Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. v. Minister of National Revenue, (1998) 148 F.T.R. 3 (TD)

• Judge: Richard, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: January 20, 1998
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1998), 148 F.T.R. 3 (TD)

Rothmans v. MNR (1998), 148 F.T.R. 3 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1998] F.T.R. TBEd. FE.030

Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. (applicant) v. The Minister of National Revenue (respondent)

(T-2393-97)

Indexed As: Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. v. Minister of National Revenue

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Richard, J.

January 23, 1998.

Summary:

Rothmans applied for judicial review of advance rulings by the Minister respecting whether certain prototype tobacco products fell under the definition of "cigarette" or "tobacco stick" for the purposes of the Excise Act. Two of the prototype samples, identical to a competitor's product, were classified as "tobacco sticks" and taxed at a lower rate. The Minister brought a motion to strike Rothman's originating notice of motion and dismiss the proceeding for, inter alia, want of jurisdiction where the advance rulings were not "decisions" within the meaning of s. 18.1 of the Federal Court Act.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, struck the proceeding. The advance rulings were not decisions within the meaning of s. 18.1.

Courts - Topic 4021.1

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Trial Division - Decisions of federal boards, commissions or tribunals - Rothmans applied for judicial review of advance rulings by the Minister respecting whether certain prototype tobacco products fell under the definition of "cigarette" or "tobacco stick" for the purposes of the Excise Act - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, struck the proceeding on the ground that the advance rulings were not "decisions" within the meaning of s. 18.1 of the Federal Court Act - The advance rulings had no binding legal effect and would not estop the Minister - The advance rulings did not grant or deny a right - They were at most non-binding opinions.

Cases Noticed:

Bull (David) Laboratories (Canada) Inc. v. Pharmacia Inc. et al., [1995] 1 F.C. 588; 176 N.R. 48 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

Pharmacia Inc. et al. v. Canada (Minister of National Health and Welfare) - see Bull (David) Laboratories (Canada) Inc. v. Pharmacia Inc. et al.

Owen Holdings Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue, [1997] D.T.C. 5401; 216 N.R. 381 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 27, footnote 1].

Woon v. Minister of National Revenue (1950), 50 D.T.C. 871 (Ex. Ct.), refd to. [para. 27, footnote 2].

Rothmans of Pall Mall Canada Ltd. et al. v. Minister of National Revenue et al., [1976] C.T.C. 332 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 27, footnote 2].

Ford Motor Co. of Canada Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue (1997), 212 N.R. 275 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 27, footnote 3].

Demirtas v. Minister of Employment and Immigration et al., [1993] 1 F.C. 602; 149 N.R. 375 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 28, footnote 4].

Singh v. Canada (Secrétaire d'Etat) (1994), 82 F.T.R. 68 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 28, footnote 4].

Counsel:

Roger T. Hughes, Q.C., and Trent Horne, for the applicant;

D.D. Graham Reynolds, Q.C., and Christine Mohr, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Sim, Hughes, Ashton & McKay, Toronto, Ontario, for the applicant;

George Thomson, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.

This motion was heard at Toronto, Ontario, on January 20, 1998, before Richard, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following judgment on January 23, 1998.