Jerome
A.C.J.
(orally):
My
findings
on
the
preliminary
argument
about
jurisdiction
are
these:
First,
it
is
my
understanding
that
there
is
no
doubt
that
Judge
Teskie
had
jurisdiction
to
deal
with
these
matters.
It
is
part
of
his
mandate
in
the
Tax
Court
and,
as
well,
it
was
proper
for
you
to
go
before
that
court
to
dispute
your
liability
for
tax.
That
judgment
having
been
rendered
by
Judge
Teskie,
it
would
be
inappropriate
on
its
face,
I
think,
for
me
to
entertain
an
application
in
the
Trial
Division
for
a
judicial
review.
And
in
any
case
to
clarify
that
confusion
or
at
least
to
address
it,
our
Federal
Court
rules
now
specify
two
things:
First,
that
where
the
Tax
Court
has
rendered
a
judgment,
jurisdiction
is
in
our
Court
of
Appeal
and,
secondly,
that
where
the
jurisdiction
to
grant
relief
on
the
merits
is
in
our
Court
of
Appeal,
that
that
court
also
has
jurisdiction
to
strike
on
the
grounds
of
certiorari
or
any
of
those
kind
of
traditional
remedies
and
that,
therefore,
as
Judge
Rouleau
has
already
described
in
the
MacDonald
case
--
that
which
I
find
directly
on
point
--
I
have
the
jurisdiction
to
entertain
this
relief
on
all
of
those
grounds
and
that,
therefore,
even
if
I
were
to
disagree
with
Judge
Rouleau’s
decision
I’m
bound
by
them
and,
therefore,
unless
he
is
wrong
you
will
have
jurisdiction
to
seek
judicial
review
in
this
court
when
you
have
reviewed
jurisdiction
in
our
Court
of
Appeal.
Therefore,
what
I
will
do
now
is
make
the
endorsement
that
the
application
is
dismissed
on
the
basis
of
the
jurisdictional
argument
raised
by
the
Minister
and
that
I
will
issue
a
modified
version
once
I
have
had
an
opportunity
to
examine
the
transcript
of
my
reasons
and
to
file
them
in
accordance
with
section
51
of
the
Federal
Court
Act.
MR.
SORENSON:
Before
-
THE
COURT:
I
will
also
undertake
that,
to
the
extent
that
you
have
already
filed
an
application
for
both
kinds
of
relief,
that
you
ought
not
to
be
prejudiced
as
to
time
in
proceeding
with
dispatch
on
both
heads
before
the
Court
of
Appeal.
MR.
SORENSON:
Could
the
court
grant
interim
monetary
—
THE
COURT:
No.
MR.
SORENSON:
-
Relief
-
THE
COURT:
That
would
—
to
me,
for
me
to
do
that
would
be
to
decide
the
very
issue
that
is
to
be
decided
by
the
Court
of
Appeal.
—
further
submissions
by
Mr.
Sorenson.
—
further
submissions
by
Ms.
Rasbach.
—
further
submissions
by
Mr.
Sorenson.
THE
COURT:
But,
Mr.
Sorenson,
this
section
that
you
have
just
read
to
me
has
no
application
for
the
simple
reason,
as
you
can
see,
that
it
contemplates
a
situation
where
you
are
waiting
for
judgment
in
two
actions
or
one;
you
get
judgment
in
one
and
the
tax
payer
says,
well,
can
I
make
an
agreement
with
the
Minister
that
you
withhold?
First
of
all,
you
are
waiting
for
a
second
judgment,
here
you
have
only
one,
and,
secondly,
you
have
to
seek
out
the
Minister
to
see
if
the
Minister
will
agree
to
withhold
collection
from
you
on
the
second
matter
while
--
but
this
is
not
in
play
here.
I
hear
your
argument
but
I
see
no
application
to
the
present
case.
MR.
SORENSON:
May
I
just
make
a
last
argument
on
what
you
just
said,
your
honour
—
THE
COURT:
Mr.
Sorenson
—
MR.
SORENSON:
-
My
lord
is
that
-
THE
COURT:
Please,
Mr.
Sorenson,
I’ve
made
my
judgment.
MR.
SORENSON:
Okay.
THE
COURT:
Thank
you.
MR.
SORENSON:
And
the
recommendation
of
the
court
how
the
relief
can
be
transposed
and
the
step
that
ought
to
be
taken
to
the
next
stage
—
THE
COURT:
No,
no.
MR.
SORENSON:
--
For
purposes
of
garnishment?
THE
COURT:
That’s
a
matter
clearly
in
the
jurisdiction
of
the
Court
of
Appeal
or
if
you
want
to
get
any
special
relief
from
them,
interim
relief
as
well.
You
have
got
to
make
an
application
to
the
Court
of
Appeal.
Thank
you.
MR.
SORENSON:
Thank
you.
THE
COURT:
Thanks.
As
I
have
indicated,
I
will
make
the
endorsement
today
and
examine
the
reasons
and
transpose
them
or
just
simply
publish
them
in
accordance
with
section
51.
—
Court
adjourns
for
the
day
at
4:22
pm.
Motion
granted.
Email this Content