THURLOW,
J.:—Upon
the
return
of
a
Writ
of
Garnishment
(saisie-arrét)
issued
by
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
to
enforce
payment
of
an
amount
certified,
pursuant
to
Section
119(1)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act,
R.S.C.
1952,
c.
148,
to
be
payable
by
Canadian
Javelin
Limited
and
not
paid,
application
was
made
for
determination
of
a
number
of
objections,
some
raised
on
behalf
of
the
above-named
Wabush
Mines
and
others
on
behalf
of
Canadian
Javelin
Limited.
Some
of
these
objections
are
of
a
preliminary
nature
as
challenging
the
availability
of
such
a
procedure
in
this
Court
or
the
manner
in
which
it
has
been
carried
out
and
these
may,
I
think,
be
dealt
with
conveniently
at
this
stage.
However,
in
so
far
as
the
objections
have
to
do
with
the
debt
or
debts,
if
any,
to
which
the
seizure
may
apply
it
is
my
view
that
they
must
be
raised
in
the
appropriate
manner
at
a
subsequent
stage
of
the
proceedings
and
accordingly
I
do
not
propose
to
deal
with
them
at
this
time.
By
Section
119(2)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
a
certificate
under
Section
119(1)
when
registered
in
this
Court
‘‘has
the
same
force
and
effect,
and
all
proceedings
may
be
taken
thereon,
as
if
the
certificate
were
a
judgment’’
of
the
Court
for
a
debt
of
the
amount
specified
therein
plus
interest.
Section
54
of
the
Exchequer
Court
Act,
R.S.C.
1952,
c.
98
provides
that:
“54.
In
addition
to
any
writs
of
execution
that
are
prescribed
by
general
rules
or
orders,
the
Court
may
issue
writs
of
execution
against
the
person
or
the
goods,
lands
or
other
property
of
any
party,
of
the
same
tenor
and
effect
as
those
that
may
be
issued
out
of
any
of
the
superior
courts
of
the
province
in
which
any
judgment
or
order
is
to
be
executed
;
and
where,
by
the
law
of
the
province,
an
order
of
a
judge
is
required
for
the
issue
of
any
writ
of
execution,
a
judge
of
the
court
may
make
a
similar
order,
as
regards
like
executions
to
issue
out
of
the
court.
’
’
Procedure
by
writ
of
garnishment
(saisie-arrêt)
of
the
kind
issued
in
this
case
is
a
method
of
attaching
and
realizing
upon
debts
owing
to
a
judgment
debtor
which
is
provided
for
in
the
Province
of
Quebec
by
Articles
677
et
seq.
of
the
Quebec
Code
of
Civil
Procedure.
Whether
Section
54
of
the
Exchequer
Court
Act
makes
that
procedure
available
in
a
case
such
as
this,
where
the
certificate
having
the
effect
of
a
Judgment
is
not
one
that
is
necessarily
to
be
executed
in
the
Province
of
Quebec,
is
a
matter
on
which
I
have
had
some
doubt.
Read
by
itself
the
section
appears
at
first
sight
to
be
aimed
at
providing
a
procedure
for
enforcing
a
judgment
requiring
the
doing
of
some
act
that
is
to
be
done
within
a
particular
province
rather
than
at
providing
additional
forms
of
execution
for
the
recovery
of
money.
However,
having
regard
to
the
provision
that
the
writs
of
execution
referred
to
in
the
section
are
‘‘in
addition
to”
those
provided
for
by
general
rules
and
orders
and
having
regard
as
well
to
what
seems
to
me
to
be
an
overall
object
of
Sections
54
to
57
inclusive
to
make
available
for
the
enforcement
of
the
judgments
of
this
Court
within
each
province
all
the
forms
of
execution
in
use
in
that
province
in
the
enforcement
of
the
judgments
of
its
superior
courts,
I
can
see
no
sufficient
reason
for
restricting
the
scope
of
Section
54
to
writs
of
execution
to
enforce
judgments
which
are
concerned
only
with
some
act
required
to
be
carried
out
in
a
particular
province.
