Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content

Date: 20030527

Docket: T-801-02

Citation: 2003 FCT 658

BETWEEN:

                                                                 ROBERT TOPOL,

                                                                                                                                                      Applicant,

                                                                              - and -

                                          THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,

                                                                                                                                                  Respondent.

                                                            REASONS FOR ORDER

LAYDEN-STEVENSON J.

[1]                 This matter invites an interpretation of subsection 164(1.1) of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.) as amended (the Act). The applicant, Robert Topol (Topol), seeks judicial review with respect to the decision of the Minister of National Revenue (the Minister) as determined by the ministerial delegates within the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA). Specifically, the application relates to Topol's requests pursuant to subsection 164(1.1) of the Act and the Minister's refusal to:

(a)        "repay" or "refund" to Topol certain monies in respect of a taxation year now under appeal;


(b)        "remove" a writ of seizure and sale obtained by the Minister pursuant to a certificate registered under section 223 of the Act, in part, with respect to a taxation year that is now under appeal.

The applicant seeks to have the above noted decisions quashed or set aside and requests an order directing the Minister to repay all amounts taken from or received from Topol in respect of the taxation year under appeal. Additionally, he seeks an order invalidating, quashing or setting aside the certificate obtained by the Minister under section 223 of the Act and the writ of seizure and sale obtained pursuant to that certificate as well as an order prohibiting the Minister from proceeding with collection of amounts not due and owing to Topol, and costs. The applicant refers, in his submissions, to his "appeals". For purposes of clarity, those references pertain to appeals arising from his notices of objection rather than appeals to the Tax Court of Canada.

FACTS


[2]                 Topol, a senior executive of a theatre company, has a history of high T4 earnings. Against his earnings, he claimed business losses from various computer software tax shelters. His assessed tax liability is in the approximate amount of $1.9 million. This liability is comprised of assessed amounts that are undisputed and assessed amounts that are now in dispute. The taxation years relevant to this application are 1996, 1998 and 1999. The writ of seizure and sale that issued on February 14, 2001, is in relation to arrears, not then in dispute, for the 1996, 1998 and 1999 taxation years, and substantially in relation to taxes owing for 1996. The amount allegedly paid by Topol to CCRA, which he seeks to have repaid to him, is with respect to the 1998 taxation year. In an effort to provide clarity, coherence and context to a convoluted tax history, I will detail the factual circumstances for each of the specific taxation years in question.

The 1996 Taxation Year

[3]                 The Minister, on July 23, 1998, reassessed Topol for the 1996 tax year and disallowed his claimed deductions with respect to computer tax shelters (the deductions). The reassessment increased Topol's tax liability for the1998 tax year by $320,863.47. Topol filed a notice of objection with respect to the reassessment and disputed the Minister's disallowance of the deductions. On May 20, 1999, the Minister again reassessed Topol for the 1996 taxation year. This reassessment resulted in a small undisputed increase ($3,281.87) in the tax liability with respect to 1996. The May 20th reassessment did not reverse the disallowance of the deductions that led to the increase in taxes owed, but it did renew the requirement for Topol to file a notice of objection. Topol did not file a notice of objection. On September 17, 2001, there was a third reassessment for 1996 that produced a slight decrease in the previous assessment. Topol filed a notice of objection with respect to the September 17th assessment on September 24, 2001.

The 1998 Taxation Year


[4]                 On June 7, 1999, Topol's 1998 tax return was assessed as filed. His tax liability was assessed at $72,313.30. Since his at-source deductions stood at $74,867, Topol received a refund of $2,554. On September 15, 1999, the Minister reassessed Topol and disallowed a non-capital loss carry forward claimed for 1998. The tax liability for 1998 was reassessed at $101,137.84. Topol did not file a notice of objection. A further reassessment dated July 27, 2001, followed after Topol filed further information on July 12, 2001. The July 27th reassessment permitted a deduction for loss carry backs. As a result, the previous reassessed amount of $101,137.84 decreased by $31,782.78 and the reassessed tax liability stood at $69,355.06. The notice of reassessment showed a credit of $32,587.71 (the amount of the decreased assessment plus the arrears interest adjustment). The "Explanation of Changes" on the reassessment notice states, "We have used your refund of $32,587.71 to reduce your previous balance outstanding". A third notice of reassessment, on September 17, 2001, did not result in further changes to the 1998 tax liability. Topol filed a notice of objection dated September 24, 2001, disputing the Minister's disallowance of the deductions for the 1998 taxation year.

The 1999 Taxation Year

[5]                 The information regarding the 1999 taxation year is scant, but it appears that Topol has outstanding liability with respect to assessed amounts in relation to 1999. No notice of objection seems to have been filed regarding either an assessment or a notice of reassessment.

[6]                 The objections of September 24, 2001, have been held in abeyance at the administrative level. There are apparently a "series of accounts" (those of other taxpayers that involve the same tax shelter) and there are "test cases going forward to resolve common issues". The Minister regards any findings arising from a test case to be of precedential value, but not legally binding with respect to Topol. Topol has not exercised his right to appeal directly to the Tax Court of Canada pursuant to section 169 of the Act.


The Writ of Seizure and Sale

[7]                 While the above noted events were unfolding, the Minister, through CCRA, sought certificates pursuant to section 223 of the Act with respect to Topol's tax debt for the 1996, 1998 and 1999 taxation years. The certificate was filed in the Federal Court on February 14, 2001, in the amount of $448,167. A writ of seizure and sale was issued and was registered in the municipality of York and the city of Toronto on the same day. At the time the certificate was obtained, notices of objection had not been filed in relation to the May 20, 1999 reassessment for 1996, the September 15, 1999 reassessment for 1998 nor with respect to the 1999 taxation year. For purposes of clarity, although a notice of objection had been filed in relation to the July 23, 1998 notice of reassessment regarding the 1996 taxation year, when no notice of objection was filed regarding the May 20, 1999 reassessment for 1996, the amount owing became legally collectible on August 20, 1999. As stated earlier, notices of objection dated September 24, 2001, were filed regarding both the 1996 and 1998 taxation years after the Minister issued notices of reassessment dated September 17, 2001, in relation to those taxation years. The end result, for purposes of this application, is that the amount of tax allegedly owing for the 1996 and 1998 taxation years is currently in dispute and has been in dispute since September 24, 2001.

The Requests


[8]                 Topol referred to the July 27, 2001 reassessment regarding the 1998 taxation year (wherein his application for a deduction based on loss carry backs was allowed) and noted the $32,587.71 "refund". Relying on subsection 164(1.1) of the Act, he requested that the Minister refund the tax in dispute for the 1998 taxation year. He additionally referred to the writ of seizure and sale and noted that it relates substantially to the 1996 tax liability now in dispute. Again relying on subsection 164(1.1), he requested that CCRA release the security held by the Minister (the writ of seizure and sale). Both requests were denied.

THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS

[9]                 Subsection 164(1.1) is reproduced here. Other provisions in the Act referred to throughout these reasons are attached as Schedule "A".


164.(1.1) Subject to subsection 164(1.2), where a taxpayer

(a) has under section 165 served a notice of objection to an assessment and the Minister has not within 120 days after the day of service confirmed or varied the assessment or made a reassessment in respect thereof, or

(b) has appealed from an assessment to the Tax Court of Canada,

and has applied in writing to the Minister for a payment or surrender of security, the Minister shall, where no authorization has been granted under subsection 225.2(2) in respect of the amount assessed, with all due dispatch repay all amounts paid on account of that amount or surrender security accepted therefor to the extent that

(c) the lesser of

(i) the total of the amounts so paid and the value of the security, and

(ii) the amount so assessed

exceeds

(d) the total of

(i) the amount, if any, so assessed that is not in controversy, and

(ii) where the taxpayer is a large corporation (within the meaning assigned by subsection 225.1(8)), 1/2 of the amount so assessed that is in controversy.

