Date: 20090625
Docket: T-652-08
Citation:
2009 FC 663
Ottawa,
Ontario, June 25, 2009
PRESENT:
The Honourable Mr. Justice Beaudry
BETWEEN:
YVES
BELLEFEUILLE
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY
AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS and
THE CANADA BORDER SERVICES AGENCY
Respondents
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1]
This is an
application for judicial review by Yves Bellefeuille (the applicant), under
section 18.1 of the Federal Courts Act, R.S. 1985, c. F-7.
The question asked by the applicant is whether the respondents can restrict his
right to leave Canada if he does not show certain
documents or does not respond to their questions.
Factual background
[2]
The
applicant is a Canadian citizen, a resident of Ottawa, who frequently travels abroad. On December
25, 2007, he traveled on Air Canada flight 888 leaving from the
Ottawa airport to London in the United Kingdom.
[3]
Before entering
the gateway to board the plane, the applicant met all of the requirements of showing
the necessary documents to the air carrier Air Canada, all of the requirements of the Canadian
Air Transport Security Authority and the requirements of the Identity
Screening Regulations, SOR/2007-82.
[4]
Four officers
from the Canada Border Services Agency were in the gateway going to the plane. One
of them made the following requests of the applicant:
a) he asked him to show his
boarding card;
b) he asked him what his final
destination was;
c) he asked him if he was
exporting currency or monetary instruments with a value equal to or greater
than ten thousand dollars.
[5]
The
applicant showed his boarding card, declared that his final destination was Dusseldorf, Germany and declared that he
was not exporting currency or monetary instruments with a value equal to or
greater than ten thousand dollars. He then boarded the plane without any
problem.
[6]
On
occasion, the respondents conduct controls similar to the one mentioned above.
[7]
With this
application for judicial review, the applicant is seeking to obtain
a.
a declaration
that his right to leave Canada can only be restricted by a rule of law, within reasonable
limits as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society;
b.
a declaration
that the respondents cannot restrict his right to leave Canada on the ground
that he has not shown his boarding card on board or has not disclosed his final
destination;
c.
a declaration
that the applicant is not required to issue a statement to the respondents,
under subsection 12(1) of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and
Terrorist Financing Act, S.C. 2000, c. 17 (hereafter the Act), if he is not
exporting currency or monetary instruments with a value equal to or greater
than the prescribed amount and the costs of the application.
Issues
[8]
The issues
in this case are the following:
a) Is this
application moot?
b) In
accordance with subsection 16(2) of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering)
and Terrorist Financing Act, can the respondents force passengers leaving Canada on board an airplane to show
certain documents and answer their questions?
Relevant legislation
[9]
The
relevant legislation can be found at the end of this document in Annex A.
Applicant’s arguments
[10]
The
applicant is claiming that the right to leave one’s country is a fundamental
right recognized by the major international human rights documents (such as the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights and Protocol No 4 to the Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms). In Canada, the right
to leave one’s country is guaranteed by subsection 6(1) of the Canadian Charter
of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule
B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11, section 1 (the
Charter) and, in accordance with section 1 of the Charter, this right can be
restricted only by a rule of law.
[11]
A
directive or guidelines, even if issued by a department or government agency, do
not constitute a rule of law that can restrict a Charter right. An action that
is not prescribed by law can never be justified under section 1, regardless of
whether is seems reasonable or justifiable (Thomsen v. The Queen, [1988]
1 S.C.R. 640 at paragraph 18).
[12]
There is
no rule of law that gives the respondents the authority or obligation to
control the identity or the destination of a Canadian citizen, or of any other natural
person, who is leaving Canada. In Canada, there is no control of natural persons
when they leave the country, which is not the case when it comes to rules
relating to the exportation of goods or financial instruments. The above‑mentioned
control to which the applicant was subjected constitutes an infringement or
denial of his rights protected by subsection 6(1) of the Charter and was not
authorized by any rule of law. The applicant is therefore seeking the above-mentioned
remedies.
[13]
The
applicant believes it is advisable to know his legal obligations in the event
that the respondents conduct a similar control against him in the future. The
applicant would therefore like to have the Court establish that the respondents
cannot restrict his right to leave Canada
on the ground that he did not show them his boarding card or did not divulge
his final destination.
[14]
The
applicant also would like the Court to establish that he is not required to
make a report to the respondents, under subsection 12(1) of the Act, if he is
not exporting currency or monetary instruments with a value equal to or greater
than the prescribed amount.
[15]
The
applicant maintains that the only rule of law that restricts the right of an
individual to leave Canada is the requirement to have a
passport, and this is not a requirement for leaving Canada strictly speaking, but
rather a requirement for being admitted into another country and proving a
person’s right to re-enter Canada. In Canada, there is no control of persons leaving
the country (Khadr v. Canada (Attorney General of Canada), 2006 FC 727, [2007] 2 F.C.R. 218 at paragraphs
62 to 70).
[16]
The
applicant notes that a police officer or government official can ask questions,
but there is no general obligation to answer these questions. If a person declines
to answer the questions, the police officer or official must allow the person
to continue on his or her way, unless the person is arrested under legal
authority (R. v. Esposito (1985), 53 O.R. (2d) 356, 24 C.R.R. 102 (C.A.
Ont.) at page 362).
