Date: 20040914
Docket: A-651-02
Citation: 2004 FCA 291
CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A.
NADON J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Appellant
and
JAMES ANDREW PICCOTT
Respondent
Heard at St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, on June 22, 2004.
Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on September 14, 2004.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: PELLETIER J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY: DESJARDINS J.A.
NADON J.A.
[1] Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA) sought to collect amounts owing by the respondent Mr. Piccott by registering in the Federal Court certificates issued under section 223 of Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.) and section 316 of the Excise Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-15. Copies of these certificates were then put into the hands of the High Sheriff of Newfoundland and Labrador (the Sheriff) pursuant to the Judgment Enforcement Act, S.N.L. 1996, c. J-1.1, with instructions to seize and sell as much of Mr. Piccott's property as necessary to satisfy the amounts owing under the certificates. The Sheriff did his duty. Mr. Piccott challenged the seizure and sale in the Federal Court. Heneghan J. in a decision reported at [2002] F.C.J. No. 1500, 2002 FCT 1116, set aside the seizure and sale because no writ of execution had been issued. Was she right to do so?
[2] These reasons will deal with the issues arising under the Income Tax Act and short supplementary reasons will be issued in the related file dealing with the issues under the Excise Tax Act.
THE FACTS
[3] James Andrew Piccott, who is described as "a resident of Paradise in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador", is a used car dealer. He is a taxpayer, subject to the provisions of the Income Tax Act. Over the course of time, Mr. Piccott found himself in the unfortunate position of being in arrears with respect to payment of his tax liabilities. On November 27, 2001, the Minister of National Revenue, by the hand of an official of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA), certified, pursuant to section 223 of the Income Tax Act, that Mr. Piccott owed the sum of $4, 447.95 together with interest compounded daily until the date of payment. That certificate was registered in the Federal Court of Canada (the Court) which had the effect of making the certificate enforceable as a judgment of the Court.
[4] On or about December 6, 2001, the Sheriff was given notice of the certificate registered in the Court. How that was done is central to this appeal. It is a question to which I will return. Pursuant to the terms of the Judgment Enforcement Act, a notice of judgment was registered setting out the details of the certificate. Mr. Piccott alleges that he was never notified that the Minister had issued a certificate in relation to his indebtedness.
[5] On or about April 16, 2002, CCRA, acting as instructing creditor under the Judgment Enforcement Act, instructed the Sheriff to seize and sell certain assets of Mr. Piccott. On the strength of those instructions, the Sheriff seized a number of vehicles from Mr. Piccott's business premises to satisfy the debts evidenced by the certificates in his hands. Needless to say, this caused a certain amount of trouble in Paradise. Mr. Piccott immediately took steps to challenge the certificates and the seizure made under their authority. Various proceedings then followed in the Supreme Court of Newfoundland, as well as in the Court, leading to a hearing before Heneghan J. in October 2002.
THE DECISION UNDER APPEAL
[6] The motions judge reviewed the provisions of the Income Tax Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Federal Court Act, and the Judgment Enforcement Act before coming to the conclusion that the seizure of Mr. Piccot's goods was irregular and should be set aside. She was persuaded that the applicable legislation required that seizure could only occur on the basis of process issued from the Court. The Court held that in order to proceed to execution, the CCRA was bound to have a writ of execution issued out of the Court and put into the hands of the Sheriff. Since that had not occurred, the seizures were irregular and were set aside. The motions judge also found that the enforcement provisions of the Income Tax Act could not be relied upon to justify the seizure, since they require that the document evidencing the judgment under execution be issued by the Court. Since she could find no evidence of any document being issued, the motions judge found that the seizure was made without authority.
[7] The motions judge began her analysis by reviewing the relevant sections of the Income Tax Act, specifically subsection 223(3) which allows the Minister to register a certificate setting out the amount owed by a taxpayer in the Court. Upon registration, the certificate has the same effect, "and all proceedings may be taken thereon", as if it were a judgment of the Court.
| 223. (2) An amount payable by a person (in this section referred to as a "debtor") that has not been paid or any part of an amount payable by the debtor that has not been paid may be certified by the Minister as an amount payable by the debtor.
