Date:
20070326
Docket:
ITA-4559-04
Citation:
2007FC319
Ottawa, Ontario, Monday, this 26th
day of March 2007
PRESENT: MADAM PROTHONOTARY MIREILLE
TABIB
IN THE MATTER OF
THE INCOME TAX ACT,
-
and –
IN THE MATTER OF an assessment or assessments
by the Minister of National Revenue
under one or more of the following: THE INCOME
TAX ACT,
CANADA PENSION PLAN, EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
against:
PAUL CAMERON
90 Devon Road
Sudbury,
Ontario
P3B 3B3
REASONS FOR
ORDER AND ORDER
[1]
At issue on the motion before me is whether the
decision of this Court in Canada (Minister of National Revenue) v. Guterres, [1994] F.C.J. No. 1076, rendered on the basis of the laws of
execution of British Columbia, should equally be applicable in Ontario. In Guterres, the Court
held that a writ of fieri facias (now known as a writ of seizure and sale)
delivered by a competent officer for execution against RRSP funds is sufficient
authority for a financial institution to collapse the fund and deliver the
proceeds thereof to the officer, without the need for a specific order of the
Court.
[2]
On the motion before me, CIBC Trust, the trustee
of an RRSP constituted by the Judgment Debtor, admitted and confirmed that
under the terms of the RRSP account, the Judgment Debtor has the ability to
demand that CIBC Trust collapse the account, sell the units currently in it and
remit the proceeds to him. There is accordingly no question, under the laws
and jurisprudence of Ontario, that the RRSP account herein is exigible and may
be seized pursuant to a writ of seizure and sale (see National Trust Co.
Ltd. v. Lorenzetti et al., (1983) 41 O.R. (2d) 772).
[3]
In Guterres, Prothonotary Hargrave found
that the provisions of section 52 of the Court Order Enforcement Act, R.S.B.C.
1979, Ch. 75 provided
sufficient authority for a Sheriff or other officer to compel the Trustee of an
exigible RRSP account to sell the securities held therein and deliver up the
proceeds to the Sheriff.
[4]
Subsection 19(1) of the Execution Act,
R.S.O., 1990, c.E.24, is in all relevant respects identical to section 52 of
the Court Order Enforcement Act on which Guterres was based. If
anything, subsection 19(1), in conjunction with subsection 19(2), provides even
more explicit and wide ranging authority than section 52 of the British
Columbia Act. These subsections read as follows:
|
“19. (1) The sheriff shall seize
any money or banknotes, including any surplus of a former execution against
the debtor, and any cheques, bills of exchange, promissory notes, bonds,
mortgages, specialties or other securities for money belonging to the person
against whom the execution has been issued, and, subject to the Creditors’ Relief Act, shall pay
or deliver to the party who sued out the execution the money or banknotes so
seized, or a sufficient part thereof, and hold such cheques, bills of
exchange, promissory notes, bonds, mortgages, specialties or other securities
for money as security for the amount directed to be levied, or so much
thereof as has not been otherwise levied or raised, and the sheriff may sue
in his or her own name for the recovery of the sums secured thereby.
(2) The
sheriff may seize any book debts and other choses in action of the execution
debtor and may sue in his or her own name for the recovery of the money
payable in respect thereof.”
|
« 19. (1) Le shérif
saisit l’argent ou les billets de banque, y compris tout excédent provenant
d’une exécution forcée antérieure pratiquée contre le débiteur, ainsi que les
chèques, lettres de change, billets à ordre, obligations, hypothèques, actes
scellés ou autres titres de créance appartenant au débiteur saisi. Sous
réserve de la Loi sur le
désintéressement des créanciers, le shérif remet au créancier
saisissant l’argent ou les billets de banque ainsi saisis, ou une part
suffisante de ceux-ci. Il garde en sa possession les chèques, lettres de
change, billets à ordre, obligations, hypothèques, actes scellés et autres
titres de créance en garantie des sommes d’argent qu’il est tenu de prélever
ou la partie de ces sommes qui n’a pas été autrement prélevée ou recueillie.
Le shérif peut intenter, en son propre nom, une action en recouvrement des
sommes ainsi garanties.
(2) Le
shérif peut saisir tous les comptes débiteurs et autres droits d’action qui appartiennent
au débiteur saisi. Il peut intenter, en son propre nom, une action en
recouvrement des sommes exigibles à l’égard des comptes débiteurs ou des
droits d’action. »
|
[5]
As a result, I can find no reason why the ruling in Guterres
would not also be applicable in the province of Ontario.
[6]
The cases cited by CIBC Trust as introducing uncertainty as to
the applicability of Guterres outside British Columbia were decided
under provincial legislation other than Ontario’s, and, more importantly,
involved a determination of whether the RRSPs in question were exigible, in the
sense of whether the Trustees under the accounts had the obligation to collapse
the fund and remit the proceeds thereof upon simple request by the
beneficiary. As there is no question as to the exigibility of the fund in this
matter, these authorities are not relevant to the determination herein.
[7]
I therefore conclude that a writ of execution
delivered by a Sheriff on a financial institution holding, as Trustee, RRSP
funds of a Judgment Debtor under a plan allowing the Judgment Debtor to
collapse and redeem the account on demand is sufficient, without a further
specific order of the Court, to require the financial institution to sell the
assets in the RRSP and remit the proceeds thereof to the Sheriff in
satisfaction of the writ.
ORDER
1. CIBC
Securities, as agent for CIBC Trust (collectively “CIBC”), shall comply with
the writ of seizure and sale served upon it by the Sheriff of the city of
Toronto in respect of the debt owed to the Crown by Paul Cameron by selling the
assets in the Judgment Debtor’s registered retirement savings plans held at the
CIBC until the proceeds of that sale, after transaction fees and required
statutory deductions, are enough to satisfy the writ or until all the assets
are sold, whichever comes first, and remit the proceeds thereof to the Sheriff
in satisfaction of the writ.
2. There
shall be no costs on this motion.
“Mireille Tabib”
Email this Content