Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content

     Date: 19990705

     Docket: T-2419-98

Ottawa, Ontario, July 5, 1999

Before:      LEMIEUX J.

Between:

     RÉGENT MILLETTE,

     Plaintiff,

     - and -

     REVENUE CANADA,

     Defendant.

     ORDER

     The application for judicial review is dismissed.


     François Lemieux

     Judge

Certified true translation

Bernard Olivier, LL. B.

     Date: 19990705

     Docket: T-2419-98

Between:

     RÉGENT MILLETTE,

     Plaintiff,

     - and -

     REVENUE CANADA,

     Defendant.

     REASONS FOR ORDER

LEMIEUX J.

[1]      This case involves judicial review requesting a release of seizures by the federal government, the respondent, dated March 26, 1998 from the Comission administrative des régimes de retraite et d'assurances of Quebec ("CARRA") and on April 6, 1998 from the Caisse d'Économie Laval St-Laurent ("the Caisse"), covered by Quebec legislation, on the ground that the amounts are not subject to seizure under art. 553(7), (8) and (11) of the Quebec Code of Civil Procedure, s. 77 of the Act respecting the Teachers Pension Plan and arts. 1215, 2457 and 2458 of the Civil Code of Quebec.

[2]      The plaintiff argued essentially that a federal provision did not apply on grounds of provincial exemption. The plaintiff's arguments are groundless and this application for judicial review must be dismissed.

[3]      On May 13, 1996 Joyal J. of this Court made an order in the case at bar pursuant to the provisions of s. 225.2(2) of the Income Tax Act ("the Act") authorizing Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada, represented by the Minister of National Revenue, to take whatever measures were authorized by s. 225.1(1)(a) to (g) of the Act to collect and/or secure the payment by Régent Millette of a total amount of $563,135.95 plus interest, owed under an assessment made against him.

[4]      I adopt the principles stated by Denault J. of this Court in Perron v. Her Majesty the Queen (T-1911-89, May 14, 1990), in which he said:

         [TRANSLATION]                 
             The Court does not accept the proposition of counsel for the applicant that the Crown is subject to the rule of immunity from seizure contained in art. 553(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure. (See St-Cyr v. Société d'administration et de fiducie, [1951] C.S. 245.) This provision does not affect the Crown's rights and privileges as the legislature did not specifically provide that the Crown should be covered by it (art. 9 of the Civil Code and s. 17 of the Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-23), and the amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure in 1965, which removed the petition of right procedure, did not have this effect. Additionally, Parliament has not authorized the Crown, in the course of a seizure made pursuant to s. 224 of the Income Tax Act, to observe immunity from seizure pursuant to a provincial statute, as it actually did in connection with a seizure of movable property under s. 225(5).                 
             The applicant's application is dismissed with costs.                 

[5]      The plaintiff relied on legislation other than that mentioned by Denault J. However, he admitted that this other legislation did not alter the state of the law, that is, contained no provincial exemption.

[6]      The plaintiff cited Mel Bercovitch v. Sous-ministre du Québec et The Standard Life Assurance Company, [1983] C.S. 841. That case rests solely on the interpretation of certain provisions of the Civil Code of Quebec and the Act respecting the Ministère du Revenu of Quebec. That case does not in any way involve the principles of interaction between a federal and a provincial statute as discussed by Denault J. in Perron.

[7]      For these reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed.


     François Lemieux

     Judge

Ottawa, Ontario

July 5, 1999

Certified true translation

Bernard Olivier, LL. B.


     FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

     TRIAL DIVISION

     NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

COURT No.:          T-2419-98
STYLE OF CAUSE:      Régent Millette v.

             Revenue Canada

PLACE OF HEARING:      Montréal, Quebec

DATE OF HEARING:      June 23, 1999

REASONS FOR ORDER:      Lemieux J.

DATED:          July 5, 1999

APPEARANCES:

Régent Millette      for the applicant

(for himself)

Claude Bernard      for the respondent

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Morris Rosenberg      for the defendant

Deputy Attorney General of Canada


 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.