Date: 20000228
Docket: ITA-6261-99
IN THE MATTER OF the Income Tax Act, and
| AND IN THE MATTER OF an assessment or assessments by the Minister of National Revenue under the Income Tax Act, Canada Pension Plan, Employment Insurance Act, Unemployment Insurance Act, against: |
James Lorne Weber
707 - 1100 8th Avenue S.W.
Calgary, AB T2P 3T9
| AND IN THE MATTER OF the Civil Enforcement Act, S.A. 1994, c. C-10.5; |
| AND IN THE MATTER OF a seizure made on August 6, 1999. |
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA
AS REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTER
OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
Applicant,
- and -
JAMES LORNE WEBER,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR ORDER
MR. JOHN A. HARGRAVE,
PROTHONOTARY
[1] This motion arises out of the asset seizure and sale process under the Income Tax Act in order to satisfy a tax debt. However, these reasons arise out of an attempt by the Respondent, Mr. Weber, to satisfy his tax liability of some one hundred ten thousand dollars with some one hundred ten thousand Columbian pesos.
[2] Were Mr. Weber"s gambit to have been successful one might, in April, expect a high demand in Canada for Columbian pesos, pushing the Columbian peso far beyond the present worth of less than thousandth of a cent. As it is, taxpayers, including the Respondent, will have to pay taxes this year in Canadian dollars.
BACKGROUND
[3] By way of background, on 6 July 1999, the Crown, represented by the Minister of National Revenue, to whom I shall refer as Revenue Canada, filed a Tax Certificate, evidencing a tax debt of $110,650.81, in the Federal Court. The same day the Federal Court issued a writ of seizure which was then, as required, registered in the Alberta Personal Property Registry.
[4] With all of this paperwork completed, Revenue Canada then seized the Respondent"s B.M.W. Motorcycle, various motorcycling equipment and the Respondent"s helmet, jacket and pants. The Respondent now counters that he ought not to be exposed to such treatment, for he paid his Canadian dollar tax bill with an equal number of Columbian pesos.
ANALYSIS
[5] Before getting down to the dollars and pesos issue, there are several conventional and much less intriguing points.
[6] First, there is an issue as to the proper execution of Revenue Canada"s documents. The evidence establishes that Revenue Canada"s documents were not initially, as suggested, signed in blank.
[7] Second, in answer to proof of signature on the Tax Certificate, executed by the Director of the Calgary office of Revenue Canada, counsel for Revenue Canada refers to section 244(13) of the Income Tax Act and to Income Tax Regulation 900(2) which, in this instance, deems the Tax Certificate issued under section 223(2) of the Act to have been properly executed.
[8] Mr. Weber"s main issue is that, in his view, Revenue Canada made an offer to him, in the form of the Tax Certificate, to settle at $110,650.81: critical here, in Mr. Weber"s view, is the dollar sign with one bar through it. Mr. Weber"s submission is that a Canadian dollar sign has two vertical bars, but a peso has only one vertical bar. The offer, being in Mr. Weber"s view, in pesos, worth about seventy-five Canadian dollars, was one he could not refuse. Thus he tendered Columbia peso notes. Leaving aside that a tax certificate is merely evidence of a debt, and is certainly not an offer, the common sense of it all dictates that section 14 of the Currency Act ought to govern:
| 14. Any sum mentioned in dollars and cents in the Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982 and in any Act of Parliament shall, unless it is otherwise expressed, be construed as being a sum in the currency of Canada. |
This is the answer in my view and all the more so given that word processing equipment, having realized both the redundancy and the difficulty of clear reproduction, after several copyings and a facsimile transmission, of two verticals in a dollar sign, now produces nothing except a one vertical dollar sign. Indeed, this is problem with my cast-iron Underwood: the two verticals are forever becoming plugged with ribbon detritus, habitually producing a rather broad one-vertical dollar sign.
