Murray
J.:
This
is
an
application
by
the
Plaintiffs
for
the
following
relief:
I.
An
interim
order
or
orders
for
relief,
further
to
paragraphs
(a),
(b),
(c)
of
the
claim
for
relief
in
the
Statement
of
Claim
herein,
which
relief
is
that
the
funds
taken
or
held
by
the
Defendants
to
date
be
returned
to
the
Plaintiff
Rose
Prefontaine.
2.
Time
for
notice
of
this
application
be
waived
or
abridged.
3.
Such
further
or
other
Declarations
or
Orders
as
this
Honourable
Court
deems
just
or
appropriate.
4.
Costs.
The
relevant
prayers
in
the
Statement
of
Claim
(a)
to
(c)
read:
(a)
Final
or
interim
declarations
that
the
Defendants
by
their
conduct
have)
conducted
unlawful
searches
and
seizures
further
to
The
Canadian
Charter
of
Rights
and
Freedoms
or
such
other
law(s)
as
may
be
applicable.
(b)
Final
and
interim
declarations
or
orders
that
all
attempts
of
the
Defendants
to
audit
the
Plaintiffs
are
without
jurisdiction
and
are
to
stop,
and
in
any
event
are
to
stop
in
the
interim
pending
the
within
proceedings.
(c)
Declarations
or
orders
that
the
seizures
of
funds
from
the
Plaintiffs,
by
the
Defendants,
are
without
authority
and
are
to
stop,
and
in
any
event
are
to
stop
in
the
interim
pending
the
within
proceedings.
There
are
15
heads
of
relief
claimed
in
the
prayer.
À
cross-application
to
strike
out
the
Statement
of
Claim
was
brought
by
the
Defendants
but
when
the
matter
came
before
the
Court
on
January
7
,
that
was
withdrawn
since
service
of
the
Notice
of
Motion
and
supporting
affidavit
had
not
been
made
within
the
time
prescribed
by
the
Rules
of
Court.
I
directed
that
application
be
brought
before
the
Master
and
I
am
now
advised
that
it
is
scheduled
to
be
heard
February
I,
1999.
The
materials
filed
by
the
Plaintiffs
were
voluminous.
The
history
of
these
matters
goes
back
many
years
and
centres
on
the
Plaintiffs’
contention
that
they
were
improperly
assessed
by
Revenue
Canada.
A
number
of
these
concerns
have
been
dealt
with
by
the
Tax
Court
of
Canada
and
some
of
those,
in
turn,
have
been
appealed
to
the
Federal
Court
of
Appeal
and
dealt
with
there.
The
90-day
period
provided
for
in
s.
225.1
of
the
Income
Tax
Act,
R.S.C.
1985
(5
Supp.)
c.l
has
expired
insofar
as
the
debts
forming
the
basis
for
the
matters
complained
of.
The
affidavit
of
Marilyn
Pushalik
filed
on
behalf
of
the
Defendants
sets
out
the
history
of
the
various
matters
and
their
current
status.
There
is
currently
$38,969.43
owed
by
Rose
Prefontaine
and
$3,548.20
by
Maurice
which
amounts
are
not
subject
to
appeal.
Many
allegations
are
made
as
to
the
propriety
of
these
figures.
That
is
not
a
matter
which
this
Court
can
deal
with.
The
Tax
Court
of
Canada
and
the
Federal
Court
of
Appeal
have
sole
jurisdiction
in
the
area
of
assessment.
The
only
role
allocated
to
this
Court
which
is
relevant
to
this
matter
is
in
the
area
of
collecting
monies
found
to
be
owing
to
Revenue
Canada
by
the
Tax
Court
of
Canada
and/or
the
Federal
Court
of
Appeal.
Section
222
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
reads
as
follows:
222.
Debts
to
Her
Majesty
—
All
taxes,
interest,
penalties,
costs
and
other
amounts
payable
under
this
Act
are
debts
due
to
Her
Majesty
and
recoverable
as
such
in
the
Federal
Court
or
any
other
court
of
competent
jurisdiction
or
in
any
other
manner
provided
by
this
Act.
The
Court
of
Queen’s
Bench
of
Alberta
is
a
court
of
competent
jurisdiction
whose
jurisdiction
is
confined
to
the
area
of
collection
of
debts
due
to
Her
Majesty
the
Queen.
Reference
is
made
to
the
Supreme
Court
of
Canada
decision
in
Slattery
(Trustee
of)
v.
Slattery,
[1993]
3
S.C.R.
430
(S.C.C.)
per
Iacobucci,
J.
When
one
examines
the
Statement
of
Claim,
the
only
allegations
which
could,
by
any
stretch
of
the
imagination,
have
anything
to
do
with
collection
of
these
debts,
are
paragraphs
9
insofar
as
it
alleges
an
unlawful
search
and
seizure,
10(iii),
10(xi),
10(xii),
IO(xiii),
10(xvi),
10(xvi),
10(xvii),
11,
insofar
as
it
alleges
wrongful
seizure,
and
15
insofar
as
it
alleges
unlawful
search
and
seizure.
Otherwise,
none
of
the
matters
complained
of
fall
within
the
jurisdiction
of
this
Court
The
Income
Tax
Act
sets
out
the
means
by
which
collections
may
be
made
and
the
method
of
doing
so
in
ss.
222
to
228.