164.(1.1) Sous réserve du paragraphe (1.2), lorsqu'un contribuable demande au ministre, par écrit, un remboursement ou la remise d'une garantie, alors qu'il a:

a) soit signifié, conformément à l'article 165, un avis d'opposition à une cotisation, si le ministre, dans les 120 jours suivant la date de signification, n'a pas confirmé ou modifié la cotisation ni établi une nouvelle cotisation à cet égard;

b) soit appelé d'une cotisation devant la Cour canadienne de l'impôt,

le ministre, si aucune autorisation n'a été accordée en application du paragraphe 225.2(2) à l'égard du montant de la cotisation, avec diligence, rembourse les sommes versées sur ce montant ou remet la garantie acceptée pour ce montant, jusqu'à concurrence de l'excédent du montant visé à l'alinéa c) sur le montant visé à l'alinéa d):

c) le moins élevé des montants suivants:

(i) le total des sommes ainsi versées et de la valeur de la garantie,

(ii) le montant de cette cotisation;

d) le total des montants suivants:

(i) la partie du montant de cette cotisation qui n'est pas en litige,

(ii) si le contribuable est une grande société, au sens du paragraphe 225.1(8), la moitié de la partie du montant de cette cotisation qui est en litige.


ISSUES

[10]            The issues to be determined are:

(a)        the jurisdiction of the court with respect to the application;

(b)        the standard of review applicable to the Minister's decision;

(c)        whether the Minister erred in refusing to surrender the "security";

(d)        whether the Minister erred in refusing to refund or repay all amounts taken and/or received from the applicant with respect to the 1998 taxation year.

ANALYSIS

Jurisdiction of the Court

[11]            The crux of the applicant's submission in this respect is that this court has jurisdiction by process of elimination. Under specified circumstances, subsection 164(1.1) of the Act provides authority to the Minister, upon application by the taxpayer, to repay amounts paid and to surrender security accepted. The applicant argues that, to the extent that the Minister makes a decision pursuant to the subsection, it is an administrative decision. No appeal of the Minister's decision is provided for in the Act. A challenge to a subsection 164(1.1) decision does not come within the areas of jurisdiction enumerated in section 12 of the Tax Court of Canada Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. T-2, nor does it fall within the jurisdiction of the Federal Court of Appeal pursuant to section 28 of the Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7. The respondent does not argue contra.


[12]            I agree with the applicant that the Trial Division of the Federal Court has jurisdiction pursuant to section 18.1 of the Federal Court Act and that the appropriate and indeed the only avenue available to the applicant to challenge the Minister's denial of the applicant's requests under subsection 164(1.1) of the Act is by way of judicial review. I note that my colleague O'Keefe J. arrived at a similar conclusion in Nautica Motors Inc. v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue) (2002), 218 F.T.R. 296, a case involving an application for judicial review in relation to HST returns where the substance of the application was not in relation to the assessments, per se.

Standard of Review

[13]            The applicant submits that the applicable standard of review is correctness because in interpreting subsection 164(1.1) of the Act, the Minister is asking himself a jurisdictional question that does not require his expertise to answer and for which there is no privative clause. The Minister in considering his application, argues Topol, had to determine whether he (Topol) had paid an amount and whether he (the Minister) had accepted security. This, Topol contends, is a legal question. The respondent made no submissions regarding the standard of review.

[14]            The factors to be applied in the functional and pragmatic analysis to determine the appropriate standard of review are the existence of a privative clause, the expertise of the decision-maker, the purpose of the legislation and the particular provision in question, and the nature of the problem: Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982.


[15]            Applying the pragmatic and functional approach in this case, the four factors lead to a standard of reasonableness. There is no privative clause but, in and of itself, this does not imply a high standard of scrutiny. Regarding the level of expertise, the Minister is charged with the responsibility of administering the Act. The Act is intricate and complex. It stands to reason that the Minister and his delegates will possess specialized knowledge, skill, familiarity and experience regarding the legislation as a whole and also regarding the interrelationship of its numerous provisions. In relation to this particular provision, the Minister must determine whether, in a specific factual situation, an individual falls within the purview of the provision. If an applicant comes within subsection 164(1.1), then unless a jeopardy order exists (ss. 225.2(2)), the Minister is obliged to grant an applicant's request with all due dispatch. It is open to the Minister, however, if he has reasonable grounds to believe that adherence to the subsection would jeopardize collection, to seek a jeopardy order pursuant to subsection 164(1.2) of the Act. This factor militates in favour of deference.


[16]            The purpose of the legislative scheme as a whole is to regulate the collection of tax to provide revenue for the government. The Minister is charged with the administration and enforcement of the Act. The purpose of the particular provision, as revealed (prior to enactment) in the Throne Speech (House of Commons Debates (5 November, 1984), Vol.III, Tab B (6)) and the Ways and Means notes of January 30, 1985 (Notice of Ways and Means Motion to Amend the Income Tax Act and Technical Notes - p. 1, Vol. III, Tab B (7)), is to ensure that a taxpayer does not have to pay taxes in dispute before an impartial hearing has been concluded. The particular provision in issue and others of similar vein were enacted with the intention of providing restrictions on collection proceedings and repayment of taxes in controversy as well as providing safeguards against abuse. Each individual application submitted to the Minister will turn on its own facts and cannot, in this sense, be regarded as polycentric. The Minister must determine whether subsection 164(1.1) applies. If it does, he is directed to proceed with all due dispatch. Overall, this factor yields an ambivalent result.

[17]            The fourth and final factor is the nature of the problem. As stated above, it is for the Minister to determine whether an applicant falls within the ambit of subsection 164(1.1) of the Act. This calls for determination of questions that are of mixed fact and law but are more fact-intensive. Nonetheless, some statutory interpretation is involved since it must be decided whether the facts satisfy the prerequisites of the subsection such that the applicant comes within it. In short, the problem involves interpretation of the provision in question as well as interpretation of the criteria contained within it. This factor, therefore, requires some, but not a high degree of deference.

[18]            Balancing the factors, I conclude that, for the discrete issue in the circumstances that are before me, the standard of review is reasonableness. This is in contrast to related provisions where the standard has been held to be that of patent unreasonableness (See for example subsections 220(3.1) and (3.5) of the Act commonly referred to as fairness provisions). However, the discretionary component afforded to the Minister in those provisions, or some of them, is much broader than what exists in the provision that is before me.

Whether the Minister erred in refusing to surrender the security


[19]            After the Minister issued the second reassessment for the 1996 taxation year on July 23, 1998, Topol did not file a notice of objection. When he was assessed under the Act in relation to the 1998 and 1999 taxation years, he did not file notices of objection. On February 14, 2001, the Minister filed a certificate in the Federal Court for the amount of the total undisputed amounts for the 1996, 1998 and 1999 taxation years, obtained a writ of seizure and sale and registered it. Topol's further submissions on July 12, 2001, resulted in further reassessments dated September 17, 2001, and Topol filed notices of objection dated September 24, 2001 with respect to the 1996 and 1998 taxation years. Then, through counsel, he requested pursuant to subsection 164(1.1) that the Minister surrender the writ with all due dispatch on the basis that it related to amounts under objection with respect to the "1994 through 1996" taxation years. The Minister refused the request by correspondence dated February 25, 2002. The relevant portions of the correspondence are reproduced here. Emphasis is in the original.

