Doig v. Minister of National Revenue, (2011) 387 F.T.R. 156 (FC)

• Judge: Zinn, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: January 25, 2011
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2011), 387 F.T.R. 156 (FC);2011 FC 371

Doig v. MNR (2011), 387 F.T.R. 156 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2011] F.T.R. TBEd. AP.004

Hugh Doig (applicant) v. Her Majesty The Queen In Right of Canada (Minister of National Revenue) (respondent)

(T-97-09; 2011 FC 371)

Indexed As: Doig v. Minister of National Revenue

Federal Court

Zinn, J.

March 28, 2011.

Summary:

The Canada Revenue Agency claimed that Doig owed $323,738.31, comprised of unpaid taxes, interest and penalties for taxation years prior to and including 1982 to 1993. Doig applied for a declaration that he had no debt for the 1971 to 1984 taxation years. Doig asserted that he paid the debt for those years but that the Canadian Revenue Agency failed to credit the payments.

The Federal Court held that the application was statute barred. Alternatively, the court would have dismissed the application based on undue delay and the doctrine of laches. In any event, Doig failed to establish that he had made the necessary payments on account of the arrears for the period prior to 1985.

Crown - Topic 465

Statutes affecting the Crown - Particular matters - Limitation periods - The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) claimed that Doig owed unpaid taxes, interest and penalties for taxation years prior to and including 1982-1993 - Doig applied for a declaration that he had no debt for 1971-1984 - The CRA asserted that the Income Tax Act did not contain a limitation provision for a taxpayer who claimed that payments were not credited to the taxpayer's account and therefore the six year limitation period under s. 32 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act (CLPA) applied to bar Doig's application - Doig asserted that the 10 year limitation period under s. 222 of the Income Tax Act applied - The Federal Court held that s. 222 applied only to the "collection" by the Minister of a tax debt - Had Parliament intended the limitation period to apply equally to a taxpayer's application, it could have easily said so - Doig asserted that it was contrary to justice that the CRA could sue to recover a tax debt at any time within 10 years but the taxpayer could not raise a defence that he or she has paid the debt if that payment was made more than six years prior to the Minister's action being commenced - Neither Act prevented a taxpayer from asserting as a defence to a claim that a debt was owed that the debt was paid, even if the taxpayer was otherwise statute barred from applying for a declaration to that effect in anticipation of collection litigation - Throughout the 1990's, Doig had knowledge of the facts that formed the basis of this application - Accordingly, his application was barred by s. 32 of the CLPA - If s. 32 had not applied, the doctrine of laches would have prevented the application from succeeding - It was a direct consequence of Doig's delay in commencing the application that documents were destroyed and CRA's ability to prove its position was compromised - It would be unjust and unfair to permit the application to proceed in such circumstances - In any event, Doig failed to show that he made the necessary payments on account of the arrears for the period prior to 1985.

Crown - Topic 4152

Actions by and against Crown in right of Canada - Practice - Time - [See Crown - Topic 465 ].

Equity - Topic 2061

Equitable defences - Laches - General - When applicable - [See Crown - Topic 465 ].

Income Tax - Topic 9421

Enforcement - Limitation of actions - General - [See Crown - Topic 465 ].

Limitation of Actions - Topic 7581

Actions against the Crown - Applicability of limitation period - General - [See Crown - Topic 465 ].

Cases Noticed:

Markevich v. Minister of National Revenue, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 94; 300 N.R. 321; 2003 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 34].

Minister of National Revenue v. Canada Trustco Mortgage Co., [2005] 2 S.C.R. 601; 340 N.R. 1; 2005 SCC 54, refd to. [para. 44].

Lameman et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [2008] 1 S.C.R. 372; 372 N.R. 239; 429 A.R. 26; 421 W.A.C. 26; 2008 SCC 14, refd to. [para. 14].

Samson Indian Band v. Canada (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) et al. (2005), 269 F.T.R. 1; 2005 FC 1622, affd. (2006), 357 N.R. 1; 2006 FCA 415, refd to. [para. 31].

K.M. v. H.M., [1992] 3 S.C.R. 6; 142 N.R. 321; 57 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 37].

Optical Recording Co. v. Minister of National Revenue (1990), 116 N.R. 200 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 40].

Roitman v. Canada (2006), 353 N.R. 75; 2006 FCA 266, refd to. [para. 40].

Walker v. Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (2005), 344 N.R. 169; 2005 FCA 393, refd to. [para. 40].

Statutes Noticed:

Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985 (5th Supp.), c. 1, sect. 222 [para. 23].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Meagher, R.P., Gummow, W.M.C., and Lehane, J.R.F., Equity Doctrines and Remedies (2nd Ed. 1984), p. 755 [para. 37].

Counsel:

Vern Krishna and Isabelle Mentina, for the applicant;

Isabelle Mathieu-Millaire and Pierre-Paul Trottier, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Borden Ladner Gervais, LLP, Ottawa, Ontario, for the applicant;

Myles J. Kirvan, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.

This application was heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on January 25, 2011, by Zinn, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following reasons for order on March 28, 2011.