Powell (C.B.) Ltd. v. Canada Border Services Agency (President) et al., 2010 FCA 61

• Judge: Nadon, Evans and Stratas, JJ.A.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: February 02, 2010
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: 2010 FCA 61;(2010), 400 N.R. 367 (FCA);[2011] 2 FCR 332;400 NR 367;AZ-50613379;[2010] FCJ No 274 (QL)

Powell Ltd. v. Can. Border Services (2010), 400 N.R. 367 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2010] N.R. TBEd. MR.019

The President of the Canada Border Services Agency and The Attorney General of Canada (appellants) v. C.B. Powell Limited (respondent)

(A-245-09; 2010 FCA 61)

Indexed As: Powell (C.B.) Ltd. v. Canada Border Services Agency (President) et al.

Federal Court of Appeal

Nadon, Evans and Stratas, JJ.A.

February 23, 2010.

Summary:

C.B. Powell Ltd. imported bacon bits into Canada. The Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) assessed certain duties on the bacon bits. C.B. Powell disagreed with the CBSA's assessment and asked the CBSA President to rule on the matter (Customs Act, s. 60(1)). The President ruled that he did not have jurisdiction to decide the matter. Under s. 67(1) of the Act, "decisions" of the President could be appealed to the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (CITT), but C.B. Powell did not follow that route. Rather, C.B. Powell applied for judicial review, seeking a declaration that there was a "decision" that could be appealed under s. 67(1) of the Act.

The Federal Court, in a decision reported [2009] F.T.R. Uned. 876, granted the declaration. The CBSA President and the Attorney General of Canada appealed, arguing that the CBSA President was correct in deciding that he did not have jurisdiction to decide the matter and so there was no "decision" that could be appealed to the CITT under s. 67(1) of the Act.

The Federal Court of Appeal allowed the appeal.

Customs - Topic 5143

Classification for duty - Judicial review - When available - The Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) assessed certain duties on bacon bits imported by C.B. Powell Ltd. (Powell) - Powell disagreed with the CBSA's assessment and asked the CBSA President to rule on the matter (Customs Act, s. 60(1)) - The President ruled that he lacked jurisdiction to decide the matter - Under s. 67(1) of the Act, "decisions" of the President could be appealed to the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (CITT), but Powell did not follow that route - Rather, Powell applied for judicial review, seeking a declaration that there was a "decision" that could be appealed under s. 67(1) of the Act - The applications judge granted the declaration - The CBSA President and the Attorney General of Canada appealed, arguing that the CBSA President was correct in deciding that he did not have jurisdiction to decide the matter and so there was no "decision" that could be appealed to the CITT under s. 67(1) of the Act - The Federal Court of Appeal allowed the appeal - The court stated that the Act contained an administrative process of adjudications and appeals that had to be followed to completion before applying for judicial review, unless exceptional circumstances existed, which were not present in this case.

Customs - Topic 9001

Appeals or review - General - [See Customs - Topic 5143 ].

Cases Noticed:

Mueller Canada Inc. v. Minister of National Revenue (1993), 70 F.T.R. 197 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 27].

Harelkin v. University of Regina, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 561; 26 N.R. 364, refd to. [para. 30].

Canadian Pacific Ltd. v. Matsqui Indian Band et al., [1995] 1 S.C.R. 3; 177 N.R. 325, refd to. [para. 30].

Weber v. Ontario Hydro, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 929; 183 N.R. 241; 82 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Consolidated Maybrun Mines Ltd. et al., [1998] 1 S.C.R. 706; 225 N.R. 41; 108 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 30].

Regina Police Association Inc. and Shotton v. Board of Police Commissioners of Regina, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 360; 251 N.R. 16; 189 Sask.R. 23; 216 W.A.C. 23; 2000 SCC 14, refd to. [para. 30].

Danyluk v. Ainsworth Technologies Inc. et al., [2001] 2 S.C.R. 460; 272 N.R. 1; 149 O.A.C. 1; 2001 SCC 44, refd to. [para. 30].

Goudie et al. v. Ottawa (City), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 141; 301 N.R. 201; 170 O.A.C. 201; 2003 SCC 14, refd to. [para. 30].

Vaughan v. Canada, [2005] 1 S.C.R. 146; 331 N.R. 64; 2005 SCC 11, refd to. [para. 30].

Okwuobi v. Quebec (Attorney General) et al., [2005] 1 S.C.R. 257; 331 N.R. 300; 2005 SCC 16, refd to. [para. 30].

House of Commons et al. v. Vaid et al., [2005] 1 S.C.R. 667; 333 N.R. 314; 2005 SCC 30, refd to. [para. 30].

Greater Moncton International Airport Authority v. Public Service Alliance of Canada et al., [2008] N.R. Uned. 19; 2008 FCA 68, refd to. [para. 32].

Ontario College of Art et al. v. Human Rights Commission (Ont.) (1993), 63 O.A.C. 393; 99 D.L.R.(4th) 738 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 32].

Delmas v. Vancouver Stock Exchange et al. (1994), 119 D.L.R.(4th) 136 (B.C.S.C.), affd. (1995), 66 B.C.A.C. 200; 108 W.A.C. 200; 130 D.L.R.(4th) 461 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 32].

Jafine v. College of Veterinarians (Ont.) (1991), 5 O.R.(3d) 439 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 32].

New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190; 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 32].

University of Toronto v. Canadian Union of Education Workers, Local 2 (1988), 28 O.A.C. 295; 55 D.L.R.(4th) 128 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 33].

Fritz Marketing Inc. v. Canada (2009), 387 N.R. 331; 2009 FCA 62, refd to. [para. 36].

Vilico Optical Inc. v. Minister of National Revenue, [1996] C.I.T.T. No. 33, refd to. [para. 38].

Bell v. Human Rights Commission (Ont.), [1971] S.C.R. 756, refd to. [para. 41].

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 963 v. New Brunswick Liquor Corp., [1979] 2 S.C.R. 227; 26 N.R. 341; 25 N.B.R.(2d) 237; 51 A.P.R. 237, refd to. [para. 42].

Lorenz v. Air Canada, [2000] 1 F.C. 452 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 45].

Myers v. Law Society of Newfoundland (1998), 165 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 150; 509 A.P.R. 150; 163 D.L.R.(4th) 62 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 45].

Canadian National Railway Co. et al. v. Winnipeg City Assessor (1998), 131 Man.R.(2d) 310; 187 W.A.C. 310 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 45].

Dowd v. New Brunswick Dental Society (1999), 210 N.B.R.(2d) 386; 536 A.P.R. 386 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 45].

Statutes Noticed:

Customs Act, R.S.C. 1985 (2nd Supp.), c. 1, sect. 60(1) [para. 18]; sect. 67(1) [para. 20].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Brown, Donald J.M., and Evans, John M., Judicial Review of Administrative Action in Canada (1998) (2007 Looseleaf Update), paras. 3:2200, 3:2300, 3:4000 [para. 33].

Mullan, David J., Administrative Law (2001), pp. 485 to 494 [para. 33].

Counsel:

Jacques Savary, for the appellants;

Michael D. Kaylor, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

John H. Sims, Q.C., Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the appellants;

Lapointe Rosenstein LLP, Montreal, Quebec, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard at Montreal, Quebec, on February 2, 2010, before Nadon, Evans and Stratas, JJ.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal. Stratas, J.A., delivered the following judgment at Ottawa, Ontario, on February 23, 2010.