Mahoney,
J:—Margaret
Van
Gastel,
hereafter
“the
applicant”
seeks,
(a)
pursuant
to
Rule
469,
an
interim
and
interlocutory
injunction
restraining
the
Sheriff
of
the
County
of
Brant,
Ontario,
certain
named
officials
of
the
Department
of
National
Revenue,
Taxation,
and
any
other
person
employed
by
or
acting
on
behalf
of
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
or
the
Sheriff
from
disposing
of
property
seized
under
a
writ
of
fieri
facias;
(b)
an
order
staying
further
execution
of
the
writ
and
vacating
its
registration
against
the
Applicant’s
lands;
(c)
an
order
directing
the
Sheriff
to
return
the
goods
seized;
and
(d)
in
the
alternative,
an
order
under
section
18
of
the
Federal
Court
Act
in
the
nature
of
an
injunction,
certiorari,
prohibition
or
mandamus,
directed
to
the
Minister
and
the
Sheriff,
prohibiting
the
sale,
quashing
any
order
or
direction
made
for
their
seizure,
retention
and
sale
and
compelling
their
return.
This
notice
of
motion
is
filed
in
a
Court
file
that
was
opened
by
the
filing
of
a
certificate
by
the
Minister
under
section
223
of
the
Income
Tax
Act.
I
should
point
out
that
the
style
of
cause
must,
under
the
Rules,
unless
formally
amended
by
order
of
the
Court,
remain
as
set
forth
in
that
certificate.
The
writ
of
fieri
facias
issued
January
25,
1980,
and
the
Sheriff
effected
the
seizure
October
1,
1981.
The
underlying
assessment,
under
section
160
of
the
Act,
is
predicated
on
the
Applicant
having
received
income
from
property
transferred
to
her
by
her
husband.
A
notice
of
objection
was
duly
served
on
the
Minister
February
27,
1980,
and,
notwithstanding
the
requirement
of
paragraph
165(3)(a)
that
he
deal
with
it
“with
all
due
dispatch”,
the
Minister
has
yet,
almost
two
years
later,
to
dispose
of
the
objection.
The
evidence
before
me
on
this
application
leads
me
to
conclude
that
the
applicant
has
an
arguable
case.
The
assets
seized
comprise
household
goods,
furnishings
and
effects,
including
antiques,
works
of
art
and
gifts
to
her
which,
I
accept,
are
of
considerable
sentimental
value
and
which,
from
her
personal
point
of
view,
are
irreplaceable.
Assuming
their
fair
market
value
were
realized
on
sale
by
the
Sheriff,
and
assuming
that,
in
due
course,
the
assessment
is
not
sustained,
the
plaintiff
would
not
be
adequately
compensated
by
the
money
to
which
she
would
be
entitled.
The
Minister’s
concern
for
the
mounting
costs
of
retaining
the
goods
loses
something
of
its
force
in
light
of
his
delay
in
dealing
with
the
notice
of
objection.
Of
the
relief
sought,
the
only
relief
that
can
be
granted
in
this
application
is
the
stay
of
further
execution
of
the
writ
of
fieri
facias.
An
interim
and
interlocutory
injunction
pursuant
to
rule
469
can
only
be
sought
in
an
action,
that
is
a
proceeding
commenced
by
Statement
of
Claim.
Rule
469(3)
does
contemplate
that,
in
a
case
of
urgency,
the
injunction
may
be
sought
before
the
action
is
commenced
but
it
clearly
contemplates
that
the
action
will
be
commenced.
Relief
under
section
18
of
the
Federal
Court
Act
must
also
be
sought
in
another
proceeding,
whether
an
action
or
by
originating
notice
of
motion.
There
is,
of
course,
an
obvious
question
as
to
the
Court’s
jurisdiction
to
entertain
an
action
against,
or
to
grant
relief
under
section
18
in
respect
of,
the
Sheriff
but
I
need
not
pursue
that.
It
was
not
argued
that
the
Court
is
without
jurisdiction
to
suspend
further
execution
of
a
writ
of
fieri
facias
issued
by
it
and,
in
my
view,
the
Applicant
has
established
that
should
be
done.
Order
The
sale
of
the
goods
seized
October
1,
1981,
under
the
writ
of
fieri
facias
issued
herein
January
25,
1980,
is
stayed
indefinitely,
the
writ
remaining
in
full
force
and
effect,
with
leave
to
the
Sheriff
of
the
County
of
Brant
or
Her
Majesty
the
Queen
in
right
of
Canada
to
apply
at
any
time
to
vary
or
vacate
this
order
should
they
be
so
advised
if
there
is
any
change
in
the
circumstances.
Email this Content