Docket: T-2043-12
Citation:
2014 FC 316
[UNREVISED ENGLISH CERTIFIED TRANSLATION]
Ottawa, Ontario, April 14, 2014
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Annis
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
L. BILODEAU & FILS LTÉE
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
CANADIAN FOOD INSPECTION AGENCY
|
|
Respondent
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
I. Introduction
[1]
The applicant, L. Bilodeau & Fils Ltée
[Bilodeau], is seeking judicial review of the decision of the Canadian Food
Inspection Agency [the Agency or the CFIA], dated October 11, 2012, to
register 16 certificates of default against it. The certificates arise
from notices of violation under the Health of Animals Act, SC 1990, c 21,
and the Health of Animals Regulations, CRC, c 296 [the Regulations], and
were issued under the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary
Penalties Act, SC 1995, c 40 [the Act].
[2]
The applicant acknowledges that it received the
notices, but alleges that it did not understand them because they incorrectly
stated that the applicant was served on a date that was then in the future. The
applicant further submits that the notices were invalid as they bore the title “avis
de violation” and not “procès-verbal”, the name required by the Regulations.
[3]
In turn, the respondent submits that this Court
does not have the jurisdiction to review complaints regarding certificates of
default registered with the Federal Court. It also submits that the notices
complied with the Regulations and that the applicant was in no way misled by
the dates on the notices. I share the respondent’s point of view in this
respect. The application is therefore dismissed with costs to the respondent.
II. Background
[4]
The applicant is a corporation that specializes
in the transportation of live animals. It manages a fleet of 73 trucks and
has 104 employees, including 32 drivers.
[5]
It received the impugned notices in 2008, 2009 and
2010. The notices stated the following: [translation]
“I, the undersigned, Regional Director, have reasonable grounds to believe
that, at or at around __ o’clock, on the ___ day of ___, in the year ___, at
___, in the province or territory of ___,the abovementioned person committed
the violation of:”. This was followed by a description of the violation, such
as [translation] “transporting or
causing to be transported animals (live chickens) without adequate ventilation.”
The notice then stated that this violation was [translation]
“contrary to section ___” of one of four pieces of legislation: the Plant
Protection Act, SC 1990, c 22, the Plant Protection Regulations, SOR/95-212,
the Health of Animals Act or the Health of Animals Regulations. The
notice warned the recipient that the violation [translation]
“is contrary to section 7 of the Agriculture and Agri-Food
Administrative Monetary Penalties Act and section 2 of the Administrative
Monetary Penalties and Notices Regulations.”
[6]
The notices then offered a choice between [translation] “Notice of Violation – WARNING”
and [translation] “Notice of
Violation – PENALTY”, with, in this case, the second of these boxes and the
option [translation] “serious violation”
being checked. Information on the available options followed on the back of the
notice. The recipient was informed that it could pay 50% of the amount within
15 days, pay the full amount, request a review of the facts by the
Minister within 30 days, request to enter into a compliance agreement with
the Minister within 30 days if the penalty was at least $2,000, or request
a review by the Tribunal within 30 days. This was followed by information
on the procedure to be followed for each of these options.
[7]
The notices were accompanied by certificates of
service. For example, the first notice received, Notice of Violation No. 0708QC0266
dated March 13, 2008, was accompanied by a certificate dated
March 28, 2008, confirming that a certified copy of the notice had been
given to the applicant.
[8]
The certificate of service accompanying the
notice dated December 29, 2008, bore neither a signature nor a date, but
it seems that a corrected copy was later issued.
[9]
All the notices were followed by a first letter
noting that the invoice had not been paid and that the balance was due. The
letters stated as follows: [translation]
“If you have any questions about the enclosed invoice, please contact me
between 8 a.m. and 7 p.m. (Atlantic Standard Time) at one of the
toll-free numbers provided above.” The applicant did not try to call these
toll-free numbers.
[10]
All of the letters were followed by letters
noting that the applicant owed a debt to Her Majesty in Right of Canada since
April 7, 2008, and that because the reasonable measures to collect the
debt had failed, the debt would be referred to the Canada Revenue Agency and
might be registered with the Federal Court.
[11]
The applicant did nothing upon receipt of any of
these letters.
[12]
The respondent testified that the dates of
service on the documents served on the applicant were indeed the transmission
dates. The date dated ten days later was only noted on copies kept on file
because this was the date on which service by mail was deemed to have taken
place.