It
follows
that
Section
54
applies
to
authorize
the
use
of
procedure
by
writ
of
garnishment
(saisie-arrêt)
to
enforce
in
the
Province
of
Quebec
payment
of
a
judgment
of
this
Court
for
debt
and,
in
consequence
of
Section
119(2)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act,
to
enforce
payment
of
the
amount
shown
to
be
due
by
a
certificate
under
Section
119(1)
when
registered
in
this
Court
pursuant
to
Section
119(2).
The
next
question
is
that
of
the
validity
of
the
service
of
the
writ
of
garnishment
(saisie-arrêt)
on
the
above-named
Wabush
Mines.
This
appears
to
me
to
be
closely
allied
to
the
question
(which,
however,
was
not
raised)
of
how
parties
may
be
joined
in
such
a
proceeding.
By
Section
56
of
the
Exchequer
Court
Act
it
is
provided
that:
“56.
All
writs
of
execution
against
real
or
personal
property,
as
well
as
those
prescribed
by
general
rules
and
orders
as
those
hereinbefore
authorized,
shall,
unless
otherwise
provided
‘by
general
rule
or
order,
be
executed,
as
regards
the
property
liable
to
execution
and
the
mode
of
seizure
and
sale,
as
nearly
as
possible
in
the
same
manner
as
similar
writs,
issued
out
of
the
superior
courts
of
the
province
in
which
the
property
to
be
seized
is
situated,
are,
by
the
law
of
the
province,
required
to
be
executed;
and
such
writs
shall
bind
property
in
the
same
manner
as
such
similar
writs,
and
the
rights
of
purchasers
thereunder
are
the
same
as
those
of
purchasers
under
such
similar
writs.’
In
my
opinion
the
effect
of
this
provision,
as
applied
to
a
case
such
as
this,
is
that
in
the
absence
of
any
general
rule
or
order
providing
otherwise,
and
I
know
of
none,
as
regards
the
property
to
be
seized
and
the
mode
of
seizure,
the
writ
of
execution
shall
be
executed
in
the
same
manner,
as
nearly
as
possible,
as
a
similar
writ
issued
out
of
a
superior
court
of
the
province
in
which
the
property
is
situated
is,
by
the
law
of
that
province,
required
to
be
executed.
It
will
be
observed
that
the
mode
of
seizure
which
is
to
be
followed
is
that
of
the
province
in
which
the
property
is
situated
and
where
the
situs
of
the
property
is
disputed
this
will
necessarily
entail
at
some
stage
an
inquiry
into
and
a
determination
of
the
situs
of
the
property
in
order
to
determine
whether
the
mode
of
seizure
which
has
been
followed
has
been
proper.
Obviously
a
mode
of
seizure
which
is
peculiar
to
a
‘particular
province
will
not
be
appropriate
unless
the
property
is
situated
in
that
province.
At
this
point
several
provisions
of
the
Code
of
Civil
Procedure
of
the
Province
of
Quebec
become
relevant
but
before
citing
them
it
will
be
convenient
to
refer
to
the
nature
of
the
entity
named
in
the
present
case
as
the
garnishee.
Wabush
Mines
is
the
name
given
to
a
joint
venture
in
which
Wabush
Iron
Co.
Limited,
an
Ohio
corporation,
and
four
Canadian
corporations,
two
of
which
have
their
head
offices
and
principal
places
of
business
in
the
Province
of
Ontario
and
the
other
two
of
which
have
their
head
offices
and
principal
places
of
business
in
the
Province
of
Quebec,
are
engaged
as
parties.
The
venture
was
formed
for
the
purpose
of
completing
the
commercial
development
of
and
eventually
operating
extensive
iron
ore
deposits
at
Wabush
Lake,
Labrador
in
the
Province
of
Newfoundland.
It
is
registered
under
the
provisions
of
the
Partnership
Declaration
Act,
R.S.Q.
1941,
c.
277
of
the
Province
of
Quebee
on
a
declaration,
executed
by
the
five
corporations,
which
certifies
that
they
have
carried
on
and
intend
to
carry
on
the
business
of
iron
ore
development
and
production
at
the
City
of
Montreal
and
elsewhere
in
the
Provinces
of
Quebec
and
Newfoundland
in
co-operation
as
parties
to
a
joint
venture
under
the
name
and
style
of
Wabush
Mines
and
that
the
said
joint
venture
has
subsisted
since
the
first
day
of
November,
1961.
