Date: 20040716
Docket: T-943-04
Citation: 2004 FC 1002
BETWEEN:
SHAHID MURTAZA
Plaintiff
and
MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE
Defendant
REASONS FOR ORDER
RICHARD MORNEAU, PROTHONOTARY
[1] The case at bar concerns a motion by the defendant[1] pursuant to paragraphs 208(d) and 221(1)(a) of the Federal Court Rules, 1998 (the Rules), by which the defendant sought to have the statement of claim filed herein struck out and the action dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff cannot, under cover of an action not covered by the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, S.C. 2000, c. 17 (the Act), obtain relief otherwise covered by sections 18 and 18.1 of the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, as amended, within the deadlines set for doing so, which have expired.
Background
[2] Under subsection 12(1) of the Act and its implementing Regulations, anyone who has in his effective possession an amount equal to or greater than C$10,000 on arrival in or departure from the country is required to make a report to the customs officer.
[3] Under subsection 18(1) of the Act, a customs officer may seize currency as forfeit if he believes on reasonable grounds that the reporting requirement in section 12 has been contravened.
[4] On October 19, 2003, when he entered Canada from the United States, the plaintiff had an unreported sum of US$16,750 in cash seized from him pursuant to subsection 18(1) of the Act.
[5] Under section 25 of the Act, a person from whom currency has been seized may, within 90 days after the date of the seizure, request a decision of the Minister as to whether subsection 12(1) was contravened.
[6] The plaintiff's application for review pursuant to section 25 of the Act was sent on February 2, 2004, that is 106 days after the seizure as forfeit.
[7] The Minister's representative refused to consider the review application on the ground that it was sent after the 90-day deadline had expired. He informed counsel for the plaintiff of this by letter dated February 17, 2004 (the decision of February 17, 2004).
[8] The plaintiff is now seeking by action to quash the decision of February 17, 2004, and obtain an extension of the 90-day deadline mentioned in section 25 of the Act.
[9] The relevant sections of the Act read as follows:
|
12. (1) Every person or entity referred to in subsection (3) shall report to an officer, in accordance with the regulations, the importation or exportation of currency or monetary instruments of a value equal to or greater than the prescribed amount. |
12. (1) Les personnes ou entités visées au paragraphe (3) sont tenues de déclarer à l'agent, conformément aux règlements, l'importation ou l'exportation des espèces ou effets d'une valeur égale ou supérieure au montant réglementaire. |
|
18. (1) If an officer believes on reasonable grounds that subsection 12(1) has been contravened, the officer may seize as forfeit the currency or monetary instruments. |
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. |
|
24. The forfeiture of currency or monetary instruments seized under this Part is final and is not subject to review or to be set aside or otherwise dealt with except to the extent and in the manner provided by sections 25 to 30. |
24. La confiscation d'espèces ou d'effets saisis en vertu de la présente partie est définitive et n'est susceptible de révision, de rejet ou de toute autre forme d'intervention que dans la mesure et selon les modalités prévues aux articles 25 à 30. |
|
25. A person from whom currency or monetary instruments were seized under section 18, or the lawful owner of the currency or monetary instruments, may within 90 days after the date of the seizure request a decision of the Minister as to whether subsection 12(1) was contravened, by giving notice in writing to the officer who seized the currency or monetary instruments or to an officer at the customs office closest to the place where the seizure took place. |
25. La personne entre les mains de qui ont été saisis des espèces ou effets en vertu de l'article 18 ou leur propriétaire légitime peut, dans les quatre-vingt-dix jours suivant la saisie, demander au ministre de décider s'il y a eu contravention au paragraphe 12(1) en donnant un avis écrit à l'agent qui les a saisis ou à un agent du bureau de douane le plus proche du lieu de la saisie. |
|
27. (1) Within 90 days after the expiry of the period referred to in subsection 26(2), the Minister shall decide whether subsection 12(1) was contravened. |
27. (1) Dans les quatre-vingt-dix jours qui suivent l'expiration du délai mentionné au paragraphe 26(2), le ministre décide s'il y a eu contravention au paragraphe 12(1). |
|