[13]
The applicant does not dispute that it received
similar notices of violation in the past and that it paid the related penalties.
[14]
On August 1, 2012, the CFIA informed the
applicant that 18 notices of violation remained unpaid, amounting to a total of
$46,700 in fines, despite several collection attempts. The Agency stated its
intention to go before the Federal Court if these sums had still not been paid
on August 17, 2012, given that the penalties were a debt to Her Majesty in
Right of Canada.
[15]
Counsel for the applicant replied that in 15 of
the cases listed, the certificate of service predated the date of service by
fax of the notice of violation to which the certificate referred. The applicant
never appeared or replied. Counsel was therefore tasked with offering $7,800 in
full and final settlement of all 18 files.
[16]
On September 21, 2012, and October 5,
2012, the responsible minister made 16 certificates of default for the
unpaid debts resulting from the notices of violation. On October 11, 2012,
the CFIA registered 16 certificates confirming that there was an unpaid debt
under the Act with the Registry of the Federal Court. The applicant is
challenging its decision to do so.
III. Procedural and statutory
framework
[17]
Part XII of the Regulations, above, governs
the transportation of animals in Canada. It is prohibited to transport sick
animals (section 138); load or unload animas in a way likely to cause
suffering (section 139); unduly pack animals together (section 140); transport
animals without ventilation, weather protection or proper bedding material (section 143);
and transport animals without an approved tag (section 177).
[18]
The Act, above, provides as follows:
|
Agriculture and Agri-Food
Administrative Monetary Penalties Act, SC 1995, c
40
|
Loi sur les sanctions administratives
pécuniaires en matière d’agriculture et d’agroalimentaire, LC 1995, ch 40
|
|
. . .
|
[…]
|
|
Definitions
|
Définitions
|
|
2. In this
Act,
|
2. Les
définitions qui suivent s’appliquent à la présente loi.
|
|
“Tribunal” means the Review Tribunal
continued by subsection 4.1(1) of the Canada Agricultural Products Act.
|
“Commission” La Commission de révision
prorogée par le paragraphe 4.1(1) de la Loi sur les produits agricoles au
Canada.
|
|
Commission
of violation
|
Violation
|
|
7. (1) Every person who
(a)
contravenes any provision of an agri-food Act or of a regulation made under
an agri-food Act,
(b)
contravenes any order made by the Minister under the Plant Protection Act,
or
(c) refuses
or neglects to perform any duty imposed by or under the Plant Protection
Act or the Health of Animals Act
the
contravention of which, or the refusal or neglect of which, is designated to
be a violation by a regulation made under paragraph 4(1)(a) commits a
violation and is liable to a warning or to a penalty in accordance with this
Act.
|
7. (1) Toute contravention désignée au titre de l’alinéa 4(1)a)
constitue une violation pour laquelle le contrevenant s’expose à l’avertissement
ou à la sanction prévus par la présente loi.
|
|
Issuance
of notice of violation
|
Verbalisation
|
|
(2) Where a
person designated under paragraph 6(a) has reasonable grounds to believe that
a person has committed a violation, the designated person may issue, and
shall cause to be served on the person, a notice of violation that names the
person, identifies the violation and
(a) contains
a warning that the person has committed a violation; or
(b) sets out
(i) the
penalty, established in accordance with the regulations, for the violation
that the person is liable to pay,
(ii)
particulars concerning the time for paying and the manner of paying the
penalty, and
(iii) subject to the regulations, a
lesser amount that may be paid in complete satisfaction of the penalty if
paid within the time and manner specified in the notice.
|
(2) L’agent
verbalisateur qui a des motifs raisonnables de croire qu’une violation a été
commise peut dresser un procès-verbal qu’il fait notifier au contrevenant. Le
procès-verbal comporte, outre le nom du contrevenant et les faits reprochés,
soit un avertissement, soit le montant, établi en application du règlement,
de la sanction à payer — auquel cas il précise le délai et les modalités de
paiement — et, sous réserve des règlements, le montant inférieur de la
sanction infligée prévu au procès-verbal dont le paiement, dans le délai et
selon les modalités, vaut règlement.