Under
a
contract
and
a
lease
made
between
Canadian
Javelin
Limited,
a
Canadian
company
having
its
head
office
at
St.
John’s,
Newfoundland,
and
Wabush
Iron
Co.
Limited
the
latter
acquired
the
right
to
certain
shares
in
a
railway
company
serving
the
property
on
which
the
ore
depostis
are
found
and
the
right
to
mine
the
ore
and
in
turn
undertook
to
pay
to
Canadian
Javelin
Limited
as
consideration
therefor
substantial
sums
of
money,
most
of
which
sums
have
not
yet
accrued
due.
By
virtue
of
assignments
made
by
Wabush
Iron
Co.
Limited
each
of
the
four
Canadian
corporations
which
are
parties
to
the
joint
venture
became
entitled
to
certain
undivided
interests
in
the
rights
accruing
to
Wabush
Iron
Co.
Limited
under
the
contract
and
lease
and
undertook
to
pay
a
proportionate
part
of
the
consideration
payable
by
Wabush
Iron
Co.
Limited
therefor
and
to
indemnify
the
latter
to
that
extent
in
respect
of
its
obligations
to
Canadian
Javelin
Limited.
It
is
admitted
that
the
obligations
of
the
joint
venturers
to
each
other
and
to
Canadian
Javelin
Limited.
It
is
admitted
that
the
obligations
of
the
joint
venturers
to
each
other
and
to
Canadian
Javelin
Limited
are
several
only
and
not
joint.
The
joint
venturers
have
employed
another
Ohio
corporation
to
manage
the
venture
and
they
maintain
an
office
in
Montreal
and
have
a
substantial
investment
in
docking
and
harbour
facilities
at
Seven
Islands
in
the
Province
of
Quebec.
The
office
at
Montreal
is
primarily
a
construetion
office
for
the
supervision
of
the
Seven
Islands
project
and
deals
with
engineering,
purchasing,
accounting
and
industrial
relations
matters
incidental
to
that
project.
About
100
persons
are
employed
at
the
office
some
of
whom
are
employees
of
the
joint
venturers
and
others
are
employees
of
the
managing
corporation.
The
writ
of
garnishment
(saisie-arrét)
named
Canadian
Javelin
Limited
as
defendant
and
Wabush
Mines
as
garnishee
and
it
was
served
on
the
latter
‘‘en
parlant
et
laissant
”a
copy
of
the
writ
with
‘‘une
personne
raisonnable
employée
et
en
charge
au
principal
bureau
d’affaires’’
at
the
address
of
the
Montreal
office.
Counsel
for
the
Minister
sought
to
justify
this
method
of
proceeding
under
Articles
8la
and
679
of
the
Quebee
Code
of
Civil
Procedure.
By
Article
813.,
as
enacted
by
Statutes
of
Quebec
1960,
ce.
99,
Section
6*,
it
is
provided
that:
“81a.
Any
group
of
persons
associated
for
the
pursuit
in
common
of
objects
or
advantages
of
an
industrial,
commercial
or
professional
nature
in
this
province,
which
does
not
possess
therein
a
collective
civil
personality
legally
recognized
and
is
not
a
partnership
within
the
meaning
of
the
Civil
Code,
may
be
summoned,
for
the
purposes
of
any
recourse
provided
by
the
laws
of
the
province,
before
the
courts
of
the
latter,
by
serving
the
action
or
other
proceeding
introductive
of
suit
on
one
of
the
officers
of
the
group
in
question,
at
his
ordinary
or
recognized
office,
or
by
summoning
such
group
collectively
under
the
name
by
which
it
designates
itself
or
is
commonly
designated
or
known.
Summoning
by
either
of
the
methods
specified
in
the
preceding
paragraph
shall
avail
against
all
the
members
of
the
group
summoned
and
the
judgments
rendered
in
the
cause
shall
be
executory
against
all
the
moveable
and
immoveable
property
of
such
group.”
The
first
paragraph
of
Article
679
is
as
follows:
“Art.
679.
The
rules
concerning
the
service
of
ordinary
writs
of
summons
apply
to
seizures
by
garnishment.
