A-6.002 - Tax Administration Act

Section 40.1.1 Disposition versions

2021-06-02

40.1.1. A judge of the Court of Québec may, on an ex parte application following an information laid in writing and under oath by an employee of the Agency authorized by regulation, issue an authorization in writing permitting any employee of the Agency to use any investigative device, technique or procedure or do anything described by the judge that would, if not so authorized, constitute an unreasonable search or seizure in respect of a person or a person’s property; the employee so authorized may call upon the assistance of a peace officer.

When the authorization applied for concerns the enforcement of the Tobacco Tax Act (chapter I-2), the application may also be made following an information laid in writing and under oath by a member of the Sûreté du Québec or of a municipal police force and the authorization may also be issued to any member of the Sûreté du Québec or of a municipal police force, who may call upon the assistance of an employee of the Agency.

The judge may not, however, authorize the interception of a private communication, as defined in section 183 of the Criminal Code (R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46). Nor may the judge authorize the observation by means of a television camera or other similar electronic device of any person who is engaged in an activity in circumstances in which the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The judge may issue the authorization if the judge is satisfied

(a)  that there are reasonable grounds to believe that an offence against a fiscal law for which a person is liable to imprisonment has been or will be committed and information concerning the offence will be obtained through the use of the technique, procedure or device or the doing of the thing;

(b)  that it is in the best interests of the administration of justice to issue the authorization; and

(c)  that there is no other provision in a fiscal law or in the Code of Penal Procedure (chapter C-25.1) that would provide for a warrant other than a general warrant provided for in that Code, authorization or order permitting the technique, procedure or device to be used or the thing to be done.

Nothing in the first and second paragraphs may be construed as permitting interference with the physical integrity of any person.

The authorization shall set out such terms and conditions as the judge considers appropriate, in the circumstances, in particular concerning its execution, to ensure that the search or seizure is reasonable, to protect the reasonable expectation of privacy and to protect lawyers’ and notaries’ professional secrecy.

In the case of an authorization to enter and search a place covertly, the judge shall require that notice of the entry and search be given after its execution within the time that the judge considers appropriate in the circumstances.

Where the judge who grants an authorization to enter and search covertly or any other judge having jurisdiction to grant such an authorization is satisfied, on an ex parte application made on the basis of an affidavit submitted in support of an application for extension of the period referred to in the seventh paragraph, that the interests of justice warrant the granting of the application, the judge may grant an extension, or a subsequent extension, of the period, but no extension may exceed one year.

The authorization provided for in this section may be obtained by telewarrant in accordance with the procedure set out in the Code of Penal Procedure, with the necessary modifications.

2004, c. 4, s. 25; 2010, c. 31, s. 146; 2012, c. 28, s. 7; I.N. 2016-01-01 (NCCP); 2020, c. 12, s. 58; 2021, c. 15, s. 11.

2020-07-13

40.1.1. A judge of the Court of Québec may, on an ex parte application following an information laid in writing and under oath by an employee of the Agency authorized by regulation, issue an authorization in writing permitting any employee of the Agency to use any investigative device, technique or procedure or do anything described by the judge that would, if not so authorized, constitute an unreasonable search or seizure in respect of a person or a person’s property; the employee so authorized may call upon the assistance of a peace officer.

When the authorization applied for concerns the enforcement of the Tobacco Tax Act (chapter I-2), the application may also be made following an information laid in writing and under oath by a member of the Sûreté du Québec or of a municipal police force and the authorization may also be issued to any member of the Sûreté du Québec or of a municipal police force, who may call upon the assistance of an employee of the Agency.

The judge may not, however, authorize the interception of a private communication, as defined in section 183 of the Criminal Code (R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46). Nor may the judge authorize the observation by means of a television camera or other similar electronic device of any person who is engaged in an activity in circumstances in which the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The judge may issue the authorization if the judge is satisfied

(a)  that there are reasonable grounds to believe that an offence against a fiscal law for which a person is liable to imprisonment has been or will be committed and information concerning the offence will be obtained through the use of the technique, procedure or device or the doing of the thing;

(b)  that it is in the best interests of the administration of justice to issue the authorization; and

(c)  that there is no other provision in a fiscal law or in the Code of Penal Procedure (chapter C-25.1) that would provide for a warrant other than a general warrant provided for in that Code, authorization or order permitting the technique, procedure or device to be used or the thing to be done.

Nothing in the first and second paragraphs may be construed as permitting interference with the physical integrity of any person.

The authorization shall set out such terms and conditions as the judge considers appropriate, in the circumstances, to ensure that the search or seizure is reasonable, to protect the reasonable expectation of privacy and to protect lawyers’ and notaries’ professional secrecy.

In the case of an authorization to enter and search a place covertly, the judge shall require that notice of the entry and search be given after its execution within the time that the judge considers appropriate in the circumstances.

Where the judge who grants an authorization to enter and search covertly or any other judge having jurisdiction to grant such an authorization is satisfied, on an ex parte application made on the basis of an affidavit submitted in support of an application for extension of the period referred to in the seventh paragraph, that the interests of justice warrant the granting of the application, the judge may grant an extension, or a subsequent extension, of the period, but no extension may exceed one year.

The execution of an authorization issued under this section may not commence more than 15 days after it is issued or end more than 30 days after the expiry of that 15-day period. However, where the judge is satisfied, on an ex parte application made on the basis of an affidavit submitted in support of an application for extension to complete the execution of the authorization, that the interests of justice warrant the granting of the application, the judge may grant an extension of not more than 30 days. The execution of the authorization may not commence, without the written authorization of the judge who granted it, before 7 a.m. or after 8 p.m., or on a holiday.

The authorization provided for in this section may be obtained by telewarrant in accordance with the procedure set out in the Code of Penal Procedure, with the necessary modifications.

2004, c. 4, s. 25; 2010, c. 31, s. 146; 2012, c. 28, s. 7; I.N. 2016-01-01 (NCCP); 2020, c. 12, s. 58.

2016-01-01

40.1.1. A judge of the Court of Québec may, on an ex parte application following an information laid in writing and under oath by an employee of the Agency authorized by regulation, issue an authorization in writing permitting any employee of the Agency to use any investigative technique or procedure or do anything described by the judge that would, if not so authorized, constitute an unreasonable search or seizure in respect of a person or a person’s property; the employee so authorized may call upon the assistance of a peace officer.

When the authorization applied for concerns the enforcement of the Tobacco Tax Act (chapter I-2), the application may also be made following an information laid in writing and under oath by a member of the Sûreté du Québec or of a municipal police force and the authorization may also be issued to any member of the Sûreté du Québec or of a municipal police force, who may call upon the assistance of an employee of the Agency.

The judge may not, however, authorize the interception of a private communication, as defined in section 183 of the Criminal Code (R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46). Nor may the judge authorize the observation by means of a television camera or other similar electronic device of any person who is engaged in an activity in circumstances in which the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The judge may issue the authorization if the judge is satisfied

(a)  that there are reasonable grounds to believe that an offence against a fiscal law for which a person is liable to imprisonment has been or will be committed and information concerning the offence will be obtained through the use of the technique, procedure or device or the doing of the thing;

(b)  that it is in the best interests of the administration of justice to issue the authorization; and

(c)  that there is no other provision in a fiscal law or in the Code of Penal Procedure (chapter C-25.1) that would provide for a warrant, authorization or order permitting the technique, procedure or device to be used or the thing to be done.

Nothing in the first and second paragraphs may be construed as permitting interference with the physical integrity of any person.

The authorization shall set out such terms and conditions as the judge considers appropriate, in the circumstances, to ensure that the search or seizure is reasonable, to protect the reasonable expectation of privacy and to protect lawyers’ and notaries’ professional secrecy.

In the case of an authorization to enter and search a place covertly, the judge shall require that notice of the entry and search be given after its execution within the time that the judge considers appropriate in the circumstances.

Where the judge who grants an authorization to enter and search covertly or any other judge having jurisdiction to grant such an authorization is satisfied, on an ex parte application made on the basis of an affidavit submitted in support of an application for extension of the period referred to in the seventh paragraph, that the interests of justice warrant the granting of the application, the judge may grant an extension, or a subsequent extension, of the period, but no extension may exceed one year.

The execution of an authorization issued under this section may not commence more than 15 days after it is issued or end more than 30 days after the expiry of that 15-day period. However, where the judge is satisfied, on an ex parte application made on the basis of an affidavit submitted in support of an application for extension to complete the execution of the authorization, that the interests of justice warrant the granting of the application, the judge may grant an extension of not more than 30 days. The execution of the authorization may not commence, without the written authorization of the judge who granted it, before 7 a.m. or after 8 p.m., or on a holiday.

