Sood v. Minister of National Revenue, 2015 FC 857

• Judge: Gascon, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: April 07, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: 2015 FC 857;[2015] F.T.R. TBEd. AU.036

Sood v. MNR, [2015] F.T.R. TBEd. AU.036

MLB being edited

Currently being edited for F.T.R. - judgment temporarily in rough form.

Temp. Cite: [2015] F.T.R. TBEd. AU.036

Jitendra Kumar Sood (applicant) v. The Minister of National Revenue (respondent)

(T-1045-14; 2015 FC 857)

Indexed As: Sood v. Minister of National Revenue

Federal Court

Gascon, J.

July 13, 2015.

Summary:

Sood accepted a proposal made by the Canada Revenue Agency offering to refund him a portion of a GST/HST new housing rebate that he claimed he had not yet received. Following Sood's acceptance, the Agency attempted to process and implement the settlement agreement but found that it could not. The Agency determined that Sood had already received all tax rebates he was entitled to regarding the purchase of his new residence. The Agency thus reneged on the settlement proposal accepted by Sood because he was not eligible to benefit from the provincial new housing rebate. Sood contended that the Minister of National Revenue could not resile from settlement agreements reached with taxpayers. He applied for judicial review to obtain an equitable remedy of specific performance to enforce the settlement agreement. Sood also sought a declaratory remedy that the Minister breached the settlement agreement, a writ of mandamus requiring the Minister to reassess Sood's claim for the provincial new housing rebate, and various other alternative remedies seeking a reconsideration of his new housing rebate claim or damages.

The Federal Court dismissed Sood's application. The court did not have jurisdiction to entertain what was in fact an appeal of a tax reassessment. In any event, the Agency was required to revoke the settlement agreement as Sood was not eligible for the provincial new housing rebate, and there was no basis to grant any of the other remedial measures Sood was seeking.

Courts - Topic 4046

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Trial Division - Requirement of lack of other appeals - [See Sales and Service Taxes - Topic 5288 ].

Courts - Topic 4502

Tax Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - [See Sales and Service Taxes - Topic 5288 ].

Practice - Topic 9855.1

Settlements - Enforceability - Where a party refuses to execute settlement - [See Sales and Service Taxes - Topic 5288 ].

Sales and Service Taxes - Topic 4970

Goods and services tax (incl. harmonized sales tax) - Assessment - Appeals - Jurisdiction - [See Sales and Service Taxes - Topic 5288 ].

Sales and Service Taxes - Topic 5288

Goods and services tax (incl. harmonized sales tax) - Administration, collection and enforcement - Tax rebates - New housing rebate - Sood accepted a proposal made by the Canada Revenue Agency offering to refund him a portion of a GST/HST new housing rebate that he claimed he had not yet received - Following Sood's acceptance, the Agency attempted to process and implement the settlement agreement but found that it could not - The Agency determined that Sood had already received all tax rebates he was entitled to regarding the purchase of his new residence - The Agency thus reneged on the settlement proposal accepted by Sood - Sood contended that the Minister of National Revenue could not resile from settlement agreements reached with taxpayers - He applied for judicial review to obtain an equitable remedy of specific performance to enforce the settlement agreement - Sood also sought a declaratory remedy that the Minister breached the settlement agreement, a writ of mandamus requiring the Minister to reassess Sood's claim for the provincial new housing rebate, and various other alternative remedies seeking a reconsideration of his new housing rebate claim or damages - The Minister said that Sood's application was a disguised attempt to appeal the tax reassessment made by the Agency, denying Sood's claim for the provincial new housing rebate - The Minister submitted that the Tax Court of Canada had exclusive authority to consider disputes relating to the correctness of tax reassessments - The Federal Court dismissed Sood's application - The court did not have jurisdiction to entertain what was in fact an appeal of a tax reassessment - In any event, the Agency was required to revoke the settlement agreement as Sood was not eligible for the provincial new housing rebate, and there was no basis to grant any of the other remedial measures Sood was seeking.

Cases Noticed:

Sifto Canada Corp. v. Minister of National Revenue (2014), 461 N.R. 184; 2014 FCA 140, dist. [para. 16].

Roitman v. Canada (2006), 353 N.R. 75; 2006 FCA 266, refd to. [para. 17].

JP Morgan Asset Management (Canada) Inc. v. Minister of National Revenue et al., 2013 FC 986, affd. (2013), 450 N.R. 91; 2013 FCA 250, refd to. [paras. 17, 19].

Galway v. Minister of National Revenue, [1974] 1 F.C. 600; 2 N.R. 317 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

CIBC World Markets Inc. v. Minister of National Revenue (2012), 426 N.R. 182; 2012 FCA 3, refd to. [para. 25].

Harris et al. v. Minister of National Revenue, [2000] 4 F.C. 37; 256 N.R. 221 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

Cohen v. Minister of National Revenue, [1980] C.T.C. 318 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

1390758 Ontario Corp. v. The Queen, 2010 TCC 572, dist. [para. 27].

Ludco Enterprises Ltd. et al. v. Ministre du Revenu national, [1995] 2 F.C. 3; 182 N.R. 125 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

Apotex Inc. v. Merck & Co. and Merck Frosst Canada Inc., [1994] 1 F.C. 742; 162 N.R. 177 (F.C.A.), affd. [1994] 3 S.C.R. 1100; 176 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 49].

Rocky Mountain Ecosystem Coalition v. National Energy Board et al. (1999), 174 F.T.R. 17 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 49].

Harelkin v. University of Regina, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 561; 26 N.R. 364; 96 D.L.R.(3d) 14, refd to. [para. 51].

Meggeson v. Canada (Attorney General) (2012), 434 N.R. 52; 2012 FCA 175, refd to. [para. 53].

Newcombe v. Canada (2013), 439 F.T.R. 157; 2013 FC 955, refd to. [para. 54].

Counsel:

Jitendra Kumar Sood, for the applicant (on his own behalf);

Maeve Baird, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

William F. Pentney, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent.

This application was heard on April 7, 2015, at Toronto, Ontario, before Gascon, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following decision on July 13, 2015.