Duval v. Canada (Attorney General), 2012 FC 480

• Judge: Harrington, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: April 10, 2012
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: 2012 FC 480;(2012), 408 F.T.R. 187 (FC)

Duval v. Can. (A.G.) (2012), 408 F.T.R. 187 (FC)

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: [2012] F.T.R. TBEd. MY.013

Suzie Duval (demanderesse) v. Le Procureur général du Canada (défendeur)

(T-691-11; 2012 CF 480; 2012 FC 480)

Indexed As: Duval v. Canada (Attorney General)

Federal Court

Harrington, J.

April 24, 2012.

Summary:

The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) seized $1,791.31 from a joint bank account in the names of Duval and her common-law spouse (Hubert) to reimburse the tax debt of Hubert. Duval objected without success. Instead, she was personally the subject of an audit. Duval challenged the various steps taken by the CRA by judicial review and sought to get her money back. She also tried to obtain, without success, an injunction to suspend the audit undertaken by the CRA.

The Federal Court held that Duval, who was unrepresented, had not taken proper steps by submitting an application for judicial review of the CRA's various actions. Instead, she should have cited s. 56 of the Federal Courts Act, which looked to provincial law, Quebec law in this case. Articles 596 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure permitted her to oppose the seizure. The court referred to rule 57 of the Federal Courts Rules, which provided that "An originating document shall not be set aside only on the ground that a different originating document should have been used". The court held that the money belonged to Duval and not to Hubert. As a result, it was wrong for the CRA to keep that money and Duval's challenge was well founded. The court dismissed Duval's application for judicial review for a declaration that the information requirements sent to two Caisses populaires were invalid and illegal and her application for judicial review of the decision by the CRA for an audit of her tax returns, and it ordered the CRA to reimburse $1,791.31 to Duval, and any applicable interest. Even though Duval succeeded in having her money reimbursed, she was not entitled to costs. She initiated improper proceedings and was clearly wrong in challenging the audit of her income.

Banks and Banking - Topic 2734

Bank accounts - Joint accounts - Attachment - [See Practice - Topic 2808 ].

Income Tax - Topic 9301

Enforcement - Search and seizure - General - [See Practice - Topic 2808 ].

Practice - Topic 2808

Curative provisions - For wrong commencement procedure or document - The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) seized $1,791.31 from a joint bank account in the names of Duval and her common-law spouse (Hubert) to reimburse the tax debt of Hubert - Duval objected without success - Instead, she was personally the subject of an audit - Duval challenged the various steps taken by the CRA by judicial review and sought to get her money back - She also tried to obtain, without success, an injunction to suspend the audit undertaken by the CRA - The Federal Court held that Duval, who was unrepresented, had not taken proper steps by submitting an application for judicial review of the CRA's various actions - Instead, she should have cited s. 56 of the Federal Courts Act, which looked to provincial law, Quebec law in this case - Articles 596 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure permitted her to oppose the seizure - The court referred to rule 57 of the Federal Courts Rules, which provided that "An originating document shall not be set aside only on the ground that a different originating document should have been used" - The court held that the money belonged to Duval and not to Hubert - As a result, it was wrong for the CRA to keep that money and Duval's challenge was well founded - The court dismissed Duval's application for judicial review for a declaration that the information requirements sent to two Caisses populaires were invalid and illegal and her application for judicial review of the decision by the CRA for an audit of her tax returns and ordered the CRA to reimburse $1,791.31 to Duval, and any applicable interest - Even though Duval succeeded in having her money reimbursed, she was not entitled to costs - She initiated improper proceedings and was clearly wrong in challenging the audit of her income.

Practice - Topic 7022

Costs - Party and party costs - Entitlement to party and party costs - Successful party - Exceptions - Defective pleading or procedures - [See Practice - Topic 2808 ].

Cases Noticed:

Hamel v. Brunelle and Labonté, [1977] 1 S.C.R. 147; 8 N.R. 481, refd to. [para. 3].

R. v. McKinlay Transport Ltd. and C.T. Transport Inc., [1990] 1 S.C.R. 627; 106 N.R. 385; 39 O.A.C. 385, refd to. [para. 12].

Powell (C.B.) Ltd. v. Canada Border Services Agency (President) et al., [2009] F.T.R. Uned. 876; 2009 FC 528, revsd. [2011] 2 F.C.R. 332; 400 N.R. 367; 2010 FCA 61, refd to. [para. 12].

Roncarelli v. Duplessi, [1959] S.C.R. 121, refd to. [para. 13].

Canadian Union of Public Employees et al. v. Ontario (Minister of Labour), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 539; 304 N.R. 76; 173 O.A.C. 38; 2003 SCC 29, refd to. [para. 13].

TeleZone Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2010] 3 S.C.R. 585; 410 N.R. 1; 273 O.A.C. 1; 2010 SCC 62, refd to. [para. 22].

Canada Trustco Mortgage Co. v. Minister of National Revenue, [2011] 2 S.C.R. 635; 418 N.R. 146; 2011 SCC 36, refd to. [para. 25].

Statutes Noticed:

Federal Courts Rules, rule 57 [para. 21].

Authors and Works Noticed:

L'heureux, Nicole, Fortin, Édith, and Lacoursière, Marc, Droit bancaire (4th Ed 2004), p. 109 [para. 23].

Ogilvie, M.H., Canadian Banking Law (2nd Ed. 1998), p. 531 [para. 24].

Counsel:

Suzie Duval, on her own behalf;

Julie Mousseau, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Myles J. Kirvan, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Montreal, Quebec, for the applicant.

This application was heard on April 10, 2012, at Montreal, Quebec, before Harrington, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following decision on April 24, 2012.