Emergency medical insurance:

The privilege of Communication between Client and Attorney: 

 

On Friday, June 3, 2016, the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) delivered two historic decisions [Canada (Attorney General) v. Chambre des notaries du Québec and Barreau du Québec, 2016 SCC 20 (“Chambre des notaires”); 

 and Canada (National Revenue) v. Thompson, 2016 SCC 21 ("Thompson")] stresses the importance of attorney-client privilege. These decisions affirm the constitutional restrictions placed on the Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”) under the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 

1  (Appendix V), as amended (the “Law”). The outcome of these two cases may lead the Department of Finance (at the insistence of TRA officials) to consider introducing new legislation to obtain certain types of information that now seem out of reach. A careful reading of the SCC's reasoning in the Chambre des notaries and Thompson suggests that the adoption of such judgments may not be necessary.

Both cases present very simple facts. In each case, the TRA, as it often does, has sent a requirement to provide documents or information (a “request”) in accordance with Section 231.2 of the Act. However, in the Chambre des notaires case, the CRA addressed the formal request not directly to taxpayers, but rather to the notaries they represent in Quebec. The CRA argued that the requested information fell within the "accounting records" exception set forth in the attorney-client privilege definition of subsection 232(1) of the Code. The Chambre des notaires and Barreau du Québec have argued that the exception regarding accounting records for notaries and attorneys, set forth in the definition of "client-attorney communication privilege" in subsection 232(1) of the Code, is unconstitutional. , disabled, 

 and without effect with respect to authenticators. Their argument was based on their shared interest in preserving their clients' right to professional secrecy (a technical term used in Quebec, denoting the privilege of communications between client and attorney). The lower courts of Quebec agreed with the Chambre des notaries and the Barreau du Québec. The Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal ruled in their favor.

On another appeal, the Specialized Criminal Court upheld the decisions of the lower court. It is ruled that subsection 231.2(1) and section 231.7 of the Act are unconstitutional, ineffective, 

 and of no effect with respect to notaries and legal counsel. In addition, it found the unconstitutional exception to attorney accounting records set forth in the attorney-client privilege definition in subsection 232(1) of the Code. Finally, the CSC states that “it is not appropriate to make a list of documents which at first instance benefit from the protection of professional secrecy. The determination of whether or not a document benefit from the protection of professional secrecy depends not on the category to which it belongs, but rather on its content and what it can reveal about it.” The relationship and communications between the client and his legal advisor.[Chambre des notaires, par. 95.]

In Thompson's case, the Communications Regulatory Agency (CRA) issued a formal request under subsection 231.2(1) of the Act requesting the production of various documents relating to Mr. Thompson's personal finances, as well as an updated list of his accounts and clients. Mr. Thompson gave some information to the CRA but claimed attorney-client privilege in respect of his client's account details, which included the names of his clients. The Minister of National Revenue applied to the Federal Court for an order under Section 231.7 of the Act. Mr. Thompson responded by arguing that a formal request from the CRA constituted an unreasonable search or seizure contrary to Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the "Charter").

The Federal Court concluded that the names of clients could be disclosed without violating Article 8 of the Charter. On appeal, the Federal Court of Appeals ruled that the information requested by the CRA may contain classified information. Specifically, clients whose identity was in fact protected should be able to invoke and defend that privilege, and Mr. Thompson should be able to invoke it on their behalf. The Federal Court of Appeals rejected the Charter challenge. Based on its findings, the Court of Appeals sent the case back to the Federal Court.

The government appealed the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal to the Specialized Criminal Court. these