Lemieux
J.:
Reasons
for
Order
This
case
involves
judicial
review
requesting
a
release
of
seizures
by
the
federal
government,
the
respondent,
dated
March
26,
1998
from
the
Comission
administrative
des
régimes
de
retraite
et
d’assurances
of
Quebec
(“CARRA”)
and
on
April
6,
1998
from
the
Caisse
d’Économie
Laval
St-
Laurent
(“the
Caisse”),
covered
by
Quebec
legislation,
on
the
ground
that
the
amounts
are
not
subject
to
seizure
under
art.
553(7),
(8)
and
(11)
of
the
Quebec
Code
of
Civil
Procedure,
s.
77
of
the
Act
respecting
the
Teachers
Pension
Plan
and
arts.
1215,
2457
and
2458
of
the
Civil
Code
of
Quebec.
The
plaintiff
argued
essentially
that
a
federal
provision
did
not
apply
on
grounds
of
provincial
exemption.
The
plaintiff’s
arguments
are
groundless
and
this
application
for
judicial
review
must
be
dismissed.
On
May
13,
1996
Joyal
J.
of
this
Court
made
an
order
in
the
case
at
bar
pursuant
to
the
provisions
of
s.
225.2(2)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
(“the
Act”)
authorizing
Her
Majesty
the
Queen
in
right
of
Canada,
represented
by
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue,
to
take
whatever
measures
were
authorized
by
s.
225.!(!)(«)
to
(g)
of
the
Act
to
collect
and/or
secure
the
payment
by
Régent
Millette
of
a
total
amount
of
$563,135.95
plus
interest,
owed
under
an
assessment
made
against
him.
I
adopt
the
principles
stated
by
Denault
J.
of
this
Court
in
Perron
v.
Canada
(May
14,
1990),
Doc.
T-1911-89
(Fed.
T.D.)
in
which
he
said:
[TRANSLATION]
The
Court
does
not
accept
the
proposition
of
counsel
for
the
applicant
that
the
Crown
is
subject
to
the
rule
of
immunity
from
seizure
contained
in
art.
553(4)
of
the
Code
of
Civil
Procedure.
(See
St-Cyr
v.
Société
d'administration
et
de
fiducie,
[1951]
C.S.
245.)
This
provision
does
not
affect
the
Crown’s
rights
and
privileges
as
the
legislature
did
not
specifically
provide
that
the
Crown
should
be
covered
by
it
(art.
9
of
the
Civil
Code
and
s.
17
of
the
Interpretation
Act,
R.S.C.
1985,
c.
1-23),
and
the
amendment
to
the
Code
of
Civil
Procedure
in
1965,
which
removed
the
petition
of
right
procedure,
did
not
have
this
effect.
Additionally,
Parliament
has
not
authorized
the
Crown,
in
the
course
of
a
seizure
made
pursuant
to
s.
224
of
the
Income
Tax
Act,
to
observe
immunity
from
seizure
pursuant
to
a
provincial
statute,
as
it
actually
did
in
connection
with
a
seizure
of
movable
property
under
s.
225(5).
The
applicant’s
application
is
dismissed
with
costs.
The
plaintiff
relied
on
legislation
other
than
that
mentioned
by
Denault
J.
However,
he
admitted
that
this
other
legislation
did
not
alter
the
state
of
the
law,
that
is,
contained
no
provincial
exemption.
The
plaintiff
cited
Bercovitch
c.
Québec
(Sous-ministre
du
Revenu),
[1983]
C.S.
841
(Que.
S.C.).
That
case
rests
solely
on
the
interpretation
of
certain
provisions
of
the
Civil
Code
of
Quebec
and
the
Act
respecting
the
Ministère
du
Revenu
of
Quebec.
That
case
does
not
in
any
way
involve
the
principles
of
interaction
between
a
federal
and
a
provincial
statute
as
discussed
by
Denault
J.
in
Perron.
For
these
reasons,
the
application
for
judicial
review
is
dismissed.
Application
dismissed.
Email this Content