Porter,
C.J.O.
(for
the
Court)
:—This
is
an
appeal
from
a
judgment
of
the
Honourable
Mr.
Justice
Moorhouse
dated
March
25,
1964
pursuant
to
leave
granted
by
the
by
the
Honourable
Mr.
Justice
Landreville
by
order
dated
April
30,
1964
whereby
the
learned
trial
Judge
dismissed
an
application
for
an
order
for
replevin
of
certain
documents,
books
and
records
belonging
to
the
individual
plaintiffs
as
more
particularly
set
out
in
the
writ
of
summons.
By
agreement
of
counsel
the
motion
before
Mr.
Justice
Moorhouse
should
be
treated
as
if
it
were
a
motion
for
judgment
and
that
the
pronouncement
of
this
Court
in
the
appeal
should
be
a
judgment
finally
disposing
of
the
rights
of
these
parties
in
the
matters
involved.
The
motion
was
for
an
order
directed
to
the
Sheriff
of
the
County
of
York
directing
him
to
replevy
to
the
plaintiffs
all
the
books,
writings,
papers
and
other
documents
of
any
kind
seized
by
the
defendants
and
detained
by
them.
This
motion
was
made
in
the
action
instituted
by
the
plaintiffs
for
the
recovery
of
possession
and
return
to
the
respective
plaintiffs
of
the
aforesaid
documents.
The
Assistant
Deputy
Minister
of
National
Revenue
for
Taxation,
exercising
powers
conferred
upon
the
Minister,
caused
an
application
to
be
made
to
the
Honourable
Mr.
Justice
Cattanach,
a
Judge
of
the
Exchequer
Court
of
Canada
for
an
order
approving
an
authorization
in
writing
by
the
Assistant
Deputy
Minister
to
be
issued
to
certain
named
persons.
These
persons
were
thus
empowered,
together
with
such
members
of
the
Royal
Canadian
Mounted
Police
or
other
peace
officers
as
they
might
call
on
to
assist
them,
to
enter
and
search
if
necessary
by
force,
four
premises
particularly
described
in
the
said
order,
for
documents,
books,
records,
papers
or
things
which
might
afford
evidence
as
to
violation
of
any
of
the
provisions
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
or
regulations,
and
to
seize
and
take
away
any
such
documents,
books,
records,
papers
or
things
and
detain
them
until
produced
in
any
Court
proceeding.
Mr.
Justice
Moorhouse,
before
whom
the
application
came,
made
an
order
on
March
25,
1964,
dismissing
the
same
with
costs
and
this
appeal
was
taken
from
such
order
of
dismissal
with
leave
granted
by
Mr.
Justice
Landreville.
It
was
contended
by
counsel
for
the
appellants
that
in
granting
the
approval
to
the
issuance
of
such
authorization
by
the
Assistant
Deputy
Minister,
Mr.
Justice
Cattanach
had
not
acted
judicially,
that
he
had
delegated
his
power
to
the
persons
named
in
the
authorization
which
was
to
be
issued
with
his
approval,
and
that
he
had
not
in
fact
given
approval
to
the
issuance
thereof
by
the
Minister.
Counsel
sought
to
distinguish
the
present
case
from
the
case
of
Canadian
Bank
of
Commerce
v.
Attorney-General
of
Canada,
[1962]
O.R.
258;
[1962]
S.C.R.
729;
[1962]
C.T.C.
39.
In
our
view,
apart
from
the
requirement
of
judicial
approval
to
the
issuance
of
the
ministerial
authorization
in
question,
that
case
is
indistinguishable
from
the
case
at
bar.
In
accordance
with
the
principles
therein
laid
down
we
must
hold
that
powers
conferred
on
the
Minister
by
Section
126,
subsection
(3)
are
as
broad
and
sweeping
as
those
conferred
on
him
by
Section
126,
subsection
(2)
which
were
under
consideration
in
that
case.
This
issuance
of
the
authorization
in
the
first
instance,
depends
upon
the
view
of
the
Minister
that
a
purpose
related
to
the
administration
or
enforcement
of
the
Act
will
or
may
be
served
by
the
exercise
of
the
powers
conferred
upon
him
by
the
provisions
of
Section
126,
subsection
(3).
Thereupon
a
Judge
of
the
Exchequer
Court
or
of
a
Superior
or
County
Court
may
be
asked
upon
an
ex
parte
application
to
approve
the
exercise
of
the
ministerial
power.
We
take
the
view
that
there
was
amply
sufficient
material
for
the
learned
Exchequer
Court
Judge
to
grant
the
approval
sought
in
the
terms
in
which
it
was
granted
and
it
cannot
be
said
that
his
powers
under
the
section
were
not
exercised
judicially
or
that
he
had
failed
to
give
a
lawful
approval
to
the
Minister’s
exercise
of
his
powers
under
subsection
(3).
The
appeal
therefore
fails
and
should
be
dismissed
with
costs,
We
have
been
asked
to
issue
a
direction
that
the
documents
under
seizure
be
impounded
pending
an
appeal
to
the
Supreme
Court
of
Canada.
We
do
not
feel
that
in
the
circumstances
of
this
case,
such
a
directive
should
issue.
Email this Content