Collier,
J.
[Orally]:
—The
plaintiff's
motion
is
for
mandamus,
as
follows:
(a)
for
an
order
directing
the
Defendant
to
seek
advice
from
internal
scientific
research
experts
or
comply
with
Section
37(3)
when
seeking
advice
with
relation
to
the
carrying
on
of
activities
in
the
field
of
scientific
research
and
experimental
development
as
to
whether
any
particular
activity
constitutes
scientific
research
and
experimental
development
in
any
review
that
may
be
necessary
of
the
Plaintiff's
scientific
research
and
experimental
development
business.
Officials
of
Revenue
Canada
propose
to
issue
a
reassessment
in
respect
of
the
plaintiff's
income
tax
for
1984,
1985
and
1986.
As
I
understand
it,
these
reassessments
will
involve
claims
by
the
plaintiff
for
deductions
under
section
37
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
—
for
expenditures
in
respect
of
scientific
research
and
experimental
development.
The
Revenue
Department
has
not
appointed
an
authorized
person
under
subsection
231.1(1).
Nor
does
the
Minister
intend,
before
the
reassessment
is
issued,
to
obtain
advice
from
the
departments
or
agencies
referred
to
in
subsection
37(3)
of
the
Act.
That
subsection
is
as
follows:
(3)
The
Minister
may
obtain
the
advice
of
the
Department
of
Regional
Industrial
Expansion,
the
National
Research
Council,
the
Defence
Research
Board
or
any
other
agency
or
department
of
the
Government
of
Canada
carrying
on
activities
in
the
field
of
scientific
research
and
experimental
development
as
to
whether
any
particular
activity
constitutes
scientific
and
experimental
development.
The
plaintiff
argues
that
the
Minister’s
decision
not
to
seek
advice
is
a
violation
of
section
15
of
the
Charter
of
Rights
and
Freedoms.
It
is
said
there
will
likely
be
discrimination
if
the
question
of
his
scientific
research
and
experimental
development
is
investigated
and
decided
upon
by
assessors
who
have
no
knowledge
or
expertise
in
that
field.
There
will
not
be,
in
my
view,
any
discrimination,
in
the
sense
set
out
in
the
Charter,
if
the
Minister
chooses
not
to
seek
advice
pursuant
to
subsection
37(3).
The
plaintiff
can
always
challenge
the
validity
and
basis
of
his
reassessment
once
it
is
issued.
Nor
can
mandamus
issue
in
this
case.
Subsection
37(3)
is
discretionary.
There
is
no
mandatory
duty
on
the
Minister
to
obtain
advice.
There
is
no
legal
right
in
the
plaintiff
to
require
him
to
do
so.
See
Maple
Lodge
Farms
Ltd.
v.
Government
of
Canada,
[1980]
2
F.C.
458
(F.C.T.D.).
The
National
Harbour
Board
case
is
distinguishable.
There
the
Board
had
a
specific
duty
to
do
certain
things
in
the
harbour,
and
it
refused
to
carry
out
that
duty.
The
plaintiffs
there
were
found
to
have
a
legal
right
to
mandamus.
That
is
not
the
situation
here.
This
motion
is
dismissed,
with
costs.
Motion
dismissed.
Email this Content