[17]
The only
legal provisions that limit the general right to silence, in the case of a
Canadian citizen leaving Canada, are those relating to the exportation of items
from Canada, namely, the exportation of currency and financial instruments such
as the restrictions cited by the respondents indicated in sections 12, 15, 16 and
17 of the Act.
[18]
These
provisions rely on the requirement to declare “the importation or exportation
of currency or monetary instruments of a value equal to or greater than the
prescribed amount”, that is, $10,000. These provisions do not impose any
general requirement to answer questions and do not impose any requirement if a
person is not exporting $10,000 or more. Furthermore, these provisions do not
in any case give the authority to restrict the right of a person to leave
Canada (see subsection 12(1) of the Act and section 2 of the Cross-border
Currency and Monetary Instruments Reporting Regulations, SOR/2002-412).
[19]
The
respondents refer to the guidelines and procedures but do not mention a general
law that requires a person to answer questions or an authority that restricts
the right of a person to leave Canada.
[20]
The
applicant concedes that certain provisions of the Act impose a requirement to answer
questions in certain circumstances. For example, if a person is importing or
exporting $10,000 or more and if that person makes a report, subsection 12(4) of
the Act provides a requirement to “answer truthfully any questions that the
officer asks with respect to the information required”. It should be noted that
this requirement only exists in specific situations and does not apply to
questions on subjects covered in the Act. Parliament did not impose a requirement
to answer questions in other circumstances.
[21]
The Customs
Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (2nd Supp.), provides other examples of a positive obligation
to “answer truthfully any questions that the officer asks” in the context of
entering and exiting the country. In the absence of such positive obligation, a
person is not required to answer questions (see the Customs Act at subsections
11(1) and 11.4(1), section 13, subsections 22(1), 40(1) and 40(3)).
[22]
Parliament
is seeking to require any person who is importing or exporting $10,000 or more
to make a report. This is not a duty to divulge in all cases the amount being
imported or exported, or to divulge whether the amount being imported or
exported is less than or greater than $10,000. The obligation intended by Parliament
is clear and the applicant believes that there is no basis for extending it.
Respondents’ arguments
[23]
Every
person is required to declare to the Canada Border Services Agency (the Agency) the exportation of
currency or monetary instruments with a value equal to or greater than $10,000 before
leaving the country. To enforce this statute, officers have the authority to conduct
verifications in airports, during which they ask passengers if they are
exporting currency or monetary instruments. In this proceeding, the applicant
answered the questions that the Agency officers asked of him and he boarded his
flight as planned. However, he is asking this Court to provide him with a legal
opinion based on a hypothetical refusal to answer the questions. He affirms
that the Agency cannot require him to answer its questions and that it cannot
restrict his right to leave the country if he refuses to answer them.
[24]
First, the
respondents maintain that this Court should not exercise its discretion in such
a way as to hear a moot application that is based on assumptions. Second, even
if it is well established that a practice can be the subject of an application
for judicial review, it is incumbent on the applicant to prove that the
impugned practice exists. Nevertheless, the applicant in this proceeding did not
provide any evidence that the Agency forces passengers to answer questions, or
that it restricts the right of any person to leave the country. This
application should therefore be dismissed with costs.
[25]
The
respondents note that the Canadian Parliament adopted the Act in the context of
the Cross-Border Currency Reporting Program. This Act is an integral part of
the fight against money laundering and allows Canada to fulfill its international commitments
with respect to participating in the fight against international crime. The
Agency is responsible for administering and enforcing Part 2 of the Act. Among
other things, the purpose of the Act is “requiring the reporting of suspicious
financial transactions and of cross-border movements of currency and monetary
instruments” (paragraph 3(a)(ii) of the Act). This purpose is
implemented in Part 2 of the Act, which establishes a system under which
travellers must declare to the officer any importation or exportation of currency
or financial instruments with a value equal to or greater than $10,000
(subsection 12(1) of the Act).
[26]
An officer
can search any person who is about to leave Canada if the officer suspects on
reasonable grounds that the person has secreted on or about his or her person
currency or monetary instruments with a value equal to or greater than $10,000.
The Act also authorizes officers to board a conveyance to continue with this
same verification. An officer can also search, without reason, a traveller’s baggage
to the same end (sections 15 and 16 of the Act).
[27]
The
respondents specify that the Agency has been conducting verifications on
international flights since 2003 and the verifications have mainly concentrated
on high risk flights on which the Agency has received information from its
intelligence division. These verifications can include searching the conveyance,
baggage and cargo. Because of these verifications, the respondents submit that
the Agency was able to have 76% of the proceeds of crime that were seized from
air passengers in 2007 forfeited.
[28]
According
to the applicant, the purpose of this dispute is to determine whether he is
required to answer questions asked by the officers and whether his refusal to
answer could restrict his right to leave the country. The evidence nevertheless
does not indicate that he was required to answer any question whatsoever, or
that the Agency would have restricted his right to leave Canada if he had refused to answer
the questions. This application is only a request for a legal opinion made to
the Court.
[29]
The
Supreme Court has established criteria for determining whether a matter is moot
in Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 342. Generally,
courts refuse to rule on questions that do not have the effect of resolving some
controversy which affects, or may affect, the rights of parties.