As I indicated to you during our telephone conversation on January 29, 2002 regarding this matter, at the time that Mr. Topol's tax debt was certified and the writ originally obtained, no timely objection to the underlying assessment had been filed with the Minister by Mr. Topol. Thus the Minister's collection actions were not prohibited by section 225.1 of the ITA and were lawful.

As I understand it, an objection may have been subsequently filed by Mr. Topol with respect to a subsequent re-assessment issued by the Minister. Accordingly, based on the Optical and Lambert decisions of the Federal Court and the provisions of sections 225.1 and 164(1.1) of the ITA, our position is that any "lawful" collection actions taken in this matter remain lawful and cannot somehow be tainted as unlawful.

Furthermore, as I indicated to you, the CCRA had assured Mr. Topol that they did not intend to enforce any collection actions under the writ, pending the outcome of this Objection, excepting any possible jeopardy situations as provided for under the ITA. I also conveyed this message to Mr. Topol's tax representative in October of 2001. Furthermore, I understand that the CCRA was willing to consider the issue of providing a postponement agreement to any lender if necessary, thus affording Mr. Topol the opportunity to apply for additional financing if desired.

Accordingly, it is our position that subsection 164(1.1) does not afford your client the relief you request . . .

[20]            The postponement agreement referred to in the correspondence did not materialize apparently due to Topol's failure to provide details to CCRA concerning the refinancing. A subsequent request for postponement, on July 3, 2002, was similarly stalemated when financial information requested by CCRA was not forthcoming.

[21]            The applicant argues that subsection 164(1.1) requires the Minister to surrender security accepted in lieu of payment on account of an amount that is: (i) assessed by the Minister and (ii) the subject of a notice of objection or an appeal to the Tax Court. Referring to the purpose of the provision (that no taxpayer has to pay taxes in dispute before an impartial hearing has been concluded) Topol states that the Act does not expressly set out how the Minister comes into possession of the security he accepts. The Act does not restrict subsection 164(1.1) to security that has been voluntarily given to the Minister. Absent jeopardy, argues Topol, there is no reason for a taxpayer to volunteer security to CCRA to secure an amount "in dispute". This is so because section 225.1 of the Act prevents the Minister from taking any steps to collect an amount of disputed tax and because the delivery of security does not stop interest from accruing on the amount of outstanding tax. Accordingly, he contends that, from a practical perspective, the only occasions on which the Minister will have an amount of disputed taxes "secured" are where the security was given prior to January 1985 or where the Minister has received the fruits of collection proceedings before the subject taxes were "in dispute". Any interpretation of subsection 164(1.1) that requires that the security be rendered voluntarily is unduly narrow and inconsistent with the purpose of the provision.


[22]            Moreover, submits Topol, the position that the writ was lawfully obtained is inconsistent with the purpose of the provision. Referring again to section 225.1, he maintains that the Minister is precluded from taking steps to collect the taxes in dispute for the duration of the dispute, i.e., from assessment through to objection and appeal to the Tax Court. Topol argues that there is, however, a gap in section 225.1 because it does not address the situation where a taxpayer begins the objection or appeal process outside of the time limits specifically prescribed within the section. To give effect to their purpose, the provisions must be interpreted liberally to protect taxpayers when the objection or appeal procedure is commenced beyond the prescribed times. Topol contends that to conclude otherwise means that a taxpayer, unable to adhere to the prescribed time limitation for reasons beyond his or her control and subject to a garnishment issued by the Minister, who is subsequently granted leave to file a notice of objection, will not be able to have the garnished funds returned to him. That taxpayer will have paid the taxes in dispute before an impartial hearing has been concluded. Since he was permitted to file a notice of objection to the 1996 and 1998 tax years on September 24, 2001, more than 90 days after the relevant notices of assessment, if the writ is not lifted, Topol contends that he will have, in effect, paid the taxes in dispute before an impartial hearing has been concluded. Such a result is inconsistent with the purpose of both section 225.1 and subsection 164(1.1) of the Act and should not be permitted in the absence of express wording to that effect in the Act.


[23]            The scheme of the Act is such that subject to reassessment, an assessment is, by virtue of subsection 152(8), deemed to be valid and binding unless varied or vacated on appeal. Under section 158, where the Minister mails a notice of assessment of any amount payable by a taxpayer, the amount remaining unpaid is payable forthwith. A taxpayer may file an objection to an assessment within 90 days after the day of mailing the notice of assessment. If the assessment is confirmed, the taxpayer may appeal further to the Tax Court. If the objection is not dealt with within 90 days, a taxpayer may choose to appeal directly to the Tax Court rather than wait for a ruling on the objection (subsection 169(1)). An amount payable under the Act is a debt due to Her Majesty and recoverable as such in the Federal Court or in any other court of competent jurisdiction or in any other manner provided in the Act (section 222). The Minister, notwithstanding that an unpaid amount is payable forthwith, cannot initiate any collection proceedings regarding the debt until 90 days after the date of mailing of the notice of assessment (section 225.1). The collection restrictions protect the taxpayer, pending an objection or appeal, unless there is a danger that collection will be jeopardized in which case the Minister must obtain judicial authorization to collect the amount (section 225.2 and subsection 164(1.2)). If the taxpayer does not file a notice of objection within 90 days and the amount remains unpaid, the Minister may proceed to collect the debt by any of the collection mechanisms provided in subsection 225.1(1), paragraphs (a) to (g) and may register a certificate under subsection 223(3) in the Federal Court. A writ of execution may be issued for a debt certified under section 223 of the Act. Writs of execution issued from the Federal Court, pursuant to section 56 of the Federal Court Act, may be executed in the same manner as writs of process issued out of the superior court of the province in which any judgment or order is to be executed.

[24]            There is no question that, here, the Minister was entitled to obtain the certificate and the writ and Topol does not suggest otherwise. The respondent relied on Lambert v. Canada, [1976] C.T.C. 611 (F.C.A.), The Attorney General of Canada v. Louis-Albert Raymond (1980), D.T.C. 6383 (F.C.A.) and Optical Recording Corp. v. Canada, [1991] 1 F.C. 309 (F.C.A.) as authorities for the proposition that any collection proceedings undertaken pursuant to a previous unpaid assessment are not invalidated when a reassessment is issued. While those decisions relate to the Act prior to the enactment of the collection restrictions in section 225.1, I am satisfied that the principle advanced by the respondent is not affected or undermined by the introduction of the section. I do not, however, understand Topol's argument as suggesting otherwise. He does not challenge the validity or the lawfulness of the writ. Rather, he seeks to "undo" what has been lawfully done and says that subsection 164(1.1) provides the mechanism to accomplish this feat.


[25]            I am not persuaded that Topol can succeed. Subsections 164(1.1), 220(4.1) and section 225.1 of the Act provide a scheme relating to amounts in controversy that have been put into dispute by the taxpayer's filing of a notice of objection or appeal. Section 225.1 provides that taxpayers need not pay amounts in controversy and it prohibits the Minister from collecting amounts in controversy, where the amounts are subject to objection or appeal, although interest continues to accrue with respect to those amounts by virtue of section 161. To stop the accrual of interest, a taxpayer may provide security to the Minister pursuant to subsection 220(4.1) or the taxpayer may voluntarily pay the amount in controversy, pending the outcome of the objection or appeal. Subsection 164(1.1) provides a mechanism whereby any amounts, paid with respect to the amount in controversy, or any security, accepted by the Minister with respect to the amount in controversy, are returned to the taxpayer. In my view, there are three conditions precedent contained in the wording of subsection 164(1.1).

