Bradwick Property Management Services Inc. v. Canada (National Revenue) (September 19, 2016 – 2016 FC 1056, Aylen P.).
Précis: The applicant brought 11 judicial review applications seeking to review CRA’s refusal to provide unredacted information pursuant to applications made by the applicant under the Access to Information Act during the course of a notice of objection process under the Income Tax Act. All of the judicial review applications were consolidated in this decision. CRA moved to file unredacted copies of the disputed materials with the Court and for an order denying counsel for the applicant access to the unredacted materials. The Prothonotary allowed CRA’s application holding that the applicant had not demonstrated cogent reasons why access to the unredacted materials was necessary for it to pursue its notices of objection. Neither party requested costs so there was no order as to costs.
Decision: The Prothonotary held that the applicant had not demonstrated why access to the unredacted documentation was necessary to pursue its notices of objection:
 While I appreciate that the unredacted records will undoubtedly shed light on the basis for the CRA’s reassessments of the Applicant and could permit the Applicant to better assert its position in the notice of objection proceedings, the notice of objection proceedings are not the focus of the Court’s inquiry on this motion. Rather, the question before the Court is whether counsel for the Applicant requires disclosure of the unredacted records to argue that the information redacted from the records does not fall within the various exemptions claimed by the Respondent. In the case of the section 24 ATIA exemptions, the Court will only consider whether the redacted information constitutes third party taxpayer information within the meaning of the ITA.
 I find that the Applicant is improperly conflating the arguments to be made to resist the CRA’s reassessments of the Applicant in the notice of objection proceedings with the arguments to be made by the Applicant on this application for judicial review. In that regard, when asked why, for example, counsel for the Applicant needed to see a copy of a cheque between two third party entities in order to argue this application and why he could not effectively argue the application upon simply being advised that the redacted page was a cheque between two third parties, the Applicant was unable to provide a clear answer. In the circumstances, I am not satisfied that the Applicant has met its obligation to provide some explanation to the Court as to why disclosure of the unredacted records is necessary for the purposes of making effective argument on the issue of the propriety of the exemptions claimed by the Respondent.
 Having reviewed the unredacted records, I find that counsel for the Applicant does not require access to the unredacted records in order to effectively argue the underlying application. Rather, a description of the nature of the records and the nature of the redacted information is sufficient in the circumstances. Having reviewed the Charts provided by the Respondent, I find that they provide the necessary descriptions.
Neither party requested costs so there was no order as to costs.