(3) On production to the Federal Court, a certificate made under subsection 223(2) in respect of a debtor shall be registered in the Court and when so registered has the same effect, and all proceedings may be taken thereon, as if the certificate were a judgment obtained in the Court against the debtor for a debt in the amount certified plus interest thereon to the day of payment as provided by the statute or statutes referred to in subsection 223(1) under which the amount is payable and, for the purpose of any such proceedings, the certificate shall be deemed to be a judgment of theCourt against the debtor for a debt due to Her Majesty, enforceable in the amount certified plus interest thereon to the day of payment as provided by that statute or statutes.
|
|
223. (2) Le ministre peut, par certificat, attester qu'un montant ou une partie de montant payable par une personne -- appelée "débiteur" au présent article -- mais qui est impayé est un montant payable par elle.
(3) Sur production à la Cour fédérale, un certificat fait en application du paragraphe (2) à l'égard d'un débiteur est enregistré à cette cour. Il a alors le même effet que s'il s'agissait d'un jugement rendu par cette cour contre le débiteur pour une dette du montant attesté dans le certificat, augmenté des intérêts courus jusqu'à la date du paiement comme le prévoit les lois visées au paragraphe (1) en application desquelles le montant est payable, et toutes les procédures peuvent être engagées à la faveur du certificat comme s'il s'agissait d'un tel jugement. Dans le cadre de ces procédures, le certificat
est réputé être un jugement exécutoire rendu par cette cour contre le débiteur pour une dette envers Sa Majesté du montant attesté dans le certificat, augmenté des intérêts courus jusqu'à la date du paiement comme le prévoit ces lois.
|
|
|
|
|
[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.). However, she was of the view that since the certificates were enforceable as judgments of the Court, enforcement proceedings with respect to the certificates had to be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, and the Federal Court Rules, 1998 (the Rules).
[9] This lead to consideration of section 56 of the Federal Court Act which deals with enforcement of Court judgments:
| 56. (1) In addition to any writs of execution or other process that are prescribed by the Rules for enforcement of its judgments or orders, the Court may issue process against the person or the property of any party, of the same tenor and effect as those that may be issued out of any of the superior courts of the province in which any judgment or order is to be executed, and where, by the law of that province, an order of a judge is required for the issue of any process, a judge of the Court may make a similar
order with respect to like process to issue out of the Court.
...
(3) All writs of execution or other process against property, whether prescribed by the Rules or authorized by subsection (1), shall, unless otherwise provided by the Rules, be executed, with respect to the property liable to execution and the mode of seizure and sale, as nearly as possible in the same manner as similar writs or process, issued out of the superior courts of the province in which the property to be seized is situated, are, by the law of that province, required to be executed, and the writs or other process issued by the Court shall bind property in the same manner as similar writs or process issued by the provincial superior courts, and the rights of purchasers thereunder are the same as those of purchasers under those similar writs or process.
(4) Every claim made by any person to property seized under a writ of execution or other process issued out of the Court, or to the proceeds of the sale of that property, shall, unless otherwise provided by the Rules, be heard and disposed of as nearly as may be according to the procedure applicable to like claims to property seized under similar writs or process issued out of the courts of the province.
|
|
56. (1) Outre les brefs de saisie-exécution ou autres moyens de contrainte prescrits par les règles pour l'exécution des jugements ou ordonnances de la Cour, celle-ci peut délivrer des moyens de contrainte visant la personne ou les biens d'une partie et ayant la même teneur et le même effet que ceux émanant d'une cour supérieure de la province dans laquelle le jugement ou l'ordonnance doivent être exécutés. Si, selon le droit de la province, le moyen de contrainte que doit
délivrer la Cour nécessite l'ordonnance d'un juge, un juge de la Cour peut rendre une telle ordonnance.
...
(3) Sauf disposition contraire des règles, les brefs de saisie-exécution ou autres moyens de contrainte visant des biens - qu'ils soient prescrits par les règles ou autorisés aux termes du paragraphe (1) - sont, quant aux catégories de biens saisissables et au mode de saisie et de vente, exécutés autant que possible de la manière fixée, pour des moyens de contrainte semblables émanant d'une cour supérieure provinciale, par le droit de la province où sont situés les biens à saisir. Ils ont les mêmes effets que ces derniers, quant aux biens en question et aux droits des adjudicataires.
