Date: 20050414

Docket: A-397-04

Citation: 2005 FCA 136

CORAM:       DESJARDINS J.A.

ROTHSTEIN J.A.

PELLETIER J.A.

BETWEEN:

                                                                             

                                            MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE

                                                                                                                                            Appellant

                                                                           and

                                                     SWIFTSURE TAXI CO. LTD.

                                                                                                                                       Respondent

                                 Heard at Vancouver, British Columbia, on April 13, 2005.

                        Judgment delivered at Vancouver, British Columbia, on April 14, 2005.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:                                                                         ROTHSTEIN J.A.

CONCURRED IN BY:                                                                                          DESJARDINS J.A.

PELLETIER J.A.

Date: 20050414

Docket: A-397-04

Citation: 2005 FCA 136

CORAM:       DESJARDINS J.A.

ROTHSTEIN J.A.

PELLETIER J.A.

BETWEEN:

                                            MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE

                                                                                                                                            Appellant

                                                                           and

                                                     SWIFTSURE TAXI CO. LTD.

                                                                                                                                       Respondent

                                                   REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

ROTHSTEIN J.A.

[1]                This is an appeal by the Minister of National Revenue from an Order of Blanchard J. of the Federal Court granting the respondent's motion and enjoining the Minister from disposing of assets of the respondent seized in satisfaction of unremitted payroll deductions.

[2]                The Minister submits that there is no jurisdiction in the Federal Court for the Order issued by Blanchard J. Alternatively, the Minister submits that if there is such jurisdiction, there was no serious issue to be tried in the Federal Court and that the balance of convenience favours the Minister.

[3]                The Minister's jurisdiction argument is based on the Income Tax Act (the "Act") being a complete code. The Minister argues that the fact that there are statutory stays in respect of collection of certain types of debts under the Act, and that there is no statutory stay in respect of collection of unremitted payroll deductions, imply that Parliament's intent is that the Federal Court have no jurisdiction to grant a discretionary stay.

[4]                An analogous argument was made with respect to the Canada Labour Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. L-2, in Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees Canadian Pacific System Federation v. Canadian Pacific Ltd, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 495. McLachlin J. (as she then was) pointed out at page 499 that:

The governing principle on this issue is that notwithstanding the existence of a comprehensive code for settling labour disputes, where "no adequate alternative remedy exists" the courts retain a residual discretionary power to grant interlocutory relief such as injunctions, a power which flows from the inherent jurisdiction of the courts over interlocutory matters ...

At pages 501 - 502 she noted that:

If the rule of law is not to be reduced to a patchwork, sometime thing, there must be a body to which disputants may turn where statutes and statutory schemes offer no relief.

[5]                The remedial powers of the Federal Court are coextensive with the inherent jurisdiction of a provincial superior court in matters within the Federal Courts's statutory jurisdiction: see Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Canadian Liberty Net, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 626 at paragraph 38.

[6]                Having regard to these authorities, I do not accept the Minister's complete code argument. In an appropriate case, the Federal Court has jurisdiction to grant a discretionary stay or injunction with respect to matters arising under the Act.

[7]                The Minister also relied on section 22 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, R.S. 1985, c. C-50; 1990, c. 8, s. 21 to argue that an injunction cannot be granted against the Crown. This is a complex argument that was brought late in the day and was not thoroughly dealt with. No authorities were cited to the Court. On the basis of the arguments made in this appeal, it is not obvious to me that section 22 applies to interlocutory injunctions or stays, which indeed have been granted regularly against Ministers of the Crown by the Federal Court. In the absence of thorough argument on the point, I am not prepared to say at this juncture that the Order of Blanchard J. could not be made enjoining the Minister from taking collection action in this case.

[8]                As to the Minister's argument with respect to serious issue, it is well understood that the required threshold is low. Indeed, counsel concedes that the Federal Court may have jurisdiction to grant stays in some circumstances even in respect of unremitted payroll deductions. Examples given included instances in which the Minister claims against the wrong taxpayer, or where the taxpayer argues that any liability has been fully satisfied. However, the Minister's position is that this jurisdiction does not extend to disputes over assessments made by the Minister. I make no comment on the validity of the argument. I only say that it is one that I understand will be argued on the judicial review of this matter in the Federal Court. I cannot say it is not a serious issue.

[9]                As to the balance of convenience, this is a highly discretionary decision and not one that the Court will lightly disturb. I have not been persuaded that Blanchard J. took into account irrelevant considerations or failed to consider relevant ones. I see no basis for interfering with his determination in this respect.

[10]            The Minister argued that Blanchard J. made a palpable overriding error of fact in that he incorrectly assumed that there was a notice of objection filed by the respondent with respect to reassessments for the years 1997, 1998 and 1999, when there was not. Therefore, there was no underlying dispute that could justify restraining collection action by the Minister in respect of those years. This may well be the case, but the record in this Court is not absolutely clear. It is my understanding that this will also be a matter that will be argued in the judicial review in the Federal Court in about one month. This question should be decided in that forum.

[11]            The appeal should be dismissed, but without costs.

"Marshall Rothstein"

Donnaree Nygard	FOR THE APPELLANT
Stanley Foo	FOR THE RESPONDENT

John H. Sims, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada Ottawa, Ontario	FOR THE APPELLANT
Burke Tomchenko & Fraser Barristers & Solicitors Port Moody, British Columbia	FOR THE RESPONDENT