Knox Contracting Ltd. and Knox v. Canada and Minister of National Revenue et al., (1990) 106 N.B.R.(2d) 408 (SCC)

• Judge: Wilson, La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory and McLachlin, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court of Canada
• Case Date: Thursday August 16, 1990
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1990), 106 N.B.R.(2d) 408 (SCC);[1990] SCJ No 74 (QL);[1990] 2 CTC 262;106 NBR (2d) 408;[1990] ACS no 78;[1990] SCJ No 78 (QL);265 APR 408;JE 90-1159;[1990] ACS no 74;[1990] 2 SCR 338;1990 CanLII 75 (SCC);72 DLR (4th) 97;31 CPR (3d) 394;73 DLR (4th) 110;[1990] 2 SCR 467;90 DTC 6647;110 NR 171;1990 CanLII 71 (SCC);58 CCC (3d) 65

Knox Contracting Ltd. v. Can. (1990), 106 N.B.R.(2d) 408 (SCC);

    106 R.N.-B.(2e) 408; 265 A.P.R. 408

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Knox Contracting Limited and Harold Hazen Knox (appellants) v. Her Majesty The Queen, the Minister of National Revenue, the Attorney General of Canada, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Attorney General for New Brunswick, John Byron Clarke and Bernard Gerard Gillis (respondents)

(No. 21271)

Indexed As: Knox Contracting Ltd. and Knox v. Canada and Minister of National Revenue et al.

Supreme Court of Canada

Wilson, La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory and McLachlin, JJ.

August 16, 1990.

Summary:

The applicants sought to quash search warrants issued under s. 231.3 of the Income Tax Act.

The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, in a judgment reported 79 N.B.R.(2d) 347; 201 A.P.R. 347, held that it had the inherent jurisdiction to revoke or rescind its previous ex parte order, but dismissed the application. The applicants appealed.

The New Brunswick Court of Appeal, in a judgment reported 94 N.B.R.(2d) 8; 239 A.P.R. 8, dismissed the appeal. The court held that the trial judge had no jurisdiction to review his issuance of warrants under s. 231.3 of the Income Tax Act, because issuance of the search warrants was an administrative process, not reviewable ex parte orders. The applicants appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada, Sopinka, L'Heureux-Dubé and McLachlin, JJ., dissenting, dismissed the appeal. The court held that the issuance of a search warrant was an ex parte order reviewable by the trial judge, but no appeal lie to the Court of Appeal from the trial judge's decision.

Income Tax - Topic 9309

Enforcement - Search and seizure - Issue of search warrants - Judicial review - A trial judge issued search warrants under s. 231.3 of the Income Tax Act - Following execution of the warrants the applicants sought to quash the warrants - The trial judge held that he had jurisdiction to revoke or rescind the warrants, because there was inherent jurisdiction in a judge to revoke or rescind an ex parte order - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal held that the trial judge had no such jurisdiction, because the trial judge issues the warrant and there is no order to be reviewed - On appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada it was conceded that the Court of Appeal erred; that issuance of a search warrant was an ex parte order reviewable by the trial judge.

Income Tax - Topic 9312

Enforcement - Search and seizure - Appeals - The Supreme Court of Canada held that issuing a search warrant under s. 231.3 of the Income Tax Act was an ex parte order reviewable by the issuing judge - Cory, J. (Wilson and Gonthier, JJ., concurring), stated that ss. 231.3 and 239 were criminal in nature, reviewing the issuing of a search warrant was an interlocutory matter and, therefore, no appeal lie from the reviewing judge where none was provided in the Act or the Criminal Code - Sopinka, J. (L'Heureux-Dubé and McLachlin, JJ., concurring), stated that ss. 231.3 and 239 were civil in nature (federal taxing power) and an appeal lie under the New Brunswick Judicature Act - La Forest, J., preferred Sopinka, J.'s, approach, but disposed of the appeal as per Cory, J. - Accordingly, no appeal lie from the reviewing judge.

Practice - Topic 5806

Judgments and orders - Ex parte orders - Reconsideration of - [See Income Tax - Topic 9309].

Practice - Topic 8985

Appeals - When available - From interlocutory judgment - [See Income Tax - Topic 9312].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Wilson, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 594; 51 N.R. 321; 26 Man.R.(2d) 194, refd to. [para. 5].

