Muldoon,
J:—The
application
brought
by
the
Crown
relates
to
execution
levied
against
a
mobile
home
situated
at
Ryley,
in
Alberta,
pursuant
to
a
certificate
filed
in
this
Court
for
income
tax
arrears.
The
respondent
attended
to
testify
and
was
represented
in
the
proceedings
by
her
husband
Marcel
Bourassa.
The
respondent
resides
with
her
husband
in
the
City
of
Saskatoon,
in
Saskatchewan.
She
is
the
owner
of
the
mobile
home
under
a
bill
of
sale
dated
July
8,
1981,
drawn
in
her
favour
by
her
husband
for
consideration
of
$1.00.
A
copy
of
the
bill
of
sale
was
filed
as
Exhibit
1.
The
respondent
testified
that
her
husband
was
bankrupt
at
that
time,
in
July,
1981,
and
she
acquired
title
to
the
chattel
in
the
hope
of
borrowing
on
it
in
order
to
pay
arrears
of
the
mortgage
on
their
house
in
Saskatoon.
Their
financial
difficulties
proved
to
be
insurmountable
and
while
they
lost
all
their
right,
title
and
interest
in
their
house,
the
respondent
retained
title
to
the
mobile
home.
The
income
tax
assessment
was
never
appealed,
but
Mr
Bourassa
said
they
thought
it
could
be
appealed
in
response
to
this
application.
Alas,
not
so.
The
respondent
testified
that
at
the
time
of
the
seizure,
while
she
was
the
owner
of
the
mobile
home,
she
was
not
occupying
it,
but
was
always
residing
in
Saskatoon.
Nevertheless,
she
objected
to
the
seizure.
The
relevant
statutory
provisions,
by
virtue
of
section
56
of
the
Federal
Court
Act,
are
to
be
found
in
the
Revised
Statutes
of
Alberta.
The
Seizure
Act,
RSA
1980,
c
S-ll,
provides:
29.
(1)
When
the
sheriff
receives
a
notice
of
objection
he
shall
immediately
notify
the
creditor
and
thereupon
the
creditor
may
from
time
to
time
apply
by
notice
of
motion
to
the
Court
for
an
order
for
the
removal
and
sale
or
for
the
removal
or
the
sale
of
the
property
or
any
part
of
it.
(4)
Every
application
shall
be
dealt
with
in
a
summary
manner
and
may
be
adjourned
from
time
to
time.
(5)
On
the
hearing
of
the
application
the
evidence
may
be
taken
either
orally
or
by
an
affidavit
as
the
Court
directs
and
the
Court
(a)
may
in
its
discretion
either
refuse
the
application,
or
make
an
order
for
the
removal
or
sale
of
the
goods
or
both,
.
.
.
In
view
of
the
respondent’s
objection,
it
is
necessary
to
determine
if
this
mobile
home
be
wholly
or
partly
exempt
from
seizure.
The
Exemptions
Act,
RSA
1980,
c
E-15,
provides:
1.
(1)
The
following
real
and
personal
property
of
an
execution
debtor
is
exempt
from
seizure
under
a
writ
of
execution:
(i)
the
mobile
home
actually
occupied
by
the
execution
debtor
if
the
value
of
the
mobile
home
does
not
exceed
$3,000,
but
if
the
value
does
exceed
$3,000
the
mobile
home
may
be
offered
for
sale
.
.
.
7.
(2)
A
creditor
on
notice
of
motion
to
the
debtor,
may
apply
to
the
Court
of
Queen’s
Bench
for
an
order
declaring
any
specified
goods
of
the
debtor
to
be
not
exempt
from
seizure
under
this
Act.
9.
If
a
claim
is
made
for
exemptions
and
a
dispute
arises
in
respect
of
the
claim,
the
sheriff
on
his
own
motion
shall
refer
the
matter
to
the
Court
of
Queen’s
Bench
for
summary
determination,
on
such
notice
as
the
Court
may
direct.
Neither
the
respondent,
nor
her
husband,
is
occupying
the
mobile
home.
Indeed,
it
has
been
unoccupied
for
some
lengthy
period
of
time
now.
For
“Court
of
Queen’s
Bench’’
one
must,
in
the
circumstances,
read
“Federal
Court
of
Canada,
Trial
Division’’
since
this
application
is
brought
on
behalf
of
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
in
order
to
collect
for
income
tax
arrears.
The
mobile
home
in
question
is
neither
wholly
nor
partly
exempt
from
seizure
under
the
law
of
Alberta.
Accordingly,
the
applicant
is
quite
entitled
to
seize
it
and
offer
it
for
sale
at
a
public
auction.
The
proceeds
of
such
sale
are
to
be
distributed
by
the
Sheriff
of
the
District
of
Vegreville
as
prescribed
by
the
provisions
of
the
Execution
Creditors
Act,
RS
A
1980,
c
E-14,
as
amended.
The
applicant
is
entitled
to
the
taxable
costs
of
this
application.
Email this Content