Date: 20040811
Docket: T-1849-03
Citation: 2004 FC 1105
Ottawa, Ontario, August 11, 2004
Present: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BEAUDRY
BETWEEN:
JAMES WALKER
Applicant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] This is an application for judicial review of the Notice of Reassessment for the 1998 taxation year allegedly sent by the Canadian Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA) to the Applicant on May 13, 2002. The Applicant seeks an order declaring that no Notice of Reassessment was sent by the CCRA prior to October 30, 2002 and an order restraining the Respondent from taking any collection action based on the purported May 13, 2002 sending of a reassessment for the Applicant's 1998 taxation year.
ISSUES
[2] The issues are as follows:
1. Did the Applicant file a valid application for judicial review?
[3] For the following reasons, I answer the question negatively. Therefore, this application for judicial review will be dismissed.
FACTS
[4] The Applicant filed his 1998 Tax Return on April 30, 1999. On May 20, 1999, he received a Notice of Assessment assessing his 1998 taxation year. According to the CCRA, the Applicant was sent a Notice of Reassessment by registered mail on May 13, 2002. The Applicant declares he never received a Notice of Reassessment in respect of his 1998 taxation year. Evidence on the record shows that a document came back unclaimed to the CCRA on May 28, 2002. In August 2002, a CCRA official demanded payment to the Applicant of an amount owing in respect of the 1998 taxation year. On December 19, 2003, the Applicant filed a Notice of Objection to this Notice of Reassessment with the CCRA Chief of appeals.
ANALYSIS
[5] The Applicant alleges that he has the right to apply by way of judicial review to attack the administrative decision of the CCRA to take collection actions following the May 13, 2002 reassessment of his 1998 taxation year. The Respondent argues that this Court does not have jurisdiction in the case at bar, as a judicial review is not the proper means to attack the validity of the Notice of Reassessment. I agree with the Respondent and such a conclusion is determinative of the case.
[6] Section 18.5 of the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7 provides that if an Act of Parliament provides for an appeal to the Tax Court of Canada from a decision of a federal board, commission or other tribunal, then judicial review pursuant to section 18.1 of the Federal Courts Act is precluded as the decision must be appealed pursuant to the Act of Parliament. Section 18.5 reads:
| 18.5 Despite sections 18 and 18.1, if an Act of Parliament expressly provides for an appeal to the Federal Court, the Federal Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court of Canada, the Court Martial Appeal Court, the Tax Court of Canada, the Governor in Council or the Treasury Board from a decision or an order of a federal board, commission or other tribunal made by or in the course of proceedings before that board, commission or tribunal, that decision or order is not, to the extent that it may be so appealed, subject to review or to be restrained, prohibited, removed, set aside or otherwise dealt with, except in accordance with that Act. (My Emphasis)
|
|
18.5 Par dérogation aux articles 18 et 18.1, lorsqu'une loi fédérale prévoit expressément qu'il peut être interjeté appel, devant la Cour fédérale, la Cour d'appel fédérale, la Cour suprême du Canada, la Cour d'appel de la cour martiale, la Cour canadienne de l'impôt, le gouverneur en conseil ou le Conseil du Trésor, d'une décision ou d'une ordonnance d'un office fédéral, rendue à tout stade des procédures, cette décision ou cette ordonnance ne peut, dans la mesure où elle est susceptible d'un tel appel, faire l'objet de contrôle, de restriction, de prohibition, d'évocation, d'annulation ni d'aucune autre intervention, sauf en conformité avec cette loi. (Je souligne)
|
|
|
|
|
[7] Section 169 of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Suppl.) does provide for an appeal to the Tax Court of Canada of Notices of Assessment (subsection 248(1) of the Income Tax Act states that assessment includes a reassessment). Section 169 reads:
| 169. (1) Where a taxpayer has served notice of objection to an assessment under section 165, the taxpayer may appeal to the Tax Court of Canada to have the assessment vacated or varied after either
(a) the Minister has confirmed the assessment or reassessed, or
(b) 90 days have elapsed after service of the notice of objection and the Minister has not notified the taxpayer that the Minister has vacated or confirmed the assessment or reassessed,
but no appeal under this section may be instituted after the expiration of 90 days from the day notice has been mailed to the taxpayer under section 165 that the Minister has confirmed the assessment or reassessed. (My Emphasis)
|
|
169. (1) Lorsqu'un contribuable a signifié un avis d'opposition à une cotisation, prévu à l'article 165, il peut interjeter appel auprès de la Cour canadienne de l'impôt pour faire annuler ou modifier la cotisation:
a) après que le ministre a ratifié la cotisation ou procédé à une nouvelle cotisation;
b) après l'expiration des 90 jours qui suivent la signification de l'avis d'opposition sans que le ministre ait notifié au contribuable le fait qu'il a annulé ou ratifié la cotisation ou procédé à une nouvelle cotisation;
toutefois, nul appel prévu au présent article ne peut être interjeté après l'expiration des 90 jours qui suivent la date où avis a été expédié par la poste au contribuable, en vertu de l'article 165, portant que le ministre a ratifié la cotisation ou procédé à une nouvelle cotisation. (Je souligne)
|
|
|
|
|
[8] A Notice of Reassessment being a decision for the purposes of section 18.5 of the Federal Courts Act and an appeal being provided for by section 169 of the Income Tax Act, it is not open to the Applicant to pursue this matter via a judicial review under section 18.1 of the Federal Courts Act. This principle was confirmed by the Federal Court of Appeal inOptical Recording Corp. v. Canada, [1991] 1 F.C. 309 (C.A.). It should be noted that section 29 is now section 18.5. At pages 320-321, the Court of Appeal wrote:
I am of the opinion that the Motions Judge erred in finding that he had jurisdiction to entertain the originating motion brought by the respondent pursuant to section 18 of the Act. The proceedings which it instituted arose out of an assessment issued by the Minister. That assessment is deemed by subsection 152(8) to be valid, subject only to a reassessment, or to it being varied or vacated by a successful objection thereto (subsections 165(1) and 165(2)) or by a successful [page321] appeal of the assessment brought to the Tax Court pursuant to section 169 [as am. by S.C. 1980-81-82-83, c. 158, s. 58; 1984, c. 45, s. 70] of the Act or to the Trial Division of this Court pursuant to subsection 172(2) [as am. by S.C. 1980-81-82-83, c. 158, s. 58]. As held in the Parsons [Minister of National Revenue v. Parsons, [1984] 2 F.C. 331 (C.A.)] case, since the Act expressly provides for an appeal from assessments made by the Minister, it follows that section 29 of the Federal Court Act precludes not only applications under section 28 of the Act in respect of such assessments but also applications brought pursuant to section 18, as was done in the case, to challenge not only the assessments per se but the collection proceedings or actions taken in respect of those deemed valid assessments.
Accordingly, it matters not whether the assessment made on June 3, 1985 is at this stage moot or not. By virtue of section 29 of the Federal Court Act the Trial Division lacked jurisdiction to grant the relief sought in the section 18 application since the Income Tax Act provides the appropriate procedure for appealing the assessment. In those proceedings all issues relating to the assessment, including its validity and mootness, may be raised. This appeal, therefore, in my view, must be allowed. (My Emphasis)
[9] This application for judicial review is dismissed with costs.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that the application for judicial review is dismissed with costs.
"Michel Beaudry"
Judge
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-1849-03
STYLE OF CAUSE: James Walker v.
Her Majesty the Queen
PLACE OF HEARING: Vancouver, British Columbia
DATE OF HEARING: July 20, 2004
REASONS FOR FOR ORDER AND
ORDER: The Honourable Mr. Justice Beaudry
DATED: August 11, 2004
APPEARANCES:
Thomas Boddez FOR APPLICANT
Jason Levine FOR RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Thomas Boddez FOR APPLICANT
Thorsteinssons
Vancouver, British Columbia
Morris Rosenberg FOR RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Vancouver, British Columbia
Email this Content