 Printer-Friendly Page
Docket: A-593-99 Neutral citation: 2001 FCA 91 Coram: DÉCARY J.A. Between: RÉGENT MILLETTE Appellant AND MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE Respondent Hearing held at Montréal, Quebec, on Tuesday, March 20, 2001 Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, Monday, April 2, 2001 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: NOËL J.A. CONCURRED IN BY: DÉCARY J.A. LÉTOURNEAU J.A. Date: 20010402 Dossier: A-593-99 Neutral citation: 2001 FCA 91 Coram: DÉCARY J.A. LÉTOURNEAU J.A. NOËL J.A. Between: RÉGENT MILLETTE Appellant AND MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE Respondent [1] This is an appeal against a decision by Lemieux J. (the decision is reported at 99 D.T.C. 5466) in which he dismissed the appellant's application for judicial review to set aside, inter alia, a requirement under subsection 224(1) of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985 (5th Supp.), c.1 (the Act) that the Commission administrative des régimes de retraite et d'assurances du Québec (CARRA) pay the Receiver General 30% of the amount owed to the appellant under his supplemental pension plan. [2] The debt that gave rise to the requirement to pay resulted from a number of notices of assessments issued May 19, 1994, against the appellant totalling $563,135.95. Since the debt remained outstanding, on about March 26, 1998, the Minister of Revenue issued a requirement to pay to CARRA providing for the seizure of 30% of the amount owed to the appellant. [3] The appellant challenged the requirement by means of an application for judicial review claiming that the amounts owed were exempt from seizure under article 553(7) of the Code of Civil Procedure and section 77 of the Act Respecting the Teachers Pension Plan, R.S.Q. c. R-11. [4] The trial judge held that the Federal Crown was not subject to exemptions from seizure prescribed by provincial law. [5] The appeal against that decision was heard at the same time as the appeal in Yvette Marcoux v. Attorney General of Canada, which raises the same questions of law. Mr. Millette, who is representing himself, cited the same grounds for appeal as in the Marcoux case. Furthermore, he denounced taxation authorities for doggedly pursuing him and for the adverse effects the collection action has had on his health. [6] Despite the sympathy aroused by Mr. Millette's unfortunate situation, he failed to put forward before this Court any ground that would challenge the legality of the collection action taken against him. As to his legal arguments, they must also be rejected for the same reasons as in the Marcoux decision, which is released at the same time. [7] I would therefore dismiss the appeal with costs. Marc Noël J.A. I concur Robert Décary J.A. I concur Gilles Létourneau J.A. Certified true translation Sophie Debbané, LL.B. Date: 20010402 Docket: A-593-99 Coram: DÉCARY J.A. LÉTOURNEAU J.A. NOËL J.A. Between: RÉGENT MILLETTE Appellant AND MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE Respondent JUDGMENT The appeal is dismissed with costs. Robert Décary J.A. Certified true translation Sophie Debbané, LL.B. FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA APPEAL DIVISION NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-593-99 STYLE OF CAUSE: Régent Millette -and- Minister of National Revenue PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal DATE OF HEARING: March 20, 2001 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: Noël J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY: Décary, Létourneau JJ.A. DATED: April 2, 2001 APPEARANCES: Régent Millette FOR THE APPELLANT Serge Bouchard Patrick Vézina FOR THE RESPONDENT Claude Bernard SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Morris Rosenberg, Ottawa FOR THE RESPONDENT |
|||
|
|||
|
|
