Hyperlawhypertext legal database Glover v. Minister of National Revenue [1981] 2 SCR 561

← Cases

Glover v. Minister of National Revenue

[1981] 2 SCR 561 Court SCC Decision date 1981-12-17 English

PartiesAnn Patricia Glover (Plaintiff) Appellant·The Minister of National Revenue (Defendant) Respondent

Counsel (4)
William D. Dunlop and Susan J. Serena, for the appellant.
L.R. Olsson, Q.C., and Ian S. MacGregor, for the respondent.
Solicitors for the appellant: Martin, Dunlop, Hillyer & Associates, Burlington.
Solicitor for the respondent: L.R. Olsson, Toronto.

Judges Laskin, Bora; Martland, Ronald; Ritchie, Roland Almon; Dickson, Robert George Brian; Beetz, Jean; Estey, Willard Zebedee; McIntyre, William Rogers; Chouinard, Julien; Lamer, Antonio

Delivered by Judgment of the Court

On appeal from Ontario

Subjects Courts

Contents

Judgment of the Court

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.

Footnotes

  1. [1] (1980), 29 O.R. (2d) 392, 80 D.T.C. 6262.
  2. [2] (1979), 26 O.R. (2d) 477, 79 D.T.C. 5391.

Statutes and regulations cited

  • Unresolved citations
    • s. 241(1)
    • (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1970
    • s. 241(4)(c)