General Motors of Canada Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue, (2013) 444 F.T.R. 62 (FC)

• Judge: Mactavish, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: December 05, 2013
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2013), 444 F.T.R. 62 (FC);2013 FC 1219

General Motors v. MNR (2013), 444 F.T.R. 62 (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: [2014] F.T.R. TBEd. MR.054

General Motors of Canada Limited (applicant) v. Minister of National Revenue (respondent)

(T-437-12)

Richard Szymczyk (applicant) v. Minister of National Revenue (respondent)

(T-967-12; 2013 FC 1219; 2013 CF 1219)

Indexed As: General Motors of Canada Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue

Federal Court

Mactavish, J.

December 5, 2013.

Summary:

For over 25 years, General Motors of Canada Limited (GMCL) calculated the value of the taxable benefits received by certain of its senior employees in connection with the use of company cars in accordance with a formula that had been agreed to by Revenue Canada Taxation in 1982 (the 1982 formula). In 2012, the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) advised GMCL that the 1982 formula was no longer appropriate, and that the automobile benefits for GMCL employees for the 2008 taxation year had been incorrectly calculated. The CRA then re-assessed the automobile-related taxable benefits for some 350 GMCL employees. One of these employees was Richard Szymczyk. GMCL and Mr. Szymczyk accepted that it was open to the CRA to re-evaluate the situation in 2012 and to adopt a different approach to the calculation of automobile-related taxable benefits on a going-forward basis. However, they submitted that GMCL and its employees relied upon the 1982 formula in calculating the value of the automobile-related taxable benefits for GMCL employees, and that it was unfair for the CRA to reassess those benefits using a different formula on a retrospective basis. GMCL and Szymczyk each commenced judicial review applications challenging the CRA's actions. The Minister of National Revenue brought motions to strike both of the applications. The motions were heard together.

The Federal Court held that the relief sought by GMCL was not available in the Federal Court. Further, GMCL's notice of application failed to raise a "cognizable administrative law claim". As a consequence, GMCL's application for judicial review was dismissed. The court also dismissed Szymczyk's judicial review application, holding that it did not have the power to grant the relief sought.

Courts - Topic 4021

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Trial Division - Relief against federal boards, commissions or tribunals - [See first Courts - Topic 4021.1 and first Courts - Topic 4049 ].

Courts - Topic 4021.1

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Federal Court - Decisions of federal boards, commissions or tribunals - The Minister of National Revenue changed the formula for calculating the value of the taxable benefits received by General Motors of Canada Ltd. (GMCL) senior employees for use of company cars and reassessed the employees for 2008 - The Minister sent a letter to GMCL explaining the changes - GMCL applied for judicial review, seeking certiorari, a prohibition order and declaratory relief - The Minister of National Revenue sought to strike the application - The Federal Court allowed the application - The remedy sought by GMCL was not available in Federal Court - Further, GMCL's notice of application failed to raise a "cognizable administrative law claim", as defined in the jurisprudence - See paragraphs 55 to 96.

Courts - Topic 4021.1

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Federal Court - Decisions of federal boards, commissions or tribunals - [See first Courts - Topic 4049 ].

Courts - Topic 4049

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Trial Division - Income tax matters - The Minister of National Revenue changed the formula for calculating the value of the taxable benefits received by General Motors of Canada Ltd. (GMCL) senior employees for use of company cars and reassessed the employees for 2008 - An affected employee (taxpayer) applied for judicial review, challenging the Minister's decision to issue the reassessment and seeking declaratory relief - The Federal Court struck the taxpayer's application because the court lacked the power to grant the relief sought - The application was in reality an attack on the tax assessment itself - Trying to separate the decision to reassess from the reassessment itself "is a meaningless exercise" - It was open to the taxpayer to pursue remedies under the Income Tax Act - See paragraphs 98 to 120.

Courts - Topic 4049

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Trial Division - Income tax matters - [See first Courts - Topic 4021.1 ].

Courts - Topic 4071.1

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Federal Court - Practice - Judicial review applications - General - [See first Courts - Topic 4021.1 ].

Courts - Topic 4071.4

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Federal Court - Practice - Judicial review applications - Standing - The Minister of National Revenue changed the formula for calculating taxable benefits received by General Motors of Canada Ltd. (GMCL) senior employees for use of company cars and reassessed employees for 2008 - A letter was sent to GMCL explaining the changes - GMCL applied for judicial review - The Minister sought to strike the application, arguing that GMCL lacked standing - The Federal Court was prepared to accept that GMCL had been "directly affected" by the Minister's letter as it imposed obligations on GMCL or prejudicially affected it directly - The change in methodology would create a significant additional administrative burden for GMCL in carrying out its statutory duties under the Income Tax Act - That was sufficient to bring GMCL within the purview of s. 18.1(1) of the Federal Courts Act as a party "directly affected" by the Minister's actions - See paragraphs 45 to 54.

Cases Noticed:

JP Morgan Asset Management (Canada) Inc. v. Minister of National Revenue et al. (2013), 450 N.R. 91; 2013 FCA 250, refd to. [para. 5].

