Heald,
J:—1.
The
Respondent’s
application
to
Quash
under
paragraph
52(a)
of
the
Federal
Court
Act
The
Motion
to
Quash
is
Dismissed
for
the
following
reasons:
(a)
In
our
view,
the
Minister
made
the
decision
contemplated
in
Schedule
III
Part
III
to
the
Excise
Tax
Act
on
the
facts
of
this
case.
This
decision
was
made
by
the
Minister
and
communicated
to
the
applicant
by
an
official
of
the
department
by
the
letter
of
October
2,
1979
as
amended
by
the
letter
of
October
16,
1979
(see
Exhibits
E
and
F
to
the
Affidavit
of
Wayne
C
Matheson).
In
our
opinion,
this
is
not
a
case
where
the
Minister
has
delegated
the
authority
given
to
him
under
Schedule
III
Part
III.
Our
reading
of
the
letter
of
October
2,
1979,
satisfies
us
that,
in
fact,
the
Minister
made
the
decision.
Mr
Lapointe’s
involvement
was
merely
to
communicate
that
decision
of
the
Minister
to
the
applicant.
We
see
nothing
improper
in
this
procedure.
It
would
be
unrealistic
to
require
the
Minister
to
personally
notify
all
applicants,
in
matters
of
this
kind,
of
his
decision.
(b)
In
our
view,
the
applicant
is
not
out
of
time
in
filing
its
Sec
28
application.
The
notification
of
the
Minister’s
decision
is
contained
in
the
letter
of
October
2,1979
as
amended
by
the
letter
of
October
16,
1979.
The
letter
of
October
16,
1979
was
first
communicated
to
the
applicant
on
October
19,1979.
The
Sec
28
application
was
filed
on
October
25,1979,
well
within
the
10
day
time
requirement
of
subsection
28(2)
of
the
Federal
Court
Act.
2.
The
Applicant’s
Motion
for
Extension
of
Time
pursuant
to
subsection
28(1)
of
the
Federal
Court
For
the
reasons
set
forth
above,
this
application
is
dismissed
as
being
unnecessary.
Email this Content