Markevich v. Minister of National Revenue, (1999) 163 F.T.R. 209 (TD)

• Judge: Evans, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: January 18, 1999
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1999), 163 F.T.R. 209 (TD)

Markevich v. MNR (1999), 163 F.T.R. 209 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1999] F.T.R. TBEd. MR.031

Joe Markevich (applicant) v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada (respondent)

(T-250-98)

Indexed As: Markevich v. Minister of National Revenue

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Evans, J.

February 19, 1999.

Summary:

In 1998 Revenue Canada sent a letter to a taxpayer claiming that the taxpayer owed $770,583 in unpaid taxes assessed in the years up to 1986. The taxpayer applied for judicial review, seeking a declaration that the amount requested was not owing and an order restraining the Minister of National Revenue from issuing requirements to pay to the taxpayer's debtors. The taxpayer argued that the Minister of National Revenue's statutory collection powers were subject to a limitation period either in the Crown Liabil­ity and Proceedings Act (Can.) or in the relevant provincial statute.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, dismissed the taxpayer's application.

Administrative Law - Topic 3203

Judicial review - Matters not subject to review - [See Courts - Topic 4021.1 ].

Courts - Topic 4021.1

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Trial Division - Decisions of federal boards, commissions or tribunals (incl. ministers) - In 1998 Revenue Canada sent a letter to a taxpayer claiming that the taxpayer owed $770,583 in unpaid taxes assessed in the years up to 1986 - The taxpayer applied for judicial review under s. 18.1 of the Federal Court Act - The Minister of National Revenue argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case because only a "decision or order" may be the subject of a judicial review application under s. 18.1 - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that it had jurisdiction in this situation - See paragraphs 9 to 14.

Income Tax - Topic 3901

Interpretation - General - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, discussed generally the interpretation of tax statutes -See paragraphs 17 to 20.

Income Tax - Topic 9429

Enforcement - Limitation of actions - Requirements to pay - In 1998 Revenue Canada sent a letter to a taxpayer claiming that the taxpayer owed $770,583 in unpaid taxes assessed in the years up to 1986 - The taxpayer applied for judicial review, arguing that the Minister of National Re­venue's power to issue requirements to pay was subject to a limitation period pursu­ant to s. 32 of the Crown Liability and Pro­ceedings Act (Can.) - Section 32 pro­vided that where there was no federal limitation period applicable, the provincial limitations laws applied to any proceedings by or against the Crown in respect of any cause of action arising in that province - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, dismissed the taxpayer's application, hold­ing that s. 32 was inapplicable.

Statutes - Topic 522

Interpretation - General principles - Taxing statutes - [See Income Tax - Topic 3901 ].

Words and Phrases

Proceedings by or against the Crown in respect of any cause of action arising in that province - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, discussed the meaning of this phrase as it was used in s. 32 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-50 - See para­graphs 22 to 34.

Cases Noticed:

Fuchs v. Minister of National Revenue, [1997] 2 C.T.C. 246; 129 F.T.R. 68 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 9].

Krause et al. v. Canada et al. (1999), 236 N.R. 317 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

Johns-Manville Inc. v. Minister of Na­tional Revenue, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 46; 60 N.R. 244, refd to. [para. 17].

Québec (Communauté urbaine) et autres v. Corporation Notre-Dame de Bon-Se­cours, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 3; 171 N.R. 161; 63 Q.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 18].

Symes v. Minister of National Revenue, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 695; 161 N.R. 243, refd to. [para. 19].

Antosko v. Minister of National Revenue, [1994] 2 S.C.R 312; 168 N.R. 16, refd to. [para. 20].

2747-3174 Québec Inc. v. Régie des permis d'alcool du Québec et autres, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 919; 205 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 20].

Royce v. MacDonald (Municipality) (1909), 12 W.L.R. 347 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

Price (E.H.) Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue, [1983] 2 F.C. 841; 47 N.R. 312 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

Twinriver Timber Ltd. v. R. (1980), 25 B.C.L.R. 175 (C.A.), affing. (1979), 15 B.C.L.R. 38 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 25].

Mark v. Canada (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans) (1991), 50 F.T.R. 157 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 32].

Brière v. Canada Employment and Immi­gration Commission (1988), 93 N.R. 115; 57 D.L.R.(4th) 402 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].

Minister of National Revenue v. Ginsberg (1996), 198 N.R. 148; 96 D.T.C. 6372 (F.C.A.), reving. 94 D.T.C. 1430 (T.C.C.), refd to. [para. 40].

Stollar (J.) Construction Ltd. v. Minister of Revenue (1989), 89 D.T.C. 134 (T.C.C.), refd to. [para. 40].

Marcel Grand Cirque Inc. v. Québec (Sous-ministre du Revenu) (1995), 107 F.T.R. 18, 21 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 43].

Gingras v. Canada (1994), 165 N.R. 101; 113 D.L.R.(4th) 295 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 54].

English, Scottish and Australian Bank Ltd. v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue, [1932] A.C. 238 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 55].

Vancouver Society of Immigrant and Vis­ible Minority Women v. Minister of National Revenue (1999), 234 N.R. 249 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 58].

Statutes Noticed:

Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-50, sect. 32 [para. 15].

Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, sect. 18.1 [para. 2].

Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985 (5th Supp.), c. 2, sect. 222, sect. 224(1) [para. 15].

Interpretation Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 238, sect. 14(1) [para. 70].

Limitation Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 266, sect. 1, sect. 3(5), sect. 9(1), sect. 9(3) [para. 15].

Counsel:

Ian Worland, for the applicant;

Judith Bowers and Carl Januszczak, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Douglas, Symes & Brissenden, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the applicant;

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

This application was heard on January 18, 1999, in Vancouver, British Columbia, before Evans, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following decision on February 19, 1999.