Hermes Numismatique et Arts Anciens Inc. v. Ministre du Revenu national (Douanes et Accise), (2000) 193 F.T.R. 133 (TD)

JudgeLemieux, J.
CourtFederal Court (Canada)
Case DateAugust 18, 2000
JurisdictionCanada (Federal)
Citations(2000), 193 F.T.R. 133 (TD)

Hermes Numismatique v. MNR (2000), 193 F.T.R. 133 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2000] F.T.R. TBEd. SE.026

Hermes Numismatique et Arts Anciens Inc. (plaintiff) v. The Minister of National Revenue (defendant)

(T-954-99)

Indexed As: Hermes Numismatique et Arts Anciens Inc. v. Ministre du Revenu national (Douanes et Accise)

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Lemieux, J.

August 18, 2000.

Summary:

In 1990, the plaintiff imported a series of mosaics into Canada. In 1998, the Minister of National Revenue (Customs and Excise) seized the mosaics. The plaintiff commenced an action against the Minister seeking, inter alia, a declaration that the seizure was a nullity because it was beyond the prescription period in s. 113 of the Customs Act and damages arising from the seizure and from defamation. The Minister moved to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim on the ground that the court did not have jurisdiction to hear the action because ss. 123 to 135 of the Customs Act contained a complete code covering any possible intervention affecting the legality of a forfeiture by seizure made under the Act.

A Prothonotary of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, in a decision reported at 177 F.T.R. 112, granted the motion and struck the statement of claim, subject to the plaintiff's right to bring an action against the Crown for damages for defamation. The plaintiff appealed.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, allowed the appeal and set aside the Prothonotary's decision. It was not beyond doubt that ss. 123 to 135 of the Act were a bar to the plaintiff's action.

Customs - Topic 3089

Search and seizure - Seizure - Challenge or review of seizure - The plaintiff sued the Minister of National Revenue (Customs and Excise) seeking, inter alia, a declaration that the Minister's seizure of certain mosaics was a nullity because it was made beyond the prescription period in s. 113 of the Customs Act - The Minister moved to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim on the ground that the court did not have jurisdiction because ss. 123 to 135 of the Customs Act contained a complete code covering any possible intervention affecting the legality of a forfeiture by seizure under the Act - A Prothonotary struck the statement of claim, holding that the Customs Act contemplated only one method of challenging or reviewing any forfeiture by seizure - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, set aside the Prothonotary's decision - The Prothonotary was to decide whether the case was beyond doubt, he was not to decide the substance of the plaintiff's claim on its merits - It was not beyond doubt that ss. 123 to 135 of the Act were a bar to the plaintiff's action.

Practice - Topic 2200

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - General principles - [See Customs - Topic 3089 ].

Practice - Topic 2241

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Lack of jurisdiction (incl. alternative remedy) - [See Customs - Topic 3089 ].

Practice - Topic 2249

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Bars - Issues to be tried - [See Customs - Topic 3089 ].

Cases Noticed:

Canada v. Aqua-Gem Investments Ltd., [1993] 2 F.C. 425; 149 N.R. 273 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

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

Hunt v. T & N plc. et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959; 117 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 12].

Inuit Tapirisat of Canada and National Anti-Poverty Organization v. Canada (Attorney General), [1980] 2 S.C.R. 735; 33 N.R. 304, refd to. [para. 14].

Dome Petroleum Ltd. v. Canada (1988), 26 F.T.R. 318 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 18].

Comeau's Sea Foods Ltd. v. Canada (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans), [1995] 2 F.C. 467; 179 N.R. 241 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

Creed v. Canada, [1998] F.T.R. Uned. 86 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 19].

Counsel:

Jesse I. Goldman, for the plaintiff;

Jacques Mimar, for the defendant.

Solicitors of Record:

Gottlieb & Pearson, Montreal, Quebec, for the plaintiff;

Morris Rosenberg, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the defendant.

This appeal was heard on August 18, 2000, at Ottawa, Ontario, before Lemieux, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following decision on the same date.

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 practice notes
  • Berhad v. Canada et al., 2003 FC 992
    • Canada
    • Federal Court (Canada)
    • August 20, 2003
    ...is a concept which Mr. Justice Lemieux employed in Hermes Numismatique et Arts Anciens Inc. v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue) (2000), 193 F.T.R. 133 (F.C.T.D.) where he examined the interaction between administrative remedies, on the one hand, and damages on the other hand, in the co......
1 cases
  • Berhad v. Canada et al., 2003 FC 992
    • Canada
    • Federal Court (Canada)
    • August 20, 2003
    ...is a concept which Mr. Justice Lemieux employed in Hermes Numismatique et Arts Anciens Inc. v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue) (2000), 193 F.T.R. 133 (F.C.T.D.) where he examined the interaction between administrative remedies, on the one hand, and damages on the other hand, in the co......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT