Zeldap Corporation v. The Queen, 2015 DTC 1108 [at at 636], 2015 TCC 78 -- summary under Solicitor-Client Privilege

By services, 28 November, 2015

The appellant's book of documents referred to prior meetings relating to the reassessments in issue. The Minister applied under s. 116(2) of the Rules to compel the appellant to disclose who was at the meetings, where they were held, what was said, and what, if anything, was recorded. The taxpayer claimed litigation privilege on the basis that the meetings, which were directed by the appellant's counsel, were in anticipation of future tax litigation.

Favreau J found that the taxpayer had failed to make a prima facie case for privilege. After noting that the meetings were three years before the related reassessments, he stated (at para. 11):

A lawyer's presence at a meeting is not indicative that his legal advice was being sought. The appellant has not provided any information concerning the nature of the legal advice sought from Mr. Sullivan.

Topics and taglines
Tagline
litigation privilege not established regarding meetings, taking place three years before reassessments, merely because lawyer was present
d7 import status
Drupal 7 entity type
Node
Drupal 7 entity ID
336810
Extra import data
{
"field_legacy_header": "<strong><em><a id=\"Zeldap\"></a>Zeldap Corporation v. The Queen</em></strong>, 2015 TCC 78 <strong>[litigation privilege not established regarding meetings, taking place three years before reassessments, merely because lawyer was present]</strong>",
"field_override_history": false,
"field_sid": "",
"field_topic_category": "seealso"
}