[2013] 4 F.C.R. D-7
Practice
Appeals by defendant (Crown) from Prothonotary’s decision (2012 FC 1247) refusing to strike certain portions of amended statement of claim in each of two actions—Underlying actions based on Canada Revenue Agency investigations, other activity between 1993–1997 relating to research and development tax credits—Crown appealing in respect of two claims not struck out, i.e. intentional interference with contractual relations, negligence—Issue whether Prothonotary’s order should be set aside or a different order made —Plaintiffs’ claim for intentional interference with contractual relations not seeking to reopen or collaterally attack tax assessments made upon their customers or potential customers—At this stage, claim not one that ought to be struck out—As to negligence, test two-fold: (1) Is there sufficient proximity between negligent, injured parties? (2) If so, are there policy considerations negating creation of duty of care?—Prothonotary erring in saying that as first part of test met herein, no need to consider second part—Prothonotary should have considered second question respecting public policy—While no statutory duty established in circumstances of this case, not possible to say at this stage that plaintiffs claim in respect of first question having no reasonable prospect of success—While allegations of negligence tenuous, case law evolving in that area, question not finally determined by appellate court—Appeals dismissed.
Gordon v. Canada (T-473-06, T-474-06, 2013 FC 597, Hughes J., reasons for order dated June 4, 2013, 23 pp.)