(4) Sauf disposition contraire des règles, l'instruction et le jugement de toute contestation en matière de saisie effectuée en vertu d'un moyen de contrainte de la Cour, ou de toute prétention sur le produit des biens saisis, suivent autant que possible la procédure applicable aux revendications semblables concernant des biens saisis en vertu de moyens de contrainte similaires émanant des tribunaux provinciaux.
|
|
|
|
|
[10] The fact that certificates issued under the Income Tax Act are deemed to be judgments of the Court for enforcement purposes led the motions judge to conclude that the provisions of section 56 of the Federal Court Act were engaged. This, in turn, led to the conclusion that the enforcement provisions of the Federal Court Act and Rules were also engaged. Since the Rules require that a writ of execution be issued before execution can be levied (see Rules 433 and following), CCRA was bound to have a writ of execution issued. As a result, the judge concluded
that CCRA was required to put the writ in the hands of the Sheriff before calling upon him to seize goods to satisfy the debt certified in the certificates.
[11] The motions judge rejected the argument based upon subsection 223(5) of the Income Tax Act that the registration of a certificate in the Court was sufficient to initiate enforcement proceedings.
| 223. (5) A document issued by the Federal Court evidencing a certificate in respect of a debtor registered under subsection 223(3), a writ of that Court issued pursuant to the certificate or any notification of the document or writ (such document, writ or notification in this section referred to as a "memorial") may be filed, registered or otherwise recorded for the purpose of creating a charge, lien or priority on, or a binding interest in, property in a province, or any interest in such property, held by the debtor in the same manner as a document evidencing
(a) a judgment of the superior court of the province against a person for a debt owing by the person, or
(b) an amount payable or required to be remitted by a person in the province in respect of a debt owing to Her Majesty in right of the province
may be filed, registered or otherwise recorded in accordance with or pursuant to the law of the province to create a charge, lien or priority on, or a binding interest in, the property or interest.
|
|
223. (5) Un document délivré par la Cour fédérale et faisant preuve du contenu d'un certificat enregistré à l'égard d'un débiteur en application du paragraphe (3), un bref de cette cour délivré au titre du certificat ou toute notification du document ou du bref (ce document ou bref ou cette notification étant appelé "extrait" au présent article) peut être produit, enregistré ou autrement inscrit en vue de grever d'une sûreté, d'une priorité ou d'une autre charge un bien du débiteur situé dans une province, ou un droit sur un tel bien, de la même manière qui peut l'être, au titre ou en application de la loi provinciale, un document faisant preuve:
a) soit du contenu d'un jugement rendu par la cour supérieure de la province contre une personne pour une dette de celle-ci;
b) soit d'un montant payable ou à remettre par une personne dans la province au titre d'une créance de Sa Majesté du chef de la province.
|
|
|
|
|
[12] The motions judge held that a certified copy of a certificate was not a memorial, as that term is defined in subsection 223(5) and for that reason, could not authorize seizure and sale of a tax debtor's goods. The motions judge found that a memorial must be either a document issued by the Court, a writ issued by the Court, or a document evidencing issuance of either a document or a writ from the Court. "Issued" is defined in the Rules as follows:
| "issued" means
(a) in respect of an originating document, dated, signed, sealed with the seal of the Court and assigned a Court file number by the Administrator; and
(b) in respect of any other document, dated, signed and sealed with the seal of the Court by the Administrator.
|
|
« _délivré_ »
a) Dans le cas d'un acte introductif d'instance, se dit de celui qui est daté, signé et scellé du sceau de la Cour par l'administrateur et qui porte le numéro du dossier de la Cour que celui-ci lui a attribué;
b) dans le cas de tout autre document, se dit de celui qui est daté, signé et scellé du sceau de la Cour par l'administrateur.
|
|
|
|
|
[13] The motions judge agreed that the certificates had been filed in the Court, but could find nothing to indicate that any document or process had been issued by the Court. The only document which could appropriately be issued in this case was a writ of execution. Since none was issued, the seizure was unlawful and was set aside.
THE POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
[14] In this Court, counsel for Mr. Piccot supported the motions judge's judgment by pointing out Rule 423:
| 423. All matters relating to the enforcement of orders shall be brought before the Trial Division.
|
|
423. Toute question concernant l'exécution forcée d'une ordonnance relève de la Section de première instance.
|
|
|
|
|
Counsel argued that this rule meant that an order or writ issued by the Trial Division of the Court was a necessary step in the enforcement of the certificate:
[15] Counsel went on to point out that the certified copy of the certificate, which was identified as the memorial by counsel for the Minister, did not satisfy the definition of memorial because the date and signature of the registry officer which appeared on it were in relation to the certification of the copy and not in relation to the filing of the certificate.