|
|
Summary of
rights
|
Sommaire
des droits
|
|
(3) A notice of violation must clearly
summarize, in plain language, the rights and obligations under this Act of
the person on whom it is served, including the right to have the facts of the
violation reviewed by the Minister or the Tribunal, and the procedure for
requesting such a review.
|
(3) Figurent aussi au procès-verbal en
langage clair un sommaire des droits et obligations du contrevenant prévus
par la présente loi, notamment le droit de contester les faits reprochés
auprès du ministre ou de la Commission et la procédure pour le faire.
|
|
Notices
with warning― request for review
|
Option
|
|
8. (1)
Where a notice of violation contains a warning, the person named in the
notice may, in the prescribed time and manner, request a review of the facts
of the violation by the Minister or the Tribunal.
|
8. (1) Si
le procès-verbal comporte un avertissement, le contrevenant peut, dans le
délai et selon les modalités réglementaires, contester les faits reprochés
auprès du ministre ou de la Commission.
|
|
Deeming
|
Présomption
|
|
(2) Where a
person who is served with a notice of violation that contains a warning does
not request a review under subsection (1) in the prescribed time and manner,
the person is deemed to have committed the violation identified in the notice
of violation.
|
(2) Le défaut du contrevenant d’exercer l’option
dans le délai et selon les modalités prévus vaut déclaration de
responsabilité à l’égard de la violation.
|
|
Notices
with penalty ― payment
|
Paiement
|
|
9. (1)
Where a notice of violation sets out a penalty and the person named in the
notice pays, in the prescribed time and manner, the amount of the penalty or,
subject to the regulations, the lesser amount set out in the notice that may
be paid in lieu of the penalty,
(a) the person is deemed to have
committed the violation in respect of which the amount is paid;
(b) the Minister shall accept that amount
as and in complete satisfaction of the penalty; and
(c) the proceedings commenced in respect
of the violation under section 7 are ended.
|
9. (1) Si le procès-verbal inflige une sanction et que le
contrevenant paie, dans le délai et selon les modalités réglementaires, le
montant de celle-ci — ou, sous réserve des règlements, le montant inférieur
prévu au procès-verbal - , le paiement, que le ministre accepte en règlement,
vaut déclaration de responsabilité à l’égard de la violation et met fin à la
poursuite.
|
|
Alternatives
to payment
|
Option
|
|
(2) Instead
of paying the penalty set out in a notice of violation or, where applicable,
the lesser amount that may be paid in lieu of the penalty, the person named
in the notice may, in the prescribed time and manner,
|
(2) À défaut
d’effectuer le paiement, le contrevenant peut, dans le délai et selon les
modalités réglementaires:
|
|
(a) if the
penalty is $2,000 or more, request to enter into a compliance agreement with
the Minister that ensures the person’s compliance with the agri-food Act or
regulation to which the violation relates;
|
a) si la
sanction est de 2 000 $ ou plus, demander au ministre de conclure une
transaction en vue de la bonne application de la loi agroalimentaire ou du
règlement en cause;
|
|
(b) request a
review by the Minister of the facts of the violation; or
|
b) contester auprès du ministre les faits
reprochés;
|
|
(c) request a review by the Tribunal of
the facts of the violation.
|
c) demander à
la Commission de l’entendre sur les faits reprochés.
|
|
Deeming
|
Présomption
|
|
(3) Where a person who is served with a
notice of violation that sets out a penalty does not pay the penalty in the
prescribed time and manner or, where applicable, the lesser amount that may
be paid in lieu of the penalty, and does not exercise any right referred to
in subsection (2) in the prescribed time and manner, the person is deemed to
have committed the violation identified in the notice.
|
(3) Le défaut du contrevenant d’exercer l’option
visée au paragraphe (2) dans le délai et selon les modalités prévus vaut
déclaration de responsabilité à l’égard de la violation.
|
|
Review under section 8
|
Décision du ministre: avertissement
|
|
12. (1)
After concluding a review requested under section 8, the Minister shall
determine whether or not the person committed the violation, and the Minister
shall cause a notice of any decision under this subsection to be served on
the person who requested the review.
|
12. (1)
Saisi d’une contestation au titre de l’article 8, le ministre détermine la
responsabilité du contrevenant et lui fait notifier sa décision.
|
|
Right to review
|
Demande de révision
|
|
(2) Where the Minister decides under
subsection (1) that a person has committed a violation, the person may, in
the prescribed time and manner, request a review of the Minister’s decision
by the Tribunal.
