http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/73392/index.do 
Summers v. Canada (National Revenue) (September 16, 2014 – 2014 TCC 880) arose out of a reassessment of the applicant in connection with a tax avoidance program:
[4] In 2008, the CRA reassessed the applicant’s 2007 tax return because she was involved in what it determined to be a tax avoidance scheme (the Synergy scheme).
[5] In the Synergy scheme, taxpayers would purchase units in a corporation. The corporation would then provide consulting services to small businesses in exchange for 5% of the business profits and 95% of the business losses. These losses would be allocated to unit holders. The applicant was one of these unit holders and incurred substantial business losses as part of the Synergy scheme which she deducted from her 2007 tax return.
[6] Because of the disallowance of the business losses from the alleged scheme, the applicant had a significant amount of taxes owing. Her file was forwarded to the CRA’s collections unit, which took steps to recover the unpaid tax by collecting it from her wages. The respondent states the deduction of the debt owed from the applicant’s wages was a statutory set-off, not a garnishment and as such, a notice of objection would not stop the wage deduction. However, it should be noted that the CRA in its correspondence with the applicant referred repeatedly to garnishment, not statutory set-off. Nothing turns on this point, but I will refer to the deduction as the garnishment action.
[7] On August 6, 2008, the applicant filed a notice of objection which was meant to cease the garnishment action. By CRA error, garnishment continued. There is documentation relating to a refund and it appears the applicant paid the full amount owing.
[8] On August 29, 2012, the applicant submitted an access to information request by registered mail to the CRA. She requested all documents relating to “Re: CRA Notice of Assessment and/or Reassessment to me for the year 2007, and my Notice of Objection thereto, dated the 6 day of August, 2008.”
[9] On August 30, 2012, she faxed this request which the CRA received. This application was supposed to come with a $5 payment. The CRA says it did not receive this payment. However, the applicant claims she sent a cheque and the CRA lost it. Though the CRA searched for the $5 cheque, it could not be found.
[10] On September 28, 2013, the CRA received the request again along with a cheque for the $5 fee. The CRA began searching for the records.
The applicant was ultimately unsatisfied with the material disclosed by CRA and commenced this judicial review application. In particular she wanted production of the tax information of the Synergy corporate taxpayers.
The Federal Court found that although its original productions were not complete by the time of the hearing CRA had produced all documentation to which the applicant was entitled (other, that is, than the Synergy corporate taxpayer tax information). It further found that she was not entitled to the tax information of the Synergy corporate taxpayers:
[65] The respondent states the audit of the Synergy corporate taxpayers is not necessary, as the applicant’s tax reassessment was based on the business loss claimed from the scheme. The personal audit of her focused on whether or not the activities with Synergy were “business” activities resulting in “income from a source” and provides enough information for the applicant to pursue her notice of objection. It provides an analysis by the CRA of the scheme as a “sham”, as well as an unregistered tax shelter.
[66] I agree with the respondent. To allow the applicant to access the Synergy corporate taxpayer records on the basis of an agency agreement executed with the Synergy corporate persons is the same as allowing a home buyer to access a realtor’s tax records. They are still the personal tax records of the corporate persons and as such, are protected by section 241 of the Income Tax Act unless consent is granted. Further, the audit report of the applicant is quite clear as to why her business losses were disallowed.
Although the court dismissed the application for judicial review it did allow the applicant party-and-party costs since CRA had delayed in producing the documentation she had sought:
[75] In this case, party-and-party costs as in Dagg seem appropriate. The documents were only disclosed due to the filing of the application for judicial review. The actions of the respondent, though somewhat inaccurate at times and delayed, eventually turned up the required documents and there is no evidence on record of malice towards the applicant. They do not rise to the level of “reprehensible, scandalous or outrageous” required for solicitor-client costs.
[76] The applicant has all documentation related to her request which the respondent is able to disclose. There was a deemed refusal to disclose, as rightly admitted by the respondent, but there was additional information on the Synergy corporate taxpayers which could not be disclosed. The applicant puts forward a case to disclose this information, but does not effectively demonstrate why she requires it to continue her notice of objection proceedings.
[77] This application for judicial review is therefore dismissed, with costs to the applicant on the party-and-party scale.