[16] Counsel pointed out that while the Judgment Enforcement Act of Newfoundland no longer contemplates the issuance of a writ of execution, the requirements of the Income Tax Act and the Federal Court Act must be satisfied before the provisions of the Judgment Enforcement Act can be invoked. The Federal Court Act required that another step be taken before the certificate became enforceable, namely, the issuance of a writ, and in the absence of such a document, the filing in the provincial system was of no effect.
[17] Finally, counsel made the point that the enforcement provisions of the Judgment Enforcement Act required the filing of a money judgment, which is defined as:
"money judgment" means a judgment requiring a person to pay money, or that part of a judgment which requires a person to pay money but does not include money payable under an order for contempt;
Since there is nothing in the certificate which requires anyone to pay anything, the certificate itself cannot be a money judgment. For that reason, something further is required to turn the certificate into an enforceable order.
[18] Counsel for the appellant took a different view of the scope and effect of the legislation. He pointed out that the intent of section 56 of the Federal Court Act is to permit the enforcement of Federal Court orders and judgments through provincial enforcement mechanisms. This desire to integrate the federal and provincial systems is reflected in the terms of subsection 56(3) which direct that every writ of execution or other process against property "shall ... be executed, with respect to the property liable to execution and the mode of seizure and sale, as nearly as possible in the same manner as similar writs or process, issued out of the superior courts of the province in which the property to be seized is situated...". Accordingly, counsel for the appellant argued that "The writ is not a necessary precursor to execution so long as the method of execution is one sanctioned in law in the province." Consequently, if the law of Newfoundland recognized the certificate for purposes of enforcement, then nothing in the Federal Court Act required the issuance of a writ which is not required in Newfoundland.
[19] The appellant argued that the collection provisions under the Income Tax Act are a code of collection mechanisms, enforceable according to their terms.
[20] Finally, the appellant pointed to the definition of "judgment" in the Judgment Enforcement Act:
"judgment" includes an order, decree, certificate, duty or right that may be enforced as or in the same manner as a judgment of the court including a judgment made under the Small Claims Act and the Federal Court Act but does not include a support order as defined in the Support Orders Enforcement Act except as provided in section 3.
Since the certificate meets the definition of judgment for the purposes of the Judgment Enforcement Act, and since the Income Tax Act gives it the force of a judgment of the Court, there is no need to look further. The certificate satisfies all of the other requirements of the Judgment Enforcement Act, in terms of the formalities of enforcement so there is no reason why it should not be enforced according to its terms.
ANALYSIS
[21] Before turning to the question of whether anything was issued by the Court, it is important to understand just what was put into the Sheriff's hands. Unfortunately, the record is not terribly helpful on this point. An examination of the Court file discloses the presence of a certificate issued by an official of CCRA which certifies the amount of Mr. Piccott's indebtedness to the Crown under the Income Tax Act. All that appears to have been done by the registry officer who processed the certificate is that a court file number was assigned, and the document was stamped with a filing stamp which indicates the date of filing (November 27, 2001) and the name of the registry officer who processed it. The registry officer's initials appear in the stamp.
[22] In his affidavit sworn October 2, 2002, Mr. David Taylor, an employee of the CCRA, deposes that a Certificate of Judgment was issued on November 27, 2001. A true copy of the Certificate of Judgment appears as Exhibit D to his affidavit. An examination of Exhibit D discloses that the Certificate of Judgment is simply a certified copy under seal of the certificate filed in the Federal Court. The certification stamp says that the "above documents [sic] is a true copy of the original filed of record in the Registry of the Federal Court of Canada, the 27th day of November A.D., 2001". The certification stamp is dated and signed by the registry officer.
[23] At the hearing of this matter, counsel for the appellant produced, but did not file, the original document which was forwarded to the Sheriff. It appears to have been the original Certificate of Judgment, complete with a gold seal to which the Court's seal was applied.