|
(2) Le contrevenant peut alors, dans le
délai et selon les modalités réglementaires, demander à la Commission de l’entendre
sur la décision du ministre.
|
|
Review under paragraph 9(2)(b)
|
Décision du ministre: sanction
|
|
13. (1)
After concluding a review requested under paragraph 9(2)(b), the Minister
shall determine whether or not the person requesting the review committed a
violation and, where the Minister decides that the person committed a
violation but considers that the amount of the penalty for the violation was
not established in accordance with the regulations, the Minister shall
correct the amount of the penalty for the violation, and the Minister shall
cause a notice of any decision under this subsection to be served on the
person who requested the review.
|
13. (1)
Saisi d’une contestation au titre de l’alinéa 9(2)b), le ministre détermine
la responsabilité du contrevenant et lui fait notifier sa décision. S’il juge
que le montant de la sanction n’a pas été établi en application des
règlements, il y substitue le montant qu’il estime conforme.
|
|
Payment
or right to review
|
Option
|
|
(2) Where the
Minister decides under subsection (1) that a person has committed a violation,
the person may, in the prescribed time and manner,
(a) pay the
amount of the penalty set out in the notice referred to in subsection (1), in
which case
(i) the
Minister shall accept the amount as and in complete satisfaction of the
penalty, and
(ii) the
proceedings commenced in respect of the violation under section 7 are ended;
or
(b) request a review of the Minister’s
decision by the Tribunal.
|
(2) Le contrevenant peut, dans le délai
et selon les modalités réglementaires, soit payer le montant mentionné ― paiement que le ministre accepte en règlement et qui met fin à la
poursuite ― , soit demander à la Commission de l’entendre sur la décision du
ministre.
|
|
Review by Tribunal
|
Pouvoir de la Commission
|
|
14. (1) After concluding a review requested under this Act, the
Tribunal shall, by order, as the case may be,
(a) confirm,
vary or set aside any decision of the Minister under section 12 or 13, or
(b) determine whether or not the person
requesting the review committed a violation and, where the Tribunal decides
that the person committed a violation but considers that the amount of the
penalty for the violation, if any, was not established in accordance with the
regulations, the Tribunal shall correct the amount of the penalty,
and the Tribunal
shall cause a notice of any order made under this subsection to be served on
the person who requested the review, and on the Minister.
|
14. (1)
Saisie d’une affaire au titre de la présente loi, la Commission, par
ordonnance et selon le cas, soit confirme, modifie ou annule la décision du
ministre, soit détermine la responsabilité du contrevenant; en outre, si elle
estime que le montant de la sanction n’a pas été établi en application des
règlements, elle y substitue le montant qu’elle juge conforme. Elle fait
notifier l’ordonnance à l’intéressé et au ministre.
|
|
Payment
|
Paiement
|
|
(2) Where the Tribunal decides under
subsection (1) that a person has committed a violation, the person is liable
for the amount of the penalty as set out in the order of the Tribunal and, on
the payment of that amount in the time and manner specified in the order,
(a) the Minister
shall accept the amount as and in complete satisfaction of the penalty; and
(b) the proceedings commenced in
respect of the violation under section 7 are ended.
|
(2) Le paiement du montant conformément à
l’ordonnance, que le ministre accepte en règlement, met fin à la poursuite.
|
|
. . .
|
[…]
|
|
Debts to
Her Majesty
|
Créance de
Sa Majesté
|
|
15. (1) The following amounts constitute debts due to Her Majesty in
right of Canada that may be recovered as such in the Federal Court:
|
15. (1)
Constitue une créance de Sa Majesté du chef du Canada, dont le recouvrement
peut être poursuivi à ce titre devant la Cour fédérale:
|
|
(a) the
amount of a penalty, from the time the notice of violation setting out the
penalty is served;
|
a) le montant
de la sanction, à compter de la date de notification du procès-verbal;
|
|
(b) every
amount undertaken to be paid pursuant to a compliance agreement entered into
with the Minister under subsection 10(1), from the time the compliance
agreement is entered into;
|
b) tout
montant prévu dans une transaction conclue au titre du paragraphe 10(1), à
compter de la date de sa conclusion;
|
|
(c) the
amount set out in a notice of default referred to in subsection 10(4), from
the time the notice is served;
|
c) le montant
mentionné dans l’avis de défaut notifié au titre du paragraphe 10(4), à
compter de la date de sa notification;
|
|
(d) the
amount of a penalty as set out in a decision of the Minister under subsection
13(1), from the time the notice under that subsection is served;
|
d) le montant
mentionné dans la décision notifiée au titre du paragraphe 13(1), à compter
de la date de sa notification;
|
|
(e) the
amount of a penalty as set out in an order of the Tribunal under subsection
14(1), from the expiration of the time specified in the order for the payment
of that amount; and
|
e) le montant mentionné dans l’ordonnance
visée au paragraphe 14(1), à compter de l’expiration du délai fixé par la
Commission pour le payer;
|
|
(f) the amount
of any reasonable expenses incurred pursuant to section 22, from the date
they are incurred.
