Markevich v. Minister of National Revenue, (2003) 300 N.R. 321 (SCC)

• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel and Deschamps, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court of Canada
• Case Date: Wednesday December 04, 2002
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2003), 300 N.R. 321 (SCC);2003 SCC 9;223 DLR (4th) 17;[2003] 2 CTC 83;300 NR 321;[2003] 1 SCR 94;239 FTR 159;[2003] SCJ No 8 (QL);57 DTC 5185;[2003] ACS no 8;120 ACWS (3d) 532

Markevich v. MNR (2003), 300 N.R. 321 (SCC)

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: [2003] N.R. TBEd. MR.006

Her Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. Joe Markevich (respondent) and Teck Cominco Metals Ltd. (intervener)

(28717; 2003 SCC 9; 2003 CSC 9)

Indexed As: Markevich v. Minister of National Revenue

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel and Deschamps, JJ.

March 6, 2003.

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 1980 to 1985. 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, in a decision reported 163 F.T.R. 209, dismissed the taxpayer's application. The taxpayer appealed.

The Federal Court of Appeal, in a decision reported 270 N.R. 275, allowed the appeal, set aside the decision of the Trial Division and allowed the judicial review application. The court declared that the Minister of National Revenue was pro­hibited from tak­ing court action or statutory collec­tion pro­cedures to collect the taxpayer's tax debt because of the applicable limitation periods. The Minister of National Revenue appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal. The court stated that the limita­tion period prescribed by s. 32 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act (Can.) barred the Crown from collecting the taxpayer's federal tax debt, and that s. 3(5) of the Limitation Act (B.C.) barred the Crown from collecting the taxpayer's provincial tax debt.

Crown - Topic 4152

Actions by and against Crown in right of Canada - Practice - Time - [See both Income Tax - Topic 9429].

Income Tax - Topic 9421

Enforcement - Limitation of actions - General - [See both Income Tax - Topic 9429].

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 1980 to 1985 - The taxpayer applied for judicial review, arguing 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 applicable provincial statute (in this case, the British Columbia Limitations Act) - The Supreme Court of Canada agreed with the taxpayer's argu­ment that the Minister was barred from collecting these tax debts - The court stated that the limitation period prescribed by s. 32 of the Crown Liability and Pro­ceedings Act (Can.) barred the Crown from collecting the taxpayer's federal tax debt, and that s. 3(5) of the Limitation Act (B.C.) barred the Crown from collecting the taxpayer's provincial tax debt - See paragraphs 1 to 56.

Income Tax - Topic 9429

Enforcement - Limitation of actions - Requirements to pay - Section 32 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act (Can.) provided that "except as otherwise pro­vided in this Act or in any other Act of Parliament, the laws relating to prescrip­tion and the limitation of actions in force in a province between subject and subject apply to any proceedings by or against the Crown in respect of any cause of action arising in that province, ... " - The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 32 applied to the statutory collec­tion pro­cedures in the Income Tax Act - In inter­pret­ing s. 32, the court looked to both the English and French versions of the section, holding that the English version best reflected the intent of the legislator - See paragraphs 23 to 41.

Limitation of Actions - Topic 7401

Actions by the Crown - General - [See both Income Tax - Topic 9429].

Statutes - Topic 1806

Interpretation - Intrinsic aids - Bilingual statutes - Interpretation of one version by reference to the other - In interpreting s. 32 of the Crown Liabil­ity and Proceed­ings Act (Can.), the Supreme Court of Canada looked to both the English and French versions of s. 32 and concluded that the English version best reflected the intent of the legislator - See paragraphs 29 to 37.

Words and Phrases

Proceedings by or against the Crown in respect of any cause of action arising in that province - The Supreme Court of Canada 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 23 to 41.

Cases Noticed:

Will-Kare Paving & Contracting Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 915; 255 N.R. 208, refd to. [para. 12].

65302 British Columbia Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 804; 248 N.R. 216, refd to. [para. 12].

Stubart Investments Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue, [1984] 1 S.C.R. 536; 53 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 12].

Friesen v. Minister of National Revenue, [1995] 3 S.C.R. 103; 186 N.R. 243, refd to. [para. 15].

K.M. v. H.M., [1992] 3 S.C.R. 6; 142 N.R. 321; 57 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 17].

Symes v. Minister of National Revenue, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 695; 161 N.R. 243, refd to. [para. 18].

Ross v. Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, [2002] 2 C.T.C. 222; 218 F.T.R. 276 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 18].

MacKinnon v. Minister of National Rev­enue, [2002] 4 C.T.C. 48; 222 F.T.R. 306 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 18].

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

Nowegijick v. Minister of National Rev­enue et al., [1983] 1 S.C.R. 29; 46 N.R. 41, refd to. [para. 26].

Letang v. Cooper, [1964] 2 All E.R. 929 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

Domco Industries Ltd. v. Mannington Mills Inc. and Congoleum Corp. (1990), 107 N.R. 198; 29 C.P.R.(3d) 481 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

Berardinelli v. Ontario Housing Corp. et al., [1979] 1 S.C.R. 275; 23 N.R. 298, refd to. [para. 34].

Price (E.H.) Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue, [1983] 2 F.C. 841; 47 N.R. 312 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

Williams v. Minister of National Revenue, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 877; 136 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 54].

Statutes Noticed:

Crown Liability Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-50, sect. 32 [para. 4].

Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985 (5th Supp.), c. 2, sect. 222, sect. 223(2), sect. 223(3), sect. 224(1), sect. 225(1), sect. 225.1(1) [para. 4].

Limitation Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 266, sect. 1, sect. 3(5), sect. 9(1), sect. 9(3) [para. 4].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Bouscaren, C., Greenstein, R., and Cordahi, A., Les bases du droit anglais (1981), gen­erally [para. 30].

Bowstead and Reynolds on Agency (16th Ed. 1996), p. 110 [para. 45].

Castel, Jean-Gabriel, and Walker, Janet, Cana­dian Conflict of Laws (5th Ed.) (2002 Looseleaf Update - Issue No. 3), para. 22.2 [para. 54].

Driedger, Elmer A., Construction of Stat­utes (2nd Ed. 1983), p. 87 [para. 12].

Hogg, Peter W., and Monahan, Patrick J., Lia­bility of the Crown (3rd Ed. 2000), p. 71 [para. 33].

Hogg, Peter W., Magee, Joanne E., and Cook, Ted, Principles of Canadian Income Tax Law (3rd Ed. 1999), p. 2 [para. 14].

Sgayias, David, Kinnear, Meg, Rennie, Donald, and Saunders, Brian J., The 1995 Annotated Crown Liability and Proceed­ings Act (1994), pp. 135, 136 [para. 33].

Counsel:

Graham R. Garton, Q.C., and Carl Januszczak, for the appellant;

Ian Worland, for the respondent;

Edwin G. Kroft and Geoffrey T. Loomer, for the intervener.

Solicitors of Record:

Department of Justice, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the appellant;

Legacy Tax & Trust Lawyers, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the respondent;

McCarthy Tétrault, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the intervener.

This application was heard on December 4, 2002, before McLachlin, C.J.C., Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel and Deschamps, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The decision of the court was delivered in both official lan­guages on March 6, 2003, when the follow­ing opinions were filed:

Major, J. (McLachlin, C.J.C., Iacobucci, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 51;

Deschamps, J., concurring reasons (Gon­thier, J., concurring) - see paragraphs 52 to 56.