Search - considered

.;             WHEREAS the plaintiff filed in this Court a certified statement from the RPMRR dated February 3, 1999, (exhibit 1 of the affidavit of documents dated October 18, 2000, signed by Henri Bégin);             WHEREAS the said statement clearly indicates that prior notice of the exercise of a hypothecary right was registered by the defendant in the RPMRR on October 10, 1998;             WHEREAS according to the certified statement from the RPMRR dated February 3, 1999, Her Majesty's name does not appear therein;             WHEREAS the plaintiff submitted no claim to the person designated and the deadlines laid down in articles 910.2 and 910.3 C.C.P. have expired;             WHEREAS at the hearing counsel for the plaintiff mentioned that the Crown is frequently unaware that she has a claim against a tax debtor at the time proceedings are brought at the initiative of other creditors for a judicial sale of a tax debtor's property;             WHEREAS in the case at bar this allegation is not based on any evidence;             WHEREAS, further, the Crown's ignorance clearly would not as such prevent the application of the general provisions of the C.C.Q. and C.C.P. on the exercise of hypothecary remedies and judicial sales;             WHEREAS it would have been advisable for Her Majesty to take recovery proceedings against the debtor under the ITA or to register a legal hypothec against the debtor's property;             WHEREAS, unlike the situation considered by the Federal Court in the decision rendered on September 13, 2002, in Les Entreprises Forestières P.S. Inc. and NewCourt Financial Ltd., 2002 FCT 968, now on appeal, there was no seizure by Her Majesty of the debtor's movable property;             WHEREAS, in the absence of a judgment rendered by a competent court quashing the sale under judicial authority and scheme of collocation prepared by the notary, these legal acts must be considered valid and capable of being set up against the plaintiff and Her Majesty with their full effect; NO REAL RIGHT OR RIGHT OF PURSUIT OVER MOVABLE PROPERTY             WHEREAS subsections 227(4.1) in fine ITA and 86(2.1) in fine EIA apply to cases of judicial sales or other similar cases where the proceeds of realization of property must be shared between creditors;             WHEREAS the beneficial right specified in subsections 227(4.1) ITA or 86(2.1) EIA does not as such confer any real right or right of pursuit over the property; NO PERSONAL ACTION AGAINST THE DEFENDANT             WHEREAS the federal provisions confer no right to a personal remedy against a bona fide purchaser of property subject to the deemed trust, whether the latter is a creditor of the tax debtor or not;             WHEREAS in the absence of clear language in the ITA the Court cannot accept the interpretation suggested by the plaintiff of the effect of the federal provisions, which in the absence of fraud or collusion amounts to holding secured or unsecured creditors and bona fide third party purchasers severally and personally liable for the non-payment of source deductions, which must be made exclusively by the tax debtor under section 153 ITA;             WHEREAS the scheme of movable guarantees set out in the C.C.Q. is designed to ensure certainty in commercial transactions;             WHEREAS the Court must interpret the federal provisions consistent with, first, the achieving of predictable results in commercial transactions, and second, the distribution of the exclusive powers assigned to Parliament and the provincial legislatures by sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867;             WHEREAS if the Court accepted the interpretation suggested by the plaintiff of the federal provisions, this would be likely to create legal uncertainty that would be harmful to the security of commercial transactions and would also compromise the operation and effectiveness of the provincial provisions in the province of Quebec;             WHEREAS when the federal Parliament decides to allocate liability for payment to a third party other than the tax debtor, it does so expressly, providing that a request for payment shall be sent to the third party, as in the case of section 224 ITA, where inter alia it has conferred a right of seizure in execution on the Minister when the particular conditions mentioned in that provision have been met;             WHEREAS it would have been desirable for the federal Parliament to intervene clearly and to specify the joint liability of persons other than the tax debtor, as indicated inter alia in sections 160 or 227.1 ITA;             WHEREAS Her Majesty has no right of action against a third party unless the latter was in a position in which he could have been held jointly and severally liable in a personal action brought by Her Majesty against the tax debtor;             WHEREAS the sum of $35,977.46 claimed from the defendant personally is not a tax, interest, penalty, costs or any other amount payable by the defendant personally under section 222 ITA;             WHEREAS the plaintiff has no cause of action under the federal provisions against the defendant and her claim is without basis;             FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT ORDERS THAT:             The plaintiff's action is dismissed; The whole with costs against the plaintiff. ...