|
f) le montant
des frais raisonnables visés à l’article 22, à compter de la date où ils ont
été faits.
|
|
Time limit
|
Prescription
|
|
(2) No
proceedings to recover a debt referred to in subsection (1) may be commenced
later than five years after the debt became payable.
|
(2) Le
recouvrement de la créance se prescrit par cinq ans à compter de la date à
laquelle elle est devenue exigible en application du paragraphe (1).
|
|
Debt final
|
Conditions
de révision
|
|
(3) A debt
referred to in subsection (1) is final and not subject to review or to be
restrained, prohibited, removed, set aside or otherwise dealt with except to
the extent and in the manner provided by sections 9 to 14 of this Act and
subsection 12(2) of the Canada Agricultural Products Act.
|
(3) La
créance est définitive et n’est susceptible de contestation ou de révision
que dans la mesure et selon les modalités prévues aux articles 9 à 14 de la
présente loi et au paragraphe 12(2) de la Loi sur les produits agricoles
au Canada.
|
|
Certificate
of default
|
Certificat de non-paiement
|
|
16. (1) Any debt referred to in subsection 15(1) in respect of which
there is a default of payment, or the part of any such debt that has not been
paid, may be certified by the Minister.
|
16. (1) Le
ministre peut établir un certificat de non-paiement pour la partie impayée
des créances visées au paragraphe 15(1).
|
|
Judgments
|
Enregistrement en Cour fédérale
|
|
(2) On
production to the Federal Court, a certificate made under subsection (1)
shall be registered in that Court and, when registered, has the same force
and effect, and all proceedings may be taken on the certificate, as if it
were a judgment obtained in that Court for a debt of the amount specified in
the certificate and all reasonable costs and charges attendant in the
registration of the certificate.
|
(2) L’enregistrement à la Cour fédérale
confère au certificat la valeur d’un jugement de cette juridiction pour la
somme visée et les frais afférents.
|
|
Violations
not offences
|
Précision
|
|
17. For greater certainty, a violation is not an offence and,
accordingly, section 126 of the Criminal Code does not apply.
|
17. Les violations n’ont pas valeur d’infractions; en conséquence nul
ne peut être poursuivi à ce titre sur le fondement de l’article 126 du Code
criminel.
|
|
Certain defences not available
|
Exclusion de certains moyens de
défense
|
|
18. (1) A
person named in a notice of violation does not have a defence by reason that
the person
(a) exercised
due diligence to prevent the violation; or
(b)
reasonably and honestly believed in the existence of facts that, if true,
would exonerate the person.
|
18. (1) Le
contrevenant ne peut invoquer en défense le fait qu’il a pris les mesures
nécessaires pour empêcher la violation ou qu’il croyait raisonnablement et en
toute honnêteté à l’existence de faits qui, avérés, l’exonéreraient.
|
|
Common law
principles
|
Principes de la common law
|
|
(2) Every rule and principle of the
common law that renders any circumstance a justification or excuse in
relation to a charge for an offence under an agri-food Act applies in respect
of a violation to the extent that it is not inconsistent with this Act.
|
(2) Les règles et principes de la common
law qui font d’une circonstance une justification ou une excuse dans le cadre
d’une poursuite pour infraction à une loi agroalimentaire s’appliquent à l’égard
d’une violation sauf dans la mesure où ils sont incompatibles avec la
présente loi.
|
|
. . .
|
[…]
|
|
Service of
documents
|
Notification
|
|
24. Every
document required or authorized to be served under this Act shall be served
in accordance with the regulations, either personally or in such other manner
as may be authorized in the regulations.