[30]
The
applicant does not state having been required to answer the Agency’s questions
or prevented from leaving the country. The applicant would like to know what the
outcome would have been if he had decided not to answer the Agency’s questions,
which constitutes a theoretical discussion.
[31]
In Doucet-Boudreau
v. Nova Scotia (Minister of Education), [2003] 3 S.C.R. 3, the Supreme
Court of Canada confirmed the three Borowski factors to consider when a court
decides that it must exercise discretion to hear a moot appeal:
a) the presence of an adversarial
context;
b) the concern for judicial
economy; and
c) the need for the Court to be
sensitive to its role as the adjudicative branch in our political framework.
[32]
First, the
respondents maintain that there is no adversarial context. The trip on
December 25, 2007, continued without a problem and a decision by the
Court would not have any effect on the facts that gave rise to this moot
dispute. The applicant accepts the theoretical aspect in his affidavit when he
mentions that it is [translation] “possible that [he] will be the
subject of, in the future, a verification similar to that which took place on
December 25, 2007,” and that he [translation] “therefore would like the
Court to rule on [his] rights and obligations”.
[33]
The second
applicable factor requires the courts to consider whether it is necessary to spend
scarce judicial resources to resolve a moot issue given the circumstances of a case.
In the case at bar, there is no evidence that the Agency requires an individual
to answer its questions on penalty of preventing the individual from leaving
the country. This question is entirely hypothetical and it is not necessary to spend
scarce judicial resources to respond to it.
[34]
Furthermore,
there is nothing to suggest that the questions raised by the applicant will be
evasive of review in the future. A traveller who is denied the right to leave
the country for having refused to answer a question could pursue recourse in the
Federal Court. The respondents note that it is not an issue capable of repetition
yet evasive of review.
[35]
The last
criterion requires the courts to be sensitive to their role as the adjudicative
branch in our political framework. The applicant is requesting a legal opinion
on a hypothetical government action. If the Court responds to this question,
this would constitute a departure from its traditional role. The Court should
therefore not exercise its discretion and rule on this matter.
[36]
It is
clear that the right to leave the country is not affected by the verification
process undertaken by the Agency. Even if an officer discovers large quantities
of undeclared currency concealed on a person, the officer could then seize it
as forfeit. If the right to leave the country is not affected by a seizure of
undeclared currency, it is even less so by a refusal to respond to some questions
(section 18 of the Act).
[37]
It is
apparent in Krause v. Canada, [1999] 2 F.C. 476 (C.A.), that a practice
or policy can, even if it is not a “decision or order” within the meaning of
the Federal Courts Act, be the subject of a judicial review procedure. However,
the applicant must prove that this practice exists. In this case, the applicant
did not provide any evidence that the Agency requires individuals to answer its
questions, or that it prevents people who refuse to answer its questions from
leaving the country. The application must therefore be dismissed with costs.
Analysis
[38]
Before
addressing the main question raised by the applicant, it is necessary to examine
the argument submitted by the respondents that the Court should not hear this
litigation because it is moot. The general rule is that courts will only hear cases
that will have the effect of resolving a live controversy which will or may
actually affect the rights of the parties to the litigation, except when the
courts decide, in the exercise of their discretion, that it is nevertheless in
the interest of justice that the theoretical discussion be heard (see Borowski,
above, at page 353).
[39]
I am of
the opinion that this appeal is moot and do not believe that I should depart
from the general principle that courts do not hear cases that are moot. The
fact that the issue in this case may recur does not warrant a decision by the
Court (Kozarov v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety
and Emergency Preparedness),
2008 FCA 185, 384 N.R. 160 at paragraph 4).
[40]
In Borowski,
above, at pages 358-363, Justice Sopinka listed the criteria regulating the
exercise of the discretion of courts to hear moot cases. The requirement of an
adversarial context is a fundamental tenet of our legal system and helps
guarantee that issues are well and fully argued by parties who have a stake in
the outcome. I agree with the respondents that this adversarial context does
not exist in this proceeding.
[41]
As to the concern for conserving scarce
judicial resources, this Court has noted many times that such an expenditure is
warranted in cases that raise important issues but are evasive of review (New Brunswick (Minister of
Health and Community Services) v. G. (J.), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 46). Furthermore,
concern for judicial economy is partially
answered if the Court's decision will have some practical effect on the rights
of the parties, notwithstanding that it will not have the effect of determining
the controversy which gave rise to the proceeding.
[42]
An expenditure of judicial resources is
considered warranted in cases that, although moot, are of a recurring nature
but brief duration.
It can also be decided to not apply the mootness doctrine
strictly in order to ensure that an important question which might independently evade
review be heard by the court.
However, in Borowski
at paragraph 36 the Court wrote the following:
It is preferable to
wait and determine the point in a genuine adversarial context unless the
circumstances suggest that the dispute will have always disappeared before it
is ultimately resolved.
[43]
Similarly,
the deployment of judicial resources is justified in hypothetical cases that
raise an issue with a resolution that is in public interest. Judicial resources
must be weighed against the social cost of continued uncertainty in the law (Borowski
at page 361). The facts of this case do not warrant that the Court departs from
the general principle that it is not required to rule on theoretical
discussions (Borowski, page 357).
