783783 Alberta Ltd. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., 2007 ABQB 348

• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: May 22, 2007
• Citations: 2007 ABQB 348;(2007), 430 A.R. 361 (QBM)

783783 Alta. v. Can. (A.G.) (2007), 430 A.R. 361 (QBM)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2007] A.R. TBEd. NO.076

783783 Alberta Ltd. carrying on business as Vue Weekly (plaintiff) v. The Attorney General of Canada, See Magazine, Great West Newspaper Group Ltd., Gazette Press Ltd., Jamison Newspapers Inc., Hollinger Canadian Publishing Holdings Co., Hollinger Inc., Hollinger International Inc., also known as Sun-Times Media Group Inc., Conrad M. Black and the Ravelston Corporation Limited (defendants)

(0503 18023; 2007 ABQB 348)

Indexed As: 783783 Alberta Ltd. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Wacowich, Master

May 22, 2007.

Summary:

Vue Weekly, a free weekly news magazine, brought an action, alleging, inter alia, that the Minister of National Revenue had improperly allowed advertisers to deduct expenses from advertising in See Magazine, Vue's main competitor, under s. 19 of the Income Tax Act, when See was not a Canadian company as required by s. 19, that Vue had suffered damages due to lost advertising revenue and that the Crown was liable for the Minister's negligence. The Crown applied to strike the statement of claim as against it.

A Master of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the application.

Courts - Topic 4502

Tax Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Vue Weekly was a free weekly news magazine - Its main competitor was See Magazine, which was owned by the corporate defendants, including Conrad Black - In 2001, Black renounced his Canadian citizenship - Vue and See's advertisers were able to deduct their advertising expenses under s. 19 of the Income Tax Act, which allowed such deductions for advertising in a Canadian newspaper - Vue brought an action, alleging, inter alia, that the Minister of National Revenue had improperly allowed advertisers to deduct expenses from advertising in See when it was not a Canadian company, that Vue had suffered damages due to lost advertising revenue and that the Crown was liable for the Minister's negligence - The Crown applied to strike the statement of claim as against it - A Master of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the application - The Tax Court of Canada had exclusive jurisdiction over matters arising under the Act - All other courts lacked jurisdiction to review the correctness of assessments under the Act - Vue's action was a collateral attack on the assessments in issue - To couch the claim in the form of a negligence action did not bring it within the court's jurisdiction - In any event, the claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action - There was no relationship of proximity between Vue and the tax auditors regarding the assessment of other taxpayers' tax liabilities and thus no private law duty of care owed by auditors to Vue.

Courts - Topic 5695.2

Provincial courts - General - Jurisdiction or powers - Respecting income tax matters - [See Courts - Topic 4502 ].

Practice - Topic 2241

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Lack of jurisdiction (incl. alternative remedy) - [See Courts - Topic 4502 ].

Practice - Topic 6270

Judgments and orders - Administrative orders - Collateral attack - [See Courts - Topic 4502 ].

Torts - Topic 77

Negligence - Duty of care - Relationship required to raise duty of care - [See Courts - Topic 4502 ].

Cases Noticed:

Aboriginal Federated Alliance Inc. v. Canada Customs and Revenue Agency et al. (2002), 303 A.R. 304; 273 W.A.C. 304; 2002 ABCA 104, refd to. [para. 10].

Roitman v. Canada (2006), 353 N.R. 75; 2006 FCA 266, leave to appeal denied (2006), 362 N.R. 400 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 10].

Fleming Estate v. Minister of National Revenue, [1984] 2 F.C. 331; 61 N.R. 113 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

Minister of National Revenue v. Parsons - see Fleming Estate v. Minister of National Revenue.

Smith et al. v. Canada et al. (2006), 226 B.C.A.C. 187; 373 W.A.C. 187; 2006 BCCA 237, leave to appeal denied (2006), 362 N.R. 400 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 10].

422252 Alberta Ltd. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2003] B.C.T.C. 1362; 2003 BCSC 1362, refd to. [para. 10].

Odhavji Estate et al. v. Woodhouse et al., [2003] 3 S.C.R. 263; 312 N.R. 305; 180 O.A.C. 201; 2003 SCC 69, refd to. [para. 15].

Cooper v. Registrar of Mortgage Brokers (B.C.) et al., [2001] 3 S.C.R. 537; 277 N.R. 113; 160 B.C.A.C. 268; 261 W.A.C. 268; 2001 SCC 79, refd to. [para. 16].

Cooper v. Hobart - see Cooper v. Registrar of Mortgage Brokers (B.C.) et al.

Anns v. Merton London Borough Council, [1978] A.C. 728 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 16].

Counsel:

J. Arvay (Arvay Finlay), for the plaintiff;

Kerry Boyd and D. Charlton (Justice Canada), for the defendant, Attorney General of Canada;

M. Chernos (McCarthy Tétrault LLP), for the defendants, See Magazine, Great West Newspaper Group Ltd., Jamison Newspaper Inc., Hollinger Canadian Publishing Holding Co., Hollinger International Inc. aka Sun-Times Media Group Inc.

This application was heard on May 15 and 16, 2007, by Wacowich, Master, of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following reasons for decision on May 22, 2007.