Angle v. Minister of National Revenue, (1974) 2 N.R. 397 (SCC)

JudgeMartland, Judson, Spence, Laskin and Dickson, JJ.
CourtSupreme Court (Canada)
Case DateNovember 07, 1973
JurisdictionCanada (Federal)
Citations(1974), 2 N.R. 397 (SCC);74 DTC 6278;47 DLR (3d) 544;2 NR 397;1974 CanLII 168 (SCC);[1974] SCJ No 95 (QL);[1974] CarswellNat 375;[1975] 2 SCR 248;[1974] ACS no 95

Angle v. MNR (1974), 2 N.R. 397 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

Angle v. Minister of National Revenue

Indexed As: Angle v. Minister of National Revenue

Supreme Court of Canada

Martland, Judson, Spence, Laskin and Dickson, JJ.

May 27, 1974.

Summary:

This case arose out of an application by a taxpayer to set aside a writ of extent in the third degree which was issued against the taxpayer on an ex parte application by the Crown. The Crown alleged that a company owed income tax to the Crown in excess of $100,000. and that a company controlled by the taxpayer was indebted to the first company. In turn, the Crown alleged that the taxpayer was indebted to the company controlled by the taxpayer. The taxpayer alleged that the purported debt owing to the company controlled by the taxpayer could not support the writ of extent because the taxpayer had been assessed for benefits which gave rise to the debt - the assessment was affirmed after trial by the Exchequer Court. An application to the Exchequer Court to set aside the writ of extent against the taxpayer was dismissed.

On appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada the appeal was dismissed and the judgment of the Exchequer Court respecting the validity of the writ of extent was affirmed. The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Crown was not estopped from alleging the existence of the debt because of the earlier adjudication by the Exchequer Court. The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the tax assessment in respect of the benefit received by the taxpayer is not inconsistent with the obligation to pay for the benefit - see paragraph 6. Laskin and Spence, JJ., dissenting, would have set aside the writ of extent because when the taxpayer in the earlier proceedings alleged a loan as the defence to the assessment and the allegation failed, then such allegation cannot later be "reactivated as between the same parties to provide a different basis upon which to attempt to capture the same sum twice" - see paragraph 25.

Estoppel - Topic 380

Estoppel by record - Res judicata as to subsequent proceedings - A taxpayer was assessed for benefits (indoor swimming pool) which the taxpayer received from a company which was controlled by the taxpayer - The assessment was affirmed after trial in the Exchequer Court - Subsequently in a separate matter a writ of extent in the third degree was issued by the Crown against the taxpayer on the allegation that the taxpayer was indebted to the company which debt arose out of the receipt of the swimming pool by the taxpayer - The Supreme Court of Canada refused to set aside the writ of extent against the taxpayer because the indebtedness of the taxpayer to the company for the swimming pool was not abrogated by the Exchequer Court decision - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that a tax assessment for a benefit received is not inconsistent with an obligation to pay for the benefit - See paragraph 6.

Evidence - Topic 2245

Judicial notice of judicial proceedings - Proof of reasons of judgment - The Supreme Court of Canada granted leave to counsel to refer to reasons of judgment in another matter in the same court which reasons for judgment were not proved at trial - See paragraph 13.

Estoppel - Topic 251

Estoppel by record - Purpose of the rule of issue estoppel and cause of action estoppel - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the rule is founded on "the general interest of the community in the termination of disputes, and in the finality and conclusiveness of judicial decisions and ... the right of the individual to be protected from vexatious multiplication of suits and prosecutions ..." - See paragraph 23.

Cases Noticed:

Thoday v. Thoday (1964) P. 181, 198, folld. [paras. 3, 16].

Hoysted v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1921), 29 C.L.R. 537, 561, folld. [paras. 3, 20].

Carl Zeiss Stiftung v. Rayner & Keeler Ltd. (No. 2), [1967] 1 A.C. 853, 935, folld. [paras. 3, 16, 20].

Duchess of Kingston's Case (1776), 20 St. Tr. 355, 538n, folld. [paras. 3, 24].

