Richard
Morneau,
Esq.,
Prothonotary:
This
is
a
motion
in
opposition
by
the
debtor
under
article
596
of
the
Code
of
Civil
Procedure
of
Quebec
seeking
the
nullity
of
a
seizure
of
moveable
property
carried
out
by
the
judgement
creditor
on
July
16,
1997
on
the
basis
of
writs
of
Fieri
Facias
issued
further
to
the
registration
on
July
4,
1997
of
certificates
ITA-5209-97
and
ITA-5210-97.
It
appears
that
certificate
ITA-5209-97
pertains
to
the
debtor’s
corporate
income
taxes
whereas
certificate
ITA-5210-97
relates
to
an
alleged
failure
on
the
part
of
the
debtor
to
deduct
or
withhold
amounts
under
the
Income
Tax
Act,
R.S.C.
1985,
c.2
(5th
Supp.).
As
to
amounts
allegedly
not
withheld
by
the
debtor,
the
latter
alleges
that
it
had
filed
in
due
course
a
notice
of
objection
with
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
and,
therefore,
should
not
have
been
the
object
of
any
measure
of
execution
by
the
Minister
until
the
end
of
the
appeal
process.
In
theory
the
debtor
is
right.
However,
I
am
unable
to
locate
in
the
evidence
that
notice
of
objection.
The
only
notice
of
objection
attached
by
the
debtor
to
its
instant
motion
is
one
which
it
filed
with
the
Quebec
Minister
of
Revenue.
I
cannot
accept
or
understand,
under
the
present
circumstances,
the
allegation
made
by
debtor’s
counsel
that
the
Quebec
Minister
of
Revenue
is
to
be
considered
the
agent
of
his
federal
counterpart
and
that,
therefore,
a
notice
of
objection
sent
to
the
Quebec
Minister
of
Revenue
is
to
be
considered
one
filed
with
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue.
Therefore,
I
consider
that
no
valid
reason
has
been
put
forward
by
the
debtor
to
halt
the
execution
of
certificate
ITA-5210-97.
Consequently,
since
the
seizure
in
the
case
at
bar
was
carried
out
under
both
certificates
ITA-
5210-97
and
ITA-5209-97,
this
motion
in
opposition
must
be
denied
on
that
basis
alone.
I
do
not
have
to
come
to
any
firm
conclusion,
therefore,
on
the
allegation
made
by
the
debtor
that
it
has
never
received
a
notice
of
assessment
with
respect
to
its
corporate
income
taxes
(ITA-5209-97)
and
that,
consequently,
any
measure
of
execution
on
the
part
of
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
on
July
16,
1997
was
premature.
I
shall
just
note
that
the
debtor
did
not
raise
that
allegation
in
its
original
notice
of
motion
in
opposition
filed
on
August
5,
1997.
The
debtor
raised
it
for
the
first
time
in
its
amended
notice
of
motion
filed
on
October
9,
1997.
One
might
question
why
such
an
obvious
situation
was
not
raised
by
the
debtor
in
the
first
place.
For
the
above
reasons,
this
motion
is
dismissed
with
costs.
These
Reasons
for
Order
are
applicable
as
well
to
file
ITA-5209-97.
Motion
dismissed.
Email this Content