[44]
The need
for courts to exercise some flexibility in the application of the mootness
doctrine requires more than a consideration of the importance of the subject
matter. In this case, the applicant is asking the Court for a legal opinion on
the constitutionality of subsections 12(1) and
16(2) of the Act as well as an opinion on the right of the respondents to
restrict his right to leave Canada.
As these questions are ancillary to the primary issue, and this is considered
by the Court as moot, it is not necessary to respond to these questions (Borowski,
page 357).
[45]
The
applicant maintains that paragraph 10 of his affidavit is sufficient prima
facie factual evidence warranting the Court’s ruling on the
constitutionality of subsections 12(1) and 16(2) of the Act. However, with
respect, the Court notes that the paragraph in question does not establish any
fact but constitutes, instead, a finding.
[46]
In
Kamel v. Canada (Attorney General), 2008 FC 338, [2009] 1 F.C.R. 59, paragraph
134, Justice Noël in citing the Supreme Court was of the view that specific
facts must be cited if the courts are to be asked to consider Charter issues.
JUDGMENT
THE COURT ORDERS AND ADJUDGES
that the application for judicial review be dismissed. The
applicant must pay a lump sum of $1,000 including disbursements as costs.
“Michel
Beaudry”
Certified
true translation
Janine
Anderson, Translator
Annex A
Relevant Legislation
Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being
Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982, (U.K.), 1982, c. 11, section 1 at paragraph
6(1):
|
6. (1)
Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.
(2) Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the
status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right
(a) to move to and take up residence in
any province; and
(b) to pursue the gaining of a livelihood
in any province.
(3) The rights specified in subsection
(2) are subject to
(a) any laws or practices of general
application in force in a province other than those that discriminate among
persons primarily on the basis of province of present or previous residence;
and
(b) any laws providing for reasonable
residency requirements as a qualification for the receipt of publicly
provided social services.
(4) Subsections (2) and (3) do not
preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration
in a province of conditions of individuals in that province who are socially
or economically disadvantaged if the rate of employment in that province is
below the rate of employment in Canada.
|
6. (1)
Tout citoyen canadien a le droit de demeurer au Canada, d'y entrer ou d'en
sortir.
(2) Tout citoyen canadien et toute
personne ayant le statut de résident permanent au Canada ont le droit :
a) de se déplacer dans tout le pays et
d'établir leur résidence dans toute province;
b) de gagner leur vie dans toute
province.
(3) Les droits mentionnés au paragraphe
(2) sont subordonnés :
a) aux lois et usages d'application
générale en vigueur dans une province donnée, s'ils n'établissent entre les
personnes aucune distinction fondée principalement sur la province de
résidence antérieure ou actuelle;
b) aux lois prévoyant de justes conditions
de résidence en vue de l'obtention des services sociaux publics.
(4) Les paragraphes (2) et (3) n'ont pas
pour objet d'interdire les lois, programmes ou activités destinés à
améliorer, dans une province, la situation d'individus défavorisés socialement
ou économiquement, si le taux d'emploi dans la province est inférieur à la
moyenne nationale.
|
Proceeds
of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, S.C. 2000, c. 17:
|
3. The object of this Act is
(a)
to implement specific measures to detect and deter money laundering and the
financing of terrorist activities and to facilitate the investigation and
prosecution of money laundering offences and terrorist activity financing
offences, including
(i)
establishing record keeping and client identification requirements for
financial services providers and other persons or entities that engage in
businesses, professions or activities that are susceptible to being used for
money laundering or the financing of terrorist activities,
(ii)
requiring the reporting of suspicious financial transactions and of
cross-border movements of currency and monetary instruments, and
(iii)
establishing an agency that is responsible for dealing with reported and
other information;
(b)
to respond to the threat posed by organized crime by providing law
enforcement officials with the information they need to deprive criminals of
the proceeds of their criminal activities, while ensuring that appropriate
safeguards are put in place to protect the privacy of persons with respect to
personal information about themselves; and
(c)
to assist in fulfilling Canada’s international commitments
to participate in the fight against transnational crime, particularly money
laundering, and the fight against terrorist activity.
|
3. La présente loi a pour
objet :
a)
de mettre en oeuvre des mesures visant à détecter et décourager le recyclage
des produits de la criminalité et le financement des activités terroristes et
à faciliter les enquêtes et les poursuites relatives aux infractions de
recyclage des produits de la criminalité et aux infractions de financement
des activités terroristes, notamment :
(i)
imposer des obligations de tenue de documents et d’identification des clients
aux fournisseurs de services financiers et autres personnes ou entités qui se
livrent à l’exploitation d’une entreprise ou à l’exercice d’une profession ou
d’activités susceptibles d’être utilisées pour le recyclage des produits de
la criminalité ou pour le financement des activités terroristes,
(ii)
établir un régime de déclaration obligatoire des opérations financières
douteuses et des mouvements transfrontaliers d’espèces et d’effets,
(iii)
constituer un organisme chargé de l’examen de renseignements, notamment ceux
portés à son attention en application du sous-alinéa (ii);
b)
de combattre le crime organisé en fournissant aux responsables de
l’application de la loi les renseignements leur permettant de priver les
criminels du produit de leurs activités illicites, tout en assurant la mise
en place des garanties nécessaires à la protection de la vie privée des
personnes à l’égard des renseignements personnels les concernant;
c)
d’aider le Canada à remplir ses engagements internationaux dans la lutte
contre le crime transnational, particulièrement le recyclage des produits de
la criminalité, et la lutte contre les activités terroristes.
|
|
12. (1) Every person or entity
referred to in subsection (3) shall report to an officer, in accordance with
the regulations, the importation or exportation of currency or monetary
instruments of a value equal to or greater than the prescribed amount.