R. v. Hutchings (1881), 6 Q.B.D. 300, 304, folld. [para. 3].

Society of Medical Officers of Health v. Hope, [1960] A.C. 551, folld. [paras. 3, 20].

Hoystead v. Commissioners of Taxation, [1926] A.C. 155, folld. [para. 3].

Spens v. I.R.C., [1970] 3 All E.R. 295, 301, folld. [para. 3].

Curlett v. Minister of National Revenue, [1961] Ex. C.R. 427, folld. [para. 6].

R. v. Poynton, [1972] 3 O.R. 727, folld. [para. 6].

Attorney General for Trinidad and Tobago v. Eriche, [1893] A.C. 518, 522, folld. [para. 7].

Angle v. Minister of National Revenue, [1969] C.T.C. 624, refd to. [para. 12].

Blair v. Curran (1939), 62 C.L.R. 464, folld. [para. 16].

Caffoor v. Income Tax Commissioner, [1961] A.C. 584, folld. [para. 20].

Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd. v. Broken Hill Municipal Council, [1926] A.C. 94, folld. [para. 20].

New Brunswick Railway Co. v. British and French Trust Corp. Ltd., [1939] A.C. 1, folld. [para. 23].

McIntosh v. Parent (1924), 55 O.L.R. 552, folld. [para. 23].

Wright, McDermott and Feeley v. The Queen, [1963] S.C.R. 539, folld. [para. 24].

Fonseca v. Attorney General of Canada (1889), 17 S.C.R. 612, folld. [para. 24].

Counsel:

C.C. Sturrock, for the appellant;

N.A. Chalmers, Q.C. and G.O. Eggertson, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard by the Supreme Court of Canada on November 7, 1973. Judgment was delivered by the Supreme Court of Canada, May 27, 1974 and the following opinions were filed:

DICKSON, J. - see paragraphs 1 to 9;

LASKIN, C.J.C. - see paragraphs 10 to 27.

MARTLAND and JUDSON, JJ., concurred with DICKSON, J.

SPENCE, J., concurred with LASKIN, J.

