As part of our FATCA IGA litigation in Canada’s Federal Court, Our three Plaintiffs previously provided financial information to the Government lawyers on their accounts. However, Government submitted a motion to compel Plaintiffs to provide additional very detailed financial information.
Our litigators felt that this request was unnecessary and unreasonable — and resisted the motion; however, the Case Management Judge sided with Government and ordered today, on May 31 2017, Plaintiffs to provide further documents.
Plaintiff Gwen responds to court order: “If the nosy-ass government hacks feel that they will find something that they didn’t know before, they will be sorely disappointed and this changes nothing other than to piss us off even more…”
Plaintiff Ginny comments: “I am disappointed with the decision that permits the government to invade our privacy in further minutia. This power play demonstrates to me that the government has no respect for privacy principles and will do everything possible to uphold their decision to support FATCA, and the importation of US law into our sovereign nation.
Their choice to ask for costs is another clear warning to discourage any citizens wishing to challenge unjust legislation. However, the three of us remain undeterred in seeking justice for all of us affected. Once again, I rely on my family motto: don’t let the bastards get you down.
…I find this very distressing on many levels,not the least of which is how difficult, within the time constraints it will be to find and collect these many documents. If they are looking for proof of harm (which I agree with those that say it is irrelevant) they have just caused it with this outrageous demand.
…The other thing that makes me furious, is that this is also a deep invasion of my husband’s privacy, as a lot of information I will have to provide is jointly held. He who was born untainted in Canada. I feel like I am betraying him. The irony is that the more we are harassed by the government, the more determined I am to keep fighting for our rights…
If anyone is looking for a weight loss diet, I can recommend being a plaintiff…”
Plaintiff Kazia says: “Although I am disappointed with this outcome, I am hopeful that these next steps, however uncomfortable, will get us even closer to ultimately achieving a positive resolution in our favour. We will stand up for what is right.”
The documents that now must be turned over are:
Every document that reveals the nature and content of the following financial vehicles that the plaintiffs currently hold, or held after January 1, 2014 (domestically or otherwise):
o All bank accounts
o All mutual funds
o All brokerage and investment accounts, and
o All insurance accounts or plans that have cash value, such as life insurance contracts or annuities (including but not limited to whole and/or universal life coverage, etc.)
– With respect to the 2014 and 2015 taxation years:
o Filed T1 tax returns
o T2 tax returns in respect of any businesses that the plaintiffs own or control, and
o Any related documentation, slips or schedules
The Court also requested more “particulars” on the Claim.
These include:
Each type of physical harm the Plaintiffs allege as been suffered; or will for certain be suffered if the impugned provisions remain operational by any one of them or by anyone else, as a result of the impugned provisions;
All mental or psychological harm the Plaintiffs allege has been suffered; or will for certain be suffered if the impugned provisions remain operational; by any one of them or by anyone else, as a result of the impugned provisions;
All financial harm, loss, or damage that the Plaintiffs allege has been incurred; or will for certain be incurred; by any one of them or by anyone else, as a result of the impugned provisions.
In addition, Court ordered Plaintiffs to pay $2500 in costs for the motion.
Plaintiffs do not have to pay these costs if we ultimately win the court challenge; however this order emphasizes again the personal financial risks Plaintiffs have undertaken on behalf of Canada and Canadians.
The Court has given Plaintiffs 60 days to provide the information and ordered that Government complete examinations for discovery within 45 days of the latter.
Sounds like an intimidation/stalling technique. What is the govt hoping to find, illegal activity on the part of the plaintiffs to sidetrack the challenge?
And why do we need to prove harms? Charter rights can be violated as long as the harms are not too big?
The more the government adds to the egregious abuse of the brave plaintiffs – on top of the egregious abuse of our own hard earned taxpayer dollars wasted in trying to defend the indefensible (or drag it out as long as possible), the less and less respect and compliance they should expect from the governed.
In this case, and in their conduct of it, both the CONS and now the Glibs have revealed their true colours – not a pretty sight.
And one we won’t ever forget.
Bubblebustin: “Seems to me that the government just wants to wear the plaintiff’s down. Thank goodness we have the ones we have and they have each other.” Exactly! I second your words. The government thinks this community, via our plaintiffs, will just give up. Not gonna happen with Ginny, Gwen and Kazia, their lawyers and us, their ardent supporters!
Dash: I, too, am intrigued by the request for more information about harms suffered by the plaintiffs or by others. For the past three years I have kept annual lists of harms being suffered around the globe due to FATCA. Each list has been sent to the UN as a “support document” for our UN Human Rights Complaint. The list currently in progress will be sent to the UN this fall if US tax reform regarding our issue is not forthcoming. In the meantime, I would be happy to supply our plaintiffs’ lawyers with these collections if they would like to make use of them in the current Canadian litigation.
@MNM
Great work. Your dedication with the UN complaint is greatly appreciated.
I know sometimes our comments seem to fall into a chasm here, and although we don’t respond, please know that MANY of us are reading.
Bubblebustin: Thanks for saying that! Much appreciated! I also salute “Calgary” for her help in communicating with the UN.
I should also say that I would be happy to share with our legal team the harm that I have already personally suffered from the FATCA experience as long as my real name does not need to be used. I have a spouse who is not willing for me to come forward under anything but a pseudonym.
“I have a spouse who is not willing for me to come forward under anything but a pseudonym.”
Muzzled.
Norman: My moniker derives from the days when I was stuck with lurking here rather than participating. Compared with those days I am, indeed, MuzzledNoMore. Compared with what I would *like* to be and do, I am, as you suggest, still muzzled.