Minister of National Revenue v. MacIver, (2002) 224 F.T.R. 289 (TD)

• Judge: Layden-Stevenson, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: July 30, 2002
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2002), 224 F.T.R. 289 (TD)

MNR v. MacIver (2002), 224 F.T.R. 289 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2002] F.T.R. TBEd. SE.011

The Minister of National Revenue (applicant) v. Donald Neil MacIver (respondent)

(T-1042-96; 2002 FCT 877)

Indexed As: Minister of National Revenue v. MacIver

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Layden-Stevenson, J.

August 16, 2002.

Summary:

The Minister of National Revenue obtained a jeopardy order against MacIver authorizing the Minister to take action against MacIver's tax liability. MacIver moved to vary the jeopardy order, seeking to exempt his CPP and OAS benefits from set-off on the ground that he required the benefits to survive. MacIver sought to vary the notice of motion to rely on further grounds.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, allowed the motion in part.

Practice - Topic 3126.1

Applications and motions - Motions - Notice of motion - Amendments - The Minister of National Revenue obtained a jeopardy order against MacIver authorizing the Minister to take action against MacIver's tax liability - MacIver moved to vary the jeopardy order, seeking to exempt his CPP and OAS benefits from set-off on the ground that he required the benefits to survive - MacIver sought to vary the notice of motion to rely on, inter alia, s. 7 of the Charter - The Minister argued that s. 7 did not afford economic rights or economic security - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, allowed the amendment - Amendments should not be denied when one was dealing with an area of the law that could not be said to be settled with certainty - The court held that it was not clear that the law respecting s. 7 was settled - It was not plain and obvious that the amendment could not succeed - See paragraphs 9 to 14.

Cases Noticed:

Fox Lake Indian Band et al. v. Reid Crowthers & Partners Ltd. et al. (2002), 219 F.T.R. 134 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 4].

Olympia Interiors Ltd. et al. v. Canada (1999), 167 F.T.R. 165 (T.D.), affd. [1999] N.R. Uned. 101 (F.C.A.), leave to appeal refused (2000), 252 N.R. 393 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 5].

Stanwick v. Canada (1999), 235 N.R. 315 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Bryan (D.M.) (1999), 134 Man.R.(2d) 61; 193 W.A.C. 61; 170 D.L.R.(4th) 487 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; 243 N.R. 22; 174 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [para. 5].

Compania Peruana de Vapores S.A. v. Canada (1986), 6 F.T.R. 113 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 6].

International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union v. Canada, [1989] 1 F.C. 444 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 6].

Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft v. Adir et al. (1998), 153 F.T.R. 52 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 6].

Law v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 497; 236 N.R. 1; 170 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 9].

Minister of National Revenue v. Canderel Ltd., [1994] 1 F.C. 3; 157 N.R. 380 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

Continental Bank Leasing Corp. v. Canada (1993), 93 D.T.C. 298 (T.C.C.), refd to. [para. 10].

Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Québec (Procureur général), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927; 94 N.R. 167; 24 Q.A.C. 2; 58 D.L.R.(4th) 577; 25 C.P.R.(3d) 417, refd to. [para. 12].

Gosselin v. Québec (Procureur général), [1999] R.J.Q. 1033 (C.A.), leave to appeal granted (2000), 257 N.R. 395 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 12].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Laskin, J.B., Canadian Charter of Rights Annotated (2002 Looseleaf Ed.), generally [para. 12].

Sharpe, Robert J., and Swinton, K., Essentials of Canadian Law: The Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1998), generally [para. 12].

Counsel:

Perry Derksen, for the applicant;

Donald MacIver, on his own behalf.

Solicitors of Record:

Department of Justice, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the applicant.

MacIver and Associates, Winnipeg, Manitoba, on MacIver's behalf.

This motion was heard in Winnipeg, Manitoba, July 30, 2002, before Layden-Stevenson, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following judgment on August 16, 2002, in Ottawa, Ontario.