Rouleau,
J:—The
Attorney
General
of
Canada
on
behalf
of
Her
Majesty
the
Queen
brought
an
application
pursuant
to
Rule
419(1)(a)
of
the
Federal
Court
Rules
to
strike
out
the
statement
of
claim
in
the
within
action
on
the
ground
that
it
discloses
no
reasonable
cause
of
action.
This
application
came
before
me
in
Toronto,
Ontario,
on
June
24,
1985.
Rule
419(1)(a)
reads
as
follows:
419.
(1)
The
Court
may
at
any
stage
of
an
action
order
any
pleading
to
be
struck
out,
with
or
without
leave
to
amend,
on
the
ground
that
(a)
it
discloses
no
reasonable
cause
of
action
or
defence,
as
the
case
may
be
The
principles
applicable
in
determining
when
a
statement
of
claim
may
be
struck
are
well
established.
I
am
merely
repeating
what
others
have
said
in
stating
that
an
application
pursuant
to
rule
419(1)(a)
will
not
be
granted
unless
the
court
is
satisfied
that
the
claim
is
beyond
doubt
plainly
and
obviously
unsustainable
or
that
it
cannot
succeed.
The
most
recent
statement
on
that
principle
is
that
of
Wilson,
J
in
Operation
Dismantle
Inc
et
al
v
The
Queen
et
al,
59
NR
1
:
The
law
then
would
appear
to
be
clear.
The
facts
pleaded
are
to
be
taken
as
proved.
When
so
taken,
the
question
is
do
they
disclose
a
reasonable
cause
ie
a
cause
of
action
“with
some
chance
of
success”
(Drummond
Jackson
v
British
Medical
Association,
[1970]
1
All
ER
1094)
or
as
Le
Dain
J
put
it
in
Dowson
v
Government
of
Canada
(1981),
37
NR
(FCA)
127
at
p
138
is
it
“plain
and
obvious
that
the
action
cannot
succeed’’?
For
the
purposes
of
an
application
to
strike
a
statement
of
claim,
the
facts
pleaded
therein
are
assumed
to
be
admitted
and
true.
The
plaintiff
purchased
a
motorcycle
and
parts
in
England
for
10,000
pounds.
He
then
brought
it
into
Canada
on
or
about
February
7,
1984.
At
the
time
of
entry
into
Canada,
the
plaintiff
declared
a
value
of
5,000
pounds
(equivalent
to
$8,790.50
Can).
This
declaration
was
incorrect.
It
appears
that
no
final
purchase
price
for
the
motorcycle
itself
had
been
agreed
upon
between
the
plaintiff
and
the
vendors'
agent,
although
they
had
agreed
that
it
would
cost
at
least
5,000
pounds.
Duties
and
taxes
in
the
amount
of
$1,720.57
were
exacted
on
that
amount
at
the
time
of
entry
into
Canada.
The
motorcycle
was
seized
by
the
RCMP
on
June
22,
1984
on
the
basis
that
it
had
been
illegally
brought
into
Canada.
It
is
plaintiff’s
contention
that
when
the
motorcycle
entered
Canada
he
did
not
know
its
final
value
and
that
he
inadvertently
neglected
to
disclose
that
fact
to
the
Customs
Officer.
He
also
argues
that
at
no
time
did
he
intend
to
avoid
payment
of
duty
or
to
conceal
the
final
value
of
the
motorcycle.
Sections
18
and
180
of
the
Customs
Act,
RSC
1970,
c
C-40
read
as
follows:
18.
Every
person
in
charge
of
a
vehicle
arriving
in
Canada,
other
than
a
railway
carriage,
and
every
person
arriving
in
Canada
on
foot
or
otherwise,
shall
(a)
come
to
the
custom-house
nearest
to
the
point
at
which
he
arrived
in
Canada,
or
to
the
station
of
the
officer
nearest
to
such
point
if
that
station
is
nearer
thereto
than
a
custom-house;
(b)
before
unloading
or
in
any
manner
disposing
thereof,
make
a
report
in
writing
to
the
collector
or
proper
officer
at
such
custom-house
or
station
of
all
goods
in
his
charge
or
custody
or
in
the
vehicle
and
of
the
fittings,
furnishings
and
appurtenances
of
the
vehicle
and
any
animals
drawing
it
and
their
harness
and
tackle,
and
of
the
quantities
and
values
of
such
goods,
fittings,
furnishings,
appurtenances,
harness
and
tackle;
and
(c)
then
and
there
truly
answer
all
such
questions
respecting
the
articles
mentioned
in
paragraph
(b)
as
the
collector
or
proper
officer
requires
of
him
and
make
due
entry
thereof
as
required
by
law.
180.
(1)
Where
the
person
in
charge
or
custody
of
any
article
mentioned
in
paragraph
18(b)
has
failed
to
comply
with
any
of
the
requirements
of
section
18,
all
the
articles
mentioned
in
paragraph
(b)
of
that
section
in
the
charge
or
custody
of
such
person
shall
be
forfeited
and
may
be
seized
and
dealt
with
accordingly.
It
thus
follows
that
an
importer
of
goods
from
a
foreign
country
has
three
obligations
under
section
18
of
the
Act:
(1)
to
report
the
goods
to
Customs,
(2)
to
make
due
entry
of
them,
and
(3)
to
pay
the
duties
and
taxes.
Non-compliance
with
any
of
these
requirements
triggers
the
application
of
section
180
which
in
turn
leads
to
the
automatic
forfeiture
of
the
goods
not
properly
declared.
The
courts
have
generally
held
that
good
faith
is
completely
irrelevant
and
not
a
factor
to
be
considered
where
seizure
results
from
failure
to
make
a
proper
declaration.
Only
two
cases
were
brought
to
my
attention
where
the
good
faith
issue
led
to
the
release
of
the
goods.
I
am
referring
to
the
cases
of
Donald
Stanley
Harris
v
The
Queen
(unreported
decision
of
Walsh,
J,
Court
No
T-2579-82)
and
The
Queen
v
Canabec
Trailers
Inc,
[1982]
1
FC
788.
However,
those
two
cases
are
clearly
distinguishable
from
the
case
at
bar.
In
both
of
these
cases,
the
errors
leading
to
the
improper
declaration
were
induced
by
the
Customs
Officer
or
Appraiser
himself
and
did
not
flow
from
misleading,
false
or
incomplete
information
given
by
the
importer.
In
the
instant
case,
the
plaintiff
withheld,
albeit
inadvertently,
information
which
nonetheless
led
to
the
automatic
forfeiture
of
the
motorcycle.
I
have
thus
come
to
the
conclusion
that
plaintiff’s
action
cannot
in
view
of
the
strict
provisions
of
the
Act
succeed
and
that
an
order
should
go
striking
out
the
statement
of
claim.
This
application
is
granted
with
costs
to
the
defendant.
Application
granted.
Email this Content