\n
\n
\n
![\"David](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/canada\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/1785733839_471_David-Rotfleisch-Formal-360.jpg\")
\n
\n
\n
\nDavid J Rotfleisch, CPA, JD is the founding tax lawyer of Taxpage.com and Rotfleisch & Samulovitch P.C., a Toronto-based boutique tax law corporate law firm.
\n
\n
\n <\/p>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\nDavid J Rotfleisch, CPA, JD is the founding tax lawyer of Taxpage.com and Rotfleisch & Samulovitch P.C., a Toronto-based boutique tax law corporate law firm.
\n
\n
\n
<\/p>\n
Overview: Why\u00a0R v Jarvis\u00a0Is the Cornerstone of CRA Enforcement Law<\/p>\n
The Supreme Court of Canada\u2019s decision in\u00a0R v Jarvis, 2002 SCC 73<\/a>, remains the leading authority in Canadian tax law on the boundary between a civil\u00a0tax audit\u00a0and a\u00a0criminal tax investigation. For any Canadian taxpayer facing aggressive CRA scrutiny, understanding the\u00a0Jarvis\u00a0framework is not optional \u2014 it is essential. The case defines the precise moment when the CRA must stop relying on its broad civil tax audit powers and instead comply with the constitutional protections that govern criminal tax investigations.<\/p>\n This distinction carries enormous practical consequences. The civil tax audit powers available to the CRA under the\u00a0Income Tax Act\u00a0permit the agency to compel the production of documents and information without prior judicial authorization. A criminal tax investigation, by contrast, triggers the full suite of\u00a0Charter\u00a0protections \u2014 including the right against self-incrimination under section 7 and the protection from unreasonable search and seizure under section 8 of the\u00a0Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. When the CRA fails to respect this boundary, the evidence it collects may be excluded from any subsequent prosecution.<\/p>\n The Jarvis decision draws a bright \u2014 and enforceable \u2014 line between administrative convenience and constitutional compliance. When the CRA crosses that line without acknowledging the shift from a civil tax audit to a criminal tax investigation, the integrity of its entire evidentiary case may be compromised.<\/p>\n Every Canadian taxpayer under active CRA scrutiny, and every experienced Canadian tax lawyer advising those clients, should understand\u00a0Jarvis\u00a0thoroughly.<\/p>\n Background: The Facts of\u00a0R v Jarvis<\/p>\n Mr. Jarvis was a business owner whose income tax affairs attracted CRA attention. The CRA initially opened what appeared to be a routine civil tax audit under its statutory authority. Over time, however, the character of the inquiry changed materially. CRA officials began gathering information with an increasingly evident purpose of establishing criminal liability for tax evasion rather than simply verifying compliance.<\/p>\n The critical constitutional problem was that CRA officials continued to exercise civil tax audit powers \u2014 which compel cooperation \u2014 even after the investigation had effectively transitioned into a criminal tax investigation. The information gathered through those compelled means was subsequently relied upon to support criminal charges against Mr. Jarvis.<\/p>\n The central question before the Supreme Court of Canada was whether the CRA had improperly used its civil tax audit authority to build a criminal case, thereby violating Mr. Jarvis\u2019s rights under the\u00a0Charter.<\/p>\n The Predominant Purpose Test: The Legal Framework\u00a0R v Jarvis\u00a0Established<\/p>\n The Supreme Court of Canada\u2019s answer was a legal framework now universally referred to as the \u201cpredominant purpose test.\u201d The Court held that the permissibility of using civil tax audit powers depends entirely on the CRA\u2019s predominant purpose at the relevant time.<\/p>\n Where the CRA\u2019s predominant purpose remains the administration and enforcement of the tax system \u2014 verifying compliance, computing liability, and collecting revenue \u2014 the civil tax audit powers under the\u00a0Income Tax Act\u00a0remain available, and the taxpayer remains legally obliged to cooperate.<\/p>\n Once the predominant purpose shifts to determining penal liability \u2014 that is, assembling evidence for a criminal prosecution \u2014 the CRA must discontinue its use of civil tax audit powers. At that moment, the taxpayer\u2019s\u00a0Charter\u00a0rights engage fully, and the CRA must proceed through criminal investigative channels, including obtaining judicial warrants where required.<\/p>\n The Court provided a non-exhaustive list of indicia relevant to identifying when this shift has occurred:<\/p>\n