|
24. Toute
notification autorisée ou exigée par la présente loi s’effectue conformément
au règlement, par remise à personne ou de toute autre manière qui y est
autorisée.
|
[19]
The Federal Courts Act, RSC, 1985, c F-7,
provides as follows:
|
Federal
Courts Act, RSC, 1985, c F-7
|
Loi sur
les Cours fédérales, LRC (1985), ch F-7
|
|
. . .
|
[…]
|
|
Judicial
review
|
Contrôle
judiciaire
|
|
28. (1) The Federal Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to hear and
determine applications for judicial review made in respect of any of the
following federal boards, commissions or other tribunals:
|
28. (1) La Cour d’appel fédérale a compétence pour connaître des
demandes de contrôle judiciaire visant les offices fédéraux suivants:
|
|
(a) the Board
of Arbitration established by the Canada Agricultural Products Act;
|
a) le conseil
d’arbitrage constitué par la Loi sur les produits agricoles au Canada;
|
|
(b) the
Review Tribunal established by the Canada Agricultural Products Act;
|
b) la commission de révision constituée
par cette loi;
|
|
. . .
|
[…]
|
[20]
On December 19, 2012, Prothonotary Morneau
heard a motion by the respondent to strike the motion regarding this Court’s
lack of jurisdiction to hear the case on its merits. The Prothonotary found
that it was not clear that upon filing the application, the applicant still had
time to request a review by the Minister or the Tribunal or to file an
application elsewhere. Since neither of the parties referred to any direct
precedents under the Act in question, including the decision in Canada
(Minister of National Revenue) v Piccott, 2002 FCT 1116, reversed 2004 FCA
291 and 2004 FCA 290 [Piccott], which, according to the Prothonotary,
dealt with a point that was extraneous to the facts of this case, the motion
was dismissed.
IV. Analysis
[21]
At the hearing, the applicant made two
submissions, the first being that the format of the notice of violation was
invalid, and the second, that the certificates of service for the notices of
violation were invalid because they post-dated the actual date on which they
arrived. However, before dealing with the applicant’s arguments, I must consider
the argument that the Court does not have the jurisdiction to rule on this
matter.
A.
Jurisdiction of the Court
[22]
The present application must be dismissed for
lack of jurisdiction of this Court under subsection 18.1(3) of the Federal
Courts Act. There is no decision here that could be subject to judicial
review. The registration of the certificates of default is not a judgment of
the Federal Court.
[23]
Heneghan J. explained the following in Piccott,
above, with respect to proceedings under the Income Tax Act, RSC, 1985,
c 1 (5th Supp):
18 In each
case, the legislation provides that a certificate produced by the Minister to
the Federal Court can be registered in that Court and following registration,
it has the same effect as a judgment. However, the certificate when registered
is not a judgment and does not become a judgment of the Federal Court. In this
regard, I refer to Marcel Grand Cirque Inc. v. Quebec (1995), 107 F.T.R.
18, Olympia Interiors Limited v. Canada (1998), 98 D.T.C. 6306
(F.C.T.D.) and Glenn Alexander Ross v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of
Canada ( 2002 D.T.C. 6884), affirmed by the Federal Court of Appeal at
[2002] F.C.J. No. 1396, 2002 FCA 359. In Marcel Grand Cirque Inc. v. Quebec,
supra, the Court said at paragraph 6:
This Court does not have jurisdiction to determine this issue. The
Excise Tax Act, like the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985 (5th Supp.), c. 2,
contains in effect a complete code for the collection of taxes . . ..
[Emphasis added.]
[24]
Piccott, above,
was reversed on appeal, but not on this issue (see Canada v Piccott, 2004 FCA
291, paras 8 and 31):
8 While
acknowledging that the certificates had the same effect as a judgment, the
motions judge held that the certificates were not, in fact, judgments of the
Court. She was supported in this conclusion by the decisions in Marcel Grand
Cirque Inc. v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue - M.N.R.) (1995), 107
F.T.R. 18 , Olympia Interiors Limited v. Canada (1998), 98 D.T.C 6306
(F.C.T.D) and Glenn Alexander Ross v. Canada, 2002 D.T.C. 6884, aff’d at
(2002), 301 N.R. 23 (F.C.A.).