[26]            The first is that the taxpayer must have either filed a notice of objection that the Minister, after 120 days, has not confirmed, varied or issued a reassessment in respect thereof, or the taxpayer must have appealed to the Tax Court of Canada. The second condition is that the taxpayer must have paid amounts on account of the amounts in dispute and/or the Minister must have accepted security for the amounts in dispute. The third condition is that the taxpayer must have made written application to the Minister for payment of the amounts or surrender of the security. Where the conditions precedent have been met, the Minister will then determine the amount of the repayment or the amount of the security to be surrendered in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs 164 (1.1)(c) and (d).


[27]            The applicant has satisfied the third condition precedent because he has made application to the Minister. The first condition precedent is problematic because although Topol has filed notices of objection in relation to the 1996 and 1998 taxation years, he has not done so for the 1999 taxation year. The writ of seizure and sale, while substantially in relation to the 1996 tax year, also includes 1998 and 1999. It is the second condition precedent, however, that presents the greatest difficulty. In Her Majesty the Queen v. Province of Alberta Treasury Branches, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 963, the Supreme Court of Canada stated that, "Basically, a security is something which is given to ensure the repayment of a loan". Black's Law Dictionary, 7th ed., defines "security" as, "1. Collateral given or pledged to guarantee the fulfilment of an obligation; esp., the assurance that a creditor will be repaid (usu. with interest) any money or credit extended to a debtor".

[28]            A writ of seizure and sale, as I understand it, is an enforcement procedure. It is an order to a sheriff to enforce a judgment or order of the court. The writ in issue is the Minister's writ, not that of the taxpayer, although its effect is to afford some type of security to the Minister in the broad sense. In my view, the "security" referred to in subsection 164(1.1) is security provided by the taxpayer to the Minister. The specific wording of the provision refers to "security accepted". Of necessity, to be accepted, it must have been offered or provided. A writ of seizure and sale, sought and obtained by the Minister, cannot be regarded as security provided by the taxpayer. Subsection 220(4.1) provides reinforcement for this conclusion. That provision states:


220.(4.1) Where a taxpayer has objected to or appealed from an assessment under this Act, the Minister shall, while the objection or appeal is outstanding, accept adequate security furnished by or on behalf of the taxpayer for payment of the amount in controversy except to the extent that the Minister may collect the amount because of subsection 225.1(7). (emphasis added)

220.(4.1) Lorsqu'un contribuable fait opposition ou interjette appel au sujet d'une cotisation établie en vertu de la présente loi, le ministre doit accepter toute garantie valable fournie par le contribuable, ou en son nom, alors que l'opposition ou l'appel est pendant, pour le paiement de la somme en litige, sauf dans la mesure où le ministre peut recouvrer la somme par application du paragraphe 225.1(7). (mon soulignement)


[29]            I note Topol's hypothetical argument that a taxpayer, who for reasons beyond his or her control fails to file a notice of objection within the prescribed time limits and who is subsequently granted leave to file a notice of objection, may be prejudiced and lose the benefit of subsection 164(1.1) if the meaning I have ascribed to "security" is adopted. My observations in this respect are twofold. First, there is nothing in the record to indicate that Topol was unable to file his notices of objection in a timely manner because of reasons beyond his control. In this sense, it may be said that he is the author of his own misfortune. Second, if indeed there exists a gap in the legislation, it is for Parliament, not the court, to remedy. Neither the statute nor the provision support the meaning of the word "security" advanced by Topol. Thus, I conclude that the Minister's decision was not only reasonable, it was correct. This does not and should not be taken to mean, however, that the Minister is at liberty to execute on the writ while the objections with respect to the 1996 and 1998 taxation years remain alive.

Whether the Minister erred in refusing to refund or repay all amounts taken and/or received from the applicant with respect to the 1998 taxation year


[30]            The request for a refund relates exclusively to the 1998 taxation year. The notice of assessment with respect to 1998 indicates income of $986,914., T4 at-source income tax deductions of $74,867.35 and a claim for losses of $635,008., which was reduced to $582,655. Topol received a refund of $2,554.05. A reassessment dated September 15, 1999 disallowed a non-capital loss carry forward with the result that the tax owing was $29,797.49. Topol did not file a notice of objection and as of June, 2001, the tax arrears for 1998 stood at $35,354.46. A second reassessment dated July 27, 2001, reduced the tax otherwise payable from the first reassessment to a balance owing in the amount of $3,090.63. Topol filed a notice of objection dated September 24, 2001 with respect to the 1998 taxation year. On February 6, 2002, through counsel, he requested pursuant to subsection 164(1.1) that the Minister repay the amounts paid by him with respect to the amounts under objection. The Minister refused the request by correspondence dated February 14, 2002. The relevant portions of that correspondence are set out below.

A review of the account shows that on September 15, 1999 a reassessment was issued for the taxation years of 1998 with a debt of $29,797.49. At the time this amount was not under dispute and continued to accrue interest. At June 21, 2001, the amount outstanding for 1998 was $35,354.36. On July 27, 2001 a reassessment for taxation year 1998 was generated with a credit adjustment of $32,587.71. This was used to partially offset the original balance of $35,354.36 (effective date June 21, 2002). The adjustment to that taxation year of 1998 left the client with a balance owing still of $3,090.63. On October 1, 2001 the taxation year of 1998 was submitted for an appeal.

According to the spreadsheet provided by your firm the original debt of $29,797.49, from the reassessment done on September 15, 1999, was placed into the disputed column which thereby looked as though a credit existed upon final calculation of balance on July 27, 2001. If the amount had been placed in the undisputed column as it was not under appeal at that time, the final calculation on July 27, 2001 would in fact have shown that a debt still existed for taxation year 1998 in the amount of $3,090.63.


[31]            The applicant's submissions include those relating to the purpose of the legislation. Since that argument has been summarized earlier in these reasons, in relation to the writ of seizure and sale, it need not be repeated here. He then refers to the July 27, 2001 reassessment, points to the word "refund" used to characterize the $32,587.71 decrease in tax liability and says that he is entitled to a repayment. The basis of the argument is the purpose of the legislation combined with the fact that he did "pay on account" for the 1998 taxation year because income was deducted at source. Relying on the definition of "pay" from the Oxford English Dictionary, the applicant submits that he paid his taxes for 1998 because the source deductions were money "given" to the Minister for "a debt incurred".

[32]            I have earlier delineated the conditions precedent required to trigger subsection 164(1.1). The second of those conditions, in relation to this issue, requires that the taxpayer has paid "amounts on account" of the amounts in dispute. Lest it be forgotten, the purpose of the provision is to put a taxpayer who has paid tax in dispute in the same position as one who has not paid tax in dispute. In my view, Topol's request does not fall within the ambit of subsection 164(1.1).

[33]            When the Minister reassessed Topol on September 15, 1999, for the 1998 taxation year, the reassessment had nothing to do with his T4 earnings and the at-source deductions. It related to the Minister's disallowance of a non-capital loss carry forward. Topol did not file a notice of objection and therefore that amount became payable. By June, 2001, the tax arrears had increased to $35,354.36. Topol did not pay. When the Minister reassessed on July 27, 2001, and allowed a reduction in taxable income of $32,587.71 because of an additional loss carry back submitted by Topol for the 2000 taxation year for application to the 1998 year, the Minister reduced the 1998 liability from the unpaid amount of $35,678.34 to $3,090.63. Topol did not pay the $3,090.63.

