Time Data Recorder International Ltd. et al. v. Minister of National Revenue (Customs and Excise), (1993) 66 F.T.R. 253 (TD)

• Judge: Denault, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: January 28, 1993
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1993), 66 F.T.R. 253 (TD)

Time Data Recorder Intl. Ltd. v. MNR (1993), 66 F.T.R. 253 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Time Data Recorder International Ltd. and J.S.G. Wood Industries Ltd. (plaintiffs) v. The Minister of National Revenue (defendant)

(T-1707-90)

Indexed As: Time Data Recorder International Ltd. et al. v. Minister of National Revenue (Customs and Excise)

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Denault, J.

August 3, 1993.

Summary:

The plaintiff's goods were seized by Canada Customs for failure to report them to Customs in contravention of s. 12 of the Customs Act. The plaintiff was fined. The plaintiff appealed.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, dismissed the appeal.

Customs - Topic 8010

Offences and penalties - General - Strict liability offences - An importer's goods were seized under s. 110 of the Customs Act for failure to report them to Canada Customs in contravention of s. 12 of the Act - The importer sought to set aside the forfeiture and a refund of the penalty imposed - He claimed that the offence was one of strict liability and that the defences of good faith and due diligence applied - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, stated that the defences did not apply - Valid forfeiture resulted from erroneous declaration regardless of good faith or due diligence.

Customs - Topic 8066

Offences and penalties - Offences - Fail­ure to report goods - Contravention of s. 12 of the Customs Act by failure to report imported goods could result in criminal charges under s. 160 or forfeiture under s. 110 - An importer's goods were seized for contravention of s. 12 - He was acquitted of criminal charges - He sought to set aside forfeiture of the goods under s. 110 and claimed a refund of the penalty imposed - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that the criminal ac­quittal was irrelevant in the civil action respecting the forfeiture - See paragraphs 14 to 16.

Customs - Topic 9101

Appeals - To courts - From Minister - Nature of - An importer's goods were seized for incorrect reporting in contraven­tion of s. 12 of the Customs Act and a penalty was imposed by the Minister - The importer appealed the Minister's deci­sion alleging that it was based on a flawed adjudicator's report - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, stated that an attack on the procedures leading to the Minister's decision amounted to a request for judicial review and such reviews are expressly prohibited by s. 131(3) of the Act - Also under s. 135, the court cannot interfere with the amount of penalty imposed - See paragraphs 21 to 22.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Bureau, [1949] S.C.R. 367, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Sault Ste. Marie (City), [1978] 2 S.C.R. 1299; 21 N.R. 295; 85 D.L.R.(3d) 161; 40 C.C.C.(2d) 353; 3 C.R.(3d) 30; 7 C.E.L.R. 53, refd to. [para. 17].

Lanctôt (Raymond) Ltée v. Canada (1990), 35 F.T.R. 96 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 17].

Roblin Textiles Inc. v. Ministre du Revenu national (1991), 45 F.T.R. 276 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 17].

Letarte v. R., [1981] 2 F.C. 76 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

Noël and Noël (André) Ltée v. Canada (1983), 6 C.E.R. 72 (Fed. T.D.), refd to. [para. 19].

Gaji, Ouk and Pech v. Minister of National Revenue (1986), 7 F.T.R. 69 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 19].

Mattu v. Canada (1991), 45 F.T.R. 190 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 19].

Fenn (H.B.) and Co. v. Minister of Na­tional Revenue (Customs and Excise) (1992), 53 F.T.R. 7 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 19].

Statutes Noticed:

Customs Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-52.6, sect. 12(1), sect. 110(1), sect. 122, sect. 130, sect. 131, sect. 135(1), sect. 160 [para. 10].

Counsel:

Peter A. Kirby, for the plaintiff;

Jean Lavigne, for the defendant.

Solicitors of Record:

Gottlieb & Pearson, Montreal, Quebec, for the plaintiff;

John C. Tait, Q.C., Deputy Attorney Gen­eral of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the defendant.

This case was heard on January 28, 1993, at Montreal, Quebec, before Denault, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following judgment on August 3, 1993.