[9] Having said all of this, Mr. Weber"s argument becomes intriguing. Section 14 of the Currency Act refers to "dollars and cents". Mr. Weber notes this is spelled out and therefore it does not catch or apply to the "$110,650.81" amount as it appears on the Tax Certificate.
[10] Mr. Weber produces, in a supplemental affidavit filed at the hearing, much early material, including the dollar entry in the Oxford English Dictionary, to establish a dollar sign with two verticals, as it appears in the 1933 Oxford English Dictionary. However, here I would note that the compact edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, of 1982, which is a reprint of the 1933 edition, uses a one vertical dollar sign.
[11] Mr. Weber refers to several dozen other authorities, including the London Resolutions of 1866, the British North America Act as printed 9 August 1907 and the Judges Act of 1946, all of which use a two-bar dollar sign, including as to the salary of the Chief Justice of Newfoundland, at thirteen thousand, three hundred and thirty three dollars, thirty-three cents, with a two-bar dollar sign.
[12] This affidavit driven type-face analysis of our currency sign shows a certain inventiveness on the part of Mr. Weber, but it does break down. It thus called for further inventiveness in Mr. Weber"s initial affidavit. To be fair, counsel for Mr. Weber, who seems to have had no part in commissioning Mr. Weber"s initial affidavit, avoided the document. Yet it proves Mr. Weber"s undoing. In it, Mr. Weber, who styles himself as a person "having knowledge and experience in the field of Education and Research" relies, in Exhibit A, on an entry in Webster"s Third New International Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged, published in 1986, illustrating the sign for a Columbian peso. Rather, Exhibit A is a cropped portion of an entry which indicates the Columbian peso is symbolized by a single bar dollar sign. The full entry illustrates the Canadian dollar sign also to be a one-bar dollar sign. Mr. Weber is here being disingenuous, having abandoned the care and objectivity of a researcher in favour of a peso worth, on a sellers market, 0.000678 of a Canadian dollar. This effort to mislead, through editing with a pair of scissors, is a factor to consider in awarding costs.
[13] The whole exercise may be summed up by saying that neither the Canadian tax system nor, indeed, the Canadian economy, ought to be held hostage to a type-setter"s selection, at any given time, of what is considered a pleasing and useful type-face for a dollar sign.
[14] The dollar sign, just as the British pound sign, has gone through evolution over time. The operative dollar sign, not being defined anywhere, is what people accept as representative of a dollar, be it an ornate and stylized sign of the 19th century, or the functional representation of the dollar sign exemplified by current word processing type faces. The latter is clearly acceptable as representing a dollar. Mr. Weber"s debt to Revenue Canada, as reflected by the Tax Certificate, remains, in Canadian funds, $110,650.81 together with interest.
[15] Revenue Canada is justified in seizing the motorcycle, helmet, jacket and pants, belonging to Mr. Weber and shall have its order as to realization. Revenue Canada"s motion, was opposed with much material of little weight. Mr. Weber"s affidavit contained misleading material. All of this was a waste of resources, particularly of the resources of taxpayers as a whole. Revenue Canada shall have costs in the amount of $1,000 reflecting party and party costs under Column V of Tariff B.
[16] I thank both counsel for a good and interesting effort.
(Sgd.) "John A. Hargrave"
Prothonotary
February 28, 2000
Vancouver, British Columbia
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS ON THE RECORD
| COURT FILE NO.: ITA-6261-99 |
| STYLE OF CAUSE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA AS REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE |
v.
JAMES LORNE WEBER
| PLACE OF HEARING: Calgary, Alberta |
| DATE OF HEARING: February 22, 2000 |
| REASONS FOR ORDER OF HARGRAVE, Prothonotary |
| DATED: February 28, 2000 |
APPEARANCES:
Margaret A. Irving for the Applicant
John Phillips for the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General
of Canada for the Applicant
Scott Hall
Calgary, Alberta for the Respondent