Search - contravention

                                       (3) The Minister's decision under subsection (1) is not subject to review or to be restrained, prohibited, removed, set aside or otherwise dealt with except to the extent and in the manner provided by subsection 135(1).                                        132. (1) Subject to this or any other Act of Parliament,                                        (a) where the Minister decides, under paragraph 131(1)(a) or (b), that there has been no contravention of this Act or the regulations in respect of the goods or conveyance referred to in that paragraph, or, under paragraph 131(1)(b), that the conveyance referred to in that paragraph was not used in the manner described in that paragraph, the Minister shall forthwith authorize the removal from custody of the goods or conveyance or the return of any money or security taken in respect of the goods or conveyance; and                                        (b) where, as a result of a decision made by the Minister under paragraph 131(1)(c) or (d), the Minister decides that a penalty that was assessed under section 109.3 is not justified by the facts or the law, the Minister shall forthwith cancel the assessment of the penalty and authorize the return of any money paid on account of the penalty and any interest that was paid under section 109.5 in respect of the penalty.                                       ...                                        133. (1) Where the Minister decides, under paragraph 131(1)(a) or (b), that there has been a contravention of this Act or the regulations in respect of the goods or conveyance referred to in that paragraph, and, in the case of a conveyance referred to in paragraph 131(1)(b), that it was used in the manner described in that paragraph, the Minister may, subject to such terms and conditions as the Minister may determine,                                        (a) return the goods or conveyance on receipt of an amount of money of a value equal to an amount determined under subsection (2) or (3), as the case may be;                                       ...                                        135. (1) A person who requests a decision of the Minister under section 131 may, within ninety days after being notified of the decision, appeal the decision by way of an action to the Federal Court"Trial Division in which that person is the plaintiff and the Minister is the defendant ... A-518-93, unreported decision dated April 21, 1997 (F.C.A.), that only the defendant"s decision as to whether there was a contravention or use under section 131 of the Act can be appealed under section 135. [8]      I agree with the defendant on this point. ... Even were it to be accepted that such terms and conditions were necessarily imposed, it is conceivable at this point, as counsel for the plaintiff argued, that the statement of claim challenges primarily the defendant"s initial decision under section 131 of the Act, which confirmed that in the circumstances the vehicle was in fact made use of to transport goods in contravention of the Act. [10]      Paragraph 13 of the statement of claim and the first prayer therein for relief are favourable to this interpretation, as they seek to have the seizure quashed. ...

As a result, the Prothonotary struck out the plaintiff"s statement of claim keeping alive however the plaintiff"s defamation claim. [8]      Prothonotary Morneau rejected, out of hand, the plaintiff"s argument that the administrative review scheme set out in the Customs Act only applied to situations where a person was challenging a seizure arising out of that person"s own alleged contravention of the Act or Regulations. The plaintiff had argued the administrative review scheme did not apply to his situation where a person was attacking the seizure itself was unlawful because it was time barred, and the question of the mosaics" origin insulated by sections 57 to 61 of the Customs Act. [9]      Prothonotary Morneau concluded that it was clear and evident to him that the Customs Act envisaged only one way of challenging a seizure as forfeit and that was by notice to the Minister within 30 days regardless of whether that person was seeking a ruling of non contravention of the Customs Act or claiming the seizure"s illegality. [10]      Prothonotary Morneau relied upon the privative clause in section 123 of the Act and considered the jurisprudence. ... The Prothonotary"s task was not to decide the substance of the plaintiff"s claim on its merits and, in my view, with respect, he committed an error by crossing this line canvassing, as he did, considerable case law. [15]      Ultimately, it may turn out that the view taken by the Prothonotary is the correct one but it certainly cannot be said it is beyond doubt sections 123 to 135 of the Customs Act are a bar to the plaintiff"s action for declarations and damages and this for several reasons. [16]      First, the plaintiff raises a fairly arguable point that the scheme in the Customs Act only applies to review seizures based on a contravention of the Act or Regulations. ...

.), and that payment was not made of duties, principally SIMA anti-dumping duties, but also of ordinary customs duties, in contravention of sections 17 and 32 of the Customs Act. [7]                The Notice alleged that $614,683.04 in revenue was evaded by the Plaintiffs based on alleged undervaluation under the Customs Act and alleged overvaluation under the SIMA. ... However, the defendant underlines that upon review of the Statement of Claim, the Plaintiffs do not make any clear statements to refute the findings of contravention of the Customs Act made by the MNR. [15]            Furthermore, the Defendant argues that a mechanism exists in the SIMA wherein the Plaintiffs could have challenged the basis on which the normal values and the export prices were established, however they chose not to do so. [16]            Moreover, the Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs are not alleging that they did not contravene the Customs Act. In fact, the Defendant is of the opinion that the Plaintiffs acknowledge in the Statement of Claim to having pled guilty to a charge laid pursuant to subsection 153(a) of the Customs Act and, as such, have admitted to a contravention of the Customs Act. [17]            Thus, the Defendant submits that given this admission by the Plaintiffs and their failure to allege that they have not contravened the Customs Act, there is no genuine issue for trial. [18]            The Plaintiffs argue that the assertion that their Statement of Claim does not seek a review of the MNR's finding that the Customs Act has been contravened is incorrect. ...

