Date: 19980206
Docket: T-41-98
BETWEEN:
GARY P. SORENSEN
Applicant
- and - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
Let the attached certified transcript of my Reasons for Order delivered orally from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on January 19, 1998 be filed to comply with S. 51 of the Federal Court Act.
"James A. Jerome"
A.C.J.
Court File T-41-98
B E T W E E N:
GARY P. SORENSON
Plaintiff,
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Defendant
--- Before The Honourable Associate Chief Justice Jerome, held at Toronto, Ontario on Monday the 19th day of January, 1998
APPEARANCES:
Mr. G. P. Sorenson - Not represented
Ms. C. Rasbach - For the Crown.
TRIAL DIVISION
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
1 Reasons, Jerome, A.C.J.
My findings on the preliminary argument about jurisdiction are these: First, it is my understanding that there is no doubt that Judge Teskie had jurisdiction to deal with these matters. It is part of his mandate in the Tax Court and, as well, it was proper for you to go before that court to dispute your liability for tax.
That judgment having been rendered by Judge Teskie, it would be inappropriate on its face, I think, for me to entertain an application in the Trial Division for a judicial review. And in any case to clarify that confusion or at least to address it, our Federal Court rules now specify two things: First, that where the Tax Court has rendered a judgment, jurisdiction is in our Court of Appeal and, secondly, that where the jurisdiction to grant relief on the merits is in our Court of Appeal, that that court also has jurisdiction to strike on the grounds of certiorari or any of those kind of traditional remedies and that, 4-'r-1--fore, as judge Rouleau has already described in the MacDonald case -- that which I find directly on point -i have the jurisdiction to entertain this relies on all of those grounds and that, therefore, even if I were to disagree with Judge Rouleau's decision I'm bound by them and, therefore, unless he is wrong you will have
2 Reasons, Jerome, A.C.J.
jurisdiction to seek judicial review in this court when you have reviewed jurisdiction in our Court of Appeal.
Therefore, what I will do now is make the endorsement that the application is dismissed on the basis of the jurisdictional argument raised by the Minister and that I will issue a modified version once I have had an opportunity to examine the transcript of my reasons and to file them in accordance with section 51 of the Federal Court Act.
MR. SORENSON: Before -
THE COURT: I will also undertake that, to the extent that you have already filed an application for both kinds of relief, that you ought not to be prejudiced as to time in proceeding with dispatch on both heads before the Court of Appeal.
MR. SORENSON: Could the court grant interim monetary -
THE COURT: No.
MR. SORENSON: -- Relief -
THE COURT: Tnat would -- to me, for me to do that would be to decide the very issue that is to be decided by the Court of Appeal.
--- further submissions by Mr. Sorenson.
--- further submissions by Ms. Rasbach.
--- further submissions by Mr. Sorenson.
3 Reasons, Jerome, A.C.J.
THE COURT: But, Mr. Sorenson, this section that you have just read to me has no application for the simple reason, as you can see, that it contemplates a situation where you are waiting for judgment in two actions or one; you get judgment in one and the tax payer says, well, can I make an agreement with the Minister that you withhold?
First of all, you are waiting for a second judgment, here you have only one, and, secondly, you have to seek out the Minister to see if the Minister will agree to withhold collection from you on the second matter while -- but this is not in play here.
I hear your argument but I see no application to the present case.
MR. SORENSON: May I just make a last argument on what you just said, your honour -
THE COURT: Mr. Sorenson -
MR. SORENSON: -- My lord is that -
THE COURT: Please, Mr. Sorenson, I've made my Judgment.
MR. SORENSON: Okay.
THE COURT: Thank you.
MR. SORENSON: And the recommendation of the court how the relief can be transposed and the step that ought to be taken to the next stage --
4 Reasons, Jerome, A.C.J.
THE COURT: No, no.
MR. SORENSON: -- For purposes of garnishment?
THE COURT: That's a matter clearly in the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal or if you want to get any special relief from them, interim relief as well. You have got to make an application to the Court of Appeal.
Thank you.
MR. SORENSON: Thank you.
THE COURT: Thanks. As I have indicated, I will make the endorsement today and examine the reasons and transpose them or just simply publish them
in accordance with section 51.
--- Court adjourns for the day at 4:22 pm.
-------------------
Certified Correct,
Andreena M. Brant, C.*,S).R.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF SOLICITORS AND SOLICITORS ON THE RECORD
COURT FILE NO.: T-41-98
STYLE OF CAUSE: GARY P. SORENSEN v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO
DATE OF HEARING: JANUARY 19, 1998
CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT OF REASONS FOR ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE ASSOCIATE CHIEF JUSTICE JEROME
DELIVERED ORALLY FROM THE BENCH ON JANUARY 19, 1998
APPEARANCES
Mr. Gary P. Sorenson
APPLICANT
Ms. Celia Rasbach
FOR RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
George Thomson
Deputy Attorney General for Canada
FOR RESPONDENT
Email this Content