Hargrave
Prothonotary:
These
reasons
arise
out
of
an
application
in
writing
pursuant
to
Rule
324
for
an
extension
of
time
within
which
to
commence
an
action
under
section
135(1)
of
the
Customs
Act,
c.
C-52.6,
being
an
appeal
of
the
Minister’s
decision
of
5
December,
1995,
as
to
the
forfeiture
of
a
wristwatch.
The
watch
was
declared
as
settlers
effects,
but,
according
to
the
Crown,
was
given
to
the
Plaintiff
within
12
months,
thus
becoming
subject
to
forfeiture.
The
motion
has
not
been
dealt
with
within
a
reasonable
time,
for
the
file
apparently
became
misplaced
-
an
unfortunate
circumstance.
However,
in
this
instance
there
is
no
prejudice,
but
rather,
one
might
expect,
unnecessary
plolonged
uncertainty
on
the
part
of
the
Plaintiff
as
to
his
rights.
There
is
no
doubt
that
the
90-day
appeal
period
specified
in
section
135(1)
of
the
Customs
Act
was
missed.
The
Plaintiff
says
the
Minister
would
suffer
no
prejudice
if
an
extension
were
granted,
and
in
any
event
the
Minister
was
aware
his
decision
would
be
appealed.
In
answer
to
this
last
point
the
Federal
Court
of
Appeal
dealt
with
a
missed
limitation
under
section
135(1)
of
the
Customs
Act
and
notice
of
an
intention
to
appeal
in
Dawe
v.
R.,
(sub
nom.
Dawe
v.
Minister
of
National
Revenue
Customs
&
Excise)
(1994),
174
N.R.
1,
86
F.T.R.
240
(note)
at
page
5,
holding
that
“...a
mere
notice
of
an
intension
to
eventually
bring
an
action
is
not
tantamount
to,
and
is
no
valid
substitute
for,
the
actual
bringing
of
an
action.”.
The
Court
of
Appeal
went
on
to
note
that
section
135(1)
of
the
Customs
Act
sets
out
a
required
reasonable
adn
long
time
limit
and
that
there
would
be
chaos
and
unwarranted
litigation
if
appellants
were
allowed
to
substitute
their
own
views
as
to
what
ought
to
be
the
procedure
for
bringing
an
appeal.
As
to
the
request
for
an
extension
of
the
90-day
time
for
appeal
provided
for
in
section
135(1)
of
the
Customs
Act,
Dawe
v.
Canada
[supra],
Miucci
v.
R.
(sub
nom.
Miucci
v.
Minister
of
National
Revenue)
(1991),
52
F.T.R.
216
(F.C.T.D.)
and
the
unreported
August
28,
1996,
decision
of
Mr.
Justice
Richard
in
Bearskin
Lake
Air
Service
v.
Canada
(Department
of
Transport)
Doc.
96-T-43
(F.C.T.D.)
are
all
authorities
for
the
proposition
that
where
a
statute
does
not
provide
for
an
extension
of
time
the
Federal
Court
Rules
cannot
be
relied
upon
to
enlarge
the
statutory
time
limit.
ORDER
Regrettably
the
motion
for
an
extension
must
be
denied.
Motion
dismissed.
Email this Content