8 LEXPERT
|
2017
|
WWW.LEXPERT.CA
Braithwaite, William J. Stikeman Elliott LLP
(416) 869-5654 wbraithwaite@stikeman.com
Mr. Braithwaite is Chair of the firm and a senior partner in the Toronto office.
He is a member of the firm's Partnership Board and Executive Committee. Mr.
Braithwaite has a transactional practice focusing primarily in public M&A and
governance. Mr. Braithwaite acts as counsel for a number of major Canadian
corporations, boards of directors and institutional stakeholders.
Bradley, Noralee M. Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP
(403) 260-7002 nbradley@osler.com
Ms. Bradley has been assisting clients with mergers and acquisitions,
financings and corporate governance for over 25 years with significant
experience in complex business combinations involving related parties
or foreign entities. She is active in advising clients on financing strategies
and acquisition opportunities in the energy industry.
Bourassa, Michael J. Fasken Martineau
DuMoulin LLP (416) 865-5455 mbourassa@fasken.com
Mr. Bourassa is a member of Fasken Martineau's Global Mining and
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) groups. He has experience with
Canadian and international mining projects and advises on public financings,
commercial mining agreements, CSR and litigation support. Mr. Bourassa
has expertise in international mining due diligence issues concerning title,
technical matters and environmental risks.
Boislard, Michel Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP
(514) 397-7634 mboislard@fasken.com
Mr. Boislard practises business law focusing on securities, mergers and
acquisitions and corporate finance. He has acted for public & private
corporations and private-equity funds in complex national and cross-
border transactions. He has experience in the high-tech and biotechnology
industries. Mr. Boislard is a member of the Board of Directors and Chairman
of the Governance Committee of the firm.
Boidman, Nathan Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP
(514) 841-6409 nboidman@dwpv.com
Mr. Boidman is a tax partner advising on international M&A, private-equity
fund activities, financings, joint ventures, partnerships and business trusts.
He counsels on CRA cross-border disputes, including transfer pricing and tax-
related cross-border personal investment matters. He has served, inter alia,
as President of the Canadian branch of the International Fiscal Association.
Bloom, Brian Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP
(514) 841-6505 bbloom@dwpv.com
Mr. Bloom is a partner and the chair of the Montréal office's Taxation practice
group. His practice focuses on income tax law, with particular emphasis
on cross-border M&A, international tax planning and transfer pricing.
Before entering private practice, he worked for the Department of Finance,
Tax Legislation Division, and the CRA Income Tax Rulings Directorate.
LEXPERT RANKED LAWYERS
the Income Tax Act specifically excludes "an ac-
counting record of a lawyer." e Minister of Na-
tional Revenue took ompson to court to get his
accounts receivable. He countered that, among
other things, it is privileged because it contains
the names of his clients — and they are the only
ones who can waive privilege.
e Supreme Court issued its decision in con-
junction with a companion case raising similar
issues, Canada v. Chambre des Notaires, which
challenged the constitutional limits of the Cana-
da Revenue Agency's reach.
In the Québec case, CRA had issued a notice
of requirement to produce documents. e no-
tice went not to the taxpayers but to the Québec
notaries representing them. As in ompson, the
CRA wanted documents that fell within the "ac-
counting records" exception. CRA has routinely
sent such requirements to notaries acting as legal
advisors in Québec in the past few years to get in-
formation for tax or audit purposes.
e Chambre des Notaires and the Québec Bar
Association argued that the accounts-receivable
exception was unconstitutional. e Supreme
Court agreed, finding certain sections of the In-
come Tax Act violated elements of the constitu-
tion and were therefore inapplicable to notaries
and lawyers as they could result in the disclosure
of privileged information "to a far greater extent
than is absolutely necessary for the administra-
tion of the ITA." at infringement, the justices
wrote, simply "cannot be justified."
e court said, given the finding, the request
made in ompson "is now foreclosed."
Hansell says the Supreme Court's decision is
a very good one for C-suite executives because it
affirms that "lawyers are not required to disclose
the identity of their clients, no matter what the
legislation says, because the Supreme Court says
it's unconstitutional."
e top justices tossed the ball to Parliament to
close the accounts-receivable exemption through
an amendment to the Act. Failing that, they said
that clients "must also be afforded the opportuni-
ty to decide whether they wish to contest the dis-
closure of the information requested by the state,"
and if they do want to fight it, they "must be per-
mitted" to make submissions on their own behalf.
Patricia Olasker of Davies Ward suspects that
Parliament will move "with extreme caution"
before explicitly overriding solicitor-client priv-
ilege. It's a substantive right, she says, and for a
legislature to override it for tax-collection pur-
poses would be "a fairly audacious act. You might
see it in counter-terrorism legislation, in money-
laundering legislation — you can see an overrid-
ing public interest there — but for collecting rev-
enue? It does seem to be trammelling on a quasi-
constitutional right unnecessarily."
