Minister of National Revenue v. Leung, (1993) 67 F.T.R. 1 (TD)

• Judge: Joyal, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: February 25, 1993
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1993), 67 F.T.R. 1 (TD)

MNR v. Leung (1993), 67 F.T.R. 1 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Her Majesty The Queen (plaintiff) v. Joseph Leung (defendant)

(T-2001-91)

Indexed As: Minister of National Revenue v. Leung

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Joyal, J.

September 20, 1993.

Summary:

Leung was assessed under s. 227(10) of the Income Tax Act for $65,775.16 for alleged liabilities under the Income Tax Act, the Ontario Income Tax Act, the Canada Pension Plan and the Unemployment Insurance Act for unpaid source deductions payable by a corporation, which Leung was a director of. Leung objected. The Minister confirmed the assessment. Leung appealed.

The Tax Court of Canada allowed the appeal on the grounds that the assessment issued to Leung was incomplete and invalid. The Minister appealed. The parties applied under rule 474 of the Federal Court Rules for the determination of specific issues.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, determined the issues accordingly.

Income Tax - Topic 7841

Returns, assessments, payment and appeals - Assessments and reassessments - General - Form and content - [See Income Tax - Topic 7849 ].

Income Tax - Topic 7846

Returns, assessments, payment and appeals - Assessments and reassessments - Requirement that amount assessed be exigible - [See Income Tax - Topic 7849 ].

Income Tax - Topic 7849

Returns, assessments, payment and appeals - Assessments and reassessments - Curative provisions - Leung was assessed under the Income Tax Act, s. 227(10), for alleged liabilities under the Act, the Ontario Income Tax Act, the Canada Pension Plan and the Unemployment Insurance Act for unpaid source deductions payable by a corporation, which Leung was a director of - The Tax Court of Canada held that the assessment was incomplete and invalid because it did not state the amount assessed under each statute or provide documentation, such as notices which were sent to the corporation - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that the assessment was valid, considering the absence of statutory conditions governing form or content and the curative provisions of the Act.

Cases Noticed:

Scott v. Minister of National Revenue, 60 D.T.C. 1273 (Ex. Ct.), refd to. [para. 18].

Stephens v. Minister of National Revenue (1986), 81 N.R. 228; 87 D.T.C. 5024 (F.C.A.), affing. 84 D.T.C. 6114 (F.C.T.D.), consd. [paras. 18, 39].

Laurin v. Minister of National Revenue, 60 D.T.C. 1143, consd. [paras. 19, 46].

Roll v. Minister of National Revenue, 92 D.T.C. 1446 (T.C.C.), consd. [paras. 23, 66].

Curylo v. Minister of National Revenue, 92 D.T.C. 1250 (T.C.C.), consd. [paras. 23, 65].

Wallace v. Minister of National Revenue, 91 D.T.C. 1134 (T.C.C.), consd. [paras. 23, 58].

Corazza v. Minister of National Revenue, 92 D.T.C. 1554 (T.C.C.), consd. [paras. 23, 60].

Minister of National Revenue v. Riendeau (1991), 132 N.R. 157; 91 D.T.C. 5416 (F.C.A.), affing. 31 F.T.R. 123; 90 D.T.C. 6076 (T.D.), consd. [paras. 25, 35].

Optical Recording Co. v. Minister of National Revenue (No. 1) (1990), 116 N.R. 200; 90 D.T.C. 6647 (F.C.A.), reving. 6 F.T.R. 294; 86 D.T.C. 6465 (T.D.), consd. [paras. 25, 38].

Greenwood Estate v. Minister of National Revenue (1991), 39 F.T.R. 234; 90 D.T.C. 6690 (T.D.), consd. [paras. 25, 50].

Minister of National Revenue v. B.M. Enterprises Ltd. (1992), 55 F.T.R. 204; 92 D.T.C. 6463 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 26].

Doyle v. Minister of National Revenue (1989), 30 F.T.R. 1; 89 D.T.C. 5483 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Swyryda (1981), 11 Sask.R. 188; 81 D.T.C. 5109 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 26].

Kirby v. Minister of National Revenue, 91 D.T.C. 1453 (T.C.C.), consd. [paras. 29, 59].

McConnachie et al. v. Minister of National Revenue, 91 D.T.C. 873 (T.C.C.), consd. [paras. 29, 53].

Fitzgerald v. Minister of National Revenue, 92 D.T.C. 1019 (T.C.C.), consd. [paras. 29, 64].

Leung v. Minister of National Revenue, 91 D.T.C. 1020 (T.C.C.), refd to. [para. 29].

Crossley v. Minister of National Revenue, [1991] 2 C.T.C. 2082 (T.C.C.), consd. [paras. 31, 54].

Kit-Win Holdings (1973) Ltd. v. R., [1981] C.T.C. 43; 81 D.T.C. 5030 (F.C.T.D.), consd. [paras. 35, 87].

Belle-Isle v. Minister of National Revenue, 63 D.T.C. 347 (F.C.T.D.), consd. [para. 36].

Larocque et al. v. Minister of National Revenue, 91 D.T.C. 899, consd. [para. 42].

Norris (Bankrupt), Re (1989), 34 O.A.C. 304; 89 D.T.C. 5493 (C.A.), consd. [para. 42].

Canadian Marconi Co. v. Canada (1989), 28 F.T.R. 165; 89 D.T.C. 5370 (T.D.), consd. [para. 43].

Guaranty Properties Ltd. and Forest Glenn (Dixie) Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue (1987), 9 F.T.R. 17 (T.D.), consd. [para. 52].

McCullough v. Minister of National Revenue, 89 D.T.C. 446 (T.C.C.), consd. [para. 55].

Premachuck v. Minister of National Revenue, 91 D.T.C. 1436, consd. [para. 57].

Vogt v. Minister of National Revenue, 91 D.T.C. 1326, consd. [para. 62].

Minister of National Revenue v. Pillsbury Holdings Ltd., [1965] 1 Ex. C.R. 676; 64 D.T.C. 5184 (Can.), refd to. [para. 87].

Interprovincial Co-Operative Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue (1987), 8 F.T.R. 293 (T.D.), consd. [para. 88].

Baggs v. Minister of National Revenue, [1990] C.T.C. 2391, consd. [para. 89].

Maroist v. Minister of National Revenue, [1990] 1 C.T.C. 2521, consd. [para. 90].

Brewster v. R., [1976] C.T.C. 107 (F.C.T.D.), consd. [para. 90].

Hillsdale Shopping Centre Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue (1981), 38 N.R. 103; 81 D.T.C. 5261 (F.C.A.), consd. [para. 91].

Statutes Noticed:

Income Tax Act, S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 63, sect. 152(3), sect. 152(8), sect. 166 [para. 33]; sect. 220, sect. 221 [para. 26]; sect. 227(10) [para. 1]; sect. 227.1(1) [para. 16]; sect. 244(13) [para. 26].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Moskowitz, Evelyn P., Director's Liability: An Update, 1991 Conference Report (1991), pp. 47:5, 47:6 [para. 67].

Counsel:

Bonnie Moon, for the plaintiff;

Stephen S. Ruby and David Hausman, for the defendant.

Solicitors of Record:

John C. Tait, Q.C., Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the plaintiff;

Warren Biback, Toronto, Ontario, for the defendant.

This case was heard on February 25, 1993, at Toronto, Ontario, before Joyal, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following decision on September 20, 1993.