Roitman v. Canada, (2006) 353 N.R. 75 (FCA)

• Judge: Décary, Linden and Sharlow, JJ.A.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: June 27, 2006
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2006), 353 N.R. 75 (FCA);2006 FCA 266

Roitman v. Can. (2006), 353 N.R. 75 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2006] N.R. TBEd. AU.005

Her Majesty the Queen (appellant) v. Julius Roitman (respondent)

(A-535-05; 2006 FCA 266)

Indexed As: Roitman v. Canada

Federal Court of Appeal

Décary, Linden and Sharlow, JJ.A.

July 27, 2006.

Summary:

Roitman sued, inter alia, the Canada Cus­toms and Revenue Agency respecting income tax reassessments. The Crown sought to strike out the statement of claim on the ground that it was immaterial, redundant, scandalous, frivolous and vexatious, and was otherwise an abuse of the process of the court.

The Federal Court, in a decision reported at [2005] F.T.R. Uned. B08, dismissed the motion. The Crown appealed.

The Federal Court of Appeal allowed the ap­peal, set aside the decision below, granted the Crown's motion and struck out the state­ment of claim.

Courts - Topic 4049

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Federal Court - Income tax matters - The Minister of National Revenue disallowed certain claims for expenses by Roitman and his company - Roitman and the com­pany objected - They accepted the Min­ister's settlement proposal and ac­knowl­edged that, by accepting the propo­sal, they were precluded from filing an objection or appeal under the Income Tax Act to the Minister's reassessment - Roit­man sued the Canada Customs and Reve­nue Agency for dam­ages for, inter alia, misfeasance in public office - A motions judge dismissed the Crown's motion to strike out the state­ment of claim - The Federal Court of Ap­peal allowed the Crown's appeal and struck out the state­ment of claim - It was settled law that the Federal Court did not have jurisdiction to award damages or grant any other relief that was sought on the basis of an invalid reassessment of tax unless the reassessment had been over­turned by the Tax Court - To do so would be to permit a collateral at­tack on the correctness of an assessment - Roitman was essentially seeking damages on the basis of an invalid reassessment made on the basis of a wrong interpreta­tion of the law - It was the correctness in law of the notice of reassessment which was at issue This was a matter within the exclusive jur­is­diction of the Tax Court of Canada - Al­ternatively, the statement of claim was an abuse of process - Roitman expressly re­linquished his ability to exer­cise his statu­tory objection and appeal rights re­specting the tax assessments.

Courts - Topic 5695.2

Provincial courts - General - Jurisdiction or powers - Respecting income tax matters - [See Courts - Topic 4049 ].

Practice - Topic 2239

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Abuse of process or delay - [See Courts - Topic 4049 ].

Practice - Topic 2241

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Lack of jurisdiction (incl. alter­native remedy) - [See Courts - Topic 4049 ].

Cases Noticed:

Minister of National Revenue v. Franklin (2002), 288 N.R. 30; 2002 D.T.C. 6803 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].

Swift v. Canada, [2004] N.R. Uned. 173; 2004 D.T.C. 6651 (F.C.A.), dist. [para. 13].

Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc. - see Hunt v. T & N plc et al.

Hunt v. T & N plc et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959; 117 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 15].

Vaughan v. Canada, [2005] 1 S.C.R. 146; 331 N.R. 64, refd to. [para. 16].

Prentice v. Royal Canadian Mounted Po­lice (2005), 346 N.R. 201; 2005 FCA 395, leave to appeal denied (2006), 356 N.R. 390 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 16].

Minister of National Revenue v. Parsons (1984), 84 D.T.C. 6345 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

Harris Steel Group Inc. v. Minister of National Revenue (1985), 57 N.R. 371; 85 D.T.C. 5140 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

Optical Recording Co. v. Minister of Na­tional Revenue, [1991] 1 F.C. 309; 116 N.R. 200 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

Bechthold Resources Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue (1986), 1 F.T.R. 123; 86 D.T.C. 6065 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 20].

Webster v. Canada (Attorney General) (2003), 312 N.R. 235; 57 D.T.C. 5701 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

Walker v. Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (2005), 344 N.R. 169; 2005 FCA 393, refd to. [para. 20].

Sokolowska v. Minister of National Reve­nue (2005), 331 N.R. 176; 2005 FCA 29, refd to. [para. 20].

Walsh et al. v. Minister of National Reve­nue et al., [2006] F.T.R. Uned. 18; 2006 FC 56, refd to. [para. 20].

Heckendorn v. Canada et al., [2005] F.T.R. Uned. A14; 2005 FC 802, refd to. [para. 20].

Angell et al. v. Minister of National Reve­nue et al. (2005), 280 F.T.R. 178; 2005 FC 782, refd to. [para. 20].

Main Rehabilitation Co. v. Minister of National Revenue (2004), 329 N.R. 248; 2004 FCA 403, refd to. [para. 21].

Obonsawin v. R., 2004 G.T.C. 131 (Tax C.C.), refd to. [para. 21].

Burrows v. Canada, 2005 TCC 761, refd to. [para. 21].

Hardtke v. Canada, 2005 TCC 263, refd to. [para. 21].

Addison & Leyen Ltd. et al. v. Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (2006), 346 N.R. 238; 2006 FCA 107, refd to. [para. 23].

Smith et al. v. Canada et al. (2006), 226 B.C.A.C. 187; 373 W.A.C. 187; 2006 BCCA 237, refd to. [para. 28].

Counsel:

David Jacyk and Lisa M. Macdonell, for the appellant;

James M. Poyner and Craig C. Sturrock, Q.C., for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

John H. Sims, Q.C., Deputy Attorney Gen­eral of Canada, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the appellant;

Poyner Baxter LLP, North Vancouver, British Columbia and Thorsteinssons LLP, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the respondents.

This appeal was heard at Vancouver, British Columbia, on June 27, 2006, before Décary, Linden and Sharlow, JJ.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal. Décary, J.A., de­liv­ered the following judgment at Ottawa, On­tario, on July 27, 2006.