The authorization provided for in this section may be obtained by telewarrant in accordance with the procedure set out in the Code of Penal Procedure, with the necessary modifications.

2004, c. 4, s. 25; 2010, c. 31, s. 146; 2012, c. 28, s. 7; I.N. 2016-01-01 (NCCP).

2012-12-07

40.1.1. A judge of the Court of Québec may, on an ex parte application following an information laid in writing and under oath by an employee of the Agency authorized by regulation, issue an authorization in writing permitting any employee of the Agency to use any investigative technique or procedure or do anything described by the judge that would, if not so authorized, constitute an unreasonable search or seizure in respect of a person or a person’s property; the employee so authorized may call upon the assistance of a peace officer.

When the authorization applied for concerns the enforcement of the Tobacco Tax Act (chapter I-2), the application may also be made following an information laid in writing and under oath by a member of the Sûreté du Québec or of a municipal police force and the authorization may also be issued to any member of the Sûreté du Québec or of a municipal police force, who may call upon the assistance of an employee of the Agency.

The judge may not, however, authorize the interception of a private communication, as defined in section 183 of the Criminal Code (R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46). Nor may the judge authorize the observation by means of a television camera or other similar electronic device of any person who is engaged in an activity in circumstances in which the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The judge may issue the authorization if the judge is satisfied

(a)  that there are reasonable grounds to believe that an offence against a fiscal law for which a person is liable to imprisonment has been or will be committed and information concerning the offence will be obtained through the use of the technique, procedure or device or the doing of the thing;

(b)  that it is in the best interests of the administration of justice to issue the authorization; and

(c)  that there is no other provision in a fiscal law or in the Code of Penal Procedure (chapter C-25.1) that would provide for a warrant, authorization or order permitting the technique, procedure or device to be used or the thing to be done.

Nothing in the first and second paragraphs may be construed as permitting interference with the physical integrity of any person.

The authorization shall set out such terms and conditions as the judge considers appropriate, in the circumstances, to ensure that the search or seizure is reasonable, to protect the reasonable expectation of privacy and to protect lawyers’ and notaries’ professional secrecy.

In the case of an authorization to enter and search a place covertly, the judge shall require that notice of the entry and search be given after its execution within the time that the judge considers appropriate in the circumstances.

Where the judge who grants an authorization to enter and search covertly or any other judge having jurisdiction to grant such an authorization is satisfied, on an ex parte application made on the basis of an affidavit submitted in support of an application for extension of the period referred to in the seventh paragraph, that the interests of justice warrant the granting of the application, the judge may grant an extension, or a subsequent extension, of the period, but no extension may exceed one year.

The execution of an authorization issued under this section may not commence more than 15 days after it is issued or end more than 30 days after the expiry of that 15-day period. However, where the judge is satisfied, on an ex parte application made on the basis of an affidavit submitted in support of an application for extension to complete the execution of the authorization, that the interests of justice warrant the granting of the application, the judge may grant an extension of not more than 30 days. The execution of the authorization may not commence, without the written authorization of the judge who granted it, before 7 a.m. or after 8 p.m., or on a non-juridical day.

The authorization provided for in this section may be obtained by telewarrant in accordance with the procedure set out in the Code of Penal Procedure, with the necessary modifications.

2004, c. 4, s. 25; 2010, c. 31, s. 146; 2012, c. 28, s. 7.

2011-04-01

40.1.1. A judge of the Court of Québec may, on an ex parte application following an information laid in writing and under oath by an employee of the Agency authorized by regulation, issue an authorization in writing permitting any employee of the Agency to use any investigative technique or procedure or do anything described by the judge that would, if not so authorized, constitute an unreasonable search or seizure in respect of a person or a person’s property; the employee so authorized may call upon the assistance of a peace officer.

The judge may not, however, authorize the interception of a private communication, as defined in section 183 of the Criminal Code (R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46). Nor may the judge authorize the observation by means of a television camera or other similar electronic device of any person who is engaged in an activity in circumstances in which the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The judge may issue the authorization if the judge is satisfied

(a)  that there are reasonable grounds to believe that an offence against a fiscal law for which a person is liable to imprisonment has been or will be committed and information concerning the offence will be obtained through the use of the technique, procedure or device or the doing of the thing;

(b)  that it is in the best interests of the administration of justice to issue the authorization; and

(c)  that there is no other provision in a fiscal law or in the Code of Penal Procedure (chapter C-25.1) that would provide for a warrant, authorization or order permitting the technique, procedure or device to be used or the thing to be done.

