Date: 19980826
Docket: T-2727-96
Between:
JACQUES COHEN
Plaintiff
- and -
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
CUSTOMS AND EXCISE
Defendant
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JOYAL J.
[1] The following is a summary of the reasons for judgment delivered orally by the under-signed on June 2, 1998, at the end of the hearing of this matter.
[2] The Court has no alternative but to find that there are no legal grounds for it to allow the plaintiff"s appeal. It is very unfortunate, but the Customs Act (the Act) does not offer an equitable solution which would perhaps seem fairer, more humane and more in keeping with our human and even our institutional values.
[3] In this case, the seizure is perfectly legal. The plaintiff made certain reports, one of which was false, and once that was done, it does not mean that the plaintiff is a major thief or smuggler, but the imported goods are subject to seizure. The plaintiff lost the value of his goods and even had to face a criminal trial. Fortunately, he was acquitted.
[4] It must be remembered that there is no connection between the proceedings before me and the alleged criminal nature of the defendant"s actions. No one could argue that the false report was a criminal act. Even the statements made to the officers, if we included them, are of no importance. As for the plaintiff"s appeal to this Court, which concerns only the civil aspect of the matter, the Act prescribes or gives the right to seizure, and that is an immutable right.
[5] Human error sometimes slips into the administration of the Act. There may be errors of interpretation, and sometimes the conclusions by the inspectors or officers are incorrect. Concerning the facts before me, however, I must state that human intervention is not relevant. All an importer is required to do is to make a check mark here or there on the usual forms. While a court may sympathize in a case like the plaintiff"s, the Act prevents it from being human.
[6] While a court often does take the liberty of commenting on the human elements of a case to show the parties how the Court feels, this does not give the Court any licence. The role, the jurisdiction and the rectitude of the Court always require a steadfast respect for the letter and spirit of the law.
[7] I would perhaps invite the plaintiff to read the decision in Porter v. The Queen, [1989] 3 F.C. 403, which we considered at some length. While the doctrine of seizure may be harsh and severe, I must remind the plaintiff that he had the right to present his case to this Court, even without retaining counsel. His presentation was admirable, but even more important is the fact that our system allowed him to have his say. The Court reiterates that this means everything.
[8] The decision before me must be a legal decision. The plaintiff in the case at bar may be disappointed, but he must recognize that the Act has been complied with in his case. The plaintiff may not agree with the decision, but the most important thing for any system which calls itself just is that this principle be respected all the same.
[9] Unfortunately, I must dismiss the plaintiff"s appeal and confirm the seizure which took place, while recognizing that in cases such as this, situations may arise under the Act which seem senseless and annoying. In this kind of situation, the government must ensure the proper administration of the Act, in accordance with the wording of the Act and the case law. The government must defend its laws by appointing counsel to represent the public interest, who, in the case at bar, performed his role ably, and exhibited balance and integrity. I would say the same of the servants of the Crown who testified before the Court and who, in my view, performed their roles properly.
[10] The appeal is dismissed. I make no order as to costs.
L-Marcel Joyal
J U D G E
OTTAWA, Ontario
August 26, 1998.
Certified true translation
M. Iveson
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT NO.: T-2727-96
STYLE OF CAUSE: JACQUES COHEN v.
MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE
PLACE OF HEARING: MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC
DATE OF HEARING: JUNE 2, 1998
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY JOYAL J.
DATED AUGUST 26, 1998
APPEARANCES:
Jacques Cohen REPRESENTING HIMSELF
Jacques Mimar FOR THE DEFENDANT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
JACQUES COHEN FOR THE PLAINTIFF
MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC
MORRIS ROSENBERG FOR THE DEFENDANT
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC
Email this Content