(2)
A person or entity is not required to make a report under subsection (1) in
respect of an activity if the prescribed conditions are met in respect of the
person, entity or activity, and if the person or entity satisfies an officer
that those conditions have been met.
(3)
Currency or monetary instruments shall be reported under subsection (1)
(a)
in the case of currency or monetary instruments in the actual possession of a
person arriving in or departing from Canada, or that form part of their
baggage if they and their baggage are being carried on board the same
conveyance, by that person or, in prescribed circumstances, by the person in
charge of the conveyance;
(b)
in the case of currency or monetary instruments imported into Canada by
courier or as mail, by the exporter of the currency or monetary instruments
or, on receiving notice under subsection 14(2), by the importer;
(c)
in the case of currency or monetary instruments exported from Canada by courier or as mail, by
the exporter of the currency or monetary instruments;
(d)
in the case of currency or monetary instruments, other than those referred to
in paragraph (a) or imported or exported as mail, that are on board a
conveyance arriving in or departing from Canada, by the person in charge of
the conveyance; and
(e)
in any other case, by the person on whose behalf the currency or monetary
instruments are imported or exported.
(4)
If a report is made in respect of currency or monetary instruments, the
person arriving in or departing from Canada with the currency or monetary
instruments shall
(a)
answer truthfully any questions that the officer asks with respect to the
information required to be contained in the report; and
(b)
on request of an officer, present the currency or monetary instruments that
they are carrying or transporting, unload any conveyance or part of a
conveyance or baggage and open or unpack any package or container that the officer
wishes to examine.
(5)
Officers shall send the reports they receive under subsection (1) to the
Centre.
|
12. (1) Les personnes ou
entités visées au paragraphe (3) sont tenues de déclarer à l'agent,
conformément aux règlements, l'importation ou l'exportation des espèces ou
effets d'une valeur égale ou supérieure au montant réglementaire.
(2)
Une personne ou une entité n’est pas tenue de faire une déclaration en vertu
du paragraphe (1) à l’égard d’une importation ou d’une exportation si les
conditions réglementaires sont réunies à l’égard de la personne, de l’entité,
de l’importation ou de l’exportation et si la personne ou l’entité convainc
un agent de ce fait.
(3)
Le déclarant est, selon le cas:
a)
la personne ayant en sa possession effective ou parmi ses bagages les espèces
ou effets se trouvant à bord du moyen de transport par lequel elle arrive au
Canada ou quitte le pays ou la personne qui, dans les circonstances
réglementaires, est responsable du moyen de transport;
b)
s’agissant d’espèces ou d’effets importés par messager ou par courrier,
l’exportateur étranger ou, sur notification aux termes du paragraphe 14(2),
l’importateur;
c)
l’exportateur des espèces ou effets exportés par messager ou par courrier;
d)
le responsable du moyen de transport arrivé au Canada ou qui a quitté le pays
et à bord duquel se trouvent des espèces ou effets autres que ceux visés à
l’alinéa a) ou importés ou exportés par courrier;
e)
dans les autres cas, la personne pour le compte de laquelle les espèces ou
effets sont importés ou exportés.
(4)
Une fois la déclaration faite, la personne qui entre au Canada ou quitte le
pays avec les espèces ou effets doit :
a)
répondre véridiquement aux questions que lui pose l’agent à l’égard des
renseignements à déclarer en application du paragraphe (1);
b)
à la demande de l’agent, lui présenter les espèces ou effets qu’elle
transporte, décharger les moyens de transport et en ouvrir les parties et
ouvrir ou défaire les colis et autres contenants que l’agent veut examiner.
(5)
L’agent fait parvenir au Centre les déclarations recueillies en application
du paragraphe (1).
|
|
15. (1) An officer may search
(a)
any person who has arrived in Canada, within a reasonable time after their
arrival in Canada,
(b)
any person who is about to leave Canada, at any time before their departure,
or
(c)
any person who has had access to an area designated for use by persons about
to leave Canada and who leaves the area but does not leave Canada, within a
reasonable time after they leave the area,
if
the officer suspects on reasonable grounds that the person has secreted on or
about their person currency or monetary instruments that are of a value equal
to or greater than the amount prescribed for the purpose of subsection 12(1)
and that have not been reported in accordance with that subsection.
(2)
An officer who is about to search a person under this section shall, on the
person’s request, without delay take the person before the senior officer at
the place where the search is to take place.
(3)
A senior officer before whom a person is taken under subsection (2) shall, if
the senior officer believes there are no reasonable grounds for suspicion
under subsection (1), discharge the person or, if the senior officer believes
otherwise, direct that the person be searched.