[34]            Subsection 164(1.1) requires that the Minister has received a payment with respect to the disputed amount. The calculation of the repayment under paragraphs 164(1.1)(c) and (d) is the difference between the amount paid with respect to the amount assessed and the amount paid with respect to the amount assessed that is not in controversy. The word "refund" on the July 27, 2001 reassessment notice is not technically correct, but nothing turns on the terminology because it is evident that the amount refers to the difference between the previous reassessed amount and the July 27, 2001 reassessed amount. The difference arose as a result of recalculation of the assessed amount because of an allowable loss. The assessed amount remaining unpaid was adjusted downward. The reduced assessed amount has not been paid. A non-capital loss carried back from a subsequent taxation year and used by a taxpayer in another taxation year, is not "an amount paid on account" of the amount in dispute as contemplated by subsection 164(1.1).

[35]            The payment made (the at-source deductions) was not made with respect to a disputed amount or an amount in controversy. Topol's notices of objection regarding the 1998 taxation year relate to the September 15, 1999 reassessment and the July 27, 2001 reassessment. They do not relate to the June 7, 1998 notice of assessment. The Minister has not received a payment with respect to the amount in dispute for the 1998 taxation year. There is no requirement for the Minister to repay to the taxpayer what was never paid to the Minister. The applicant cannot avail himself of the benefit of the provision in issue. I conclude that the Minister's decision to refuse Topol's request was not only reasonable, it was correct.

[36]            For the reasons given, the application for judicial review is dismissed and an order will so provide. The respondent did not seek costs and none are awarded.

____________________________________

      Judge

Ottawa, Ontario

May 27, 2003


                          FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

                                       TRIAL DIVISION

    NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:                                 T-801-02

STYLE OF CAUSE: ROBERT TOPOL

                                                                                                                              Applicant

                                                         - and -

                                                   MINISTER OF NATIONAL

                                                   REVENUE

Respondent

                                                         

PLACE OF HEARING:         TORONTO, ONTARIO

DATE OF HEARING:           APRIL 28, 2003

REASONS FOR ORDER BY:    LAYDEN-STEVENSON J.

DATED:                                    MAY 27, 2003

APPEARANCES:                    Barry S. Wortzman, Q.C.

                                                   Sean Lawler

                                                                                                       FOR THE APPLICANT

                                                   Wendy J. Linden

FOR THE RESPONDENT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:    Shibley Righton LLP

                                                          Toronto, Ontario

                                                                                                       FOR THE APPLICANT

                                                           Morris Rosenberg

                                                           Deputy Attorney General

                                                           of Canada

FOR THE RESPONDENT


                                           SCHEDULE "A"

                                                    to the

                      Reasons for Order dated May 27, 2003

rendered by the Hon. Madam Justice Carolyn Layden-Stevenson

                                                         in

                                          ROBERT TOPOL

                                                         v.

                THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE

                                                  T-801-02


Income Tax Act,

R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.)

152.(8) An assessment shall, subject to being varied or vacated on an objection or appeal under this Part and subject to a reassessment, be deemed to be valid and binding notwithstanding any error, defect or omission in the assessment or in any proceeding under this Act relating thereto.

Loi de l'impôt sur le revenu,

L.R.C. 1985, c. 1 (5e Suppl.)

152.(8) Sous réserve des modifications qui peuvent y être apportées ou de son annulation lors d'une opposition ou d'un appel fait en vertu de la présente partie et sous réserve d'une nouvelle cotisation, une cotisation est réputée être valide et exécutoire malgré toute erreur, tout vice de forme ou toute omission dans cette cotisation ou dans toute procédure s'y rattachant en vertu de la présente loi.

158. Where the Minister mails a notice of assessment of any amount payable by a taxpayer, that part of the amount assessed then remaining unpaid is payable forthwith by the taxpayer to the Receiver General.

158. Lorsque le ministre poste un avis de cotisation pour un montant payable par un contribuable, celui-ci doit immédiatement verser au receveur général la partie alors impayée de ce montant.


161. (1) Where at any time after a taxpayer's balance-due day for a taxation year

(a) the total of the taxpayer's taxes payable under this Part and Parts I.3, VI and VI.1 for the year

exceeds

(b) the total of all amounts each of which is an amount paid at or before that time on account of the taxpayer's tax payable and applied as at that time by the Minister against the taxpayer's liability for an amount payable under this Part or Part I.3, VI or VI.1 for the year,

the taxpayer shall pay to the Receiver General interest at the prescribed rate on the excess, computed for the period during which that excess is outstanding.

161. (1) Dans le cas où le total visé à l'alinéa

a) excède le total visé à l'alinéa b) à un moment postérieur à la date d'exigibilité du solde qui est applicable à un contribuable pour une année d'imposition, le contribuable est tenu de verser au receveur général des intérêts sur l'excédent, calculés au taux prescrit pour la période au cours de laquelle cet excédent est impayé:

a) le total des impôts payables par le contribuable pour l'année en vertu de la présente partie et des parties I.3, VI et VI.1;

b) le total des montants représentant chacun un montant payé au plus tard à ce moment au titre de l'impôt payable par le contribuable et imputé par le ministre, à compter de ce moment, sur le montant dont le contribuable est redevable pour l'année en vertu de la présente partie ou des parties I.3, VI ou VI.1.                 

(2) In addition to the interest payable under subsection 161(1), where a taxpayer who is required by this Part to pay a part or instalment of tax has failed to pay all or any part thereof on or before the day on or before which the tax or instalment, as the case may be, was required to be paid, the taxpayer shall pay to the Receiver General interest at the prescribed rate on the amount that the taxpayer failed to pay computed from the day on or before which the amount was required to be paid to the day of payment, or to the beginning of the period in respect of which the taxpayer is required to pay interest thereon under subsection 161(1), whichever is earlier.

(2) Un contribuable qui n'a pas payé au plus tard à la date où il en est tenu tout ou partie d'un acompte provisionnel ou d'une fraction d'impôt qu'il est tenu de payer en vertu de la présente partie doit verser au receveur général, outre les intérêts payables en vertu du paragraphe (1), des intérêts sur le montant qu'il n'a pas payé, calculés au taux prescrit pour la période allant de la date où ce montant devait au plus tard être payé jusqu'à la date du paiement ou jusqu'au début de la période pour laquelle il est tenu de payer des intérêts sur ce montant en vertu du paragraphe (1), si ce début est antérieur.


164(1.1) Subject to subsection 164(1.2), where a taxpayer

(a) has under section 165 served a notice of objection to an assessment and the Minister has not within 120 days after the day of service confirmed or varied the assessment or made a reassessment in respect thereof, or

(b) has appealed from an assessment to the Tax Court of Canada,

and has applied in writing to the Minister for a payment or surrender of security, the Minister shall, where no authorization has been granted under subsection 225.2(2) in respect of the amount assessed, with all due dispatch repay all amounts paid on account of that amount or surrender security accepted therefor to the extent that

(c) the lesser of

(i) the total of the amounts so paid and the value of the security, and

(ii) the amount so assessed

exceeds

(d) the total of

(i) the amount, if any, so assessed that is not in controversy, and

(ii) where the taxpayer is a large corporation (within the meaning assigned by subsection 225.1(8)), 1/2 of the amount so assessed that is in controversy.

