Bill C-462 · 41th Parliament · Stephen Harper
Disability Tax Credit Promoters Restrictions Act
An Act restricting the fees charged by promoters of the disability tax credit and making consequential amendments to the Tax Court of Canada Act
Private member’s bill. Became law.
- IntroducedDone
- Debated in principleDone
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberNov. 4, 2013
- Passed the second chamberMay 7, 2014
- Became lawMay 28, 2014
Where members stand
Votes and debate for this bill have not been read yet.
How it changed on the way
The texts have not been compared yet.
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Moderate
The Act sets clear numerical penalties and a prohibition on exceeding the maximum fee, yet leaves the actual dollar limit and key exemptions to future regulations. Several phrases grant officials discretion or use flexible standards that invite argument over coverage.
Open to argument
“any longer period that is acceptable to the Minister”
Subjective ministerial acceptance replaces a fixed deadline.“can reasonably be regarded as necessary for the administration or enforcement of this Act”
Reasonableness test creates room for debate over what information must be disclosed.“the fair market value of any consideration accepted or charged”
Fair market value is an objective-sounding phrase but often requires valuation disputes.
Clear-cut
“liable to a penalty in respect of the fee equal to the total of $1,000 and the amount determined by the formula”
Supplies an exact arithmetic formula rather than a discretionary range.“a fine of not less than $1,000 and not more than $25,000”
States concrete minimum and maximum dollar amounts for the offence.“It is prohibited for a promoter to accept or charge a fee that exceeds the maximum fee”
Uses a bright-line prohibition tied to a defined term.
Discretion. The Governor in Council sets the maximum fee and exempt classes of promoters by regulation, while the Minister chooses the notification form and may extend the repayment window.
Challenging the law itself. The Act regulates commercial fees rather than core expressive or liberty interests, so a vagueness or overbreadth claim under s. 7 of the Charter would face an uphill factual and legal burden.
Disputing a charge under it. A promoter could readily dispute whether a given payment met the undefined 'fair market value' test or whether information was 'reasonably' necessary to disclose, though the numerical fine ranges themselves are hard to contest once a breach is found.
Read by a language model from the royal assent text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.
Did it work?
The evidence has not been searched yet.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.