Hunt v. T & N plc et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959; 117 N.R. 321; 74 D.L.R.(4th) 321, refd to. [para. 40].

Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc. - see Hunt v. T & N plc et al.

Bull (David) Laboratories (Canada) Inc. v. Pharmacia Inc. et al., [1995] 1 F.C. 588; 176 N.R. 48 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 41].

Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence Society et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2012] 2 S.C.R. 524; 434 N.R. 257; 325 B.C.A.C. 1; 553 W.A.C. 1; 2012 SCC 45, refd to. [para. 46].

Sierra Club of Canada v. Canada (Minister of Finance) et al., [1999] 2 F.C. 211; 157 F.T.R. 123 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 48].

Moresby Explorers Ltd. et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2006), 350 N.R. 101; 2006 FCA 144, refd to. [para. 49].

Alberta v. Canadian Wheat Board, [1998] 2 F.C. 156; 138 F.T.R. 186 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 50].

Finlay v. Canada, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 607; 71 N.R. 338; 33 D.L.R.(4th) 321, refd to. [para. 51].

Australian Conservation Foundation Inc. v. Australia (Commonwealth) (1980), 28 A.L.R. 257; 146 C.L.R. 493, refd to. [para. 51].

League for Human Rights of B'Nai Brith Canada v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2008), 334 F.T.R. 63; 2008 FC 732, refd to. [para. 51].

Rothmans of Pall Mall Canada Ltd. and Imperial Tobacco Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue et al., [1976] 2 F.C. 500; 10 N.R. 153; 67 D.L.R.(3d) 505 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 52].

Democracy Watch v. Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner et al. (2009), 387 N.R. 365; 86 Admin. L.R.(4th) 149; 2009 FCA 15, refd to. [para. 57].

Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. v. Minister of National Revenue (1998), 148 F.T.R. 3 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 58].

Neeb v. Minister of National Revenue (1990), 38 F.T.R. 73; 90 D.T.C. 6666 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 59].

Krause et al. v. Canada et al., [1999] 2 F.C. 476; 236 N.R. 317 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 61].

Air Canada v. Toronto Port Authority et al. (2011), 426 N.R. 131; 2011 FCA 347, refd to. [para. 62].

Domtar Inc. et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) (2009), 392 N.R. 200; 2009 FCA 218, refd to. [para. 70].

Roitman v. Canada (2006), 353 N.R. 75; 2006 FCA 266, refd to. [para. 70].

Tele-Mobile Company Partnership et al. v. Canada Revenue Agency (2011), 417 N.R. 261; 2011 FCA 89, refd to. [para. 71].

Addison & Leyen Ltd. et al. v. Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, [2007] 2 S.C.R. 793; 365 N.R. 62; 2007 SCC 33, refd to. [para. 72].

McLarty v. Minister of National Revenue, [2008] 2 S.C.R. 79; 374 N.R. 311; 2008 SCC 26, refd to. [para. 74].

Main Rehabilitation Co. v. Minister of National Revenue (2004), 329 N.R. 248; 2004 FCA 403, refd to. [para. 74].

Chrysler Canada Inc. v. Minister of National Revenue et al. (2008), 329 F.T.R. 260; 2008 FC 727 (Protho.), affd. [2008] F.T.R. Uned. 746; 2008 D.T.C. 6654; 2008 FC 1049, refd to. [para. 75].

Ereiser v. Minister of National Revenue (2013), 444 N.R. 64; 2013 D.T.C. 5036; 2013 FCA 20, leave to appeal dismissed [2013] S.C.C.A. No. 167, refd to. [para. 75].

Redeemer Foundation v. Minister of National Revenue, [2008] 2 S.C.R. 643; 377 N.R. 277; 2008 SCC 46, refd to. [para. 81].

Sifto Canada Corp. v. Minister of National Revenue, 2013 FC 986, refd to. [para. 84].

Galway v. Minister of National Revenue, [1974] 1 F.C. 600; 2 N.R. 317 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 91].

Chaya v. Minister of National Revenue (2004), 329 N.R. 59; 2004 D.T.C. 6676; 2004 FCA 327, refd to. [para. 115].

Darte v. Canada, [2008] T.C.J. No. 35, refd to. [para. 115].

Webster v. Canada (Attorney General) (2003), 312 N.R. 235; 2003 FCA 388, refd to. [para. 118].

Addison & Leyen Ltd. et al. v. Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, [2006] 4 F.C.R. 532; 346 N.R. 238; 2006 FCA 107, refd to. [para. 118].

Statutes Noticed:

Federal Courts Rules (1998), rule 221(1)(a) [para. 39].

Counsel:

Al Meghi and Martha MacDonald, for the applicants;

Bobby Sood and Lorraine Edinboro, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP, Toronto, Ontario, for the applicants;

William F. Pentney, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent.

These applications were heard at Toronto, Ontario, on September 10-11, 2013, before Mactavish, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following reasons for judgment on December 5, 2013.