Nothing in the first paragraph shall be construed as permitting interference with the physical integrity of any person.

The authorization shall set out such terms and conditions as the judge considers appropriate, in the circumstances, to ensure that the search or seizure is reasonable, to protect the reasonable expectation of privacy and to protect lawyers’ and notaries’ professional secrecy.

In the case of an authorization to enter and search a place covertly, the judge shall require that notice of the entry and search be given after its execution within the time that the judge considers appropriate in the circumstances.

Where the judge who grants an authorization to enter and search covertly or any other judge having jurisdiction to grant such an authorization is satisfied, on an ex parte application made on the basis of an affidavit submitted in support of an application for extension of the period referred to in the sixth paragraph, that the interests of justice warrant the granting of the application, the judge may grant an extension, or a subsequent extension, of the period, but no extension may exceed one year.

The execution of an authorization issued under this section may not commence more than 15 days after it is issued or end more than 30 days after the expiry of that 15-day period. However, where the judge is satisfied, on an ex parte application made on the basis of an affidavit submitted in support of an application for extension to complete the execution of the authorization, that the interests of justice warrant the granting of the application, the judge may grant an extension of not more than 30 days. The execution of the authorization may not commence, without the written authorization of the judge who granted it, before 7 a.m. or after 8 p.m., or on a non-juridical day.

The authorization provided for in this section may be obtained by telewarrant in accordance with the procedure set out in the Code of Penal Procedure, with the necessary modifications.

2004, c. 4, s. 25; 2010, c. 31, s. 146.

2004-04-22

40.1.1. A judge of the Court of Québec may, on an ex parte application following an information laid in writing and under oath by a public servant of the Ministère du Revenu authorized by regulation, issue an authorization in writing permitting any public servant of the Ministère du Revenu to use any investigative technique or procedure or do anything described by the judge that would, if not so authorized, constitute an unreasonable search or seizure in respect of a person or a person’s property; the public servant so authorized may call upon the assistance of a peace officer.

The judge may not, however, authorize the interception of a private communication, as defined in section 183 of the Criminal Code (Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985, chapter C-46). Nor may the judge authorize the observation by means of a television camera or other similar electronic device of any person who is engaged in an activity in circumstances in which the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The judge may issue the authorization if the judge is satisfied

(a)  that there are reasonable grounds to believe that an offence against a fiscal law for which a person is liable to imprisonment has been or will be committed and information concerning the offence will be obtained through the use of the technique, procedure or device or the doing of the thing;

(b)  that it is in the best interests of the administration of justice to issue the authorization; and

(c)  that there is no other provision in a fiscal law or in the Code of Penal Procedure (chapter C-25.1) that would provide for a warrant, authorization or order permitting the technique, procedure or device to be used or the thing to be done.

Nothing in the first paragraph shall be construed as permitting interference with the physical integrity of any person.

The authorization shall set out such terms and conditions as the judge considers appropriate, in the circumstances, to ensure that the search or seizure is reasonable, to protect the reasonable expectation of privacy and to protect lawyers’ and notaries’ professional secrecy.

In the case of an authorization to enter and search a place covertly, the judge shall require that notice of the entry and search be given after its execution within the time that the judge considers appropriate in the circumstances.

Where the judge who grants an authorization to enter and search covertly or any other judge having jurisdiction to grant such an authorization is satisfied, on an ex parte application made on the basis of an affidavit submitted in support of an application for extension of the period referred to in the sixth paragraph, that the interests of justice warrant the granting of the application, the judge may grant an extension, or a subsequent extension, of the period, but no extension may exceed one year.

The execution of an authorization issued under this section may not commence more than 15 days after it is issued or end more than 30 days after the expiry of that 15-day period. However, where the judge is satisfied, on an ex parte application made on the basis of an affidavit submitted in support of an application for extension to complete the execution of the authorization, that the interests of justice warrant the granting of the application, the judge may grant an extension of not more than 30 days. The execution of the authorization may not commence, without the written authorization of the judge who granted it, before 7 a.m. or after 8 p.m., or on a non-juridical day.

The authorization provided for in this section may be obtained by telewarrant in accordance with the procedure set out in the Code of Penal Procedure, with the necessary modifications.

2004, c. 4, s. 25.