And yet another Klundert decision. Easy to confuse with the one I just posted. Same court, both heard June 10th, 2014. The one already posted dealt with this;
1] For reasons cited as 2013 FC 110 (CanLII), 2013 FC 110, a judge of the Federal Court dismissed a motion brought by the appellant. The appellant sought an order that monies collected by the Canada Revenue Agency pursuant to a jeopardy order issued by the Federal Court be applied to criminal fines imposed upon the appellant as a result of a conviction for tax evasion.
 The appellant now argues that because evidence obtained during the investigation of his criminal tax evasion was used to obtain the jeopardy order, amounts collected under that order should first be applied to pay his criminal fines. He seeks this relief on the basis that:
i) The Canada Revenue Agency violated the principle articulated by the Supreme Court in R. v. Jarvis, 2002 SCC 73 (CanLII), 2002 SCC 73,  3 S.C.R. 757, at paragraph 84, that there must be “some measure of separation between the audit and investigative functions within” the Canada Revenue Agency;
ii) The Canada Revenue Agency used its criminal powers, namely the right to seek and obtain a search warrant under section 487 of the Code to enforce a civil debt; and
iii) The allocation of 100% of his income towards a civil liability together with his exposure to the issuance of a warrant for incarceration for non-payment of a fine, give rise to security of person “concerns” under section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms;
Bit esoteric, relating to sequence of payments of money seized.
The current decision relates to his original reassessment at Tax Court. He's not happy with it, wants the Federal Court of Appeal to toss it out because he said it was based on evidence not admissible in court. Specifically he was found guilty of criminal tax evasion. The CRA just took the numbers from the criminal case and used them to reassess him for the years he was evading tax. He argued, at Tax Court and in this appeal, that evidence gathered in a criminal investigation cannot be used in a civil reassessment. Unfortunately he has it entirely backward. Information gathered in a civil audit (while there is also a criminal review underway) cannot be used in a criminal tax evasion trial. However information gathered as part of the criminal process can be used in a civil reassessment.
So the Federal Court of Appeal rejected his arguments with very little analysis;
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/201 ... cnQAAAAAAQhttp://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/201 ... cnQAAAAAAQ
 Because information was obtained by both administrative/audit processes and search warrant, it was incumbent on the appellant to point to specific evidence that was improperly obtained. However, no material facts were pled as to what information was improperly obtained or in what manner it was obtained, or that improperly obtained information was used.
 I agree with the Judge that the exposition of historical narrative combined with bare assertions results in an appeal premised upon conjecture, speculation and innuendo.
 The Judge also denied a request to amend the notice of appeal. In my view, the Judge properly denied such request because the proposed amendment related only to the relief requested and so would not cure the deficient nature of the pleading.
 The finding that the notice of appeal did not disclose a cause of action was dispositive of the motion to strike. It is therefore not necessary to consider whether the notice of appeal constituted an abuse of process. Therefore, we neither accept nor reject the Judge’s analysis.
 For these reasons, I would dismiss the appeal with costs.