[24] In his affidavit, Mr. Taylor also deposed that a notice of judgment was registered at the office of the Sheriff on or about December 6, 2001. A copy of that notice of judgment appears as Exhibit E to Mr. Taylor's affidavit. This leaves the impression that the notice of judgment was prepared by the appellant and filed with the Sheriff. In argument, counsel for the appellant indicated that the notice of judgment was accompanied by the Certificate of Judgment. This may well be so, but there is no evidence of that in the record.
[25] On the other hand, the Judgment Enforcement Act is of some assistance:
38. (1) A person who has a money judgment that is in force may register a notice of that judgment in the registry in accordance with this Act.
(2) The sheriff shall accept as proof of a money judgment a money judgment certified by an officer of the court from which that judgment originated, a certified true copy of that judgment or a facsimile copy of either.
I take it from this that the registering party produces the notice of judgment and must provide the Sheriff evidence of the judgment. That evidence can consist of either a money judgment certified by an officer of the Court from which the judgment originated or a certified true copy of the money judgment.
[26] I am satisfied that the original Certificate of Judgment was filed with the Sheriff as proof of the judgment. The questions which remain are whether the Certificate of Judgment is a memorial within the meaning of subsection 223(5), and if it is, whether it must be accompanied by a writ of execution.
[27] Before considering those questions, I note that the Judgment Enforcement Act also provides that notice of registration of a notice of judgment must be provided to the debtor:
41. (5) A statement verifying the registration of a notice of judgment shall be served on the debtor and the creditor within 30 days after it is registered.
This is significant to the extent that part of Mr. Piccott's complaint is that if a writ of execution had been obtained, he would have received notice of the writ before it was executed and could therefore have challenged it prior to his inventory being seized.
[28] Heneghan J.'s reasons contain two lines of reasoning leading to her conclusion that the Minister was bound to obtain a writ of execution prior to proceeding with enforcement proceedings under the Judgment Enforcement Act. The first line of reasoning turns on the indication at subsection 223(3) of the Income Tax Act that upon registration, a certificate is enforceable as a judgment of the Court:
| (3) On production to the Federal Court, a certificate made under subsection 223(2) in respect of a debtor shall be registered in the Court and when so registered has the same effect, and all proceedings may be taken thereon, as if the certificate were a judgment obtained in the Court ...and ... the certificate shall be deemed to be a judgment of the Court against the debtor for a debt due to Her Majesty...
|
|
(3) Sur production à la Cour fédérale, un certificat fait en application du paragraphe (2) à l'égard d'un débiteur est enregistré à cette cour. Il a alors le même effet que s'il s'agissait d'un jugement rendu par cette cour ... et toutes les procédures peuvent être engagées à la faveur du certificat comme s'il s'agissait d'un tel jugement ... le certificat est réputé être un jugement exécutoire rendu par cette cour contre le débiteur pour une dette envers Sa Majesté...
|
|
|
|
|
[29] The fact that such certificates are enforceable as judgments of the Court brings into play the provisions of the Federal Court Act dealing with enforcement of judgments, specifically section 56 and Rule 423 cited earlier in these reasons. It appears that the motions judge concluded that since the procedure provided for the enforcement of Court judgments includes the issuance of a writ of execution, the enforcement of a certificate which is deemed to be a judgment of the Court also requires the issuance of a writ of execution (see paragraphs 31 and 32 of the motions judge's reasons).
[30] It is clear that Parliament declined to establish a separate federal judgment enforcement system and chose instead to have Federal Court orders enforced through the provincial judgment enforcement systems. This scheme was recognized by this court in Forest v. Hancor, [1996] 1 F.C. 725 (C.A.) where Décary J.A. said:
[22] ... The clear purpose of subsections 13(2) and 56(3) of the Act and Rule 5... is to ensure that the federal and provincial schemes of execution are complementary and to fill any possible gaps by resorting where necessary to the provincial schemes. These provisions are all invitations to the Court to refrain from inflexibility and adopt the interpretation that best facilitates the integration of the two schemes.
...
[23] The reasons for this are easy to explain. The Federal Court is in a way a court of exception that was grafted onto the existing network of superior courts. Its judgments have significant civil implications and it is essential, if they are to be understandable to litigants and if these implications are to be at all uniform, for execution procedures to be as similar as possible to those of the superior courts. This is all the more essential in that the Court as a general rule uses officers of the court appointed, and the seizure and judicial sale machinery established by, provincial authorities. Thus, reasons of administrative convenience as much as of certainty in civil rights matters have led the federal authorities to rely for all practical purposes on provincial practices.