164(1.1) Sous réserve du paragraphe (1.2), lorsqu'un contribuable demande au ministre, par écrit, un remboursement ou la remise d'une garantie, alors qu'il a:

a) soit signifié, conformément à l'article 165, un avis d'opposition à une cotisation, si le ministre, dans les 120 jours suivant la date de signification, n'a pas confirmé ou modifié la cotisation ni établi une nouvelle cotisation à cet égard;

b) soit appelé d'une cotisation devant la Cour canadienne de l'impôt,

le ministre, si aucune autorisation n'a été accordée en application du paragraphe 225.2(2) à l'égard du montant de la cotisation, avec diligence, rembourse les sommes versées sur ce montant ou remet la garantie acceptée pour ce montant, jusqu'à concurrence de l'excédent du montant visé à l'alinéa c) sur le montant visé à l'alinéa d):

c) le moins élevé des montants suivants:

(i) le total des sommes ainsi versées et de la valeur de la garantie,

(ii) le montant de cette cotisation;

d) le total des montants suivants:

(i) la partie du montant de cette cotisation qui n'est pas en litige,

(ii) si le contribuable est une grande société, au sens du paragraphe 225.1(8), la moitié de la partie du montant de cette cotisation qui est en litige.


164(1.2) Notwithstanding subsection 164(1.1), where, on application by the Minister made within 45 days after the receipt by the Minister of a written request by a taxpayer for repayment of an amount or surrender of a security, a judge is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the collection of all or any part of an amount assessed in respect of the taxpayer would be jeopardized by the repayment of the amount or the surrender of the security to the taxpayer under that subsection, the judge shall order that the repayment of the amount or a part thereof not be made or that the security or part thereof not be surrendered or make such other order as the judge considers reasonable in the circumstances.

164(1.2) Malgré le paragraphe (1.1), le juge saisi peut, sur requête du ministre faite dans les 45 jours suivant la réception de la demande écrite d'un contribuable visant le remboursement d'une somme ou la remise d'une garantie, soit ordonner que tout ou partie de la somme ne soit pas remboursée au contribuable ou que tout ou partie de la garantie ne lui soit pas remise, soit rendre toute ordonnance qu'il estime raisonnable dans les circonstances, s'il est convaincu qu'il existe des motifs raisonnables de croire que le fait de lui rembourser la somme ou de lui remettre la garantie conformément à ce paragraphe compromettrait le recouvrement de tout ou partie du montant d'une cotisation établie à son égard.

165. (1) A taxpayer who objects to an assessment under this Part may serve on the Minister a notice of objection, in writing, setting out the reasons for the objection and all relevant facts,

(a) where the assessment is in respect of the taxpayer for a taxation year and the taxpayer is an individual (other than a trust) or a testamentary trust, on or before the later of

(i) the day that is one year after the taxpayer's filing-due date for the year, and

(ii) the day that is 90 days after the day of mailing of the notice of assessment; and

(b) in any other case, on or before the day that is 90 days after the day of mailing of the notice of assessment.

165. (1) Le contribuable qui s'oppose à une cotisation prévue par la présente partie peut signifier au ministre, par écrit, un avis d'opposition exposant les motifs de son opposition et tous les faits pertinents, dans les délais suivants:

a) lorsqu'il s'agit d'une cotisation relative à un contribuable qui est un particulier (sauf une fiducie) ou une fiducie testamentaire, pour une année d'imposition, au plus tard le dernier en date des jours suivants:

(i) le jour qui tombe un an après la date d'échéance de production qui est applicable au contribuable pour l'année,

(ii) le 90e jour suivant la date de mise à la poste de l'avis de cotisation;

b) dans les autres cas, au plus tard le 90e jour suivant la date de mise à la poste de l'avis de cotisation.


(1.1) Notwithstanding subsection 165(1), where at any time the Minister assesses tax, interest, penalties or other amounts payable under this Part by, or makes a determination in respect of, a taxpayer

(a) under subsection 67.5(2) or 152(1.8), subparagraph 152(4)(b)(i) or subsection 152(4.3) or (6), 161.1(7), 164(4.1), 220(3.4) or 245(8) or in accordance with an order of a court vacating, varying or restoring an assessment or referring the assessment back to the Minister for reconsideration and reassessment,

(b) under subsection 165(3) where the underlying objection relates to an assessment or a determination made under any of the provisions or circumstances referred to in paragraph 165(1.1)(a), or

(c) under a provision of an Act of Parliament requiring an assessment to be made that, but for that provision, would not be made because of subsections 152(4) to 152(5),

the taxpayer may object to the assessment or determination within 90 days after the day of mailing of the notice of assessment or determination, but only to the extent that the reasons for the objection can reasonably be regarded

(d) where the assessment or determination was made under subsection 152(1.8), as relating to any matter or conclusion specified in paragraph 152(1.8)(a), 152(1.8)(b) or 152(1.8)(c), and

(e) in any other case, as relating to any matter that gave rise to the assessment or determination

and that was not conclusively determined by the court, and this subsection shall not be read or construed as limiting the right of the taxpayer to object to an assessment or a determination issued or made before that time.

(1.1) Malgré le paragraphe (1), dans le cas où, à un moment donné, le ministre établit une cotisation concernant l'impôt, les intérêts, les pénalités ou d'autres montants payables par un contribuable en vertu de la présente partie ou détermine un montant à l'égard d'un contribuable:

a) soit en application des paragraphes 67.5(2) ou 152(1.8), du sous-alinéa 152(4)b)(i) ou des paragraphes 152(4.3) ou (6), 161.1(7), 164(4.1), 220(3.4) ou 245(8) ou en conformité avec l'ordonnance d'un tribunal qui annule, modifie ou rétablit la cotisation ou la renvoie au ministre pour nouvel examen et nouvelle cotisation;

b) soit en application du paragraphe (3), à la suite d'un avis d'opposition relatif à une cotisation établie ou un montant déterminé en application des dispositions visées à l'alinéa a) ou dans les circonstances qui y sont indiquées;

c) soit en application d'une disposition d'une loi fédérale exigeant l'établissement d'une cotisation qui, sans cette disposition, ne serait pas établie en vertu des paragraphes 152(4) à (5),

le contribuable peut faire opposition à la cotisation ou au montant déterminé dans les 90 jours suivant la date de mise à la poste de l'avis de cotisation ou de l'avis portant qu'un montant a été déterminé seulement dans la mesure où il est raisonnable de considérer que les motifs d'opposition sont liés à l'une des questions suivantes que le tribunal n'a pas tranchée définitivement:

d) dans le cas où la cotisation a été établie ou le montant, déterminé en application du paragraphe 152(1.8), une question précisée aux alinéas 152(1.8)a), b) ou c);

e) dans les autres cas, une question qui a donné lieu à la cotisation ou au montant déterminé.

Toutefois, le présent paragraphe n'a pas pour effet de limiter le droit du contribuable de s'opposer à quelque cotisation établie ou montant déterminé avant le moment donné.


(2) A notice of objection under this section shall be served by being addressed to the Chief of Appeals in a District Office or a Taxation Centre of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency and delivered or mailed to that Office or Centre.

(2.1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, paragraph (1)(a) shall apply only in respect of assessments, determinations and redeterminations under this Part and Part I.2.

(3) On receipt of a notice of objection under this section, the Minister shall, with all due dispatch, reconsider the assessment and vacate, confirm or vary the assessment or reassess, and shall thereupon notify the taxpayer in writing of the Minister's action.

(3.1) (Repealed by S.C. 1998, c. 19, s. 192(4).)

