Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content




Date: 20010214


Docket: T-245-01


Neutral Citation: 2001 FCT 76


BETWEEN:

     MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE

     Applicant


     - and -




     ZIAD ABU-TAHA

     Respondent


     REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER

McKEOWN J.

[1]      The respondent has been charged with drug-related offences and the RCMP has seized approximately $270,000 in cash assets, pursuant to a search warrant issued by the Ontario Courts in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada. Counsel for the respondent has advised Crown counsel in charge of the prosecution that he intends to bring an application to the Ontario Courts to have some of the seized funds paid out to the respondent to cover living and legal expenses.

[2]      The applicant Minister now makes a motion ex parte under section 225.2 of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c.1 (5th Supp.), as amended (the "Act") to authorize the Minister to take forthwith any of the actions described in paragraphs 225.1(1)(a) to (g) of the Act in respect of the tax debt of the respondent.

[3]      In my view, this is a case where the Federal Court should defer to the Superior Court (Ontario). Under section 225.2 of the Act, both courts have jurisdiction to hear the applicant's application.

[4]      However, the seizure of the monies by the RCMP was pursuant to a search warrant duly authorized by the Ontario Courts. The Superior Court (Ontario) is going to have to decide how the funds seized by the RCMP should be disposed of when the respondent's motion is heard. The Superior Court (Ontario) should not be faced with an order of another Court over which it has no jurisdiction in trying to decide the respondent's motion.

[5]      It is important to note that the respondent's motion cannot be brought in the Federal Court. Indeed, the respondent's motion can only be brought in the Superior Court (Ontario), whereas the applicant's motion can be brought in either Court.

[6]      Although I have jurisdiction to decide this application, in these circumstances it is in the interests of justice for me to exercise my discretion in order to defer to the jurisdiction of the Superior Court (Ontario).

     ORDER

[7]      The application is dismissed without prejudice to the applicant to bring a similar application in the Superior Court (Ontario).

     "W. P. McKeown"

     J.F.C.C.

Toronto, Ontario

February 14, 2001

     FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

     Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record

COURT NO:                      T-245-01
STYLE OF CAUSE:                  MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE

     Applicant

                         - and -

                         ZIAD ABU-TAHA

     Respondent

                        

DATE OF HEARING:              MONDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2001
PLACE OF HEARING:              TORONTO, ONTARIO

REASONS FOR ORDER

AND ORDER BY:                  McKEOWN J.

DATED:                      WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2001

APPEARANCE BY:              Ms. Nancy Arnold

ex parte

                             For the Applicant

SOLICITOR OF RECORD:          Morris Rosenberg
                         Deputy Attorney General of Canada
                             For the Applicant

                        


FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

                                 Date: 20010214

                        

         Docket: T-245-01


BETWEEN:


MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE

     Applicant


- and -




ZIAD ABU-TAHA

                        

     Respondent




                    

        

REASONS FOR ORDER

AND ORDER

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.