Supreme Court of Canada
Equipements Rocbec Inc. et al. v. Minister of National Revenue, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 605
Date: 1982-05-10
Les Equipements Rocbec Inc., Gestion Rocval Inc., Maurice Paiement and Michel Hamel Appellants;
and
The Minister of National Revenue Respondent.
File No.: 16718.
1982: February 24; 1982: May 10.
Present: Laskin C.J. and Ritchie, Dickson, Beetz, Mclntyre, Chouinard and Lamer JJ.
ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR QUEBEC
Income tax—Authorization of Minister of National Revenue to enter, search and seize—Approval given by a Superior Court judge—No right of appeal from approval to Court of Appeal—Income Tax Act, 1970-71-72 (Can.), c. 63, s. 231(4),(5)—Code of Civil Procedure, art. 26.
Goodman v. Rompkey et al., [1982] 1 S.C.R. 589, followed.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of Appeal, [1981] C.A. 461, dismissing the appellants’ appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court, [1980] C.S. 1089, which dismissed a motion to review an approval given to an authorization to enter and seize pursuant to s. 231(4) of the Income Tax Act. Appeal dismissed.
Bruno Pateras, for the appellants.
Jacques Ouellet, Q.C., for the respondent.
English version of the judgment of the Court delivered by
CHOUINARD J.—This appeal raises the same points of law as Goodman v. Rompkey et al., [1982] 1 S.C.R. 589, judgment which was rendered concurrently.
Aside from the facts, which of course are different, this appeal only differs from the other in two respects. In the case at bar, the appellants inscribed in appeal to the Court of Appeal as of right, rather than with leave of a judge of the Court of Appeal. In addition, the object of the
[Page 606]
appeal, instead of being the approval of the Superior Court judge, is the decision of that judge, who found that he had the power to review his initial approval and then decided not to review it.
The question of whether a judge has the power to review his own approval is not at issue. There was no cross-appeal. This question was therefore not before the Court of Appeal, and the latter did not rule on it. Counsel for the respondent stated that he was not disputing the power of a judge to review his approval. Rather, to use his own phrase, he made the best of it.
In my opinion, the fact that the appeal relates to the decision of the judge not to review his initial approval, rather than to the initial approval itself, in no way alters the points of law to be decided in disposing of the appeal, as counsel for the appellants admitted at the hearing in answer to a question from the Court. Whether an approval or, if applicable, a revised approval is in question, if there is no appeal from the one there cannot be an appeal from the other.
For the reasons given in Goodman, supra, therefore, I would dismiss this appeal with costs.
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Solicitors for the appellants: Pateras & Iezzoni, Montreal.
Solicitor for the respondent: Jacques Ouellet, Montreal.
Email this Content