Supreme Court of Canada
Glover v. Minister of National Revenue, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 561
Date: 1981-12-17
Ann Patricia Glover (Plaintiff) Appellant;
and
The Minister of National Revenue (Defendant) Respondent.
1981: December 9; 1981: December 17.
Present: Laskin C.J. and Martland, Ritchie, Dickson, Beetz, Estey, Mclntyre, Chouinard and Lamer JJ.
ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO.
Courts—Powers of courts—Income tax—Confidentiality—Whether Revenue Canada is obliged or can be compelled to disclose information contained in tax return—Statutory provisions precluding disclosure of information—Case did not fall within exception—Inherent jurisdiction of the court could not be exercised in contravention of statutory provisions—Income Tax Act, 1970-71-72 (Can.), c. 63 as amended, s. 241.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario[1], setting aside an order of Lerner J.[2] directing Revenue Canada to provide the Court with certain information secured under the provisions of the Income Tax Act. Appeal dismissed.
William D. Dunlop and Susan J. Serena, for the appellant.
L.R. Olsson, Q.C., and Ian S. MacGregor, for the respondent.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by
THE CHIEF JUSTICE—The issue in this appeal is whether the revenue authorities of the Government of Canada are obliged or can be compelled to disclose the address of a taxpayer to the appellant who was awarded custody of her children as against the taxpayer, her former husband, he having abducted the two children and his whereabouts being unknown. Lerner J. made an order for disclosure, notwithstanding the provisions of s. 241(1) and (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1970-71-72
(Can.), c. 63 as amended. His order was set aside by the Ontario Court of Appeal in unanimous reasons given for the Court by MacKinnon A.C.J.
Sympathetic though one is inclined to be to the appellant’s plight, the statutory provisions above-mentioned for non-disclosure, in connection with any legal proceedings of a civil character, do not give any power to a court to qualify them, nor do the exceptions set out in s. 241(4)(c) assist the appellant. MacKinnon A.C.J. has dealt fully with the issues that arise in the appeal and no ground has been shown to depart from his reasons and conclusion.
I would, accordingly, dismiss the appeal. There will be no order as to costs.
Appeal dismissed.
Solicitors for the appellant: Martin, Dunlop, Hillyer & Associates, Burlington.
Solicitor for the respondent: L.R. Olsson, Toronto.