[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:
| (6) If a memorial has been filed, registered or otherwise recorded under subsection 223(5),
(a) a charge, lien or priority is created on, or a binding interest is created in, property in the province, or any interest in such property, held by the debtor, or
(b) such property or interest in the property is otherwise bound,
in the same manner and to the same extent as if the memorial were a document evidencing a judgment referred to in paragraph 223(5)(a) or an amount referred to in paragraph 223(5)(b), and the charge, lien, priority or binding interest created shall be subordinate to any charge, lien, priority or binding interest in respect of which all steps necessary to make it effective against other creditors were taken before the time the memorial was filed, registered or otherwise recorded.
(7) If a memorial is filed, registered or otherwise recorded in a province under subsection 223(5), proceedings may be taken in the province in respect of the memorial, including proceedings
(a) to enforce payment of the amount evidenced by the memorial, interest on the amount and all costs and charges paid or incurred in respect of
(i) the filing, registration or other recording of the memorial, and
(ii) proceedings taken to collect the amount,
(b) to renew or otherwise prolong the effectiveness of the filing, registration or other recording of the memorial,
(c) to cancel or withdraw the memorial wholly or in respect of any of the property or interests affected by the memorial, or
(d) to postpone the effectiveness of the filing, registration or other recording of the memorial in favour of any right, charge, lien or priority that has been or is intended to be filed, registered or otherwise recorded in respect of any property or interest affected by the memorial,
in the same manner and to the same extent as if the memorial were a document evidencing a judgment referred to in paragraph 223(5)(a) or an amount referred to in paragraph 223(5)(b), except that if in any such proceeding or as a condition precedent to any such proceeding any order, consent or ruling is required under the law of the province to be made or given by the superior court of the province or a judge or official of the court, a like order, consent or ruling may be made or given by the Federal Court or a judge or official of the Federal Court and, when so made or given, has the same effect for the purposes of the proceeding as if it were made or given by the superior court of the province or a judge or official of the court.
(8) If
(a) a memorial is presented for filing, registration or other recording under subsection 223(5) or a document relating to the memorial is presented for filing, registration or other recording for the purpose of any proceeding described in subsection 223(7) to any official in the land, personal property or other registry system of a province, it shall be accepted for filing, registration or other recording, or
(b) access is sought to any person, place or thing in a province to make the filing, registration or other recording, the access shall be granted
in the same manner and to the same extent as if the memorial or document relating to the memorial were a document evidencing a judgment referred to in paragraph 223(5)(a) or an amount referred to in paragraph 223(5)(b) for the purpose of a like proceeding, as the case may be, except that, if the memorial or document is issued by the Federal Court or signed or certified by a judge or official of the Court, any affidavit, declaration or other evidence required under the law of the province to be provided with or to accompany the memorial or document in the proceedings is deemed to have been provided with or to have accompanied the memorial or document as so required.
(9) Notwithstanding any law of Canada or of a province, a sheriff or other person shall not, without the written consent of the Minister, sell or otherwise dispose of any property, or publish any notice or otherwise advertise in respect of any sale or other disposition of any property pursuant to any process issued or charge, lien, priority or binding interest created in any proceeding to collect an amount certified in a certificate made under subsection 223(2), interest on the amount and costs, but if that consent is subsequently given, any property that would have been affected by such a process, charge, lien, priority or binding interest if the Minister's consent had been given at the time the process was issued or the charge, lien, priority or binding interest was created, as the case may be, shall be bound, seized, attached, charged or otherwise affected as it would be if that consent had been given at the time the process was issued or the charge, lien, priority or binding interest was created, as the case may be.
|
|
(6) Une fois l'extrait produit, enregistré ou autrement inscrit en application du paragraphe (5), une sûreté, une priorité ou une autre charge grève un bien du débiteur situé dans la province, ou un droit sur un tel bien, de la même manière et dans même la mesure qui si l'extrait était un document faisant preuve du contenu d'un jugement visé à l'alinéa (5)a) ou d'un montant visé à l'alinéa (5)b). Cette sûreté, priorité ou autre charge prend rang après tout autre sûreté, priorité ou charge à l'égard de laquelle les mesures requises pour la rendre opposable aux autres créanciers ont été prises avant la production, l'enregistrement ou autre inscription de l'extrait.