To continue reading

Request your trial
682 practice notes
  • Cliffs Over Maple Bay Investments Ltd., Re, (2011) 304 B.C.A.C. 116 (CA)
    • Canada
    • British Columbia Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
    • January 14, 2011
    ...[para. 24]. Hoystead v. Commissioner of Taxation, [1926] A.C. 155 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 25]. Angle v. Minister of National Revenue, [1975] 2 S.C.R. 248; 2 N.R. 397, refd to. [para. 25]. Toronto (City) v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79 et al., [2003] 3 S.C.R. 77; 311 N.R. 201......
  • British Columbia (Workers' Compensation Board) v. Figliola, 2011 SCC 52
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court (Canada)
    • October 27, 2011
    ...[2005] 3 S.C.R. 279; Rocois Construction Inc. v. Québec Ready Mix Inc., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 440; Angle v. Minister of National Revenue, [1975] 2 S.C.R. 248; Canada (Attorney General) v. TeleZone Inc., 2010 SCC 62, [2010] 3 S.C.R. 585; Garland v. Consumers’ Gas Co., 2004 SCC 25, [2004] 1 S.C.R. ......
  • Howe v. Rees,
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)
    • November 4, 2022
    ...was final; and whether the parties, or their privies, were the same in both proceedings (Angle v. Minister of National Revenue (1974), [1975] 2 S.C.R. 248 (S.C.C.), at p. 254). These concepts were most recently examined by this Court in Danyluk, where Binnie J. emphasized the importance of ......
  • R. v. Mahalingan, 2008 SCC 63
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court (Canada)
    • November 14, 2008
    ...307 , 2000 SCC 44 ; Bradford & Bingley Building Society v. Seddon, [1999] 1 W.L.R. 1482 ; Angle v. Minister of National Revenue, [1975] 2 S.C.R. 248; Carl Zeiss Stiftung v. Rayner & Keeler Ltd., [1967] 1 A.C. 853 ; Toronto (City) v. C.U.P.E., Local 79, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 77 , 2003......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
642 cases
  • Newfoundland and Labrador (Attorney General) v. Uashaunnuat (Innu of Uashat and of Mani‑Utenam), 2020 SCC 4
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court (Canada)
    • February 21, 2020
    ...Alcan Inc., 2016 BCSC 1474, 92 C.P.C. (7th) 122; Re Labrador Boundary, [1927] 2 D.L.R. 401; Angle v. Minister of National Revenue, [1975] 2 S.C.R. 248; Penner v. Niagara (Regional Police Services Board), 2013 SCC 19, [2013] 2 S.C.R. 125; Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada (Governor General......
  • J.P. et al. v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), (2013) 451 N.R. 278 (FCA)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
    • October 2, 2013
    ...Inc. et al., [2001] 2 S.C.R. 460; 272 N.R. 1; 149 O.A.C. 1; 2001 SCC 44, refd to. [para. 137]. Angle v. Minister of National Revenue, [1975] 2 S.C.R. 248; 2 N.R. 397, refd to. [para. Statutes Noticed: Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, sect. 37(1)(b), sect. 117(1) [Sc......
  • J.P. c. Canada (Sécurité publique et Protection civile),
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Canada)
    • November 12, 2013
    ...2001 SCC 1, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 3; Penner v. Niagara (Regional Police Services Board), 2013 SCC 19, [2013] 2 S.C.R. 125; Angle v. M.N.R., [1975] 2 S.C.R. 248.REFERRED TO:B010 v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 569; S. C. v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2013 F......
  • McAlpin c. Canada (Sécurité publique et Protection civile),
    • Canada
    • Federal Court (Canada)
    • April 19, 2018
    ...the three preconditions of issue estoppel are met, as described in Angle v Canada (Minister of National Revenue – M.N.R.), [1975] 2 SCR 248 at para 3:a. the same question has been decided;b. the decision said to create the estoppel was nal; andc. the parties to the previous d......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 firm's commentaries
  • COURT OF APPEAL SUMMARIES (June 1 – 5, 2020)
    • Canada
    • LexBlog Canada
    • June 9, 2020
    ...Solicitor Client Privilege, Waiver, Civil Procedure, Striking Pleadings, Issue Estoppel, Angle v. Minister of National Revenue, [1975] 2 S.C.R. 248 Home Town Financial (Timmins) Corporation v. Levesque , 2020 ONCA 349 Keywords: Civil Procedure, Dismissal for Delay, Rules of Civil Procedure......
  • Court Of Appeal Summaries (June 1 ' 5, 2020)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • June 16, 2020
    ...Solicitor Client Privilege, Waiver, Civil Procedure, Striking Pleadings, Issue Estoppel, Angle v. Minister of National Revenue, [1975] 2 S.C.R. 248 Home Town Financial (Timmins) Corporation v. Levesque , 2020 ONCA 349 Keywords: Civil Procedure, Dismissal for Delay, Rules of Civil Procedure,......
  • Ontario Court Of Appeal Summaries (April 29 – May 3, 2019)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • May 28, 2019
    ...Penner v. Niagara (Regional Police Services Board), 2013 SCC 19, Danyluk v. Ainsworth Technologies Inc., 2001 SCC 44, Angle v. M.N.R., [1975] 2 S.C.R. 248, Stuart v. Bank of Montreal (1909), 41 S.C.R. 516, LaFarge v. B.C. Lightweight Aggregate, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 452, Cadbury Schweppes Inc. v.......
  • A Fair Fight: Issue Estoppel And Parallel Proceedings
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • May 13, 2013
    ...key issues grounding the civil claim. The test for issue estoppel was originally set out in Angle v. Minister of National Revenue, [1975] 2 S.C.R. 248 and involves whether the same question has been decided; whether the decision said to create the estoppel is final; and whether the parties ......
3 books & journal articles
  • Table of cases, index and about the authors
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Seventh Edition
    • June 30, 2021
    ...64, 95, 378, 380–82, 383, 386, 388, 389–93, 394, 396, 399, 400, 401, 409, 425 Application under s 83.28 of the Criminal Code (Re), [2004] 2 SCR 248, 2004 SCC 42............................................................... 119, 297, 320 Arseneault-Cameron v Prince Edward Island, [2000] 1 S......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT