Docket: T-451-11
[UNREVISED ENGLISH
CERTIFIED TRANSLATION] Citation: 2011 FC 901
Montréal,
Quebec,
July 18, 2011
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Harrington
BETWEEN:
|
|
MICHEL MAHEUX
|
|
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
|
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
|
Respondent
|
|
and
ANDRÉ FERLAND
|
Respondent
|
REASONS
FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1]
Mr.
Maheux filed a statement of claim with this Court seeking damages from the Federal
Crown for an unspecified amount, but in the amount of at least several million
dollars. He alleged that the Canada Revenue Agency, through Mr. André Ferland, had
falsified documents on the basis of which the Agency falsely claimed he owed a
tax debt of almost $4,000,000. In light of that assessment, the Crown proceeded
with a statutory set-off, as provided for under section 224.1 of the Income
Tax Act, of the applicant’s Old Age Security pension benefits and
Guaranteed Income Supplement. Mr. Maheux also maintained that the statutory
set-off was, in any event, illegal since it was an unlawful seizure under the Old
Age Security Act.
[2]
Under
Rule 221 of the Federal Courts Rules, the respondent filed a motion to
have the applicant’s statement struck out on the ground that it disclosed no
reasonable cause of action.
[3]
By
order dated June 20, 2011, Prothonotary Morneau struck out the applicant’s entire
statement of claim on the ground “that his text disclosed no reasonable cause
of action”. He nonetheless allowed the applicant to file a new statement of
claim solely against Her Majesty the Queen for [translation] “damages for the alleged falsification of
documents for the alleged purpose of creating a false tax debt for the
applicant” to the extent that each of the conclusions alleged contained the
necessary particulars in accordance with the requirements under Rule 174 and
paragraph 181(a) of the Federal Courts Rules. This is an appeal
of that decision.
[4]
Mr.
Maheux represented himself. During the hearing, he had a tendency to testify;
it is therefore difficult for this Court to determiner what was before the prothonotary
and what is presently before this Court.
[5]
Mr.
Maheux argued the following:
a. Under Rule
50(2) of the Federal Courts Rules, this matter is beyond the
prothonotary’s jurisdiction because he may only hear: “an action exclusively
for monetary relief, or an action in rem claiming monetary relief, in
which no amount claimed by the party exceeds $50,000 exclusive of interest and
costs”.
b. That the
set-off applied was illegal under section 36 of the Old Age Security Act because
benefits are exempt from seizure.
c. That the
seizure was unconstitutional on the ground that it violates the Canadian Charter
of Rights and freedoms.
d. That the
request for statutory set-off sent by Mr. Ferland to Service Canada cannot, in
any event, be interpreted as including the supplement.
[6]
With
all due respect for the applicant, I find his arguments to be without merit.
Prothonotary Morneau correctly cited the case law.
[7]
The
Prothonotary had the jurisdiction to strike out the applicant’s statement of claim,
even if the amount of the statement of claim exceeded $50,000 (see First
Canadians’ Constitution Draft Committee the United Korean Government (Canada) v. Canada, 2004 FCA
93, 238 D.L.R. (4th) 306).
[8]
It
is settled law that the “statutory set-off” as provided for under the Income
Tax Act, is not a “seizure” in any sense. One need only consider the
Federal Court of Appeal’s decision in Bouchard v. Canada (Attorney General), 2009 FCA
321, 398 NR 350, in addition to the other decisions cited by the Prothonotary.
[9]
The
Charter, in my opinion, does not come into play in this matter. And even if it
were to come into play, I would not entertain the argument raised by Mr. Maheux
because no notice of constitutional question was served under section 57 of the
Federal Courts Act.
[10]
The
notice of statutory set-off sent to Service Canada included “any amount that
may be or become payable to the taxpayer”.
[11]
In
this case, the Court does not have to decide whether Mr. Maheux [translation] “owes nothing and owed
nothing” I am obliged to consider the assessment valid as long as it has not
been vacated. This question was examined in Canada (Minister of
National Revenue - MNR) v. Arab, 2005 FC 264, 276 F.T.R. 18 :
[9] Mr. Arab intends to object to
the assessment, and that is the route for him to follow for a final
determination as to what, if anything, he owes. It does not fall on me to rule
on the validity of the assessments. Section 152(8) of the Act provides that an
assessment is deemed to be valid and binding notwithstanding any error, defect
or omission until it is varied or vacated on objection or appeal (Minister
of National Revenue v. MacIver (1999), 99 D.T.C. 5524, at paragraph 7 (Sharlow
J., as she then was) and Minister of National Revenue v. Services M.L.
Marengère Inc. 2000 D.T.C. 6032, at paragraph 64 (Lemieux J.)).
[12]
Mr.
Maheux did not take advantage of the fact that the prothonotary allowed him to
file a fresh action against Her Majesty the Queen regarding his allegations of
fraudulent documents, as long as [translation]
“it was truly serious and founded in fact”. That said, the prothonotary’s
decision does not affect the prescription of a new action.
ORDER
FOR THE FOREGOING
REASONS:
THE COURT
ORDERS that Mr. Maheux’s appeal be dismissed with costs of $350 to Her Majesty
the Queen.
“Sean Harrington”
Certified
true translation
Sebastian
Desbarats, Translator
Email this Content