(7) L'extrait produit, enregistré ou autrement inscrit dans une province en application du paragraphe (5) peut, de la même manière et dans la même mesure que s'il s'agissait d'un document faisant preuve du contenu d'un jugement visé à l'alinéa (5)a) ou d'un montant visé à l'alinéa (5)b), faire l'objet dans la province de procédures visant notamment:
a) à exiger le paiement du montant attesté par l'extrait, des intérêts y afférents et des frais et dépens payés ou engagés en vue de la production, de l'enregistrement ou autre inscription de l'extrait ou en vue de l'exécution des procédures de recouvrement du montant;
b) à renouveler ou autrement prolonger l'effet de la production, de l'enregistrement ou autre inscription de l'extrait;
c) à annuler ou à retirer l'extrait dans son ensemble ou uniquement en ce qui concerne un ou plusieurs biens ou droits sur lesquels l'extrait a une incidence;
d) à différer l'effet de la production, de l'enregistrement ou autre inscription de l'extrait en faveur d'un droit, d'une sûreté, d'une priorité ou d'une autre charge qui a été ou qui sera produit, enregistré ou autrement inscrit à l'égard d'un bien ou d'un droit sur lequel l'extrait a une incidence.
Toutefois, dans le cas où la loi provinciale exige -- soit dans le cadre de ces procédures, soit préalablement à leur exécution -- l'obtention d'une ordonnance, d'une décision ou d'un consentement de la cour supérieure de la province ou d'un juge ou d'un fonctionnaire de celle-ci, la Cour fédérale ou un juge ou un fonctionnaire de celle-ci peut rendre une telle ordonnance ou décision ou donner un tel consentement. Cette ordonnance, cette décision ou ce consentement a alors le même effet dans le cadre des procédures que s'il était rendu ou donné par la cour supérieure de la province ou par un juge ou un fonctionnaire de celle-ci.
(8) L'extrait qui est présenté pour production, enregistrement ou autre inscription en application du paragraphe (5), ou un document concernant l'extrait qui est présenté pour production, enregistrement ou autre inscription dans le cadre des procédures visées au paragraphe (7), à un agent d'un régime d'enregistrement foncier ou des droits sur des biens meubles ou autres droits d'une province est accepté pour production, enregistrement ou autre inscription de la même manière et dans la même mesure que s'il s'agissait d'un document faisant preuve du contenu d'un jugement visé à l'alinéa (5)a) ou d'un montant visé à l'alinéa (5)b) dans le cadre de procédures semblables. Aux fins de la production, de l'enregistrement ou autre inscription de cet extrait ou ce document, l'accès à une personne, à un endroit ou à une chose situé dans une province est donné de la même manière et dans la même mesure que si l'extrait ou le document était un document semblable ainsi délivré ou établi. Lorsque l'extrait ou le document est délivré par la Cour fédérale ou porte la signature ou fait l'objet d'un certificat d'un juge ou d'un fonctionnaire de cette cour, tout affidavit, toute déclaration ou tout autre élément de preuve qui doit, selon la loi provinciale, être fourni avec l'extrait ou le document ou l'accompagner dans le cadre des procédures est réputé avoir été ainsi fourni ou accompagner ainsi l'extrait ou le document.
(9) Malgré les lois fédérales et provinciales, ni le shérif ni une autre personne ne peut, sans le consentement écrit du ministre, vendre un bien ou autrement en disposer ou publier un avis concernant la vente ou la disposition d'un bien ou autrement l'annoncer, par suite de l'émission d'un bref ou de la création d'une sûreté, d'une priorité ou d'une autre charge dans le cadre de procédures de recouvrement d'un montant attesté dans un certificat fait en application du paragraphe (2), des intérêts y afférents et des frais. Toutefois, si ce consentement est obtenu ultérieurement, tout bien sur lequel un tel bref ou une telle sûreté, priorité ou charge aurait une incidence si ce consentement avait été obtenu au moment de l'émission du bref ou de la création de la sûreté, priorité ou charge, selon le cas, est saisi ou autrement grevé comme si le consentement avait été obtenu à ce moment.
|
|
|
|
|
[32] Parliament has enacted comprehensive provisions for the enforcement of tax liabilities, and has provided for modalities of enforcement which differ from the normal scheme. It is clear that Parliament is competent to legislate specific enforcement provisions for the collection of tax payable, even if those provisions deal with what would otherwise be questions of property and civil rights in a province (see TransGas Ltd. v. Mid-Plains Contractors Ltd., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 753, aff'g (1993), 105 Sask. R. 211 (C.A.)). As a result, the Minister can rely upon those specific provisions as they appear in the Income Tax Act, even if they differ from the enforcement provisions of the Federal Court Act.