No single factor is determinative; the court looks at the totality of the circumstances. Applying that test to the facts before it, the Supreme Court concluded that the CRA had crossed the constitutional line and improperly continued to use civil tax audit powers in service of a criminal investigative purpose.<\/p>\n The Companion Case:\u00a0R v Ling, 2002 SCC 74<\/p>\n Decided the same day as\u00a0Jarvis,\u00a0R v Ling, 2002 SCC 74 is a critical companion decision that is frequently overlooked in practice.\u00a0Ling\u00a0confirmed that the predominant purpose test established in\u00a0Jarvis\u00a0is not confined to income tax matters under the\u00a0Income Tax Act. It extends with full force to investigations under the\u00a0Excise Tax Act, meaning the CRA\u2019s civil tax audit powers in GST\/HST matters are subject to the identical constitutional constraints.<\/p>\n This is a practically important point.\u00a0GST\/HST audits\u00a0are among the most common points of first contact between the CRA and business owners. Where a GST\/HST tax audit transitions from compliance verification to building a case for criminal prosecution \u2014 for example, in cases involving alleged false claims for input tax credits or deliberate mischaracterization of taxable supplies \u2014 the same\u00a0Jarvis\u00a0framework governs. Evidence compelled through civil audit powers after that transition will be constitutionally vulnerable.<\/p>\n Any\u00a0experienced Canadian tax lawyer\u00a0advising a taxpayer under GST\/HST audit should be attentive to the same escalation signals that apply in the income tax context, and should advise accordingly once those signals emerge.<\/p>\n Charter\u00a0Protections Triggered by a Criminal Tax Investigation<\/p>\n Once the predominant purpose of a CRA inquiry shifts to establishing penal liability, the\u00a0Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms\u00a0imposes binding constraints on how the investigation may proceed.<\/p>\n Section 7 \u2014 The Right Against Self-Incrimination<\/p>\n Section 7 of the\u00a0Charter\u00a0protects every person\u2019s right to life, liberty, and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. In the context of a criminal tax investigation, this encompasses the principle against self-incrimination. Once the CRA\u2019s predominant purpose is criminal prosecution, a taxpayer cannot be compelled through civil audit mechanisms to provide information or documents that may be used against them in criminal proceedings.<\/p>\n Section 8 \u2014 Protection from Unreasonable Search and Seizure<\/p>\n Section 8 of the\u00a0Charter\u00a0guarantees the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure. In the context of a criminal tax investigation, this means the CRA must generally obtain prior judicial authorization \u2014 a search warrant \u2014 before demanding access to documents or records. The broad, warrant-free powers available under a civil tax audit do not survive the transition to a criminal tax investigation.<\/p>\n Section 10(b) \u2014 The Right to Counsel Upon Detention<\/p>\n The\u00a0Charter\u2019s protections are not limited to sections 7 and 8. Section 10(b) guarantees the right to retain and instruct counsel without delay upon arrest or detention. While a civil tax audit does not constitute a detention for\u00a0Charter\u00a0purposes, the same cannot be said once a taxpayer is effectively compelled to attend a CRA interview in the context of what is in substance a criminal tax investigation. Where CRA officials conduct compulsory questioning of a taxpayer whose file has crossed the\u00a0Jarvis\u00a0threshold, section 10(b) arguments become available. In practical terms, this means a taxpayer in this position has the right to be advised of the right to retain counsel and to have the opportunity to do so before being required to answer questions.<\/p>\n Section 24(2) \u2014 Exclusion of Improperly Obtained Evidence<\/p>\n Where the CRA obtains evidence in violation of the\u00a0Charter, section 24(2) provides the mechanism to exclude that evidence from criminal proceedings if its admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. Courts apply a multi-factor balancing analysis derived from the Supreme Court\u2019s decision in\u00a0R v Grant, 2009 SCC 32 \u2014 considering the seriousness of the\u00a0Charter\u00a0breach, the good faith of state actors, and the impact of exclusion on the repute of the justice system. In serious cases of\u00a0Charter\u00a0overreach, particularly where the CRA has deliberately or systematically used civil audit powers to advance a criminal case, the exclusion of key evidence can effectively defeat the prosecution.