(4)
No person shall be searched under this section by a person who is not of the
same sex, and if there is no officer of the same sex at the place where the
search is to take place, an officer may authorize any suitable person of the
same sex to perform the search.
|
15. (1) S'il la soupçonne, pour
des motifs raisonnables, de dissimuler sur elle ou près d'elle des espèces ou
des effets d'une valeur égale ou supérieure au montant réglementaire prévu
pour l'application du paragraphe 12(1) et qui n'ont pas été déclarés en
conformité avec ce paragraphe, l'agent peut fouiller :
a)
toute personne entrée au Canada, dans un délai justifiable suivant son
arrivée;
b)
toute personne sur le point de sortir du Canada, à tout moment avant son
départ;
c)
toute personne qui a eu accès à une zone réservée aux personnes sur le point
de sortir du Canada et qui quitte cette zone sans sortir du Canada, dans un
délai justifiable après son départ de cette zone.
(2)
Sur demande de la personne qu’il entend fouiller en vertu du présent article,
l’agent la conduit devant l’agent principal du lieu de la fouille.
(3)
L’agent principal, selon qu’il estime qu’il y a ou non des motifs
raisonnables pour procéder à la fouille, fait fouiller ou relâcher la
personne conduite devant lui en application du paragraphe (2).
(4)
L’agent ne peut fouiller une personne de sexe opposé. Faute de collègue du
même sexe que celle-ci sur le lieu de la fouille, il peut autoriser toute
personne de ce sexe présentant les qualités voulues à y procéder.
|
|
16. (1) An officer may, in
order to determine whether there are, on or about a conveyance, currency or
monetary instruments of a value equal to or greater than the amount
prescribed for the purpose of subsection 12(1) and that have not been
reported in accordance with that subsection, stop, board and search the
conveyance, examine anything in or on it and open or cause to be opened any
package or container in or on it and direct that the conveyance be moved to a
customs office or other suitable place for the search, examination or
opening.
(2)
An officer may, in order to determine whether there are, in baggage, currency
or monetary instruments that are of a value equal to or greater than the
amount prescribed for the purpose of subsection 12(1) and that have not been
reported in accordance with that subsection, search the baggage, examine
anything in it and open or cause to be opened any package or container in it
and direct that the baggage be moved to a customs office or other suitable
place for the search, examination or opening.
|
16. (1) L’agent peut, afin de
vérifier si des espèces ou des effets d’une valeur égale ou supérieure au
montant réglementaire prévu pour l’application du paragraphe 12(1) se
trouvent à bord d’un moyen de transport et n’ont pas été déclarés
conformément à ce paragraphe, immobiliser le moyen de transport, monter à son
bord et le fouiller, examiner toute chose qui s’y trouve et en ouvrir ou
faire ouvrir tous colis ou contenants, et le faire conduire à un bureau de
douane ou à tout autre lieu indiqué pour ces opérations.
(2)
L’agent peut, afin de vérifier si des espèces ou des effets d’une valeur
égale ou supérieure au montant réglementaire prévu pour l’application du
paragraphe 12(1) se trouvent parmi des bagages et n’ont pas été déclarés
conformément à ce paragraphe, fouiller les bagages, examiner toute chose qui
s’y trouve et en ouvrir ou faire ouvrir tous colis ou contenants, et faire
conduire les bagages à un bureau de douane ou à tout autre lieu indiqué pour
ces opérations.
|
|
17. (1) An officer may examine
any mail that is being imported or exported and open or cause to be opened
any such mail that the officer suspects on reasonable grounds contains
currency or monetary instruments of a value equal to or greater than the
amount prescribed for the purpose of subsection 12(1).
(2)
An officer may not open or cause to be opened any mail that weighs 30 grams
or less unless the person to whom it is addressed consents or the person who
sent it consents or has completed and attached to the mail a label in
accordance with article 116 of the Detailed Regulations of the Universal
Postal Convention.
(3)
An officer may cause mail that weighs 30 grams or less to be opened in the
officer’s presence by the person to whom it is addressed, the person who sent
it or a person authorized by either of those persons.
|
17. (1) Un agent peut examiner
tout envoi destiné à l'importation ou à l'exportation et ouvrir ou faire
ouvrir ceux dont il soupçonne, pour des motifs raisonnables, qu'ils
contiennent des espèces ou effets d'une valeur égale ou supérieure au montant
réglementaire prévu pour l'application du paragraphe 12(1).
(2)
L’agent ne peut ouvrir ou faire ouvrir un envoi pesant au plus trente grammes
que si le destinataire ou l’expéditeur y consent ou que s’il porte, remplie
par l’expéditeur, l’étiquette prévue à l’article 116 du Règlement détaillé de
la Convention postale universelle.
(3)
L’agent peut faire ouvrir en sa présence un envoi pesant au plus trente
grammes par le destinataire, l’expéditeur ou la personne autorisée par ce
dernier.
|
|
18. (1) If an officer believes
on reasonable grounds that subsection 12(1) has been contravened, the officer
may seize as forfeit the currency or monetary instruments.
(2)
The officer shall, on payment of a penalty in the prescribed amount, return
the seized currency or monetary instruments to the individual from whom they
were seized or to the lawful owner unless the officer has reasonable grounds
to suspect that the currency or monetary instruments are proceeds of crime
within the meaning of subsection 462.3(1) of the Criminal Code or funds for
use in the financing of terrorist activities.
