Search - contravention

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. ...

Thus, it is argued, there is no contravention of subsection 76(1) because that section makes it an offence to fail"to provide or produce information or a document as and when required by this Act” [emphasis added]. ... Writing for the Court, Schroeder, J.A. said at page 155 (C.C.C., D.T.C. 1288): It becomes apparent at once that s. 131(2) makes non-compliance with or a contravention of s. 126 an offence, but the offence is not stated to be the failure to comply with or contravention of a demand made by the Minister, and unless the statute clearly and expressly casts upon the taxpayer a duty or obligation to comply with a demand of the Minister made pursuant to subsection 126(2), such failure can hardly constitute an offence against the Act. ...

.), 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. ...

Section 27(2) reads An immigration officer or a peace officer shall, unless the person has been arrested pursuant to subsection 103(2), forward a written report to the Deputy Minister setting out the details of any information in the possession of the immigration officer or peace officer indicating that a person in Canada, other than a Canadian citizen or permanent resident, is a person who (a)            is a member of an inadmissible class, other than an inadmissible class described in paragraph 19(1)(h) or 19(2)(c); (b)            has engaged or continued in employment in Canada contrary to this Act or the regulations; (c)            [Repealed, 1992, c. 49, s. 16] (d)            has been convicted of (i)             an offence under the Criminal Code, (ii)            an indictable offence under any Act of Parliament other than the Criminal Code or this Act, or (iii)           an offence, other than an offence designated as a contravention under the Contraventions Act, for which the offender may be prosecuted by indictment or for which the offender is punishable on summary conviction under any Act of Parliament other than the Criminal Code or this Act; (e)            entered Canada as a visitor and remains in Canada after that person has ceased to be a visitor; (f)             came into Canada at any place other than a port of entry and failed to report forthwith to an immigration officer or eluded examination or inquiry under this Act or escaped from lawful custody or detention under this Act; (g)            came into Canada or remains in Canada with a false or improperly obtained passport, visa or other document pertaining to that person's admission or by reason of any fraudulent or improper means or misrepresentation of any material fact, whether exercised or made by himself or by any other person; (h)            came into Canada contrary to section 55; (i)             ceased to be a Canadian citizen pursuant to subsection 10(1) of the Citizenship Act in the circumstances described in subsection 10(2) of that Act; (j)             [Repealed, 1992, c. 49, s. 16] (k)            was authorized pursuant to paragraph 14(2)(b), 23(1)(b) or 32(3)(b) to come into Canada and failed to be present for further examination within such time and at such place as was directed; or (l)             wilfully fails to support any dependent member of that person's family in Canada. [12]          In effect these sections, in general terms, work together to allow someone who has in some manner contravened our laws to remain in Canada pursuant to a permit. ...

Robson testified that he was convicted although his client was acquitted. [9]            Section 12 of the Canada Evidence Act reads                 12(1)        A witness may be questioned as to whether the witness has been convicted of any offence, excluding any offence designated as a contravention under the Contraventions Act, but including such an offence where the conviction was entered after a trial on an indictment ...