’
’
Reference
may
also
be
made
to
Articles
127,
128
and
142
by
which
it
is
provided
that
:
“Art.
127.
Service
is
effected
by
leaving
with
the
defendant
a
copy
of
the
writ
of
summons,
and
of
the
declaration,
if
there
is
one.
Art.
128.
Service
must
be
made
either
upon
the
defendant
in
person,
or
at
his
domicile
or
at
the
place
of
his
ordinary
residence,
speaking
to
a
reasonable
person
belonging
to
the
family.
In
the
absence
of
a
regular
domicile
or
ordinary
residence,
service
may
be
made
upon
the
defendant
at
his
office
or
place
of
business,
if
he
has
one.
Art.
142.
Service
upon
a
body
corporate
is
made
upon
a
reasonable
person
in
charge
of
its
head
office,
of
a
business
office
in
the
Province,
or
of
the
office
of
its
agent
in
the
district
where
the
cause
of
action
has
arisen.’’
Assuming
that
Wabush
Mines
is
not
a
partnership
I
am
of
the
opinion
that
the
service
of
the
writ
of
garnishment
(saisie-arrêt)
effected
at
the
office
of
the
joint
venturers
in
Montreal
was
valid
service
on
the
five
member
corporations
under
Articles
81a
and
142
of
the
Code.
How
far
the
garnishment
may
have
operated
to
effect
a
seizure
of
the
debts
owing
to
Canadian
Javelin
Limited
under
the
contract
and
lease
is
a
separate
question
which
depends
on
the
effect
of
such
procedure
under
the
law
of
the
Province
of
Quebec
and,
in
view
of
Section
56
of
the
Exchequer
Court
Act,
on
the
situs
of
such
debts,
and
this
is
a
question
which
in
my
opinion
cannot
be
determined
until
some
subsequent
stage
of
the
proceedings.
Assuming
that
Wabush
Mines
is
a
commercial
partnership
the
service
of
the
writ
of
garnishment
(saisie-arrêt)
effected
at
the
Montreal
office
is
I
think
also
valid
service
under
Article
139
and
again
the
question
whether
any
debt
has
been
effectively
seized
by
the
garnishment
is
one
for
determination
at
a
subsequent
stage
of
the
proceedings.
It
follows
that
the
service
cannot
be
held
to
be
invalid
and
that
the
objection
thereto
raised
on
behalf
of
Wabush
Mines
must
be
overruled.
I
turn
now
to
the
first
of
two
objections
raised
on
behalf
of
Canadian
Javelin
Limited.
This
was
based
on
Article
678
which
provides
:
Seizure
by
garnishment
is
made
by
means
of
a
writ,
issuing
from
the
court
which
rendered
the
judgment,
and
clothed
with
the
formalities
of
writs
of
summons.
It
mentions
the
date
and
amount
of
the
judgment,
orders
the
garnishees
not
to
dispossess
themselves
of
the
moveable
property
belonging
to
the
debtor
which
is
in
their
possession,
or
of
such
moneys
or
other
things
as
they
owe
him
or
will
have
to
pay
him,
until
the
court
has
pronounced
upon
the
matter,
and
to
appear
on
a
day
and
at
an
hour
fixed
to
declare
under
oath
what
property
they
have
in
their
possession
belonging
to
the
debtor,
and
what
sums
of
money
or
other
things
they
owe
him
or
will
have
to
pay
him;
it
also
summons
the
debtor
to
appear
on
the
day
fixed
and
show
cause
why
the
seizure
should
not
be
declared
valid.
In
seizing
salaries
and
wages,
the
writ
must
also
state
the
defendant’s
place
of
residence,
and
the
nature
and
place
of
his
occupation.”
