Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

Location Robert Ltée v. Canada

Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions
Date 2009-05-20
Neutral citation 2009 FC 516
File numbers T-878-08, T-879-08

Decision Content

Federal Court

Cour fédérale

Date: 20090520

Docket: T-878-08

Citation: 2009 FC 516

 

BETWEEN:

LOCATION ROBERT LTÉE

Plaintiff

and

 

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Defendant

 

 

Docket: T-879-08

 

BETWEEN:

TRANSPORT ROBERT (1973) LTÉE

Plaintiff

and

 

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Defendant

 

 

 

 

REASONS FOR ORDER

 

(Reasons delivered from the bench at Montréal on May 14, 2009)

 

 

HUGESSEN D.J.

 

[1]               Even assuming that the plaintiffs, at trial, would be able to prove the allegations at the basis of their claim for a refund of taxes, I am satisfied that these claims must fail.

 

[2]               The claims are based on an alleged submission made by a public servant, a representative of the Ministère du Revenu, to the effect that the plaintiffs should not file other claims for a refund of the excise taxes paid on the fuel contained in the tanks of the trucks that they exported from Canada for the years subsequent to 1993.

 

[3]               In 2003, Parliament adopted the Budget Implementation Act, 2003, S.C., 2003, c. 15 and, in this Act, it completely eliminated the right of taxpayers to claim excise taxes paid in the circumstances alleged by the plaintiffs, starting from the date of the budget in February 2003.

 

[4]               This is not a case of a limitation period or a time limit. This is simply the elimination of a right previously held by taxpayers.

 

[5]               That Parliament has this right is not in question and, moreover, this right is formally expressed in section 42 of the Interpretation Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. I-21:

 

 

42. (1) Every Act shall be so construed as to reserve to Parliament the power of repealing or amending it, and of revoking, restricting or modifying any power, privilege or advantage thereby vested in or granted to any person.

 

 (2) An Act may be amended or repealed by an Act passed in the same session of Parliament.

 

(3) An amending enactment, as far as consistent with the tenor thereof, shall be construed as part of the enactment that it amends.

 

 42. (1) Il est entendu que le Parlement peut toujours abroger ou modifier toute loi et annuler ou modifier tous pouvoirs, droits ou avantages attribués par cette loi.

 

 

 

 

(2) Une loi peut être modifiée ou abrogée par une autre loi adoptée au cours de la même session du Parlement.

 

 

 (3) Le texte modificatif, dans la mesure compatible avec sa teneur, fait partie du texte modifié.

 

 

[6]               Therefore, once royal assent was given to the Act in question, the plaintiffs no longer had any right to claim the tax payments that are the subject of their claim and, as I said in the beginning, their actions must fail.

 

[7]               I will accept the defendant’s motion for summary judgment in the two actions. I will allow such motions and dismiss the actions.

 

[8]               I will mitigate the plaintiffs’ costs in the circumstances of the case and I will award the costs of the action totalling $500 in fees plus disbursements in one of the files and no fees in the other file.

 

 

“James K. Hugessen”

Deputy Judge

 

 

 

 

Certified true translation

Janine Anderson, Translator

FEDERAL COURT

 

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

 

 

 

DOCKETS:                                        T-878-08 and T-879-08

 

STYLES OF CAUSE:                        LOCATION ROBERT LTÉE v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

                                                           

                                                            AND

 

                                                            TRANSPORT ROBERT (1973) LTÉE v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

 

 

PLACE OF HEARING:                    Montréal, Quebec

 

DATE OF HEARING:                      May 14, 2009

 

REASONS FOR ORDER:               HUGESSEN D.J.

 

DATED:                                             May 20, 2009

 

 

 

APPEARANCES:

 

Serge Fournier

 

FOR THE PLAINTIFFS

Stéphane Dion

Jean-Robert Noiseux

 

FOR THE DEFENDANT

 

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

 

BCF s.e.n.c.r.l.

Montréal, Quebec

 

FOR THE PLAINTIFFS

John H. Sims, Q.C.

Deputy Attorney General of Canada

 

FOR THE DEFENDANT

 

 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.