Scowby et al. v. Glendinning et al., [1986] 2 S.C.R. 226; 70 N.R. 241; 51 Sask.R. 208, refd to. [para. 11].

Reference re Validity of Section 5(a) of the Dairy Industry Act (Margarine Reference), [1949] S.C.R. 1, refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Hauser, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 984; 26 N.R. 541, refd to. [para. 13].

Ramm, Re (1957), 120 C.C.C. 44, refd to. [para. 16].

Attorney General of Quebec v. Attorney General of Canada, [1945] S.C.R. 600, refd to. [para. 22].

Reference re Validity of the Combines Investigation Act and of s. 498 of the Criminal Code, [1929] S.C.R. 409, refd to. [para. 22].

Canadian National Transportation Ltd. and Canadian National Railway Co. v. Attorney General of Canada, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 206; 49 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Hoffmann-LaRoche Ltd. (1981), 33 O.R.(2d) 694, refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Mills, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 863; 67 N.R. 241; 16 O.A.C. 81; 26 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 2 C.R.R. 76, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Meltzer and Laison, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1764; 96 N.R. 391, refd to. [para. 28].

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. 31].

Thomson Newspapers Ltd. v. Director of Investigation and Research, Combines Investigation Act et al., [1990] 1 S.C.R. 425; 106 N.R. 161; 39 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 31].

Stelco Inc. et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1990] 1 S.C.R. 617; 108 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 31].

Multiple Access Ltd. v. McCutcheon et al., [1982] 2 S.C.R. 161; 44 N.R. 181, refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Wetmore et al., [1983] 2 S.C.R. 284; 49 N.R. 286, refd to. [para. 41].

City National Leasing Ltd. v. General Motors of Canada Ltd., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 641; 93 N.R. 326; 32 O.A.C. 332, refd to. [para. 41].

Board v. Board, [1919] A.C. 956, refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Cass (1985), 71 A.R. 248, refd to. [para. 50].

Poje v. Attorney General for British Columbia, [1953] 1 S.C.R. 516, refd to. [para. 50].

In re Storgoff, [1945] S.C.R. 526, refd to. [para. 50].

Southam Inc. v. Hunter, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 54 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291; 27 B.L.R. 297; 33 Alta. L.R.(2d) 193; 9 C.R.R. 355; 14 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 11 D.L.R.(4th) 641; 2 C.P.R.(3d) 1; [1984] 6 W.W.R. 577; 41 C.R.(3d) 97; 84 D.T.C. 6467, refd to. [para. 52].

R. v. Komadowski (1986), 39 Man.R.(2d) 282; 27 C.C.C.(3d) 319; [1986] 1 S.C.R. x; 44 Man.R.(2d) 79 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 57].

R. v. Zevallos (1987), 22 O.A.C. 76; 37 C.C.C.(3d) 79 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 58].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 8 [para. 27].

Constitution Act, 1867, sect. 91(3) [para. 6]; sect. 91(27), sect. 92(14) [para. 20].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 490(7), sect. 490(8), sect. 490(10), sect. 490(17) [para. 27].

Income Tax Act, S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 63, sect. 231.3(1), sect. 239(1), sect. 239(2) [para. 10].

Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-21, sect. 34(2) [para. 26].

Judicature Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. J-2, sect. 8(3) [para. 6].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (2nd Ed. 1985), pp. 135 [para. 46]; 430 [para. 47].

Laskin, The British Tradition in Canadian Law, p. 114 [para. 46].

Laskin, The Constitutional Systems of Canada and the United States: Some Comparisons (1967), 16 Buffalo L. Rev. 591, p. 592 [para. 46].

Counsel:

Guy Du Pont and R. Bruce Eddy, for the appellants;

John R. Power, Q.C., and Douglas L. Richard, Q.C., for the respondents.

Solicitors of Record:

Phillips & Vineberg, Montreal, Quebec, for the appellants;

John C. Tait, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondents.

This appeal was heard on December 7, 1989, before Wilson, La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory and McLachlin, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On August 16, 1990, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered in both official languages and the following opinions were filed:

Cory, J. (Wilson and Gonthier, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1-34;

La Forest, J., concurring in result - see paragraph 35;

Sopinka, J. (L'Heureux-Dubé and McLachlin, JJ., concurring), dissenting - see paragraphs 36-61