Hermes Numismatique et Arts Anciens Inc. v. Ministre du Revenu national (Douanes et Accise), (1999) 177 F.T.R. 112 (TD)

CourtFederal Court (Canada)
Case DateOctober 21, 1999
JurisdictionCanada (Federal)
Citations(1999), 177 F.T.R. 112 (TD)

Hermes Numismatique et Arts v. MNR (1999), 177 F.T.R. 112 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Temp. Cite: [1999] F.T.R. TBEd. NO.118

Hermes Numismatique et Arts Anciens Inc. (demanderesse) v. Ministre Du Revenu National (Douanes et Accise) (défendeur)

(T-954-99)

Indexed As: Hermes Numismatique et Arts Anciens Inc. v. Ministre du Revenu national (Douanes et Accise)

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Morneau, Prothonotary

October 27, 1999.

Summary:

In 1990, the plaintiff imported a series of mosaics into Canada. In 1998, the Minister of National Revenue (Customs and Excise) seized the mosaics. The plaintiff commenced an action against the Minister seeking, inter alia, a declaration that the seizure was a nullity because it was made over six years after the offence, contrary to s. 113 of the Customs Act. The Minister moved to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim on the ground that the court did not have jurisdic­tion to hear the action because the statement did not comply with the Customs Act, and in particular ss. 123 to 135 thereof, which contained a complete code covering any possible intervention affecting the legality of a forfeiture by seizure made under the Act.

A Prothonotary of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, granted the motion and struck the statement of claim.

Customs - Topic 3089

Search and seizure - Seizure - Challenge or review of seizure - The plaintiff imported mosaics into Canada in 1990 - In 1998, the Minister of National Revenue (Customs and Excise) seized the mosaics - The plaintiff commenced an action against the Minister seeking, inter alia, a declaration that the seizure was a nullity because it was made over six years after the offence, contrary to s. 113 of the Customs Act - The Minister moved to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim on the ground that the court did not have jurisdiction to hear the action because the statement did not com­ply with the Customs Act, and in particu­lar ss. 123 to 135 thereof, which contained a com­plete code covering any possible inter­ven­tion affecting the legality of a forfeiture by seizure made under the Act - A Prothonotary of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, granted the motion and struck the statement of claim - The Customs Act contemplated only one method of challenging or reviewing any forfeiture by seizure whether a person was seeking a ruling that he or she had not contravened the Act or was contending that the Minister acted illegally.

Cases Noticed:

Smith (C.J.) v. Minister of National Rev­enue (1992), 58 F.T.R. 287 (T.D.), folld. [para. 9].

Hussain v. Minister of National Revenue (1999), 164 F.T.R. 80 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 10].

Rollinson v. Canada, [1991] 3 F.C. 70; 40 F.T.R. 1 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 11].

Counsel:

Jesse I. Goldman, for the plaintiff;

Jacques Mimar, for the defendant.

Solicitors of Record:

Gottlieb & Pearson, Montreal, Quebec, for the plaintiff;

Morris Rosenberg, Deputy Attorney Gen­eral of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the defendant.

This motion was heard on October 21, 1999, at Montreal, Quebec, before Morneau, Prothonotary, of the Federal Court of Can­ada, Trial Division, who delivered the following decision on October 27, 1999.

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 practice notes
1 cases

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