Danmour Shoes Co., Re, (1974) 1 N.R. 422 (FCA)

• Judge: Jackett, C.J., Pratte, J.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: January 24, 1974
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1974), 1 N.R. 422 (FCA)

Danmour Shoes Co., Re (1974), 1 N.R. 422 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

Re Danmour Shoes Co. Ltd.

Indexed As: Danmour Shoes Co., Re

Federal Court of Appeal

Jackett, C.J., Pratte, J.

and Hyde, D.J.

January 24, 1974.

Summary:

This case arose out of a hearing before the Tariff Board to determine the "value for duty" of imported goods under the Customs Act and the "normal value" of imported goods under the Anti-Dumping Act. During the hearing before the Tariff Board, the Board refused to review the regulations made by the Minister to be used to compute "value for duty" and "normal value". The taxpayer appealed from such ruling to the Federal Court of Appeal pursuant to s. 28(1) of the Federal Court Act, which gives the Federal Court of Appeal authority to review and set aside a decision or order of boards and tribunals. The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

The Federal Court of Appeal stated that such a ruling by the Tariff Board was not a "decision" but was only a "preliminary declaration" which was not reviewable by the Federal Court of Appeal pursuant to s. 28(1) of the Federal Court Act - see paragraphs 14 to 16.

The Federal Court of Appeal also stated that a ruling by the Tariff Board excluding certain evidence was a "preliminary declaration" by the Board and was not a "decision" within the meaning of s. 28(1) of the Federal Court Act - see paragraph 16.

Courts - Topic 4085

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction of the Federal Court of Appeal respecting decisions of boards and tribunals - During a hearing before the Tariff Board the Tariff Board made a ruling regarding the application of certain regulations made by the Minister of National Revenue - The regulations were made by the Minister pursuant to statute and were used to compute "value for duty" under the Customs Act and to compute "normal value" under the Anti-Dumping Act - The Federal Court of Appeal held that such a ruling regarding the application of the regulations was not a "decision or order" within the meaning of s. 28 of the Federal Court Act and accordingly was not reviewable by the Federal Court of Appeal under that section - See paragraph 16 - The Federal Court of Appeal stated that such a ruling was a "preliminary declaration" by the Tariff Board and was not a "decision" by the Tariff Board in the exercise of its statutory power - See paragraph 14.

Courts - Topic 4085

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction of Federal Court of Appeal respecting decisions of boards and tribunals - During a hearing before the Tariff Board the Board excluded certain evidence - The Federal Court of Appeal held that such a ruling was a "preliminary declaration" by the Tariff Board and was not a "decision" within the meaning of s. 28 of the Federal Court Act and accordingly was not reviewable by the Federal Court of Appeal under that section - See paragraph 16.

Words and Phrases

Decision - The Federal Court of Appeal discussed the meaning of the word "decision" as found in s. 28(1) of the Federal Court Act - See paragraph 15.

Cases Noticed:

Minister of National Revenue v. Creative Shoes Ltd., [1972] F.C. 993, folld. [para. 4].

British Columbia Packers, 1 N.R. 201, folld. [para. 11].

Toronto Newspaper Guild Printing Company, [1953] 2 S.C.R. 18, folld. [para. 17].

Commission des Relations de Travail du Quebec v. L'Association Unie des Compagnons et Apprentis de L'Industrie de la Plomberie et Tuyayterie des Etats-Unis et du Canada et al., [1969] S.C.R. 466, folld. [fn. 1].

Toronto Newspaper Guild v. Globe Printing Company, [1953] 2 S.C.R. 18, folld. [appendix].

Bell v. Ontario Human Rights Commission, [1971] S.C.R. 756, folld. [appendix].

Tottenham and District Rent Tribunal, Ex p. Northfield (Highgate) Ltd., [1957] 1 Q.B. 103, folld. [appendix].

Statutes Noticed:

Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. 10 (2nd supp.), sect. 28(1) [para. 8]; sect. 28(4) [appendix].

Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. I-23, sect. 11 [appendix].

Counsel:

Richard Gottlieb, for the applicants;

Peter T. McInenly, for the respondents.

The judgment of the court was delivered by JACKETT, C.J.