<\/p>\n Section 231.2 Requirements and the\u00a0Jarvis\u00a0Framework<\/p>\n A specific and practically important dimension of the\u00a0Jarvis\u00a0framework concerns the CRA\u2019s use of requirement letters issued under section 231.2 of the\u00a0Income Tax Act. These requirements compel third parties \u2014 banks, accountants, business counterparties \u2014 and taxpayers themselves to produce documents and information. They are among the most powerful tools in the CRA\u2019s civil tax audit arsenal.<\/p>\n Canadian courts have addressed the intersection of section 231.2 requirements and the\u00a0Jarvis\u00a0predominant purpose test. The key question is whether a section 231.2 requirement issued after the CRA\u2019s predominant purpose has shifted to criminal enforcement is a constitutionally valid exercise of civil audit power or an improper use of compulsory civil mechanisms in a criminal context.<\/p>\n Where the CRA issues section 231.2 requirements after the\u00a0Jarvis\u00a0threshold has been crossed, the constitutional case for excluding the resulting evidence is strong. Taxpayers and their Canadian tax lawyers should scrutinize the timing and context of any requirement letters carefully, particularly in cases where the audit has shown signs of escalation. Compliance with a section 231.2 requirement that was improperly issued can constitute a form of coerced self-incrimination, and the information produced may subsequently be challenged at trial.<\/p>\n Implications for Civil Tax Audit Powers Under the\u00a0Income Tax Act<\/p>\n The\u00a0Jarvis\u00a0decision has materially shaped the CRA\u2019s operational approach to tax audits and criminal tax investigations. It imposes clear and enforceable constraints: the CRA cannot use its civil tax audit powers as a procedural shortcut to gather evidence for a prosecution it is already contemplating. This means the CRA is required to maintain clear operational separation between its audit division and its criminal investigations division.<\/p>\n For taxpayers, this creates both risk and strategic opportunity. The risk is that many taxpayers and their advisors are unaware that a civil tax audit has transitioned \u2014 sometimes subtly \u2014 into a criminal tax investigation. They continue cooperating under the mistaken assumption that they remain legally obliged to do so. The opportunity is that where the CRA has failed to respect the\u00a0Jarvis\u00a0framework, experienced Canadian tax lawyers can challenge the admissibility of compelled evidence and potentially undermine the prosecution\u2019s case at its foundation.<\/p>\n Understanding when the transition has occurred is not always obvious. It requires careful analysis of the CRA\u2019s conduct, communications, and internal referral history \u2014 analysis that an experienced Canadian tax lawyer for CRA disputes is best positioned to perform.<\/p>\n How Courts Have Applied\u00a0Jarvis: Key Canadian Cases<\/p>\n Since 2002, Canadian courts have applied the predominant purpose test across a wide range of CRA enforcement contexts. The following decisions \u2014 including several in which Rotfleisch & Samulovitch P.C. has published detailed case commentary \u2014 illustrate how the Jarvis framework operates in practice and what taxpayers and their advisors should watch for.<\/p>\n Softcom Solutions Inc. v. Attorney General of Canada, 2020 ONSC 3290<\/p>\n Softcom\u00a0is the most significant post-Jarvis decision applying the predominant purpose test in an income tax context. The facts arose from a complex tax shelter arrangement in which CRA auditor John Haisanuk conducted a civil tax audit of Softcom Solutions Inc. from 1996 to 1999 while maintaining intermittent contact with the CRA\u2019s Special Investigation Unit throughout. The central question was whether those contacts with the criminal investigations division transformed Haisanuk\u2019s civil tax audit into a criminal tax investigation from as early as 1996 \u2014before he formally referred the file to the Special Investigation Unit in May 1997.<\/p>\n Justice Schabas of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled in favour of the CRA, applying the Jarvis factors in a manner that provides important practical guidance. The court found that Haisanuk\u2019s contacts with the Special Investigation Unit were consistent with seeking tax audit advice rather than initiating a criminal investigation. The fact that Special Investigation Unit officer Peter Heryat expressly advised Haisanuk to continue his civil tax audit plan \u2014 and told him there was not much there for a criminal investigation \u2014 was treated as a significant indicator that no criminal purpose had yet predominated. Critically, the court held that a formal referral of the complete tax file to the Special Investigation Unit, not merely the exchange of documents or informal consultation, was required to establish that the file had crossed the Jarvis threshold.<\/p>\n The key practical lesson from\u00a0Softcom\u00a0is that the CRA will be given substantial leeway in characterizing early inter-divisional contacts as audit-related rather than criminal in purpose. Courts will not infer a criminal predominant purpose from the mere fact that audit personnel consulted with criminal investigators \u2014 what matters is the substance and outcome of those contacts. Taxpayers whose files involve early Special Investigation Unit contact should obtain experienced Canadian tax legal advice immediately, as the window for raising Jarvis-based Charter arguments narrows the more the file progresses. (A detailed commentary on Softcom is available on\u00a0Taxpage.com<\/a>.)<\/p>\n Canada (National Revenue) v. Friedman, 2019 FC 1583<\/p>\n Friedman is a Federal Court decision that illustrates the limits of Charter protection during a civil tax audit, and the practical difficulty taxpayers face in using the Jarvis framework as a pre-emptive shield before criminal charges have been laid. The taxpayers, the Friedmans, had failed to file T1135 foreign income verification forms or report foreign-source income for the tax years 2010 to 2016. When the CRA selected their affairs for a civil tax audit under subsections 231.1 and 231.7 of the\u00a0Income Tax Act, the Friedmans challenged those provisions as a violation of their rights under sections 11 and 13 of the\u00a0Charter\u00a0\u2014 specifically, the right not to be compelled to be a witness and the protection against self-incrimination in subsequent proceedings.<\/p>\n The Federal Court dismissed the application. Because the CRA had not commenced a criminal tax investigation against the Friedmans, the section 11 protections were not yet engaged. The court likewise rejected the section 13 argument, characterizing the civil tax audit as an administrative proceeding rather than a \u201cproceeding\u201d under section 13. The Friedmans\u2019 deeper concern \u2014 that evidence compelled during the civil tax audit might later be used in a criminal prosecution \u2014 was held to be a hypothetical risk that did not ground a present constitutional challenge.<\/p>\n Friedman has important implications for the Jarvis framework. It confirms that the Charter protections triggered by Jarvis are reactive, not pre-emptive \u2014 they engage at the point the CRA\u2019s predominant purpose becomes criminal, not at the point a taxpayer fears that outcome. This means taxpayers cannot obtain advance judicial protection against the potential use of civil audit evidence in criminal proceedings. Instead, the Jarvis argument must be raised at the time of the criminal proceeding itself, when the court can assess whether the evidence was obtained in violation of the Charter. This makes early legal counsel essential: by the time the criminal proceeding arrives, the evidence will already have been gathered. (Detailed commentary on Friedman is available on\u00a0Taxpage.com<\/a>.)<\/p>\n Piersanti v. The Queen\u00a0and GST Criminal Investigations<\/p>\n Piersanti v. The Queen\u00a0is a cautionary case that demonstrates the consequences of failing to raise Jarvis arguments at the right procedural stage. In Piersanti, the CRA\u2019s criminal tax enforcement division used its civil tax audit powers under the\u00a0Excise Tax Act\u00a0to obtain information that subsequently formed the evidentiary basis for criminal charges relating to GST evasion. This is precisely the conduct that\u00a0R v Ling, 2002 SCC 74 was intended to prohibit: the use of civil tax audit powers under the Excise Tax Act for criminal investigative purposes after the Jarvis threshold has been crossed.