Date: 20020801
Docket: A-441-01
Neutral citation: 2002 FCA 300
Present: The Honourable Justice Sharlow
BETWEEN:
PATRICIA L. WHITFIELD
Appellant
and
CANADA CUSTOMS AND REVENUE AGENCY;
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA AS
REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE
Respondent
Dealt with in writing without appearance of parties.
Order delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, August 1, 2002
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: SHARLOW J.A.
[1] On January 19, 2001, the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA) obtained a writ of seizure and sale to facilitate collection of a tax debt of the appellant Patricia L. Whitfield relating to the 1988 taxation year. That led to the seizure of a certain vehicle, title to which was registered in Ms. Whitfield's name. Ms. Whitfield filed a notice of motion in the Trial Division to seek an order setting aside the writ of seizure and sale. The CCRA filed a notice of motion for an order declaring, among other things, that the seized vehicle was the property of Ms. Whitfield and that her son Kyle William Henry Rosin had no valid security interest in it. Ms. Whitfield filed a second motion seeking the immediate return of the vehicle to Mr. Rosin. (The application record of the CCRA says that this second motion was filed by Mr. Rosin, but that appears to be incorrect.)
[2] Mr. Justice Gibson heard all three motions on June 27, 2001. On July 11, 2001, he dismissed both of Ms. Whitfield's motions and granted the declarations sought by the CCRA. Ms. Whitfield commenced this appeal on July 30, 2001. On September 13, 2001, Mr. Justice Linden refused her application for a stay of the orders of Mr. Justice Gibson.
[3] Before me are motions by Mr. Rosin and his grandmother Beatrice May Thompson (Ms. Whitfield's mother), for leave to intervene in this appeal. The CCRA opposes both motions. Neither of the parties seeking leave to intervene in the appeal were parties to or interveners in the proceedings in the Trial Division.
[4] The notice of motion of Mr. Rosin states these grounds for his intervention:
THE GROUNDS FOR THE MOTION ARE THAT the Intervener has information that will assist the Court in the determination of whose funds were used for the purchase of Rosin's truck and the intent of Beatrice May Thompson in the provision of the funds for the purchase of Rosin's truck. The information from the Intervener will show that the funds were not the personal property of the Appellant and that the truck is not the personal property of the Appellant. The information from the Intervener will show the Court that the funds were given as a gift to Rosin for the purpose of the purchase of Rosin's truck.
[5] The notice of motion of Ms. Thompson states these grounds for her intervention:
THE GROUNDS FOR THE MOTION ARE THAT the Intervener has information that will assist the Court in the determination of whose funds were used for the purchase of the truck for Rosin and the intent of the Intervener in the provision of the funds for the purchase of Rosin's truck. The information from the Intervener will show that the funds were not the personal property of the Appellant and that the truck is not the personal property of the Appellant. The information from the Intervener will show the Court that the funds were given as a gift to Rosin for the purpose of the purchase of Rosin's truck.
[6] An applicant for leave to intervene in an appeal must establish, in the words of Rule 109(2) of the Federal Court Rules, 1998, SOR/98-106, that the proposed intervention "will assist the determination of a factual or legal issue related to the proceeding". The factors to be considered in determining whether to grant leave to intervene are well established: see Canadian Union of Public Employees (Airline Division) v. Canadian Airlines International Ltd., [2000] F.C.J. No. 220 (QL) (F.C.A.) at paragraph 8. The weight to be given to the various factors depends upon the facts of the case.
[7] In my view, the most important factor in this case, which weighs against granting leave to intervene, is that the information the interveners wish to present in this appeal is the same information that Ms. Whitfield presented to Mr. Justice Gibson in the Trial Division proceedings.
[8] The record indicates that Ms. Whitfield submitted to Mr. Justice Gibson that the money with which the vehicle was purchased came from Ms. Thompson, that the money was intended be used to purchase the truck for Mr. Rosin, that Ms. Whitfield was merely a conduit for the money, and that as a result Mr. Rosin had a proprietary interest in the vehicle that should have precluded it from being seized and sold to satisfy Ms. Whitfield's tax debt. Ms. Whitfield presented evidence in support of her submissions. The involvement of her mother Ms. Thompson in relation to the acquisition of the vehicle was explored in the cross-examination of Ms. Whitfield on her affidavit.
[9] In addition, it would appear that Ms. Whitfield's interest in challenging the validity of the seizure of the vehicle is congruent with the interests of Mr. Rosin and Ms. Thompson. There is no reason to believe that their respective positions will not be presented by Ms. Whitfield as well as she presents her own position. That too weighs against granting leave to intervene.
[10] Nor am I persuaded that the intervention of Mr. Rosen and Ms. Thompson would assist this Court in dealing with the issues under appeal. Broadly speaking, the question before this Court is whether Mr. Justice Gibson made an error that would justify a reversal of any of his orders. That issue must be determined on the basis of the evidence that was before him when he made his decision (and such additional evidence, if any, as the Court might see fit to admit under Rule 351; no motion has been made under Rule 351).
[11] I will therefore dismiss both of these motions. The CCRA is entitled to the costs of these motions in any event of the cause.
"K. Sharlow"
J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Solicitors and Solicitors of Record
DOCKET: A-441-01
STYLE OF CAUSE: Patricia L. Whitfield v. Canadian Customs and Revenue Agency; Her Majesty in Right of Canada as represented by the Minister of National Revenue
PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: Dealt with in writing without appearance of parties
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: Sharlow J.A.
DATED: August 1, 2002
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY:
Beatrice May Thompson (proposed intervener) on their own behalf
Kyle William Henry Rosin (proposed intervener) on their own behalf
Margaret A. Irving For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
Beatrice May Thompson Proposed intervener
Winnipeg, Manitoba
Kyle William Henry Rosin Proposed intervener
Edmonton, Alberta
Patricia L. Whitfield The Appellant
Spruce Grove, Alberta
Morris Rosenberg For the Respondent
Deputy Attorney General
Ottawa, Ontario
Email this Content