Joyal,
J.
[Translation]:—The
facts
in
this
matter
are
as
follows.
1.
On
November
20,
1987
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue,
in
consequence
of
an
assessment,
obtained
an
order
of
seizure
against
2440-1986
Québec
Inc.
(“Brasserie
Le
Windsor"
at
1218
rue
Stanley,
Montréal)
for
the
payment
of
$7,733.05.
2.
On
January
20,
1988
2436-8169
Québec
Inc.,
1218
rue
Stanley,
objected
to
the
seizure.
This
objector
alleged
that
it
had
become
the
owner
of
the
movable
property
on
September
11,
1987,
and
so
well
before
the
date
of
the
seizure.
The
supporting
affidavit
was
signed
by
one
Robert
Lemay,
a
director
of
the
objector.
The
objector
stated
that
in
the
circumstances
the
order
of
seizure
was
wrongful.
3.
The
Crown
in
turn
argued
that
the
deed
of
sale
of
2440-1986
Québec
Inc.
to
the
objector
2436-8169
Québec
Inc.
was
void
and
fraudulent,
in
particular:
(a)
the
only
effect
of
the
transaction
was
to
prejudice
the
creditors;
(b)
there
was
no
mention
of
the
accumulated
Crown
debt
on
December
4,1986
and
March
18,
July
20
and
September
3,
1987;
(c)
the
director
of
each
company
was
the
same
person,
namely
Robert
Lemay,
who
had
full
knowledge
of
the
facts.
To
fully
understand
everything
that
happened,
reference
should
be
made
to
another
matter
in
which
Mr.
Robert
Lemay's
name
appears.
This
is
case
ITA-2368-87:
(1)
on
July
30,
1987
the
Crown
obtained
an
order
of
seizure
against
the
property
of
143899
Canada
Inc.,
doing
business
under
the
trade
name
of
“Brasserie
Double
V",
1218
rue
Stanley,
Montréal,
for
a
tax
debt
of
$5,284.33
and
unpaid
interest;
(2)
on
September
14,1987
2440-1986
Québec
Inc.
filed
an
objection
to
the
seizure:
this
company
claimed
that
the
assets
of
the
seizure
had
been
sold
to
the
objector
on
September
22,
1986;
(3)
the
Crown
in
turn
contended:
(a)
this
bulk
sale
was
null
and
void
because
it
was
not
in
accordance
with
the
law;
(b)
that
the
sale
was
fraudulent;
(c)
that
the
director
of
both
companies
was
the
same
person,
namely
Robert
Lemay;
(4)
on
December
8,
1988,
as
a
consequence
of
the
opposants
default
to
appear
to
support
its
opposition,
my
brother
Denault
J.
found
the
Crown's
seizure
to
be
good
and
valid.
I
now
return
to
case
ITA-2368-87,
which
is
before
me.
On
the
date
of
the
hearing
Robert
Lemay
argued
his
own
case.
He
is
the
director
of
company
2436-8169
and
of
company
2440.
The
direct
evidence,
or
the
conclusions
from
the
latter
which
the
Court
may
draw,
clearly
shows
a
manoeuvre
by
the
actual
owner
of
these
companies
in
an
effort
to
avoid
his
liability
for
taxation.
I
would
draw
the
defendant's
attention
to
the
fact
that
the
requests
for
tax
arrears
sent
to
him
by
the
Crown
are
prior
to
the
transaction.
This
means
that
on
the
date
of
the
sale
besides
the
two
companies
the
defendant
had
full
knowledge
of
the
debt,
which
was
not
reflected
in
the
deed
of
sale
in
accordance
with
art.
1569(b)
of
the
Civil
Code.
At
the
hearing
the
defendant
told
the
Court
that
a
businessman
was
always
free
to
take
any
action
necessary
to
protect
himself
from
his
creditors.
What
he
said
was
true,
provided
that
such
measures
are
valid
and
legal.
The
opposition
is
accordingly
dismissed
and
the
seizure
found
to
be
good
and
valid,
the
whole
with
costs
against
the
opposant
and
the
defendant
jointly.
Opposition
dismissed.
Email this Content