Bruno et al. v. Minister of National Revenue et al., (1999) 168 F.T.R. 224 (TD)

• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: May 25, 1999
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1999), 168 F.T.R. 224 (TD)

Bruno v. MNR (1999), 168 F.T.R. 224 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1999] F.T.R. TBEd. JN.121

Frank J. Bruno, Holly Lynn Bruno, Robert Ernest Hanover, Catherine Hanover (plaintiffs) v. Her Majesty the Queen, Waterfront Employers of B.C., Surrey Metro Savings Credit Union (defendants)

(T-2359-98)

Indexed As: Bruno et al. v. Minister of National Revenue et al.

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Hargrave, Prothonotary

May 31, 1999.

Summary:

The plaintiffs sued the defendants, alleging that the Requirements to Pay, the Require­ments to Provide Information and documents were improperly issued on behalf of the Minister under the Income Tax Act. The plaintiffs moved to certify their action as a class action with the plaintiffs representing all persons whose monies and documents had been improperly seized by the Requirements.

A Prothonotary of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, denied the motion.

Practice - Topic 209

Persons who can sue and be sued - Indi­viduals and corporations - Status or stand­ing - Class or representative actions - General principles - The plaintiffs sued the defendants, alleging that the Requirements to Pay, the Requirements to Provide Infor­mation and documents were improperly issued on behalf of the Minister under the Income Tax Act - The plaintiffs moved to certify their action as a class action with the plaintiffs representing all persons whose monies and documents had been improper­ly seized by the Requirements - A Prothonotary of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, denied the motion - The court discussed the requirements for a representative action.

Practice - Topic 209.1

Persons who can sue and be sued - Indi­viduals and corporations - Status or stand­ing - Class actions - Members of class - General - The plaintiffs alleged that the Requirements to Pay, the Requirements to Provide Information and documents were improperly issued on behalf of the Minister - The plaintiffs moved to certify their action as a class action with the plaintiffs repre­senting all persons whose monies and documents had been improperly seized by the Requirements - A Prothonotary of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that: the plaintiffs did not represent a clearly identifiable group; common griev­ances and interest were not equally shared by all or substantially all of the members of the class; there was no common benefit to all members.

Practice - Topic 209.4

Persons who can sue and be sued - Indi­viduals and corporations - Status or stand­ing - Class actions - Certification - Appointment of representative plaintiff - [See Practice - Topic 209.1 ].

Cases Noticed:

John v. Rees, [1970] Ch. 345, refd to. [para. 7].

Pawar v. Canada, [1997] 2 F.C. 154; 123 F.T.R. 257 (T.D. Protho.), refd to. [para. 7].

Irish Shipping v. Commercial Union Assurance Co.; Ship Irish Rowan, Re, [1989] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 144 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

Twinn et al. v. Canada (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development), [1987] 2 F.C. 450; 6 F.T.R. 138 (T.D.), affd. (1988), 80 N.R. 263 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

Native Transfer Committee at Mountain Institution v. Canada (Solicitor General) (1997), 125 F.T.R. 10 (T.D. Protho.), refd to. [para. 7].

Bedford (Duke) v. Ellis, [1901] A.C. 1 (H.L.), consd. [para. 11].

Kripps v. Touche, Ross & Co. (1986), 7 B.C.L.R.(2d) 105 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 12].

Oregon Jack Creek Indian Band v. Cana­dian National Railway Co. et al. (1989), 56 D.L.R.(4th) 404 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].

Naken et al. v. General Motors of Canada Ltd., [1983] 1 S.C.R. 72; 46 N.R. 139, refd to. [para. 14].

Mayrhofer v. Canada (1993), 61 F.T.R. 81 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 14].

Kiist and Robertson v. Canadian Pacific Railway Co. et al., [1982] 1 F.C. 361; 37 N.R. 91 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

Cairns et al. v. Farm Credit Corp. et al. (1992), 49 F.T.R. 308 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 18].

Counsel:

John Whyte, for the plaintiffs;

Heather Konrad, for the defendant, Crown;

L. Terai, for the defendant, Waterfront Employers of BC;

Douglas Morley, for the defendant, Surrey Metro Savings.

Solicitors of Record:

Connell Lightbody, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the plaintiff;

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

Laughton & Co., Vancouver, British Co­lumbia, for the defendant, Waterfront Employers of BC;

Davis & Co., Vancouver, British Colum­bia, for defendant, Surrey Metro Savings.

This appeal was heard on May 25, 1999, at Vancouver, British Columbia, before Har­grave, Prothonotary, of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following judgment on May 31, 1999.