Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Procedural law – Evidence – Documents seized under Act respecting the Ministère du Revenu of Quebec – Impounding of documents requested by interlocutory motion in context of action to quash search – Whether Superior Court erred in dismissing motion to impound in circumstances, particularly in light of principles established in 143471 Canada Inc. v. Quebec, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 339.

A Canada Revenue Agency investigator laid an information against Ms. Stein and 2077-85 Ste-Catherine Holdings Inc., alleging that she had reasonable grounds to believe, and that she believed, that Ms. Stein and the company had evaded payment of tax payable in their 2002 tax return. Ms. Stein had allegedly failed to report $850,000 in income, while the company had allegedly failed to report a $2.3 million capital gain. On February 15, 2006, a justice of the peace authorized a search of documents connected with Ms. Stein. On February 22, 2006 at 9:30 a.m., the search was conducted by 29 investigators at four different locations. Nineteen boxes of documents were seized, including 19,000 pages and 360,000 computer files. The inventory was given to the justice of the peace who had authorized the search. Some documents were seized by mistake but were or will soon be returned. Analysis of the documents is ongoing with a view to bringing criminal proceedings as soon as possible.

The Applicants applied by way of certiorari, evocation and mandamus to have the four searches quashed. They also asked that the seized documents be impounded pending the hearing of the main action. In support of their application, they argued, among other things, that the search warrants had been obtained illegally, that the information did not disclose sufficient reasonable grounds to issue a search warrant, that the information had been laid in bad faith and was imprecise, that the search violated Ms. Stein's constitutional rights and that an impounding order was necessary to avoid causing her irreparable harm and to prevent the requested quashing of the search from becoming moot.

The Superior Court dismissed the motion to impound on the ground that, even if the alleged violation of constitutional rights appeared serious, the Applicants had not proven that they would suffer irreparable harm if the documents were not impounded and had not shown why their interests should take precedence over the public interest in this case. The application for leave to appeal concerns this judgment of the Superior Court.