Date: 20000614
Docket: A-675-98
CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE DESJARDINS THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE LÉTOURNEAU
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NOËL
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Appellant
- AND -
PIERRE JOLI-COEUR
Respondent
Hearing held at Québec, Quebec, on Tuesday, June 13, 2000
Judgment delivered at Québec, Quebec, on Wednesday, June 14, 2000
Date: 20000614
Docket: A-675-98
CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE DESJARDINS THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE LÉTOURNEAU
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NOËL
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Appellant
- AND -
PIERRE JOLI-COEUR
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
[1] This is an appeal from an interlocutory decision of the Trial Division dismissing a motion to strike out the respondent's declaratory action.
[2] The Trial Division judge did not give reasons for her decision. The order she made reads as follows:
| [TRANSLATION] The motion to strike out the plaintiff's statement of claim is dismissed. The plaintiff shall file an amended statement of claim clarifying his interest within three weeks of the date of this order.1 |
[3] The only explanation for this decision seems to be that the Trial Division judge believed the declaratory action was the appropriate vehicle for the respondent to obtain the relief he was seeking, provided that he amended his pleadings to clearly set out his interest.
[4] It appears that the Trial Division judge did not realize her decision contradicted a decision of Mr. Justice Pinard dealing with the same issue. Since that decision was not appealed, it constituted a final decision on the appropriate relief.
[5] In fact, Pinard J. had concluded that the respondent's first proceeding, although framed as a declaratory action, was "clearly" aimed at the Minister's collection actions; accordingly, he held that the only remedy available was under subsection 18(1)(a) of the Federal Court Act.2
[6] The respondent's second proceeding, which the Trial Division judge allowed to proceed, was also clearly intended to counter the Minister's collection actions. Although respondent's counsel did his best to argue before us that there could be other reasons for seeking that relief, he could not deny that the termination of collection actions was one of them, if not the only one.
[7] This is the identical issue that Pinard J. determined. In an attempt to block the Minister's collection actions, the respondent had brought an action for a declaration extinguishing his tax liability. Pinard J. held that the only procedure available to the respondent was an application for judicial review.
[8] Unlike the first action, the second one did not allege that the collection efforts were unlawful; clearly, however, the goal remained the same-- to put an end to all collection actions by obtaining a judgment extinguishing the tax liability as being statute-barred.
[9] The Trial Division judge could not, therefore, allow the respondent to continue his declaratory action without contradicting her colleague's final decision on the same issue.
[10] Before concluding these reasons, we wish to clarify that Pinard J.'s decision does not prevent the respondent from pleading the limitation period with respect to collection actions taken against him; the decision merely identifies the appropriate procedure.
[11] Since the collection actions are being effected by means of a monthly garnishment, the respondent could, relying on the limitation period, formally demand that the Minister cancel the garnishment. If the Minister refused to comply, the respondent could bring an application for judicial review within the prescribed time period.
[12] The appeal will therefore be allowed and the respondent's declaratory action will be struck out with costs.
Alice Desjardins
J.A.
Gilles Létourneau
J.A.
Marc Nöel
J.A.
Certified true translation
Mary Jo Egan, LL.B.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
Date: 20000614
Docket: A-675-98
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Appellant
- AND -
PIERRE JOLI-COEUR
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT FILE NO.: A-675-98
STYLE OF CAUSE: Her Majesty the Queen
v. Pierre Joli-Coeur
PLACE OF HEARING: Québec, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: June 13, 2000
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: Hon. Justice Desjardins
Hon. Justice Létourneau
Hon. Justice Noël
DATED: June 14, 2000
APPEARANCES:
Louis Sébastien for the appellant
Patrick Vézina
Patrick Poulin for the respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Morris Rosenberg for the appellant
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario
Joli-Coeur, Lacasse, Lemieux, Simard, St-Pierre for the respondent
Sillery, Quebec
Date: 20000614
Docket: A-675-98
QUÉBEC, QUEBEC, THE 14th DAY OF JUNE 2000
CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE DESJARDINS THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE LÉTOURNEAU
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NOËL
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Appellant
- AND -
PIERRE JOLI-COEUR
Respondent
JUDGMENT
The appeal is allowed, and the declaratory action is struck out, with costs.
Alice Desjardins J.A.
Certified true translation
Mary Jo Egan, LL.B.
.
__________________
1 Order, Appeal Book, p. 1.
2 Reasons for order of Pinard J. dismissing the respondent's first declaratory action. Appeal Book, p. 19.