. . .
31 But just as
Parliament is free to have Federal Court judgments enforced in the provincial
systems, it is also free to provide for other means of enforcing its claims.
This is what Parliament did when it enacted section 223 of the Income Tax
Act. In addition to deeming certificates to be enforceable as judgments of
the Court upon registration, the section goes on to provide a specific method
of enforcement of those certificates. If subsection 223 did nothing more than
deem registered certificates to be enforceable as judgments of the Court, then
the motions judge’s conclusion would be beyond challenge. The Minister would be
bound to take those steps which are required to enforce a judgment under the Federal
Court Act, including the issuance of a writ of execution. But, subsection
223 does not stop there. It goes on to provide a specific means of enforcing
these certificates. The scope and detail of those dispositions can be seen from
the extracts below: . . .
[25]
The same principle applies in this case. Parliament
provided for a complete code in the Act. An applicant must exhaust the remedies
available before the Minister and the Tribunal. The applicant may then file an
application for judicial review of their decisions—before the Federal Court of
Appeal, not the Federal Court.
[26]
The Act and the Regulations provide the means to
challenge the notices of violations. The notices and the letters informed the
applicant that it could call to discuss them. If there had been a problem with
their service, I am satisfied that it was possible for the applicant to make
its representations to the Minister or to the Tribunal. A decision could then
have been made. In the absence of a decision, this Court cannot review the
process that led to the notices of violation, and if there was a decision, it
would be the Federal Court of Appeal’s role to review it under section 28
of the Federal Courts Act.
B. Format of the notices of
violation
[27]
Even though I am dismissing the motion for lack of
jurisdiction, I nonetheless considered the applicant’s arguments. Bilodeau
submitted that what it received was not a “procès-verbal” as required by the
Act. I note that section 17 of the Act clearly states that the Act does
not create offences; a notice of violation is a civil proceeding, and there is
therefore a degree of flexibility.
[28]
Neither the Act nor the Regulations prescribe an
official format for notices of violation. I repeat here section 7 of the
Act, which describes the essential elements of such notices:
|
Agriculture
and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act, SC 1995, c 40
|
Loi sur
les sanctions administratives pécuniaires en matière d’agriculture et d’agroalimentaire, LC 1995, ch 40
|
|
PROCEEDINGS
|
OUVERTURE DE
LA POURSUITE
|
|
Issuance
of notice of violation
|
Verbalisation
|
|
7. (2) [...] a notice of violation that names the person, identifies
the violation and
(a) contains
a warning that the person has committed a violation; or
(b) sets out
(i) the
penalty, established in accordance with the regulations, for the violation
that the person is liable to pay,
(ii)
particulars concerning the time for paying and the manner of paying the
penalty, and
(iii) subject
to the regulations, a lesser amount that may be paid in complete satisfaction
of the penalty if paid within the time and manner specified in the notice.
|
7. (2) […] Le procès-verbal comporte, outre le nom du contrevenant
et les faits reprochés, soit un avertissement, soit le montant, établi en
application du règlement, de la sanction à payer — auquel cas il précise le
délai et les modalités de paiement — et, sous réserve des règlements, le
montant inférieur de la sanction infligée prévu au procès-verbal dont le
paiement, dans le délai et selon les modalités, vaut règlement.
|
|
Summary of
rights
|
Sommaire
des droits
|
|
(3) A notice of violation must clearly
summarize, in plain language, the rights and obligations under this Act of
the person on whom it is served, including the right to have the facts of the
violation reviewed by the Minister or the Tribunal, and the procedure for
requesting such a review.
|
(3) Figurent aussi au procès-verbal en
langage clair un sommaire des droits et obligations du contrevenant prévus
par la présente loi, notamment le droit de contester les faits reprochés
auprès du ministre ou de la Commission et la procédure pour le faire.
|
[29]
The documents entered into evidence contain all
the elements described in section 7 of the Act: they name the person,
identify the violation, contain the penalty and particulars concerning the time
for paying and the manner of paying the penalty, and clearly summarize, in
plain language, the rights and obligations under the Act of the person on whom
the notice of violation is served, including the right to have the facts of the
violation reviewed by the Minister or the Tribunal, and the procedure for
requesting such a review.
