Dubé,
J:—This
motion
heard
at
Regina,
Saskatchewan,
is
for
an
order
pursuant
to
section
24
of
the
Canadian
Charter
of
Rights
and
Freedoms
prohibiting
the
respondents
from
pursuing
their
income
tax
collection
proceedings
on
the
writ
of
fieri
facias
issued
against
the
applicant
on
the
ground
that
his
rights
and
freedoms
have
been
infringed
contrary
to
section
8
of
the
Charter
and
subsection
1(a)
of
the
Canadian
Bill
of
Rights.
In
the
alternative,
the
applicant
seeks
an
order
pursuant
to
Rule
2100
of
the
Federal
Court
Rules
granting
a
stay
of
the
collection
proceedings
until
the
determination
of
the
matter
following
the
applicant’s
pending
appeal
before
the
Tax
Review
Board
to
be
heard
in
May
1983.
On
June
6,
1980
the
Minister
issued
two
notices
of
reassessment
showing
balances
unpaid
in
the
amounts
of
$38,385.77
and
$59,593.01
respectively
for
the
applicant’s
1977
and
1978
taxation
years.
On
July
11,
1980
the
applicant
forwarded
his
notices
of
objection
to
the
Minister.
At
a
later
date
he
filed
a
notice
of
appeal
to
the
Tax
Review
Board
which
is
scheduled
to
hear
the
matter
in
May,
1983.
In
the
meantime
the
Minister
commenced
collection
proceedings
by
levying
third
party
demands
and
securing
the
instant
writ
of
fieri
facias
on
December
9,
1982
based
on
a
Certificate
filed
in
this
Court
on
September
9,
1982.
Under
section
222
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
all
unpaid
taxes
are
debts
recoverable
in
this
Court
and
subsection
223(2)
provides
that
a
certificate
of
such
debt
registered
in
this
Court
has
the
same
force
and
effect
as
a
judgment
and
that
all
proceedings
may
be
taken
thereon.
Finally,
section
158
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
provides
that
the
taxpayer
shall
pay
his
assessed
tax
within
30
days
from
assessment,
“whether
or
not
an
objection
to
or
appeal
from
the
assessment
is
outstanding”.
And
the
jurisprudence
in
the
matter
is
clearly
to
the
effect
that
the
mere
filing
by
the
taxpayer
of
an
objection,
or
of
an
appeal,
is
not
a
ground
for
staying
the
collection
proceedings
under
Rule
2100
aforementioned.
There
is
no
allegation
that
the
collection
proceedings
are
not
carried
out
according
to
the
provisions
of
the
Income
Tax
Act.
So,
what
the
applicant
really
seeks
is
a
declaration
to
the
effect
that
certain
provisions
of
the
Act
are
contrary
to
the
Charter.
And
more
specifically,
section
8,
“everyone
has
the
right
to
be
secure
against
unreasonable
search
or
seizure”.
The
applicant
offers
no
jurisprudence
to
support
such
a
sweeping
demand.
The
crux
of
his
argument,
as
I
understand
it,
is
that
the
common
shares
of
his
company
ought
not
to
be
seized
pending
his
appeal
as
“at
the
present
time
I
am
not
in
a
position
to
provide
payment
of
the
assessed
amounts”.
That
is
surely
not
evidence
of
a
breach
of
the
applicant’s
rights
to
be
secure
against
seizure.
As
I
pointed
out
at
the
hearing,
the
Income
Tax
Act
is
a
rigorous
document.
Parliament
has
ruled
that
taxes
be
paid
within
30
days
from
assessment,
whether
the
taxpayer
files
an
appeal
or
not.
The
obvious
purpose
of
such
an
imposition
is
to
prevent
a
massive
wave
of
taxpayers’
appeals
launched
for
the
sole
purpose
of
delaying
the
payment
of
taxes.
It
is
expected,
of
course,
that
Revenue
Canada
will
not
maliciously,
nor
unnecessarily,
pursue
executions
and
carry
out
sales
of
shares
or
other
taxpayers’
assets.
Counsel
for
the
Minister
affirmed
to
the
Court,
of
which
he
is
an
officer,
that
such
measures
as
are
taken
in
these
proceedings
are
for
the
security
of
the
debt
to
the
Crown
and
not
for
the
immediate
realization
of
the
assets.
I
cannot
find,
therefore,
that
the
instant
seizure
is
unreasonable,
or
infringes
upon
the
rights
of
the
applicant,
or
deprives
him
of
his
property
without
due
process
of
law.
The
application,
therefore,
is
dismissed
with
costs.
Order
The
application
is
dismissed
with
costs.
Email this Content