(3)
An officer who seizes currency or monetary instruments under subsection (1)
shall
(a)
if they were not imported or exported as mail, give the person from whom they
were seized written notice of the seizure and of the right to review and
appeal set out in sections 25 and 30;
(b)
if they were imported or exported as mail and the address of the exporter is
known, give the exporter written notice of the seizure and of the right to
review and appeal set out in sections 25 and 30; and
(c)
take the measures that are reasonable in the circumstances to give notice of
the seizure to any person whom the officer believes on reasonable grounds is
entitled to make an application under section 32 in respect of the currency
or monetary instruments.
(4)
The service of a notice under paragraph (3)(b) is sufficient if it is sent by
registered mail addressed to the exporter.
|
18. (1) S’il a des motifs
raisonnables de croire qu’il y a eu contravention au paragraphe 12(1),
l’agent peut saisir à titre de confiscation les espèces ou effets.
(2)
Sur réception du paiement de la pénalité réglementaire, l'agent restitue au
saisi ou au propriétaire légitime les espèces ou effets saisis sauf s'il
soupçonne, pour des motifs raisonnables, qu'il s'agit de produits de la
criminalité au sens du paragraphe 462.3(1) du Code criminel ou de fonds
destinés au financement des activités terroristes.
(3)
L’agent qui procède à la saisie-confiscation prévue au paragraphe (1) :
a)
donne au saisi, dans le cas où les espèces ou effets sont importés ou
exportés autrement que par courrier, un avis écrit de la saisie et du droit
de révision et d’appel établi aux articles 25 et 30;
b)
donne à l’exportateur, dans le cas où les espèces ou effets sont importés ou
exportés par courrier et son adresse est connue, un avis écrit de la saisie
et du droit de révision et d’appel établi aux articles 25 et 30;
c)
prend les mesures convenables, eu égard aux circonstances, pour aviser de la
saisie toute personne dont il croit, pour des motifs raisonnables, qu’elle
est recevable à présenter, à l’égard des espèces ou effets saisis, la requête
visée à l’article 32.
(4)
Il suffit, pour que l’avis visé à l’alinéa (3) b) soit considéré comme
signifié, qu’il soit envoyé en recommandé à l’exportateur.
|
Cross-border
Currency and Monetary Instruments Reporting Regulations, SOR/2002-412:
|
2. (1) For
the purposes of reporting the importation or exportation of currency or
monetary instruments of a certain value under subsection 12(1) of the Act,
the prescribed amount is $10,000.
(2) The prescribed amount is in Canadian dollars
or its equivalent in a foreign currency, based on
(a) the official conversion rate of the
Bank of Canada as published in the Bank of Canada's Daily Memorandum of
Exchange Rates that is in effect at the time of importation or exportation;
or
(b) if no official conversion rate is set
out in that publication for that currency, the conversion rate that the
person or entity would use for that currency in the normal course of business
at the time of the importation or exportation.
|
2. (1) Pour l'application du paragraphe 12(1) de la Loi, les espèces
ou effets dont l'importation ou l'exportation doit être déclarée doivent
avoir une valeur égale ou supérieure à 10 000 $.
(2) La valeur de 10 000 $ est
exprimée en dollars canadiens ou en son équivalent en devises selon :
a) le taux de conversion officiel de la
Banque du Canada publié dans son Bulletin quotidien des taux de change en
vigueur à la date de l'importation ou de l'exportation;
b) dans le cas où la devise ne figure pas
dans ce bulletin, le taux de conversion que le déclarant utiliserait dans le
cours normal de ses activités à cette date.
|
Customs Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (2nd Supp.):
|
11. (1) Subject to this
section, every person arriving in Canada shall, except in such circumstances
and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, enter Canada only at a
customs office designated for that purpose that is open for business and
without delay present himself or herself to an officer and answer truthfully
any questions asked by the officer in the performance of his or her duties
under this or any other Act of Parliament.
|
11. (1) Sous réserve des autres
dispositions du présent article, ainsi que des circonstances et des
conditions prévues par règlement, toute personne arrivant au Canada ne peut y
entrer qu’à un bureau de douane, doté des attributions prévues à cet effet,
qui est ouvert, et doit se présenter sans délai devant un agent. Elle est
tenue de répondre véridiquement aux questions que lui pose l’agent dans
l’exercice des fonctions que lui confère la présente loi ou une autre loi
fédérale.
|
|
11.4 (1) Subject to subsection
(2), every person leaving a customs controlled area, other than for the
purpose of boarding a flight with a destination outside Canada, shall
(a)
present himself or herself in the prescribed manner to an officer and
identify himself or herself;
(b)
report in the prescribed manner and make available to the officer any goods
that he or she has acquired through any means while in the customs controlled
area; and
(c)
answer truthfully any questions asked by an officer in the performance of his
or her duties under this or any other Act of Parliament.
|
11.4 (1) Sous réserve du
paragraphe (2), toute personne qui quitte une zone de contrôle des douanes, à
une fin autre que pour embarquer sur un vol à destination de l’étranger, doit
:
a)
se présenter à un agent de la manière réglementaire et s’identifier;
b)
déclarer à l’agent de la manière réglementaire les marchandises acquises par
tout moyen dans la zone de contrôle des douanes et lui en donner accès;
c)
répondre véridiquement aux questions que lui pose l’agent dans l’exercice des
fonctions que lui confère la présente loi ou une autre loi fédérale.