[30]
The Larousse dictionary gives the
following definition of the term “procès-verbal” online (http://www.larousse.com/en/dictionaries/french-english/proc%c3%a8s-verbal/63350,
under the word “procès-verbal”):
1. DROIT [acte – d’un magistrat] (official) report, record [d’un agent
de police] (police report).
2. [pour une contravention] parking ticket.
3.
[résumé] minutes, proceedings.
[31]
The meaning of the second definition, “parking
ticket”, is a perfect equivalent of a notice of violation. According to the
principles of bilingual statutory interpretation, it is clear that “avis de
violation” (“notice of violation”) is the shared meaning, the more specific meaning,
found in both versions of the Act. The Act is not confusing on the nature of
the document called “avis de violation” or “procès-verbal’’. See R v Daoust,
2004 SCC 6, at para 26:
26 The Court
has on several occasions discussed how a bilingual statute should be
interpreted in cases where there is a discrepancy between the two versions of
the same text. For example, in Schreiber v. Canada (Attorney General),
[2002] 3 S.C.R. 269, 2002 SCC 62, at para. 56, LeBel J. wrote:
A principle of
bilingual statutory interpretation holds that where one version is ambiguous
and the other is clear and unequivocal, the common meaning of the two versions
would a priori be preferred; see: Côté, supra, at p. 327; and Tupper
v. The Queen, [1967] S.C.R. 589. Furthermore, where one of the two
versions is broader than the other, the common meaning would favour the more
restricted or limited meaning: see Côté, supra, at p. 327; R. v.
Dubois, [1935] S.C.R. 378; Maurice Pollack Ltée v. Comité paritaire du
commerce de détail à Québec, [1946] S.C.R. 343; Pfizer Co. v. Deputy
Minister of National Revenue for Customs and Excise, [1977] 1 S.C.R. 456,
at pp. 464-65; and Gravel v. City of St-Léonard, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 660, at p. 669.
[32]
In the facts of this case, there is no
ambiguity. The applicant acknowledges that it was aware of the notices. It did
not present any evidence to suggest that it had not understood them. The
respondent stated that Bilodeau had paid the penalties related to previous
notices sent in 2005. I conclude that there was no actual confusion in this
case.
[33]
In any event, if there had been any confusion,
it was not necessary to apply for judicial review to challenge the notices. A
procedure was available, and the applicant could have used it.
B.
Date on which notices of violation served
[34]
The applicant states that it did not receive
valid service of the notices of violation because they were accompanied by a certificate
of service stating a later date than the date of the certificate, the signing
public servant having already served a certified copy of each of them. Since it
is impossible to confirm an event that has not yet happened, Bilodeau alleges
that it therefore believed in good faith that the notices were mere advance
notices and that it would receive further notices at a later date.
[35]
The applicant admits that it received the
notices of violation and the subsequent letters. It admits that it did not pay
the administrative monetary penalties. It admits that it did not resort to
section 9 of the Act to request a review before the Minister or the review
tribunal. It now argues that the irregularities in how the notices of violation
were served prevented it from exercising these remedies.
[36]
The respondent submits that the applicant, by
seeking the intervention of the Court to remedy its failure to challenge the
notices of violation on time, cannot succeed. It failed to participate in the administrative
process provided by the Act. It does not make any arguments to challenge the exercise
of the Minister’s discretion to make certificates of default following the
notices of violation. The registration of the certificates is not a judgment of
the Court, and the sought remedy is inadmissible.
[37]
The affidavit of Mr. Doucette confirms that
the notices were sent on the actual date: [translation]
“I completed a second certificate of service reflecting the addition of ten
(10) days from the date of the Canada Post acknowledgement of receipt in
order to establish the date of service . . . This second certificate
of service was completed for administrative purposes only and was not sent to L. Bilodeau
& Fils Ltée.” The version dated 10 days later was therefore not sent
but kept on file. In any event, the applicant was not misled, and the issue of
the dates was an insignificant point that could not invalidate the service.
[38]
In come cases, it seems that the applicant
received the certificates that referred to a later date. However, with respect
to this type of error, the Federal Court of Appeal, in Clare v Canada
(Attorney General), 2013 FCA 265, stated that minor service irregularities
did not cancel notices of violation under the Act.
[39]
In the case at bar, an irregularity in the
service of the documents did not prevent the applicant from exercising the
remedies available.
V. Conclusion
[40]
For these reasons, the application is dismissed.
Email this Content