(3.2) (Repealed by S.C. 1998, c. 19, s. 192(4).)

(4) (Repealed by S.C. 1994, c. 7, Sch. VIII, s. 98(3).)

(5) The limitations imposed under subsections 152(4) and 152(4.01) do not apply to a reassessment made under subsection 165(3).

(6) The Minister may accept a notice of objection served under this section that was not served in the manner required by subsection 165(2).

(7) Where a taxpayer has served in accordance with this section a notice of objection to an assessment and thereafter the Minister reassesses the tax, interest, penalties or other amount in respect of which the notice of objection was served or makes an additional assessment in respect thereof and sends to the taxpayer a notice of the reassessment or of the additional assessment, as the case may be, the taxpayer may, without serving a notice of objection to the reassessment or additional assessment,

(a) appeal therefrom to the Tax Court of Canada in accordance with section 169; or

(b) amend any appeal to the Tax Court of Canada that has been instituted with respect to the assessment by joining thereto an appeal in respect of the reassessment or the additional assessment in such manner and on such terms, if any, as the Tax Court of Canada directs.

(2) L'avis d'opposition prévu au présent article est signifié au chef des Appels d'un bureau de district ou d'un centre fiscal du Agence des douanes et du revenu du Canada soit par personne, soit par courrier.

(2.1) Malgré les autres dispositions de la présente loi, l'alinéa (1)a) s'applique uniquement aux cotisations établies et aux montants déterminés ou déterminés de nouveau en application de la présente partie et de la partie I.2.

(3) Sur réception de l'avis d'opposition, le ministre, avec diligence, examine de nouveau la cotisation et l'annule, la ratifie ou la modifie ou établit une nouvelle cotisation. Dès lors, il avise le contribuable de sa décision par écrit.

(3.1) (Abrogé par L.C. 1998, ch. 19, art. 192(4).)

(3.2) (Abrogé par L.C. 1998, ch. 19, art. 192(4).)

(4) (Abrogé par L.C. 1994, ch. 7, ann. VIII, art. 98(3).)

(5) Les restrictions prévues aux paragraphes 152(4) et (4.01) ne s'appliquent pas aux nouvelles cotisations établies en vertu du paragraphe (3).

(6) Le ministre peut accepter un avis d'opposition signifié en vertu du présent article malgré l'inobservation des modalités prévues au paragraphe (2).

(7) Lorsqu'un contribuable a signifié un avis d'opposition à une cotisation conformément au présent article et que, par la suite, le ministre procède I une nouvelle cotisation ou établit une cotisation supplémentaire concernant l'impôt, les intérêts, les pénalités ou autres montants que l'avis d'opposition visait et envoie au contribuable un avis de nouvelle cotisation ou de cotisation supplémentaire, le contribuable peut, sans signifier d'avis d'opposition à la nouvelle cotisation ou la cotisation supplémentaire:

a) interjeter appel auprès de la Cour canadienne de l'impôt conformément à l'article 169;

b) si un appel a déjà été interjeté auprès de la Cour canadienne de l'impôt relativement à cette cotisation, modifier l'avis d'appel en y joignant un appel relativement à la nouvelle cotisation ou à la cotisation supplémentaire, dans la forme et selon les modalités qui peuvent être fixées par la Cour canadienne de l'impôt.

169. (1) Where a taxpayer has served notice of objection to an assessment under section 165, the taxpayer may appeal to the Tax Court of Canada to have the assessment vacated or varied after either

(a) the Minister has confirmed the assessment or reassessed, or

(b) 90 days have elapsed after service of the notice of objection and the Minister has not notified the taxpayer that the Minister has vacated or confirmed the assessment or reassessed,

but no appeal under this section may be instituted after the expiration of 90 days from the day notice has been mailed to the taxpayer under section 165 that the Minister has confirmed the assessment or reassessed. . . .

169. (1) Lorsqu'un contribuable a signifié un avis d'opposition à une cotisation, prévu à l'article 165, il peut interjeter appel auprès de la Cour canadienne de l'impôt pour faire annuler ou modifier la cotisation:

a) après que le ministre a ratifié la cotisation ou procédé à une nouvelle cotisation;

b) après l'expiration des 90 jours qui suivent la signification de l'avis d'opposition sans que le ministre ait notifié au contribuable le fait qu'il a annulé ou ratifié la cotisation ou procédé à une nouvelle cotisation;

toutefois, nul appel prévu au présent article ne peut être interjeté après l'expiration des 90 jours qui suivent la date où avis a été expédié par la poste au contribuable, en vertu de l'article 165, portant que le ministre a ratifié la cotisation ou procédé à une nouvelle cotisation. . . .


220(4.1) Where a taxpayer has objected to or appealed from an assessment under this Act, the Minister shall, while the objection or appeal is outstanding, accept adequate security furnished by or on behalf of the taxpayer for payment of the amount in controversy except to the extent that the Minister may collect the amount because of subsection 225.1(7).

220(4.1) Lorsqu'un contribuable fait opposition ou interjette appel au sujet d'une cotisation établie en vertu de la présente loi, le ministre doit accepter toute garantie valable fournie par le contribuable, ou en son nom, alors que l'opposition ou l'appel est pendant, pour le paiement de la somme en litige, sauf dans la mesure où le ministre peut recouvrer la somme par application du paragraphe 225.1(7).222. All taxes, interest, penalties, costs and other amounts payable under this Act are debts due to Her Majesty and recoverable as such in the Federal Court or any other court of competent jurisdiction or in any other manner provided by this Act.

222. Tous les impôts, intérêts, pénalités, frais et autres montants payables en vertu de la présente loi sont des dettes envers Sa Majesté et recouvrables comme telles devant la Cour fédérale ou devant tout autre tribunal compétent, ou de toute autre manière prévue par la présente loi.


223. (1) For the purposes of subsection 223(2), an "amount payable" by a person means any or all of

(a) an amount payable under this Act by the person;

(b) an amount payable under the Employment Insurance Act by the person;

(b.1) an amount payable under the Unemployment Insurance Act by the person;

(c) an amount payable under the Canada Pension Plan by the person; and

(d) an amount payable by the person under an Act of a province with which the Minister of Finance has entered into an agreement for the collection of taxes payable to the province under that Act.

(2) An amount payable by a person (in this section referred to as a "debtor") that has not been paid or any part of an amount payable by the debtor that has not been paid may be certified by the Minister as an amount payable by the debtor.

(3) On production to the Federal Court, a certificate made under subsection 223(2) in respect of a debtor shall be registered in the Court and when so registered has the same effect, and all proceedings may be taken thereon, as if the certificate were a judgment obtained in the Court against the debtor for a debt in the amount certified plus interest thereon to the day of payment as provided by the statute or statutes referred to in subsection 223(1) under which the amount is payable and, for the purpose of any such proceedings, the certificate shall be deemed to be a judgment of the Court against the debtor for a debt due to Her Majesty, enforceable in the amount certified plus interest thereon to the day of payment as provided by that statute or statutes.

(4) All reasonable costs and charges incurred or paid in respect of the registration in the Court of a certificate made under subsection 223(2) or in respect of any proceedings taken to collect the amount certified are recoverable in like manner as if they had been included in the amount certified in the certificate when it was registered.

