Dual agency is now banned for British Columbia realtors. They no longer can act for both buyer and seller. Dual agency is abnormal. Agents normally have a duty of care to one principal. For example, CRA has a duty of care only to the Minister of National Revenue, and none to you if your income is your private property.
Apu’s Theory concludes the law deems individual income as Canada’s public money. This also makes such individuals agents for Canada, just like CRA. That could be why, in the Leroux case, it seems the court ruled there is a public duty of care between CRA and such individuals.
Agents legally represent and act for their principal. It is a fiduciary relationship. That means agents must act for their principal’s best interests. The agents’ interests must come second.
The Canadian Law Dictionary, 7th Edition, defines agency as:
“The relationship that exists between two persons when one, called the agent, is considered in law to represent the other, called the principal, in such a way as to be able to affect the principal’s legal position, in respect to strangers to the relationship, by the making of contracts and the disposition of property. Agency is a consensual and fiduciary relationship between the parties.”
Dual agency allowed a realtor to act in the best interests of both buyer and seller. Normally this makes no sense. But what if there is only one realtor in a remote area? That is why dual agency was allowed for BC realtors.
The 1999 Canada Revenue Agency Act created CRA. That Act does not give CRA the power of dual agency. That means CRA can only act for Canada’s best interests. If your income stays as your private property, CRA has no private duty of care to you. But is there a public duty of care?
Agency is a consensual and fiduciary relationship between the parties.
Apu’s Theory concludes law, legal procedure, and case law all deem individuals’ income as Canada’s public money. Consenting to that deeming means such individuals then also become Canada’s agents. They then should not receive income as private property. That would be acting against their principal’s best interests. It could also be tax evasion.
A CRA audit, then, seems to be one agent (CRA) auditing another agent (you) to see if you reported all of Canada’s public money. After all, while being Canada’s agent, such income is no longer considered as your private property!
That could also be why Leroux v. Canada Revenue Agency (at paragraph 300) states CRA does not owe taxpayers a private law duty of care. That seems to fit with Apu’s Theory that the law deems your income as Canada’s public money.
Irvin Leroux (his website is here) sued CRA for lack of duty of care while auditing his taxpayer’s file. The court ruled that, while CRA did not owe Leroux a private duty of care, it did owe him (at paragraph 409) a duty of care. Say what?
Well, if no private duty of care is owing, then the only duty of care left is a public one! That seems to fit with Apu’s Theory, which is the law deems individual income as public money.
If no private duty of care is owing, then the only duty of care left is a public one
Note the court did not say outright that CRA owes taxpayers a public duty of care. If it did, you might figure out that means your income is deemed as Canada’s public money!
But it was not the ruling that Leroux wanted. So he appealed; he later settled by paying CRA $10 for costs. In law, a payment of $1 or more goes to the injured party for costs or damages. For example, $1 was recently awarded to this lawyer for an online review that damaged her reputation.
So while that ruling states CRA owes Leroux a (public) duty of care, Leroux paying $10 to CRA for costs establishes CRA as the damaged party, and not he! That is why we are puzzled Scott Henning of the Canadian Taxpayer’s Federation (“CTF”) wrote in their magazine (PDF copy here) that the CTF does not understand the significance of that $10 payment.
Irvin is also unhappy with the lawyer that the Canadian Constitution Foundation provided, and is looking for a new lawyer to sue the old lawyer that Irvin allegeds refused to enter certain evidence, or to call a Deloitte and Touche accountant as an expert witness.
The Leroux case seems to establish that there is a public duty of care between CRA and taxpayers. This seems to fit Apu’s Theory that the law deems individual income as Canada’s public money.
By paying CRA $10 for costs, Leroux agreed that he damaged CRA.