(2) If charges are laid with respect to a money laundering offence or a terrorist activity financing offence in respect of the currency or monetary instruments seized, the Minister may defer making a decision but shall make it in any case no later than 30 days after the conclusion of all court proceedings in respect of those charges. |
(2) Dans le cas où des poursuites pour infraction de recyclage des produits de la criminalité ou pour infraction de financement des activités terroristes ont été intentées relativement aux espèces ou effets saisis, le ministre peut reporter la décision, mais celle-ci doit être prise dans les trente jours suivant l'issue des poursuites. |
|
(3) The Minister shall, without delay after making a decision, serve on the person who requested it a written notice of the decision together with the reasons for it. |
(3) Le ministre signifie sans délai par écrit à la personne qui a fait la demande un avis de la décision, motifs à l'appui. |
|
30. (1) A person who requests a decision of the Minister under section 25 may, within 90 days after being notified of the decision, appeal the decision by way of an action in the Federal Court in which the person is the plaintiff and the Minister is the defendant. |
30. (1) La personne qui a présenté une demande en vertu de l'article 25 peut, dans les quatre-vingt-dix jours suivant la communication de la décision, en appeler par voie d'action devant la Cour fédérale à titre de demandeur, le ministre étant le défendeur. |
|
[My emphasis.] |
|
Analysis
[10] The only point which the Court must decide in the case at bar is whether it has jurisdiction in this action to quash the decision of February 17, 2004, and extend the 90-day deadline specified in section 25 of the Act.
[11] For the reasons that follow, I think a negative answer must be given to this question and the motion at bar accordingly allowed.
[12] Under section 17 of the Federal Courts Act, supra, a plaintiff cannot obtain relief against the Crown by action "except as otherwise provided in this Act or any other Act of Parliament".
[13] Section 24 of the Act provides that the forfeiture of money seized is not subject to review except to the extent and in the manner provided by sections 25 to 30 of the Act. In accordance with this limiting approach, it is subsection 30(1) of the Act which provides a right of action in this Court. However, that subsection should be read carefully.
[14] Under that subsection, a person who requests a decision of the Minister under section 25 may, within 90 days after being notified of the decision, appeal the decision by way of an action in this Court.
[15] For an application to be considered a request to the Minister under section 25, it must, inter alia, have been made in accordance with the provisions of section 25, that is within 90 days of the seizure. That was not the case here. Consequently, the decision made by the Minister on February 17, 2004, cannot be regarded as a decision pursuant to section 25 and subsection 30(1) of the Act, the only kind of decision which is subject to an appeal by action in this Court.
[16] The decision of February 17, 2004, certainly remains a decision of the executive. However, in principle it can be challenged by an application for judicial review if the plaintiff previously obtains by motion an extension of the deadline under subsection 18.1(2) of the Federal Courts Act, supra. It is in accordance with this motion for an extension, to be submitted to a judge of this Court, that the defendant will have to argue that there is no basis for extending the deadline of subsection 18.1(2) of the Federal Courts Act since ultimately the 90-day deadline under section 25 of the Act itself is, in his submission, not subject to extension.
[17] For these reasons, the plaintiff's statement of claim must be struck out and his action dismissed pursuant to paragraphs 208(d) and 221(1)(a) of the Rules, with costs.
|
|
"Richard Morneau"
Prothonotary |
Montréal, Quebec
July 16, 2004
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, C Tr, LLL
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-943-04
STYLE OF CAUSE: SHAHID MURTAZA
Plaintiff
and
MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE
Defendant
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: July 12, 2004
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: Richard Morneau, prothonotary
DATED: July 16, 2004
APPEARANCES:
Manuel Videira for the plaintiff
Nouha Ali Ahmed
Marc Ribeiro for the defendant
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Videira, Richard for the plaintiff
Outremont, Quebec
Morris Rosenberg for the defendant
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
[1]It should be noted that at the moment there is confusion as to the exact identity of the defendant that should appear in the style of cause. For any subsequent pleading in this matter and any other related matter, the parties will undertake to properly identify it by mutual agreement.