Dubé,
J.:—
The
instant
application
by
the
taxpayer
is
for
an
order
that
payment
be
made
into
Court
respecting
income
tax
certificate
ITA-7628-92
dated
September
30,
1992,
and
that
Revenue
Canada
file
a
discharge
of
the
certificate
presently
registered
against
the
property
in
question,
the
hotel
Northwoods
Inn
at
Fort
St.
John,
British
Columbia.
The
taxpayer's
application
is
based
on
Rule
470(7)
of
the
Federal
Court
which
reads
as
follows:
470(7)
Where
the
right
of
any
party
to
a
specific
fund
is
in
dispute
in
an
action,
the
Court
may,
on
the
application
of
a
party,
order
the
fund
to
be
paid
into
Court
or
otherwise
secured.
In
a
nutshell,
the
dispute
is
whether
or
not
the
amounts
in
question
ought
not
to
be
paid
by
another
party,
the
lessee
of
the
premises,
94000
Holdings
Ltd.
("
94000")
and
not
by
the
landlord,
the
applicant
92000
Holdings
Ltd.
("92000").
The
president
and
the
directors
of
both
companies
are
the
same
persons.
The
argument
of
92000,
as
appears
from
a
letter
of
its
secretary,
is
to
the
effect
that
"there
is
absolutely
no
obligation
on
the
part
of
a
landlord
to
pay
Revenue
Canada
Assessments
against
a
tenant.
.
.
.
Simply
put,
regardless
of
legal
obligations
either
way,
92000
did
not
receive
any
benefit
from
moneys
collected
from
94000,
but
rather
has
a
net
deficit
on
receiving
and
in
paying
out
funds
of
$17,200
plus
or
minus.
.
..
It
is
simply
inconceivable
that
Revenue
Canada
would
have
allowed
92000
to
go
into
arrears
to
the
extent
that
it
did,
unless
you
intended
to
try
and
trick
and
trap
us
as
you
did”.
As
appears
from
Rule
470(7),
the
dispute
has
to
arise
"in
an
action”.
In
response
to
a
question
from
the
Court,
counsel
for
92000
answered
that
no
action
had
been
commenced
but
that
he
intended
to
file
a
notice
of
objection.
As
is
well
known,
a
notice
of
objection,
when
filed,
is
but
the
first
step
which
may
lead
to
the
confirmation
of
an
assessment
or
the
variation
of
an
assessment,
which
in
turn
may
be
appealed
by
the
taxpayer
to
the
Tax
Court
of
Canada.
The
notice
of
objection
itself
is
not
an
action
and
the
assessment
is
not
a
judgment
but
an
administrative
act
on
the
part
of
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue.
In
a
1962
decision
of
the
Exchequer
Court
of
Canada,
M.N.R.
v.
Joseph
A.
Simard,
[1962]
C.T.C.
310,
62
D.T.C.
1194
(Ex.
Ct.)
Thorson,
P.
said
as
follows
at
page
314
(D.T.C.
1194):
There
could
be
no
judgment
against
the
defendant
without
the
previous
institution
of
an
action
against
him
and
the
obtaining
of
a
judgment
in
that
action.
No
action
was
instituted
against
the
defendant
and
no
judgment
was
obtained.
The
reassessment
issued
on
June
8,
1960,
disputed
by
the
defendant,
was
not
an
action
against
him
in
the
proper
sense
of
the
word,
and
could
not
result
in
a
judgment
against
him.
There
is
no
doubt
that
a
certificate
made
by
virtue
of
section
119
of
the
Act,
which
is
produced
and
registered
under
that
section,
is
not
a
judgment.
On
the
contrary,
when
it
is
stated
that
when
registered,
the
certificate
has
the
same
force
and
effect,
and
all
proceedings
may
be
taken
thereon,
“
s
if
the
certificate
were
a
judgment
obtained
in
the
said
Court”
the
section,
by
necessary
implication,
means
that
the
certificate
is
not
a
judgment.
In
the
instant
case,
if
there
is
a
genuine
dispute,
it
will
be
the
duty
of
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
to
consider
the
notice
of
objection
and
his
decision
is
appealable
before
the
courts.
Should
the
issue
be
resolved
in
favour
of
the
taxpayer,
the
amounts
paid
to
National
Revenue
will
be
reimbursed
to
it
with
interest
as
would
be
the
case
if
the
amounts
had
been
paid
into
this
Court.
Clearly,
there
is
no
advantage
and
no
prejudice
to
the
taxpayer
by
proceeding
under
the
provisions
of
the
Income
Tax
Act.
In
any
event,
assessments
have,
as
a
general
rule,
to
be
paid
forthwith
under
section
158
of
the
Act.
Of
course,
there
are
collection
restrictions
imposed
on
the
Minister
under
section
225.1
of
the
Act
where
a
taxpayer
has
served
a
notice
of
objection
to
an
assessment.
However,
there
are
limitations
to
collection
restrictions
and
paragraph
225.1(6)(b)
stipulates
that
amounts
deducted
or
withheld
and
required
to
be
remitted
under
the
Act
(in
this
case
payroll
deductions)
are
not
restricted.
These
amounts
have
to
be
paid
forthwith
to
the
Receiver
General.
Consequently,
this
application
is
denied
with
costs.
Application
denied.
Email this Content