Background
John Doe, acting without counsel, filed four appeals concerning eight taxation years between 2005 and 2016. After eight status hearings, the Tax Court concluded that it first had to determine whether Doe was under a legal disability. In May 2023, the Court directed the Crown to notify British Columbia’s Public Guardian and Trustee of its concern.
Medical information had been disclosed during the proceedings to support adjournment requests, including information about hospitalization, medication, and mental illness. Although neither party moved for confidentiality under section 16.1 of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure), the Court considered on its own initiative whether the information should be protected.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Ouimet held that the Tax Court could issue a confidentiality order on its own initiative. Although the Tax Court is a statutory court without inherent jurisdiction, it possesses powers necessarily implied to carry out its functions, and section 9 of the Rules permits it to dispense with procedural compliance when required in the interests of justice. Those powers allowed intervention where a self-represented taxpayer might be under a legal disability and could not be expected to seek protection himself.
Applying the open-court test from Sherman Estate v. Donovan, the Court found that disclosure of Doe’s sensitive mental-health information posed a serious risk to the important public interests in privacy and dignity; no reasonable alternative would adequately prevent that risk; and the order’s benefits outweighed its effects on court openness. The Court sealed all four files except redacted versions of the May 31, 2023 order and the confidentiality order, prohibited disclosure of information identifying Doe, and directed that further proceedings be closed to the public absent prior authorization. The restrictions remain subject to revision as the appeals progress, with specified access for the parties, Court personnel, the Public Guardian and Trustee, and the amicus curiae.
Key Takeaways
- The Tax Court may invoke its necessarily implied jurisdiction and section 9 of its Rules to issue a confidentiality order on its own motion when the interests of justice require it.
- Sensitive mental-health information may engage an important public interest in protecting privacy and dignity sufficient to overcome the strong presumption of open courts.
- A confidentiality measure must be necessary and proportionate; here, sealing most of the files while publishing two redacted orders preserved as much openness as practicable.
Why It Matters
The decision explains how the Tax Court can protect a vulnerable, self-represented litigant even when no formal confidentiality motion has been filed. It also shows that the Court’s procedural authority extends to addressing medical information already disclosed in the record.
The order is protective and procedural, not a determination of the tax appeals or of Doe’s legal disability. Its continued scope may be reconsidered once the disability issue is resolved and the record can be redacted appropriately.