Michelin Tires (Canada) Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue (Customs and Excise), (2001) 271 N.R. 183 (FCA)

• Judge: Rothstein, Evans and Malone, JJ.A.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: May 07, 2001
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2001), 271 N.R. 183 (FCA);2001 FCA 145

Michelin Tires Ltd. v. MNR (2001), 271 N.R. 183 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2001] N.R. TBEd. MY.072

Michelin Tires (Canada) Ltd. (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent)

(A-775-98; 2001 FCA 145)

Indexed As: Michelin Tires (Canada) Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue (Customs and Excise)

Federal Court of Appeal

Rothstein, Evans and Malone, JJ.A.

May 7, 2001.

Summary:

Michelin sued the Minister for the refund of federal sales taxes it had overpaid.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, in a decision reported 158 F.T.R. 101, dismissed the action. Michelin appealed.

The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Limitation of Actions - Topic 9305

Postponement or suspension of statute - General - Discoverability rule - [See Sales and Service Taxes - Topic 946 ].

Restitution - Topic 123

Unjust enrichment - Remedies - Con­struc­tive trust - [See Sales and Service Taxes -Topic 946 ].

Sales and Service Taxes - Topic 946

Sales tax - Refunds - Time limitation - In 1988, the Minister refunded Michelin for federal sales tax overpayments for the period August 20, 1984 to June 30, 1987 - Michelin then realized that similar errors had been made for the period June 1, 1983 to August 20, 1984 - Michelin filed a notice of objection - The Minister disal­lowed it - In 1993, Michelin sued the Minister on the basis of unjust enrichment - Michelin argued that since it was seek­ing equitable relief, the relevant four and six-year statutory limitation periods did not apply - The Federal Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal of the action where: (1) except for its claim for a constructive trust, Michelin's claim for unjust enrich­ment was not necessarily a claim for an equitable remedy; (2) constructive trust was not available because Michelin pro­vided no evidence that its overpayments could be traced; and (3) absent evidence to establish that Michelin was not at fault in failing to discover, the limitation period began to run during the 1983-84 period - Hence, the action was barred by the six-year limitation provided by s. 39 of the Federal Court Act.

Trusts - Topic 2310

Constructive trusts - General principles - Circumstances when not imposed - [See Sales and Service Taxes - Topic 946 ].

Cases Noticed:

Canadian Marconi Co. v. Minister of Na­tional Revenue, [1992] 1 F.C. 655; 137 N.R. 15 (F.C.A.), folld. [para. 11].

Milliken & Co. v. Interface Flooring Systems (Canada) Inc. (1996), 123 F.T.R. 269 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 15].

Peel (Municipality) v. Ontario, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 762; 144 N.R. 1; 59 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 16].

Chase Manhattan Bank N.A. v. Israel-British Bank (London) Ltd., [1981] Ch. 105 (Ch. D.), refd to. [para. 18].

Harper v. Royal Bank of Canada and Re/Max Renown Realty Ltd. (1994), 71 O.A.C. 237; 114 D.L.R.(4th) 749 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 18].

Federated Co-operatives Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue (Customs and Excise) (2001), 268 N.R. 353 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

Forest Oil Corp. v. Minister of National Revenue, [1997] 1 F.C. 624; 126 F.T.R. 119 (T.D.), not folld. [para. 21].

Soulos v. Korkontzilas et al., [1997] 2 S.C.R. 217; 212 N.R. 1; 100 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 22].

Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v. London Borough Council of Islington, [1996] A.C. 669; 198 N.R. 241 (H.L.), consd. [para. 24].

Air Canada and Pacific Western Airlines Ltd. v. British Columbia, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1161; 95 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 27].

Air Canada et al. v. Liquor Control Board (Ont.) et al., [1997] 2 S.C.R. 581; 214 N.R. 1; 102 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 29].

Consumers' Glass Co. v. Foundation Co. of Canada Ltd. (1985), 9 O.A.C. 193; 51 O.R.(2d) 385 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 32].

Statutes Noticed:

Excise Tax Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. E-13, sect. 44(1)(a), sect. 44(1)(c), sect. 44(7.1) [para. 12].

Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-50, sect. 32 [para. 13].

Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, sect. 39(2) [para. 13].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Goff of Chieveley, Lord, and Jones, Ga­reth, The Law of Restitution (5th Ed. 1998), pp. 84 to 89 [para. 23].

Maddaugh, Peter D., and McCamus, John D., The Law of Restitution (1990), pp. 4-10, 13-21 [para. 16].

Counsel:

Dalton Albrecht, for the appellant;

Christopher Rupar, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Fraser Milner Casgrain, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellant;

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

This appeal was heard at Toronto, Ontario, on March 29, 2001, by Rothstein, Evans and Malone, JJ.A, of the Federal Court of Appeal.

The decision of the Court of Appeal was delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on May 7, 2001, by Evans, J.A.