Consumers Glass Co. v. Canada, (1990) 107 N.R. 156 (FCA)

• Judge: Pratte, Heald and Stone, JJ.A.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: March 07, 1990
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1990), 107 N.R. 156 (FCA)

Consumers Glass Co. v. Can. (1990), 107 N.R. 156 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Canada (appellant) v. Consumers Glass Company Limited (respondent)

(A-995-88)

Indexed As: Consumers Glass Co. v. Canada

Federal Court of Appeal

Pratte, Heald and Stone, JJ.A.

March 7, 1990.

Summary:

Consumers Glass was a Canadian glass manufacturer. Consumers imported glass-making machinery parts for many years. From 1979 to 1983 Consumers paid duty totalling $512,563.64 on the parts. Thereafter, Consumers realized that the goods could have been imported duty free. Consumers requested a refund. They received $190,000.00, but the Deputy Minister, Revenue Canada, was restrained by s. 46 of the Customs Act from redetermining the tariff classification for goods imported more than two years before. Consumers commenced an action to recover the remaining $322,563.64 on the basis of unjust enrichment.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, in a judgment reported 21 F.T.R. 131, allowed Consumers' action. The federal Crown appealed.

The Federal Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and held that the action should have been dismissed.

Customs - Topic 6264

Payment of duty - Refund of duty paid - Where duty paid under mistake of law - A Canadian company imported parts and paid customs duties for four years before realizing that the parts could have been imported duty free - The manufacturer sued for the return of monies paid under mistake of law (unjust enrichment) - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, allowed the action, notwithstanding s. 46 of the Customs Act, which precluded redetermining customs duties more than two years after the goods were imported - The court held that the Act did not preclude an action based on unjust enrichment - The Federal Court of Appeal held that s. 46 precluded an action.

Mistake - Topic 1710

Recovery of money paid under mistake - Mistake of law - Circumstances when recovery allowed - [See Customs - Topic 6264].

Restitution - Topic 70

Unjust enrichment - Where money paid under mistake of law - [See Customs - Topic 6264].

Statutes Noticed:

Customs Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-40, sect. 46 [para. 4]; sect. 47, sect. 48 [para. 2].

Counsel:

Thomas L. James, for the appellant;

John T. Morin, Q.C., for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

John C. Tait, Q.C., Deputy General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the appellant;

Campbell, Godfrey & Lewtas, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on March 5 and 7, 1990, before Pratte, Heald and Stone, JJ.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal.

On March 7, 1990, Pratte, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the Court of Appeal.