For most legislation, including that under the Criminal Code, and other similar Acts, for any Warrant or Order to be issued, the Affiant must prove that there are reasonable grounds to believe a specific offence has been committed, and that there are grounds to believe items to prove that offence or located in a certain place, or under the control of an individual or company.
There are provisions under the Income Tax Act that are much different. In November 2006, the Canadian Revenue Agency received an ex parte Order from a Federal Court Judge, ordering eBay to provide all information in relation to PowerSellers. They used Section 231.2 of the Income Tax Act which is incredibly broad, in that the Minister may Order "any" person to provide "any" information to the CRA for the purpose of administering the Income Tax Act.
The Minister may not authorize the release of information in relation to an "unknown" person. However, a Judge may order such information in relation to "unknown" persons, as long as the "group is ascertainable", which is why they have decided to use the term "Powerseller", a group that is certainly ascertainable.
Tea, you are referring to a further argument made by eBay Canada, which stated that the Canada Revenue Agency was conducting a genuine and serious argument. The Judge stated that he would reserve judgement until the Federal Court of Appeal ruled in the case: Canada (MNR) v. Chambre immobilière du Grand Montréal, 2006 FC 1069. That ruling was given on November 2, 2007. The ruling was in French, which I can't read, though I interpreted the final line which said that Canada Revenue Agency won the appeal.
The judge in the eBay case said that he would rule within 90 days of the September 13 eBay ruling, or within 60 days of the Court of Appeal ruling, unless counsel abandoned their argument. It appears as though there has been no further rulings, so I presume that eBay Canada has abandoned their argument.
To answer your question Tea, this ruling only affirmed the Court Order requesting the 2004 and 2005 documents. I would presume that the CRA would review these documents prior to seeking a further order for 2006 and 2007.
Just my thoughts...
Peter