Therefore, the only issue for consideration on this judicial review application is the penalty assessed against him by the CBSA. [20]            Again, the issue of contravention of the Customs Act can only be challenged by way of an action (Pounall v. Canada (Border Services Agency), 2013 FC 1260 at para 15). [21]            Because the contravention of the Customs Act cannot be considered on this application, I will not address any arguments made by Mr. Saad on whether any contravention in fact occurred. B.                  ...

Failing to report in accordance with the Act is said to be a contravention of the Act, regardless of whether the individual had the intention to export or import the currency or monetary instrument. ... Saisie et confiscation 18. (1) S'il a des motifs raisonnables de croire qu'il y a eu contravention au paragraphe 12(1), l'agent peut saisir à titre de confiscation les espèces ou effets. ... Cas sans contravention 28. Si le ministre décide qu'il n'y a pas eu de contravention au paragraphe 12(1), le ministre des Travaux publics et des Services gouvernementaux, dès qu'il est informé de la décision du ministre, restitue la valeur de la pénalité réglementaire, les espèces ou effets ou la valeur de ceux-ci au moment de la saisie, selon le cas. ...

  [16]            The delegate found that there had been a contravention of the Customs Act or Regulations in respect to the watch that was seized. ... The respondents note that section 109.1 of the Customs Act authorizes the Minister to impose a maximum penalty of $25,000 for any contravention of the legislation. ... The stated purpose of the policy is to provide methods of determining the value for duty of goods imported or exported in contravention of the Customs Act (Part 2, Chapter 5, paragraph 15). ...

Horses, vehicles, etc. (2) All horses, vehicles, vessels and other appliances that have been or are being used for the purpose of transporting in contravention of this Act or the regulations, or in or on which are found any goods subject to excise, or any materials or apparatus used or to be used in contravention of this Act or the regulations in the production of any goods subject to excise and all such goods, materials or apparatus may likewise be seized as forfeited by the seizing officer and may be dealt with in the manner described in subsection (1). ... Chevaux, voitures, etc. (2) Tous les chevaux, véhicules, vaisseaux et autres dispositifs qui, en contravention avec la présente loi ou les règlements, servent ou ont servi au transport de marchandises assujetties à l'accise ou de matières ou appareils employés ou à employer, en contravention avec la présente loi ou les règlements, à la production de quelque article assujetti à l'accise, ou sur ou dans lesquels sont trouvés de tels marchandises, matières ou appareils, peuvent être également saisis, avec ces marchandises, matières ou appareils, comme confisqués par tout préposé et peuvent être traités de la même manière. ... In the case at bar, the fact that the possession of the materials and equipment used in the manufacture of the cigars in contravention of the Excise Act can at no time be unlawful is a factor that this Court may consider in deciding whether it will order the property released or condemned. ...

Indeed, the Court will only strike out a statement of claim if it is plain, obvious and beyond doubt that the claim is one which cannot succeed. [5]      As I have noted, the claim arises from the undervaluation of goods, for customs purposes and the resulting failure to pay appropriate duty, on the proper value under sections 17 and 32 of the Customs Act, the latter section also referring to regulations. [6]      Section 24(1) of the Customs Act allows the customs officer, believing on reasonable grounds that there has been a contravention of the Act, to take various steps including serving a notice demanding payment. ... [emphasis added] The key concept to take from this is that the Court is limited to a consideration of whether there has been a contravention of the Customs legislation opening the goods and the plaintiff to liability under the Notice of Ascertained Forfeiture. [9]      The law obliges an importer of goods to properly declare them, including by declaring a proper value, and to then pay the appropriate duty. ...

The visa officer has wide discretion in assessing the evidence and coming to a decision, however the decision must be based on reasonable findings of fact. [17]   The Officer’s decision includes three factors that the Applicant argues are unreasonable: (1) family ties in Canada; (2) economic motives to remain in Canada; and (3) the Applicant’s prior contravention of the conditions of a study permit. 1.   ... Prior Contravention of Conditions of a Study Permit [24]   The Officer was not satisfied that the Applicant would comply with the conditions of a study permit based on his personal history. ... The Officer’s reasons related to the Applicant’s contravention of his prior study permit are transparent, intelligible, and supported in the record. [29]   Considering these three factors, the Officer’s decision appears unreasonable. ...

Instead, the Act permits the Minister, on reasonable and probable grounds, to assess a monetary penalty against a person or corporation for an alleged contravention.  ... The person or corporation named has the choice of either paying the penalty or requesting a review of the alleged contravention or the amount of the penalty, or both.  If the person or corporation chooses the settlement option, section 7.9 of the Act bars any further proceedings in respect of that contravention. ...