As
far
as
I
can
determine
from
reading
the
Statement
of
Claim
and
the
affidavit
of
Maurice
Prefontaine,
the
complaints
in
paragraphs
9,
11
and
15
of
the
Statement
of
Claim
are
related
to
the
seizures
set
out
in
paragraph
10.
If
not,
the
allegations
are
vague
and
not
tied
into
any
allegations
of
fact.
With
the
exception
of
those
paragraphs
listed
above,
the
allegations
are
inflammatory,
vague
and
do
not
allege
facts
which
show
procedural
flaws
in
the
steps
taken
to
effect
recovery
under
the
Act.
They
are
simply
an
attempt
to
collaterally
attack
the
assessments
made
by
the
Tax
Court
of
Canada
and
the
Federal
Court
of
Appeal.
This
Court
has
no
jurisdiction
in
those
matters.
The
seizures
complained
of
might
be
summarized
as
follows:
1.
Seizure
of
tax
refunds
since
1992,
2.
Seizure
of
the
Plaintiffs’
G.S.T.returns
since
1992,
3.
Seizure
of
the
Plaintiffs’
Child
Tax
Benefits
since
1992,
4.
Seizure
of
tenant
deposits
held
in
trust,
5.
Seizure
of
monies
held
in
trust
for
Rose
Prefontaine’s
mother,
6.
Seizure
of
monies
from
a
chequing
account
which
was
used
for
busi
ness
and
personal
expenses,
and
7.
Seizure
of
severance
pay
and
pension
funds
owing
Rose
Prefontaine.
Section
224.1
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
provides:
Where
a
person
is
indebted
to
Her
Majesty
under
this
Act
—
the
Minister
may
require
the
retention,
by
way
of
deduction
or
setoff
of
such
amount
as
the
Minister
may
specify
out
of
any
amount
that
may
be
or
become
payable
to
the
person
by
Her
Majesty
in
Right
of
Canada.
This
section
may
be
the
basis
for
seizing
the
alleged
tax
refunds,
G.S.T.
returns,
Child
Tax
Benefits
and
the
pension
funds.
There
are
no
particulars
given.
The
allegation
with
respect
to
the
seizure
of
tax
refunds
owing
to
the
Plaintiffs
is
contained
in
paragraph
9
of
the
affidavit
of
Maurice
Prefontaine
wherein
he
simply
claims
that
the
amount
was
$21,949.18
for
the
tax
years
1994
through
1997.
The
G.S.T.
refund
claims
amount
to
$1,500.00
for
the
years
1993
through
1997
and
the
Child
Tax
Benefits
to
$3,000.00
for
the
years
1993
through
1997.
The
trust
monies
which
it
is
claimed
were
improperly
seized
are
identified
in
paragraph
15
of
Maurice
Prefontaine’s
affidavit.
The
sum
of
$1,334.65
is
said
to
be
held
in
trust
pursuant
to
the
Residential
Tenancies
Act
of
Alberta,
R.S.A.
190,
c.
R-15.3,
i.e.
security
deposits
on
rental
property
from
tenants
and
the
sum
of
$5,138.17
is
alleged
to
be
the
property
of
Rose
Prefontaine’s
mother.
Neither
the
Statement
of
Claim
nor
the
affidavit
are
clear
as
to
what
the
Canadian
Imperial
Bank
of
Commerce
funds
relate
to
other
than
the
fact
that
there
was
a
general
chequing
account
from
which
a
net
amount
of
$3,296.55
was
taken.
Apart
from
the
alleged
trust
monies,
if
the
Plaintiffs
are
claiming
that
any
of
these
monies
are
exempt
from
seizure
pursuant
to
the
provisions
of
the
Civil
Enforcement
Act,
R.S.A.
1980,
c.
C-10.5,
or
any
other
enactment,
they
should
say
so
and
set
out
the
facts
upon
which
they
rely
and
the
basis
for
making
such
a
claim.
The
Plaintiffs
must
detail
in
a
summary
form
the
material
facts
on
which
they
rely
for
their
claims
that
these
monies
are
not
collectible
under
the
Act.
They
must
not
plead
the
evidence
by
which
they
propose
to
prove
those
facts.
These
are
requirements
of
R.
104
et
seq.
of
the
Rules
of
Court.
The
only
items
in
respect
of
which
they
have
made
an
effort
to
do
so
are
the
alleged
security
deposits
and
monies
of
Rose
Prefontaine’s
mother.
Should
this
Court
strike
out
the
Statement
of
Claim
following
the
February
I
application,
that
is
an
end
to
the
matter.
Should
that
application
not
be
allowed,
then
insofar
as
this
application
is
concerned,
I
would
direct
that
the
sums
of
$1,334.65
and
$5,138.17
be
deposited
with
the
Clerk
of
this
Court
and
held
pending
disposition
of
the
trial
of
an
issue
as
to
whether
or
not
those
are
indeed
trust
monies
and
not
attachable.
The
allegation
respecting
the
C.I.B.C.
funds
is
too
vague
and
there
is
no
basis
alleged
why
this
money
was
not
attachable
under
the
Act.
In
the
result,
the
Plaintiffs’
application
is
dismissed
with
the
one
exception
which
will
only
come
into
effect
if
the
application
to
strike
out
the
Statement
of
Claim
fails.
As
to
the
question
of
costs,
if
the
Statement
of
Claim
is
struck,
the
costs
will
be
in
favour
of
the
Crown.
If
the
Statement
of
Claim
is
not
struck
and
the
issues
proceed,
the
costs
will
be
in
the
cause.
Application
dismissed.
Email this Content