For years it was an open question as to whether or not a Canada
Revenue Agency ("CRA") auditor owed a duty of care to a
taxpayer under audit. In the recent case of Leroux (2014 BCSC
720) the Supreme Court of British Columbia (BCSC) concluded that,
on the facts, the CRA auditors owed a duty of care to the
taxpayer. But what is the appropriate standard of care a CRA
auditor must meet to avoid a finding of negligence?
Briefly, Leroux was the case of a taxpayer who was assessed by
the CRA, had the majority of his assessment overturned, and then
brought a civil action for damages against the CRA. The BCSC
determined that a duty of care was owed to the taxpayer based
on recent SCC cases about when a public official owes duty of
care. Paralleling the standard imposed on police officers in
Hill v. Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board (2007 SCC
41), the BCSC stated that the standard of care which was owed to
the taxpayer was "that of a reasonably competent
