stemming from his time as a CSIS informant, his company's bankruptcy, and an incident at the Canadian embassy in Lebanon.

The court granted the motion, striking the entire statement of claim, finding that the plaintiff lacked standing for claims related to his company's bankruptcy and his family's damages, and that his claims for negligent investigation and malicious prosecution failed due to his criminal convictions.

The court also found the pleading violated Rule 25 requirements for form and material facts.