[33] The second line of reasoning in the motions judge's reasons turned on the construction which she gave to the specific enforcement provisions found in the Income Tax Act. She noted that all forms of a memorial, i.e. a document registrable in the provincial registry systems, required that the document be issued by the Federal Court:
| 223. (5) A document issued by the Federal Court evidencing a certificate in respect of a debtor registered under subsection 223(3), a writ of that Court issued pursuant to the certificate or any notification of the document or writ (such document, writ or notification in this section referred to as a "memorial") may be filed, registered or otherwise recorded...
may be filed, registered or otherwise recorded in accordance with or pursuant to the law of the province to create a charge, lien or priority on, or a binding interest in, the property or interest.
|
|
223. (5) Un document délivré par la Cour fédérale et faisant preuve du contenu d'un certificat enregistré à l'égard d'un débiteur en application du paragraphe (3), un bref de cette cour délivré au titre du certificat ou toute notification du document ou du bref (ce document ou bref ou cette notification étant appelé "extrait" au présent article) peut être produit, enregistré ou autrement inscrit...
|
|
|
|
|
[34] The motions judge focussed on the notion of a document "issued" by the Court, applying the definition of "issued" found in the Rules. She was unable to find any indication that any document had been issued and concluded that there was no document capable of being a memorial. Consequently, the notice of judgment was invalid since there was no memorial underlying it.
[35] Assuming without deciding that the definition of "issued" in the Rules is determinative of the meaning of that word in the Income Tax Act when it refers to Federal Court process, it is my view that a document was "issued" for the purposes of subsection 223(5) of the Income Tax Act. That document was the original Certificate of Judgment, of which Exhibit D purports to be a copy. That document bore the Court seal and was assigned a court file number. In addition it was dated and signed by a registry officer. To argue that the date and signature should be discounted because they are part of the certification introduces a requirement which is not present in the Rules. To the extent that the document was intended to prove that the certificate there represented was indeed filed in the Court, nothing could be done to make the document more conclusive or authoritative. The use of the Court seal authenticated the document and the certification provided confirmation of registration. As a result, I find that this was a document issued by the Court which satisfied the requirements of subsection 223(5).
[36] If that is the case, then the notice of judgment and Certificate of Judgment were properly filed with the Sheriff and execution pursuant to that notice was regular and proper.
[37] Therefore, the appeal should be allowed with costs, the decision of the motions judge should be set aside and the motion for relief pursuant to Rule 398, to stay Certificate No. ITA-12574-01 filed with the Federal Court of Canada, and Rule 399, to set aside or vary Certificate No. ITA-12574-01 filed with the Federal Court of Canada should be dismissed with costs, here and below.
"J.D. Denis Pelletier"
J.A.
"I concur,
Alice Desjardins, J.A."
"I agree,
M. Nadon, J.A."
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-651-02
STYLE OF CAUSE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN v.
JAMES ANDREW PICCOTT
PLACE OF HEARING: St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador
DATE OF HEARING: June 22, 2004
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: PELLETIER J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY: DESJARDINS J.A.
NADON J.A.
DATED: September 14, 2004
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Gregory MacIntosh For the Appellant
Ms. Olga R. McWilliam Benson For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Mr. Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, On For the Appellant
Mr. Barry Heywood
Mount Pearl, NL For the Respondent
Date: 20040914
Docket: A-651-02
OTTAWA, ONTARIO, SEPTEMBER 14, 2004
CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A.
NADON J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Appellant
and
JAMES ANDREW PICCOTT
Respondent
JUDGMENT
The appeal is allowed, the decision of the motions judge is set aside and the motion for relief pursuant to Rule 398, to stay Certificate No. ITA-12574-01 filed with the Federal Court of Canada, and Rule 399, to set aside or vary Certificate No. ITA-12574-01 filed with the Federal Court of Canada is dismissed with costs, here and below.
"Alice Desjardins"
J.A.
Email this Content