Date : 19981218
Dossier : 98-T-51
ENTRE :
RÉGENT MILLETTE, domicilié et résidant au
2080, rue Berthier à Laval, district de Laval,
province de Québec, H7E 1G8
Demandeur
C.
REVENU Canada, Centre des services fiscaux,
sis au 3131 boulevard St-Martin ouest à Laval,
district de Laval, province de Québec, H7T 2A7
Défendeur
REASONS FOR ORDER
TEITELBAUM, J.:
[1] This is an application to obtain an extension of time to file an application for judicial review of two decisions of the Minister of Revenue issued on March 26, 1998 and on April 6, 1998 (see pages 12 and 13 of the applicant"s application).
[2] The applicant represents himself.
[3] The decision dated March 26, 1998 is a Demande Formelle de Paiement sent to the Commission administrative des régimes de retraite et d"assurances (CARRA) wherein CARRA is required to pay, for taxes owing, what monies CARRA owes or will owe to the applicant. The respondent is asking that 30% of any monies payable to the applicant be sent to the Minister for income taxes allegedly owing by the applicant to the respondent in the total sum of $546,615.20 plus interest.
[4] The decision dated Aapril 6, 1998 is also a Demande Formelle de Paiement sent to the Caisse D"Économie Laval St-Laurent for a sum of $769.16 being the balance in the applicant"s account.
[5] The applicant, upon being notified of the above decisions, attempted to contest these decisions in the Superior Court of Quebec. The Superior Court does not have jurisdiction to hear such a matter.
[6] The applicant tried to file an opposition in the Federal Court but failed as this, it was determined, was the wrong procedure.
[7] The applicant now files the present application so as to enable him to file an application for judicial control.
[8] In the case of 047424 NB Inc. et al v. The Minister of National Revenue, T-1143-98, T-1159-98, September 11, 1998 (unreported) F.C.T.D. at page 5, Mr. Justice MacKay states what the test is in order to grant an extension of time:
| The test for an extension of time is that set out by the Court of Appeal in Grewal v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1985), 63 N.R. 106 (F.C.A.). It includes whether the applicant intended, within the time limited, to commence proceedings to bring an application, and maintained that intention subsequently, what the length of the period of extension is that is sought, and what prejudice would be caused to the opposing party if the extension was granted. The underlying consideration, i the view of Thurlow, C.J. in Grewal is said to be whether, in the circumstances, "to do justice between the parties calls for the grant of the extension" (at 63 N.R. 110). In the view of Mr. Justice Marceau in that case (at 63 N.R. 116), a balancing of all of the factors of concern in the circumstances, including the nature of the interests at stake, is appropriate in considering the exercise of judicial discretion to grant an extension of time. |
|
[9] What must be added to the above is that the applicant has, at least, an arguable case to present to the Court.
[10] The above was also well expressed by the respondent in his written submission.
| Pour réussir sur sa requête en prorogation de délai pour déposer une demande de contrôle judiciaire, le demandeur doit premièrement expliquer le retard à prendre son recours en contrôle judiciaire et deuxièmement persuader le tribunal qu"il a une cause soutenable et une chance raisonnable d"avoir gain de cause; |
|
[11] As I have said, I am satisfied that it always was the applicant"s intention to contest the seizures issued by the Minister of Revenue.
[12] The problem for the present applicant is that I have very little before me that would indicate the applicant has any chance to succeed.
[13] The applicant is of the view that the seizures are illegal because they do not conform to the Quebec Provincial Law. The applicant states:
| Les sommes saisies sont insaisissables en vertu de l"article 553(7), (8) et (11) du Code de procédure civile du Québec. |
|
| Les sommes saisies sont insaisissables en vertu de l"article 77 de la Loi sur le régime de retraite des enseignants. |
|
| Les sommes saisies sont insaisissables en vertu de l"article 1215 du Code civil du Québec. |
|
| Les sommes saisies son insaisissables en vertu des articles 2457 et 2458 du Code civil du Québec. |
|
[14] It is clear that the applicant wants to base his judicial review application entirely on Quebec Law.
[15] In the case of Ghislaine Carlos Perron c. Sa Majesté la Reine Aux Droits du Canada, T-1911-89, 14 mai 1990, unreported, F.C.T.D., Mr. Justice Denault, in a case similar to the present case, states at page 2:
| La Cour n"accepte pas la proposition du procureur de la requérante à l"effet que la Couronne est soumise à la règle d"insaisissabilité prévue à L"article 553(4) du Code de procédure civile. (Voir St-Cyr v. Société d"administration et de fiducie [1951 C.S. 245]). Cette disposition n"affecte pas les droits et privilèges de la Couronne car le législateur n"a pas spécialement prévu que la Couronne devait y être assujettie (art. 9 du Code civil & art. 17 de la loi d"interprétation SR. Ch. I-23), et l"amendement au Code de procédure civile, en 1965, qui a fait disparaître la procédure de la pétition de droit n"a pas eu cet effet. Par ailleurs le Parlement n"a pas autorisé la Couronne, dans le cadre d"une saisie-arrêt faite en vertu de l"art. 224 de la loi de l"impôt sur le revenu, à se soumettre à l"insaisissabilité décrétée par la loi provinciale, comme elle l"a par ailleurs fait dans le cadre d"une saisie de biens mobiliers, en vertu de l"art. 225(5). |
|
| La requête de la requérante est rejetée avec dépens. |
|
[16] On May 13, 1996, in case T-1082-96, Mr. Justice Joyal authorized the respondent to proceed pursuant to subparagraphs a) to g) of article 225.1(1) of the Income Tax Act "afin de percevoir et/ou garantir le paiement par Régent Millette d"une somme totale de $563,135.95 plus intérêts ...".
[17] I am satisfied that pursuant to paragraph 224(1) of the Income Tax Act, the respondent "may, in writing require a person to pay, where the moneys are immediately payable, and in any other case as and when the moneys become payable, the moneys otherwise payable to the tax debtor in whole or in part to the Receiver General on account of the tax debtor"s liability ..." and this, notwithstanding the articles of the Civil Code of Quebec above cited by the applicant.
[18] Mr. Justice Denault, in the Perron case, speaks of article 553(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure. He does not speak of other articles of the Code of Civil Procedure of Quebec quoted by the applicant, nor does he address article 77 of the Loi sur le Régime de retraite des enseignants or article 1215 of the Civil Code of Quebec.
[19] It is not for me, at this stage of the proceeding, to determine the merits of the judicial review application .
[20] I cannot say that the applicant has no chance to succeed.
[21] Therefore, in that the evidence is clear that the applicant always had the intention to contest the seizures issued, I am satisfied, that in the interest of justice, the applicant should be permitted to proceed with his judicial review application.
[22] I understand that the applicant represents himself. This fact is not a reason to allow the applicant to file documents into Court that do not conform to the Federal Court Rules nor to file these documents outside of the legal delays.
[23] The applicant is permitted to serve and file his application for judicial review within a delay of fifteen days of today"s date.
J.F.C.C.
Ottawa, Ontario
December 18, 1998
Email this Content