Reebok Canada et al. v. Minister of National Revenue (Customs and Excise), (1995) 179 N.R. 300 (FCA)

• Judge: Isaac, C.J., Desjardins and McDonald, JJ.A.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: February 13, 1995
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1995), 179 N.R. 300 (FCA)

Reebok Can. v. MNR (1995), 179 N.R. 300 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

The Deputy Minister of National Revenue for Customs and Excise (appellant/respondent) v. Reebok Canada, a division of Avrecan International Inc. (respondent/applicant)

(A-216-94)

Indexed As: Reebok Canada et al. v. Minister of National Revenue (Customs and Excise)

Federal Court of Appeal

Isaac, C.J., Desjardins and McDonald, JJ.A.

February 13, 1995.

Summary:

An applicant applied for leave under the Customs Act to appeal a decision of the Canadian Interna­tional Trade Tribunal after the expir­ation of the 90 day period pre­scribed by s. 68(1) of the Act.

A motions judge of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, granted leave. The Minister of National Revenue (Customs and Excise) appealed.

The Federal Court of Appeal concluded that the notice of appeal had not been filed within the time prescribed by the Federal Court Act and the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The court quashed the appeal.

Courts - Topic 4083

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Federal Court of Appeal - Appeals from orders of Trial Division - Interlocutory orders - A motions judge of the Trial Division granted leave under the Customs Act to appeal a decision of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal after the expiration of the prescribed period - The Minister appealed, filing a notice of appeal after the 10 day period prescribed by s. 27(2) of the Federal Court Act for appealing interlocu­tory judgments, but within the 30 day period prescribed for final judgments - The Federal Court of Appeal concluded that the order under appeal was interlocu­tory, because it did not determine the parties' substantive rights, but merely enabled the Minister to have its substan­tive rights determined on appeal - Accordingly, the court lacked jurisdic­tion to decide the interlocutory appeal.

Practice - Topic 5729

Judgments and orders - Final judgments and orders - What constitutes - [See Courts - Topic 4083 and second Practice - Topic 5779 ].

Practice - Topic 5779

Judgments and orders - Interlocutory or interim orders or judgments - What con­stitutes - [See Courts - Topic 4083 ].

Practice - Topic 5779

Judgments and orders - Interlocutory or interim orders or judgments - What con­stitutes - The Federal Court Act provided that "'final judgment' means any judgment or other decision that determines in whole or in part any substantive right of any of the parties in controversy in any judicial pro­ceeding." - The Federal Court of Appeal stated that "[s]ince all judgments and orders are classified as being either final or interlocutory, it seems, based on this definition of 'final judgment', that an 'interlocutory judgment or order' is one that does not determine in whole or in part any substantive right of any of the parties in controversy in any judicial proceeding." - See paragraph 9.

Words and Phrases

Interlocutory judgment - The Federal Court of Appeal stated that an "interloc­utory judgment or order" as used in the Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, "is one that does not determine in whole or in part any substantive right of any of the parties in controversy in any judicial pro­ceeding." - See paragraph 9.

Words and Phrases

Interlocutory order - The Federal Court of Appeal stated that an "interlo­cutory judgment or order" as used in the Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, "is one that does not determine in whole or in part any substantive right of any of the parties in controversy in any judicial pro­ceeding." - See paragraph 9.

Cases Noticed:

Buck Brothers Ltd. et al. v. Frontenac Builders Ltd. et al. (1994), 73 O.A.C. 298; 19 O.R.(3d) 97 (C.A.), not folld. [para. 4].

Meadow Woode Corp. v. Eurasia Realty Investments Ltd. (1976), 1 C.P.C. 62 (Ont. Div. Ct.), not folld. [para. 5].

Kealey v. Canada et al. (1991), 139 N.R. 189 (F.C.A.), appld. [para. 10].

Vojic v. Minister of National Revenue (1989), 96 N.R. 390 (F.C.A.), appld. [para. 12].

Statutes Noticed:

Customs Act, R.S.C. 1985 (2nd Supp.), c. 1, sect. 68(1) [para. 1].

Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, sect. 2(1) [para. 8]; sect. 27(1)(c) [paras. 3, 7]; sect. 27(2) [paras. 4, 5, 10]; sect. 27(2)(a) [para. 3 et seq.]; sect. 27(2)(b) [paras. 4, 7, 10].

Counsel:

Peter Southey, for the appellant;

Peter Kirby and Darryl Pearson, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

George Thomson, Deputy Attorney Gen­eral of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the appellant;

Gottlieb & Pearson, Montreal, Quebec, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard at Toronto, Ontario, on December 6, 1994, before Isaac, C.J., Desjardins and McDonald, JJ.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal.

On February 13, 1995, Isaac, C.J., delivered reasons for judgment for the Court of Appeal.