|
|
13. Every person who reports
goods under section 12 inside or outside Canada or is stopped by an officer
in accordance with section 99.1 shall
(a)
answer truthfully any question asked by an officer with respect to the goods;
and
(b)
if an officer so requests, present the goods to the officer, remove any
covering from the goods, unload any conveyance or open any part of the
conveyance, or open or unpack any package or container that the officer
wishes to examine.
|
13. La personne qui déclare,
dans le cadre de l’article 12, des marchandises à l’intérieur ou à
l’extérieur du Canada, ou qu’un agent intercepte en vertu de l’article 99.1
doit :
a)
répondre véridiquement aux questions que lui pose l’agent sur les
marchandises;
b)
à la demande de l’agent, lui présenter les marchandises et les déballer,
ainsi que décharger les moyens de transport et en ouvrir les parties, ouvrir
ou défaire les colis et autres contenants que l’agent veut examiner.
|
|
22. (1) Subject to subsection
(2), the following persons shall keep the prescribed records at their place
of business in Canada or at any other place that the Minister may designate,
for the prescribed period and in the prescribed manner, and shall on the
request of an officer make them available to the officer, within the time
specified by the officer, and answer truthfully any questions asked by the
officer about those records:
(a)
a person who transports or causes to be transported goods into Canada; or
(b)
a person who transports or causes to be transported within Canada goods that
have been imported but have not been released.
|
22. (1) Sous réserve du
paragraphe (2), est tenue de conserver en son établissement au Canada ou en
un autre lieu désigné par le ministre, pendant le délai et selon les
modalités réglementaires, les documents déterminés par règlement et, à la
demande de l’agent et dans le délai qu’il précise, de les lui communiquer et
de répondre véridiquement aux questions qu’il lui pose à leur sujet, toute
personne qui :
a)
soit transporte ou fait transporter des marchandises à destination du Canada;
b)
soit fait office de transitaire.
|
|
40. (1) Every person who
imports goods or causes goods to be imported for sale or for any industrial,
occupational, commercial, institutional or other like use or any other use
that may be prescribed shall keep at the person’s place of business in Canada
or at any other place that may be designated by the Minister any records in
respect of those goods in any manner and for any period of time that may be
prescribed and shall, where an officer so requests, make them available to
the officer, within the time specified by the officer, and answer truthfully
any questions asked by the officer in respect of the records.
(2)
If, in the opinion of the Minister, a person has not kept records in
accordance with subsection (1), the Minister may request that person to
comply with that subsection in respect of the records.
(3)
The following persons shall keep at their place of business or at any other
place that may be designated by the Minister the prescribed records with
respect to the prescribed goods, in the manner and for the period that may be
prescribed, and shall, where an officer requests, make them available to the
officer, within the time specified by the officer, and answer truthfully any
questions asked by the officer in respect of the records:
(a)
a person who is granted a licence under section 24;
(b)
a person who receives goods authorized for delivery to the person’s place of
business in the circumstances set out in paragraph 32(2)(b);
(c)
a person who is authorized under paragraph 32(6)(a) or subsection 32(7) to
account for goods;
(d)
a person who is granted a certificate under section 90 of the Customs Tariff;
and
(e)
a person who is granted a licence under section 91 of that Act.
(4)
Where, in the opinion of the Minister, a person has not kept records in
respect of goods in accordance with subsection (3), the Minister may request
that person to comply with that subsection in respect of the goods.
|
40. (1) Toute personne qui
importe ou fait importer des marchandises en vue de leur vente ou d’usages
industriels, professionnels, commerciaux ou collectifs, ou à d’autres fins
analogues ou prévues par règlement, est tenue de conserver en son
établissement au Canada ou en un autre lieu désigné par le ministre, selon
les modalités et pendant le délai réglementaires, les documents
réglementaires relatifs aux marchandises et, à la demande de l’agent et dans
le délai qu’il précise, de lui communiquer ces documents et de répondre
véridiquement aux questions qu’il lui pose à leur sujet.
(2)
Le ministre peut demander à la personne qui, selon lui, a manqué à ses
obligations prévues au paragraphe (1) quant à la conservation de documents de
se conformer à ce paragraphe quant aux documents.
(3)
Est tenu de conserver en son établissement ou en un autre lieu désigné par le
ministre, selon les modalités et pendant le délai réglementaires, les
documents réglementaires relatifs aux marchandises réglementaires et, à la
demande de l’agent et dans le délai qu’il précise, de lui communiquer ces
documents et de répondre véridiquement aux questions qu’il lui pose à leur
sujet quiconque :
a)
est titulaire de l’agrément octroyé en application de l’article 24;
b)
reçoit des marchandises dont la livraison à son établissement est autorisée
dans les circonstances visées à l’alinéa 32(2)b);
c)
est autorisé en vertu de l’alinéa 32(6)a) ou du paragraphe 32(7) à effectuer
une déclaration en détail ou provisoire de marchandises;
d)
est titulaire du certificat délivré en application de l’article 90 du Tarif
des douanes;
e)
est titulaire de l’agrément délivré en application de l’article 91 de cette
loi.
(4)
Le ministre peut demander à la personne qui, selon lui, a manqué à ses
obligations prévues au paragraphe (3) quant à la conservation de documents de
se conformer à ce paragraphe.
|
Email this Content