The
writ
of
garnishment
(saisie-arrét),
after
reciting
the
amount
certified
to
be
due,
reads
as
follows:
“WE
COMMAND
YOU
and
each
of
you,
the
said
garnishee
(Tiers
Saisi)
and
defendant,
to
appear
before
this
Court
at
the
Supreme
and
Exchequer
Court
Building,
in
the
City
of
Ottawa,
in
the
Province
of
Ontario,
on
the
twenty-seventh
day
of
the
month
of
October
next,
at
11
o’clock
in
the
forenoon,
for
the
said
garnishee
(Tiers
Saisi)
to
declare
upon
oath
the
sum
or
sums
of
money,
rents,
revenues
and
moveable
effects
that
he
has
or
shall
or
may
have
in
his
hands
due
or
belonging
to
the
said
defendant
and
show
the
reasons
if
you
have
any
why
the
present
attachment
should
not
be
declared
good
and
valid,
and
you,
the
said
garnishee
(Tiers
Saisi)
are
enjoined
not
to
dispossess
yourself
of
the
sums
of
money
or
any
other
assets
you
may
possess
belonging
to
the
defendant
to
the
amount
of
the
sum
and
the
interest
remaining
due
as
aforesaid,
otherwise
than
as
required
by
law,
and
of
the
said
revenues,
rents
and
moveable
effects
until
the
Court
has
determined.
In
default
of
the
said
garnishee
(Tiers
Saisi)
and
defendant
to
appear
and
by
the
said
garnishee
to
make
the
declaration
and
to
comply
with
the
injunctions
above
mentioned
the
said
garnishee
(Tiers
Saisi)
may
be
adjudged
by
default
to
pay
the
debt,
interest
and
costs
remaining
due
as
aforesaid
and
also
the
costs
of
the
present
instance
to
which
costs
the
defendant
will
be
condemned
each
time
that
an
effective
attachment
does
not
suffice
to
discharge
all
that
he
owes.
’
’
The
point
taken
was
that
grammatically
read
this
writ
did
not
call
upon
Canadian
Javelin
Limited
to
show
cause
why
the
seizure
would
not
be
declared
valid
and
that
accordingly
the
writ
did
not
comply
with
the
requirements
of
Article
678.
In
my
opinion
the
writ
is
not
happily
worded
to
call
upon
Canadian
Javelin
Limited
to
show
cause
and
it
may
be
that
as
a
matter
of
strict
grammatical
construction
the
contention
of
counsel
is
correct
but
I
do
not
think
it
follows
that
the
writ
must
therefore
be
set
aside.
I
am
inclined
to
think
that
this
objection
has
been
waived
by
counsel
raising
his
second
point
and
thus
electing
to
show
cause
despite
any
defect
in
the
form
of
the
summons
to
his
client
but,
in
any
event,
I
see
no
reason
to
think
that
Canadian
Javelin
Limited
has
suffered
prejudice
by
reason
of
any
such
defect
in
the
writ
and
in
my
opinion
the
case
is
a
proper
one
for
amendment
under
Rule
281
of
the
Rules
of
this
Court.
The
writ
will
therefore
be
amended
so
as
to
comply
with
Article
678
and
such
amendment
will
have
relation
back
to
the
date
of
the
issue
of
the
writ.
The
other
point
taken
by
counsel
for
Canadian
Javelin
Limited
was
that
since
Section
120
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
provides
a
method
of
garnishment
of
debts
owing
to
a
delinquent
taxpayer
procedure
by
garnishment
(saisie-arrét)
upon
the
registration
of
a
certificate
under
Section
119
was
not
open
to
the
Minister.
In
my
opinion
there
is
no
substance
to
this
point
and
the
objection
therefore
fails.
This
brings
me
to
the
remaining
point
advanced
by
counsel
for
Wabush
Mines,
that
is
to
say,
that
the
situs
of
the
obligations
to
Canadian
Javelin
Limited
under
the
contract
and
lease
is
not
in
the
Province
of
Quebec
and
that
accordingly
no
order
for
payment
to
the
Minister
should
be
made
and
in
any
case
no
such
order
should
be
made
without
adequate
safeguards
to
ensure
that
the
parties
will
not
be
required
to
pay
the
amounts
again
to
Canadian
Javelin
Limited
or
its
assignees
in
some
other
Jurisdiction.
This
is
in
effect
an
argument
as
to
what
property,
if
any,
has
been
seized
by
the
writ
and,
as
I
have
already
indicated,
is
one
to
be
made
at
a
subsequent
stage
of
the
proceedings.
The
costs
of
the
application
will
be
costs
in
the
proceedings
on
the
writ
and
will
follow
the
result
of
such
proceedings.
Email this Content