<\/p>\n The taxpayer in Piersanti pleaded guilty without raising Charter objections to the manner in which the evidence was obtained. When the same evidence was later used in civil tax reassessment proceedings, and the taxpayer objected, the Tax Court of Canada acknowledged the potential Charter concern but concluded that the defence should have been raised in the original criminal trial, not collaterally in the civil proceeding. The constitutional ship had sailed.<\/p>\n Piersanti is a powerful illustration of why the Jarvis framework must be actively raised and not assumed. The CRA has no systematic internal incentive to police the boundary between its civil and criminal investigative functions.<\/p>\n R v Tiffin\u00a0and the Presumption in Favour of the CRA<\/p>\n R v Tiffin\u00a0confirms an important limitation on the Jarvis framework that taxpayers and their advisors should not overlook. The court in Tiffin held that where the predominant purpose of a CRA tax investigation is neither clearly criminal nor clearly regulatory in character \u2014 that is, where the evidence is genuinely ambiguous \u2014 the matter must be resolved in the CRA\u2019s favour. The Jarvis threshold is only met where the criminal investigative purpose is clearly predominant; ambiguity defaults to a finding that the civil tax audit powers were properly used.<\/p>\n This presumption in the CRA\u2019s favour is a significant practical constraint on Jarvis arguments. It means that a taxpayer seeking to exclude evidence on the basis of an improper civil-to-criminal transition must be able to demonstrate that the criminal purpose was clearly predominant \u2014 not merely possible, not merely suspected. This reinforces the importance of early legal engagement: experienced Canadian tax lawyers who monitor the audit closely from its inception are best positioned to build the factual record needed to meet that threshold, rather than attempting to reconstruct the CRA\u2019s purpose after the fact.<\/p>\n Modern Application: Jarvis in Contemporary CRA Enforcement<\/p>\n Offshore Income and Foreign Asset Investigations<\/p>\n Taxpayers with offshore accounts, foreign property, or unreported foreign income face some of the highest enforcement risk in the current CRA environment. The CRA receives foreign financial information through the Common Reporting Standard and through FATCA exchange arrangements, and it deploys that information aggressively. Where a civil tax audit in this context reveals potential fraud or deliberate offshore concealment, the audit can quickly escalate into a criminal tax investigation. Taxpayers who continue cooperating through compelled means after that transition may find their own disclosures used against them in prosecution. Understanding voluntary disclosure procedures and their relationship to criminal risk is essential in this context.<\/p>\n Cryptocurrency Tax Enforcement<\/p>\n Canadian crypto tax\u00a0enforcement has become a significant and growing area of CRA activity. The CRA uses third-party data from exchanges, blockchain analytics software, and court-ordered production orders to identify unreported cryptocurrency income and gains. A civil tax audit involving cryptocurrency trading can transition into a criminal tax investigation where the CRA identifies patterns consistent with deliberate tax evasion, the unreported amounts are substantial, or the taxpayer has made misleading representations. The\u00a0Jarvis\u00a0framework applies fully in this context.<\/p>\n Gross Negligence Penalties and the Spectrum of CRA Liability<\/p>\n The spectrum of CRA enforcement runs from civil tax reassessment through\u00a0gross negligence penalties\u00a0and ultimately to criminal prosecution for tax evasion. While gross negligence penalties under subsection 163(2) of the\u00a0Income Tax Act\u00a0are civil in character, the evidentiary overlap between a gross negligence penalty assessment and a criminal tax investigation is significant.\u00a0<\/p>\n Aggressive Tax Planning Under Audit<\/p>\n The CRA scrutinizes aggressive tax planning arrangements with increasing intensity. Where a civil tax audit reveals what the CRA characterizes as a misrepresentation \u2014 rather than merely a legal disagreement over proper tax treatment \u2014 the risk of criminal referral is real. Taxpayers involved in transactions that have attracted CRA tax audit attention should be especially cautious about unsupervised responses to audit demands.<\/p>\n Takeaway: Why Early Legal Intervention Is Critical<\/p>\n The central lesson of\u00a0R v Jarvis\u00a0for Canadian taxpayers is that timing is determinative. A taxpayer who continues cooperating fully with CRA demands after the predominant purpose of the inquiry has shifted to criminal enforcement is, in effect, assisting in the construction of a prosecution against themselves.