Date: 20020416
Docket: ITA-8654-98
Neutral citation: 2002 FCT 433
Montréal, Quebec, April 16, 2002
Before: Danièle Tremblay-Lamer J.
In re the Income Tax Act
- and -
In re one or more assessments made by the Minister of National Revenue pursuant to one or more of the following statutes: the Income Tax Act, the Canada Pension Plan and the Employment Insurance Act
AGAINST:
RÉGENT MILLETTE
Judgment debtor
- and -
ÉLISE BRUNET, DENISE CÔTÉ,
JEAN-LOUIS CLICHE, MARCEL DAGENAIS,
PIERRE CÔTÉ, DIANE YAROS, ALICE PERREAULT,
SAUL YAROS and MARIE-LAURE HÉBERT
Garnishees
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] On or about June 11, 2001, Her Majesty the Queen filed three motions to effect provisional garnishment of the amounts owed to the judgment debtor, Régent Millette, by the following third parties: Diane Yaros, Alice Perreault, Élise Brunet, Denise Côté, Jean-Louis Cliche, Marcel Dagenais, Pierre Côté, Saul Yaros and Marie-Laure Hébert.
[2] Further, the Court ordered all the aforementioned third parties to appear on June 29, 2001, to report the amounts owned by the judgment debtor and held by them. The Court further ordered the said third parties not to dispose of the said amounts.
[3] On October 2, 2001, the prothonotary of this Court, Richard Morneau, postponed the hearing for a final order of garnishment to April 9, 2002, since counsel for the judgment debtor indicated an intention to file a motion similar to his son Éric Saulnier Millette in case ITA-4181-96.
[4] This order is the subject of the instant appeal. Counsel for Her Majesty maintained that Mr. Morneau made an error of law in granting the judgment debtor standing. I consider he is right.
[5] A judgment debtor in a garnishment proceeding has almost no standing in the Court.
[6] I rely on Canada v. Mauro, [1984] F.C.J. No. 141 ("Mauro"), in arriving at this conclusion. In that case, a judgment debtor who wished to intervene in a final order of garnishment had served a subpoena duces tecum on the judgment creditor's representative so as to cross-examine him on his affidavit. The Court was asked by the judgment creditor to quash this subpoena and said the following regarding the judgment debtor's standing in a garnishment proceeding:
It is equally clear that the judgment debtor may participate in the garnishment proceedings, if only in order to attempt to demonstrate in opposition to the garnishee's disputing of liability that the garnishee owes him something, or more than the garnishee acknowledges owing . . .
As earlier noted, the issue to be litigated lies between the judgment creditor and the garnishee, perhaps also between the garnishee and the judgment debtor depending on whether the garnishee admits owing anything, and if so, how much. The issue to be litigated does not lie between the judgment creditor and the judgment debtor.
Ibid, at 7.
[7] The judgment debtor may thus intervene on the quantum of the debt, but nothing more. The issue lies between the judgment creditor and the garnishee. It is not a dispute between the judgment creditor and the judgment debtor.
[8] When garnishees are duly served and state that they have and owe the judgment debtor the amounts claimed by Her Majesty, in such a case Rule 451 of the Federal Court Rules (1998), SOR/98-106, provides that the Court may make an order requiring payment to the judgment creditor.
| 451.(1) Where a garnishee has not made a payment into court under rule 450 and does not dispute the debt claimed to be due to the judgment debtor, or does not appear pursuant to a show cause order made under subsection 449(1), on motion, the Court may make an order for payment to the judgment creditor or payment into court of the debt. |
|
451.(1) Lorsque le tiers saisi n'a pas fait de consignation à la Cour selon la règle 450 et qu'il ne conteste pas la dette dont on le prétend redevable au débiteur judiciaire, ou lorsqu'il ne se présente pas en application de l'ordonnance rendue en vertu du paragraphe 449(1), la Cour peut, sur requête, rendre une ordonnance exigeant le paiement au créancier judiciaire ou la consignation à la Cour.
|
|
|
|
|
[9] The appeal is accordingly allowed. Mr. Morneau's order is quashed and Her Majesty's motion for final orders of garnishment may proceed.
|
|
"Danièle Tremblay-Lamer"
Judge |
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, C. Tr., LL.L.
|
|
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA TRIAL DIVISION
Date: 20020416
Docket: ITA-8654-98
Between: In re the Income Tax Act
- and -
In re one or more assessments made by the Minister of National Revenue pursuant to one or more of the following statutes: the Income Tax Act, the Canada Pension Plan and the Employment Insurance Act
AGAINST:
RÉGENT MILLETTE Judgment debtor
- and -
ÉLISE BRUNET, DENISE CÔTÉ, JEAN-LOUIS CLICHE, MARCEL DAGENAIS, PIERRE CÔTÉ, DIANE YAROS, ALICE PERREAULT, SAUL YAROS and MARIE-LAURE HÉBERT Garnishees
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
|
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
FILE: ITA-8654-98
STYLE OF CAUSE: In re the Income Tax Act
- and -
In re one or more assessments made by the Minister of National Revenue pursuant to one or more of the following statutes: the Income Tax Act, the Canada Pension Plan and the Employment Insurance Act
AGAINST:
RÉGENT MILLETTE
Judgment debtor
- and -
ÉLISE BRUNET, DENISE CÔTÉ, JEAN-LOUIS CLICHE, MARCEL DAGENAIS, PIERRE CÔTÉ, DIANE YAROS, ALICE PERREAULT, SAUL YAROS and MARIE-LAURE HÉBERT
Garnishees
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: April 15, 2002
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER BY: TREMBLAY-LAMER J.
DATED: April 16, 2002
APPEARANCES:
Régent Millette FOR THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR
(representing himself)
Claude Bernard FOR THE JUDGMENT CREDITOR
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE JUDGMENT CREDITOR
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Montréal, Quebec