PROTHONOTARY'S DECISION [19]            First, the prothonotary considered the method of objection used by Newcourt, namely art. 597 C.C.P., and summarily dismissed the respondent's argument based on the effect of art. 604 C.C.P.: Even if art. 604 applies expressly to the hypothecary creditor, I am not persuaded that the precedents on the point are clear enough to interpret art. 604 as not authorizing such a creditor to take property in payment after the seizure but before the sale so as to be able to oppose the sale of the said property based on art. 597 C.C.P. [20]            Nevertheless, the prothonotary decided to maintain the seizure, accepting the interpretation put forward by the respondent of the effect of subsections 227(4) and (4.1) ITA. Essentially, he considered that subsection 227(4.1) ITA applied despite any provincial rule of law, so that any taking in payment of the property of the tax debtor covered by a deemed trust could not be set up against Her Majesty: It was not in dispute in the case at bar that from February to October 1999 the judgment debtor retained, but did not pay to the Agency, an amount of nearly $115,000 which under subsection 227(4) the debtor was deemed to hold for Her Majesty in trust. ...

Respondent's Submissions The respondent submits that the applicant raised the issues which it now seeks to have considered in its Notices of Objection which were filed with the Tax Court of Canada and subsequently appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal. ... I have carefully reviewed the events which led to the Memorandum of Understanding being signed by the parties on December 4, 1994 and have considered the intentions of the parties in drafting this agreement. ...

The tribunal's reasons state:         ...The fact that the phrase "as a condition of the sale" in subparagraph 48(5)(a)(iv) of the Act is preceded by the words "directly or indirectly" suggests that, although a fee may not be required pursuant to the terms of the purchase itself, it may still be considered to be a condition of the sale, as long as there is some connection between it and the goods purchased. ... In so doing it noted that the words "directly or indirectly" suggest that, "although a fee may not be required pursuant to the terms of the purchase itself, it may still be considered to be a condition of the sale, as long as there is some connection between it and the goods purchases".      ...

(vi)                   On November 1, 2001, Canada Customs and Revenue Agency replied stating that as no written request for a decision of the Minister was submitted as required by s. 129 of the Customs Act within the statutory 30-day time limit, “the forfeiture of the goods or the monies received in lieu thereof must be considered final.”   ... It was not considered in determining the questions posed by the Prothonotary.   ...

  [25]            In Danielson v Canada (Deputy Attorney General), [1987] 1 FC 335, [1987] FCJ No 519 at para 7 (Danielson), Justice McNair wrote: “The test of whether ‘it may reasonably be considered’ is susceptible of being reasonably translated into the test of whether the evidence on balance of probability is sufficient to lead to the conclusion that it is more likely than not that collection would be jeopardized by delay ”. ...   [68]            The auditor considered the applicant’s credit file with the Bank of Montréal located at 274 Dorval, Montréal. ...

While precise requirements will vary with the circumstances, the consultation required at this stage may entail the opportunity to make submissions for consideration, formal participation in the decision-making process, and provision of written reasons to show that Aboriginal concerns were considered and to reveal the impact they had on the decision. ...   [40]            The jurisprudence of the Supreme Court teaches that while the nature of the practice or tradition which founds the Aboriginal right claim must considered in the context of the pre-contact distinctive culture of the particular Aboriginal community, the nature of the right must be determined in light of present day circumstances. ...

Thus, the failure to send a copy of the NPAs to the broker cannot be considered a breach of the Applicant’s legitimate expectation and cannot serve as an excuse for the Applicant failing to request a decision from the Minister within the 90 day period set out in subsection 129(1) of the Act ... At best, a policy guideline is administrative in nature, and therefore cannot be considered equivalent to a statute or a regulation, as it is neither enforceable nor has force of law (Byer v. ...

He considered himself to be an employee of the École de Jonquière.   [27]         At that point, Mr.  ...   [51]         In Wiebe Door, Justice MacGuigan examined the four case law tests to be considered in determining whether a contract is one of service or for the provision of services. ...

Landreville’s affidavit shows that the evidence considered was insufficient, since Ms. ... Vallée apparently proceeded with a sampling that he considered relevant to the requests, in order to confirm the validity of the recommendations made to him. ...