Date: 20010420
Docket: T-6-00
Neutral citation: 2001 FCT 365
BETWEEN:
CAMIL DUCHESNE, GERMAIN PAUL,
BERNARD ROBERTSON
Plaintiffs-respondents
- and -
MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE
Defendant-applicant
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
BLAIS J.
[1] This is a motion by the defendant to dismiss the application for judicial review by the plaintiffs-respondents.
[2] To briefly review the facts, the plaintiffs Bernard Robertson and Camil Duchesne asked the Minister of National Revenue to rule on the insurability of their employment with the plaintiff Germain Paul.
[3] According to the documents filed by either party, it appeared that the plaintiffs several times refused to provide information requested by the defendant Minister of National Revenue.
[4] After filing on January 5, 2000 an application to stay the requests for information sent to the plaintiffs by the defendant, Tremblay-Lamer J. on February 10, 2000 handed down a decision dismissing the said application for a stay.
[5] It was not until they replied to the status review notice served on them pursuant to a decision by François Lemieux J. on August 15, 2000 that the plaintiffs reacted.
[6] In fact, in their written submissions in reply to the status review notice, filed on September 29, 2000, they asked that the Court authorize them to file an amended notice of application and new affidavits.
[7] In due course, Tremblay-Lamer J. on October 13, 2000 ordered that the hearing proceed as a specially managed proceeding and also directed that the parties submit a schedule for future stages.
[8] The two parties filed their reply to this request and a schedule of stages in the case at bar was filed on November 14, 2000.
[9] In these two documents filed by the parties, the defendant, after reviewing the facts, informed the Court that he intended to file a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' application for judicial review on December 14, 2000, while for their part the plaintiffs proposed to file a motion to amend the notice of application and file new affidavits.
[10] In a decision dated December 1, 2000 the prothonotary Richard Morneau issued the following order:
[TRANSLATION]
As the defendant intends to file a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' application on December 14, 2000, if that motion is dismissed the parties shall ensure within ten days of the order that a new schedule for the remaining stages is submitted to the Court.
[11] The prothonotary Morneau accordingly decided that the motion to dismiss should be heard first, and that a new revised schedule should then be submitted. It is therefore this motion to dismiss which is now before the Court.
ANALYSIS
[12] It seems clear from the record that the notice of application filed on January 5, 2000 does not in any way differ from the motion record filed on January 24, 2000, the purpose of which was the same, to obtain a stay of the requests for information sent to the plaintiffs by the defendant.
[13] In her decision of February 10, 2000 Tremblay-Lamer J. unequivocally settled this question and dismissed the application for a stay.
[14] I therefore have no hesitation in saying that the defendant was entirely right to argue that the matter is res judicata.
[15] Although we are concerned here with an injunction, it is clear that the very basis of the motion at bar is exactly the same as the motion which was the subject of the decision by Tremblay-Lamer J.
[16] The plaintiffs were not able to show that there were new facts or special circumstances that would justify re-arguing the same point which has already been decided by Tremblay-Lamer J.
[17] Counsel for the plaintiffs suggested that, at the pre-trial conference before the Court of Quebec judge, counsel for the prosecution in the Court of Quebec stated that the information provided by Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC) would be entered in evidence in the Court of Quebec.
[18] The plaintiffs submitted no evidence in this Court that the information supplied by HRDC corresponded to the information requested by the Minister of National Revenue, who I have to point out is not the Minister of HRDC.
[19] Counsel for the defendant was quite right in saying that if objections to the evidence to be filed in the criminal proceeding have to be made they should be made in the Court of Quebec, not in the Federal Court.
[20] Additionally, the plaintiffs submitted in evidence that the defendant made decisions on June 20, 2000 without obtaining the information requested two or three times by the plaintiffs.
[21] It is hard to see the point in a proceeding to terminate an administrative inquiry by the defendant when the defendant himself decided to terminate his administrative inquiry and render his decision on June 20, 2000.
[22] It seems clear from the record that the instant motion is now moot, since it is the defendant's decision that is now the subject of an appeal in the Tax Court of Canada and by the same token is completely outside the jurisdiction of the Federal Court Trial Division.
[23] I understand from the argument of counsel for the plaintiffs that the latter feared that the disclosure of information in the course of the administrative inquiry might have an eventual effect on the criminal proceeding, in which the plaintiffs wished their right to silence to be observed.
[24] Counsel for the plaintiffs appeared willing to agree with me that the decision on June 20, 2000 regarding the plaintiffs' insurability was rendered without any infringement of the plaintiffs' rights by disclosure of information, since they refused to respond to the requests for information in order not to incriminate themselves.
CONCLUSION
[25] The instant motion to dismiss is accordingly allowed and the plaintiffs' application filed on January 5, 2000 is dismissed with costs against the plaintiffs.
|
Pierre Blais Judge |
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
April 20, 2001
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, LL.L. Trad. a.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT No.: T-6-00
STYLE OF CAUSE: Camil Duschene, Germain Paul, Bernard Robertson v.
Minister of National Revenue
PLACE OF HEARING: Québec, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: April 12, 2001
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER BY: BLAIS J.
DATED: April 20, 2001
APPEARANCES:
Luis Baz FOR THE PLAINTIFFS
Simon-Nicholas Crépin FOR THE DEFENDANT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Cain, Lamarre, Casgrain, Wells FOR THE PLAINTIFFS
Roberval, Québec
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE DEFENDANT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario