Thackray, J.:— The remaining issue is the matter of the obligation of the Court to report apparent tax evasion to Revenue Canada. In my earlier reasons I expressed concern in this regard.
In this case counsel for both parties announced that not only the parties but their company had filed income tax returns that were less than honest.
Counsel for the parties submitted that there not only was no obligation on the Court, but that it would be inappropriate for the Court to take such a step. The reasoning was much the same as counsel's submissions in Ferretti v. Johnson, [1992] 2 C.T.C. 306, 60 B.C.L.R. (2d) 108 in which I am concurrently releasing reasons.
This case has a feature that was not present in Ferretti and deserves comment. In a personal injury action, the Court is in a position to take some affirmative action against a plaintiff who is found, or admits, to tax evasion (see lannone v. Hoogenraad (1990), 50 B.C.L.R. (2d) 390 (S.C.) [aff'd (1992), 66 B.C.L.R. (2d) 906 (C.A.)]). However, in a family law case where the parties are seeking a division of assets, the Court has no room within the judgment to assess any penalty”.
The Court is thereby left with only the small satisfaction of letting the parties know that their conduct is unacceptable. In my earlier reasons I said:
I doubt that they [the parties] have given any thought to the expense to which they have put the public, to whose assets they aid not contribute, by asking the Court to sort out their matrimonial problems. It would be fitting to deny them access to the Courts until such time as they make a proper disclosure and settlement with the tax department.
For the reasons expressed in Ferretti I am not going to take any further steps.
Order accordingly.