<\/p>\n The point at which the transition from a civil tax audit to a criminal tax investigation occurs is rarely announced by the CRA. It must be identified by careful observation of the facts and legal analysis. By the time the CRA formally commences a criminal tax investigation, the taxpayer\u2019s most valuable strategic opportunities \u2014 including the ability to approach the CRA through the Voluntary Disclosure Program \u2014 may already be foreclosed.\u00a0<\/p>\n David J Rotfleisch, CPA, JD is the founding tax lawyer of Taxpage.com and Rotfleisch & Samulovitch P.C., a Toronto-based boutique tax law corporate law firm and is a Certified Specialist in Taxation Law who has completed the CICA in-depth tax planning course. He appears regularly in print, radio and TV and blogs extensively.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n With over 30 years of experience as both a lawyer and chartered professional accountant, he has helped start-up businesses, cryptocurrency traders, resident and non-resident business owners and corporations with their tax planning, with will and estate planning, voluntary disclosures and tax dispute resolution including tax audit representation and tax litigation. Visit\u00a0www.Taxpage.com\u00a0<\/a>and email David at\u00a0david@taxpage.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n Read the\u00a0original\u00a0article<\/a>\u00a0in full on Taxpage. Author photo courtesy Rotfleisch & Samulovitch P.C. The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances. Title image: iStock\u00a0ID\u00a0858283078 (Supreme Court of Canada, October 2017).<\/p>\n
\nThe nature of the questions being asked by CRA officials \u2014 whether focus has shifted from income verification to questions about intent and knowledge
\nThe level of involvement of enforcement or criminal investigation personnel
\nWhether the file has been referred to the CRA\u2019s criminal investigations division
\nThe CRA\u2019s internal communications and stated objectives
\nThe overall character and trajectory of the audit conduct
<\/p>\n![\"Canadian](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/canada\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/1785733840_584_Logo-Small-BW.jpg\"){kind=logo}
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
David J Rotfleisch, CPA, JD is the founding tax lawyer of…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":153767,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[49666,49768,9019,17,186,49763,17379,49759,49762,49757,49770,187,49773,49758,49771,188,49766,49767,49754,49760,49756,49764,49765,49755,49769,49774,49772,2269,49761],"class_list":["post-153766","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-canada","tag-2002-scc-73","tag-audit-conduct","tag-business-owner","tag-canada","tag-canada-revenue-agency","tag-canadian-charter-of-rights-and-freedoms","tag-canadian-tax-law","tag-canadian-taxpayer","tag-charter-protections","tag-civil-tax-audit","tag-companion-case","tag-cra","tag-cra-auditor","tag-criminal-tax-investigation","tag-gst-hst-audits","tag-income-tax-act","tag-indicia","tag-internal-communications","tag-jarvis","tag-jarvis-framework","tag-leading-authority","tag-legal-framework","tag-predominant-purpose-test","tag-r-v-jarvis","tag-r-v-ling","tag-self-incrimination","tag-softcom-solutions","tag-supreme-court-of-canada","tag-tax-audit-powers"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/canada\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/153766","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/canada\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/canada\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/canada\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/canada\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=153766"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/canada\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/153766\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/canada\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/153767"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/canada\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=153766"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/canada\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=153766"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/canada\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=153766"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}