(5) A document issued by the Federal Court evidencing a certificate in respect of a debtor registered under subsection 223(3), a writ of that Court issued pursuant to the certificate or any notification of the document or writ (such document, writ or notification in this section referred to as a "memorial") may be filed, registered or otherwise recorded for the purpose of creating a charge, lien or priority on, or a binding interest in, property in a province, or any interest in such property, held by the debtor in the same manner as a document evidencing

(a) a judgment of the superior court of the province against a person for a debt owing by the person, or

(b) an amount payable or required to be remitted by a person in the province in respect of a debt owing to Her Majesty in right of the province

may be filed, registered or otherwise recorded in accordance with or pursuant to the law of the province to create a charge, lien or priority on, or a binding interest in, the property or interest.

(6) If a memorial has been filed, registered or otherwise recorded under subsection 223(5),

(a) a charge, lien or priority is created on, or a binding interest is created in, property in the province, or any interest in such property, held by the debtor, or

(b) such property or interest in the property is otherwise bound,

in the same manner and to the same extent as if the memorial were a document evidencing a judgment referred to in paragraph 223(5)(a) or an amount referred to in paragraph 223(5)(b), and the charge, lien, priority or binding interest created shall be subordinate to any charge, lien, priority or binding interest in respect of which all steps necessary to make it effective against other creditors were taken before the time the memorial was filed, registered or otherwise recorded.

(7) If a memorial is filed, registered or otherwise recorded in a province under subsection 223(5), proceedings may be taken in the province in respect of the memorial, including proceedings

(a) to enforce payment of the amount evidenced by the memorial, interest on the amount and all costs and charges paid or incurred in respect of

(i) the filing, registration or other recording of the memorial, and

(ii) proceedings taken to collect the amount,

(b) to renew or otherwise prolong the effectiveness of the filing, registration or other recording of the memorial,

(c) to cancel or withdraw the memorial wholly or in respect of any of the property or interests affected by the memorial, or

(d) to postpone the effectiveness of the filing, registration or other recording of the memorial in favour of any right, charge, lien or priority that has been or is intended to be filed, registered or otherwise recorded in respect of any property or interest affected by the memorial,

in the same manner and to the same extent as if the memorial were a document evidencing a judgment referred to in paragraph 223(5)(a) or an amount referred to in paragraph 223(5)(b), except that if in any such proceeding or as a condition precedent to any such proceeding any order, consent or ruling is required under the law of the province to be made or given by the superior court of the province or a judge or official of the court, a like order, consent or ruling may be made or given by the Federal Court or a judge or official of the Federal Court and, when so made or given, has the same effect for the purposes of the proceeding as if it were made or given by the superior court of the province or a judge or official of the court.

(8) If

(a) a memorial is presented for filing, registration or other recording under subsection 223(5) or a document relating to the memorial is presented for filing, registration or other recording for the purpose of any proceeding described in subsection 223(7) to any official in the land, personal property or other registry system of a province, it shall be accepted for filing, registration or other recording, or

(b) access is sought to any person, place or thing in a province to make the filing, registration or other recording, the access shall be granted

in the same manner and to the same extent as if the memorial or document relating to the memorial were a document evidencing a judgment referred to in paragraph 223(5)(a) or an amount referred to in paragraph 223(5)(b) for the purpose of a like proceeding, as the case may be, except that, if the memorial or document is issued by the Federal Court or signed or certified by a judge or official of the Court, any affidavit, declaration or other evidence required under the law of the province to be provided with or to accompany the memorial or document in the proceedings is deemed to have been provided with or to have accompanied the memorial or document as so required.

(9) Notwithstanding any law of Canada or of a province, a sheriff or other person shall not, without the written consent of the Minister, sell or otherwise dispose of any property, or publish any notice or otherwise advertise in respect of any sale or other disposition of any property pursuant to any process issued or charge, lien, priority or binding interest created in any proceeding to collect an amount certified in a certificate made under subsection 223(2), interest on the amount and costs, but if that consent is subsequently given, any property that would have been affected by such a process, charge, lien, priority or binding interest if the Minister's consent had been given at the time the process was issued or the charge, lien, priority or binding interest was created, as the case may be, shall be bound, seized, attached, charged or otherwise affected as it would be if that consent had been given at the time the process was issued or the charge, lien, priority or binding interest was created, as the case may be.

223.(10) Completion of notices, etc.

(10) If information required to be set out by any sheriff or other person in a minute, notice or document required to be completed for any purpose cannot, by reason of subsection 223(9), be so set out, the sheriff or other person shall complete the minute, notice or document to the extent possible without that information and, when the consent of the Minister is given under that subsection, a further minute, notice or document setting out all the information shall be completed for the same purpose, and the sheriff or other person having complied with this subsection is deemed to have complied with the Act, regulation or rule requiring the information to be set out in the minute, notice or document.

(11) A sheriff or other person who is unable, by reason of subsection 223(9) or 223(10), to comply with any law or rule of court is bound by any order made by a judge of the Federal Court, on an ex parte application by the Minister, for the purpose of giving effect to the proceeding, charge, lien, priority or binding interest.

(11.1) When a charge, lien, priority or binding interest created under subsection 223(6) by filing, registering or otherwise recording a memorial under subsection 223(5) is registered in accordance with subsection 87(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, it is deemed

(a) to be a claim that is secured by a security and that, subject to subsection 87(2) of that Act, ranks as a secured claim under that Act; and

(b) to also be a claim referred to in paragraph 86(2)(a) of that Act.

(12) Notwithstanding any law of Canada or of a province, in any certificate made under subsection 223(2) in respect of a debtor, in any memorial evidencing the certificate or in any writ or document issued for the purpose of collecting an amount certified, it is sufficient for all purposes

(a) to set out, as the amount payable by the debtor, the total of amounts payable by the debtor without setting out the separate making up that total; and

(b) to refer to the rate of interest to be charged on the separate amounts making up the amount payable in general terms as interest at the rate prescribed under this Act applicable from time to time on amounts payable to the Receiver General without indicating the specific rates of interest to be charged on each of the separate amounts or to be charged for any particular period of time.

223. (1) Pour l'application du paragraphe (2), le montant payable par une personne peut être constitué d'un ou plusieurs des montants suivants:

a) un montant payable par elle en application de la présente loi;

b) un montant payable par elle en application de la Loi sur l'assurance-emploi;

b.1) un montant payable en application de la Loi sur l'assurance-chômage;

c) un montant payable par elle en application du Régime de pensions du Canada;

d) un montant payable par elle en application d'une loi provinciale et que le ministre doit recouvrer aux termes d'un accord conclu par le ministre des Finances pour le recouvrement des impôts payables à la province en vertu de cette loi.

(2) Le ministre peut, par certificat, attester qu'un montant ou une partie de montant payable par une personne -- appelée "débiteur" au présent article -- mais qui est impayé est un montant payable par elle.

(3) Sur production à la Cour fédérale, un certificat fait en application du paragraphe (2) à l'égard d'un débiteur est enregistré à cette cour. Il a alors le même effet que s'il s'agissait d'un jugement rendu par cette cour contre le débiteur pour une dette du montant attesté dans le certificat, augmenté des intérêts courus jusqu'à la date du paiement comme le prévoit les lois visées au paragraphe (1) en application desquelles le montant est payable, et toutes les procédures peuvent être engagées à la faveur du certificat comme s'il s'agissait d'un tel jugement. Dans le cadre de ces procédures, le certificat est réputé être un jugement exécutoire rendu par cette cour contre le débiteur pour une dette envers Sa Majesté du montant attesté dans le certificat, augmenté des intérêts courus jusqu'à la date du paiement comme le prévoit ces lois.

(4) Les frais et dépens raisonnables engagés ou payés en vue de l'enregistrement à la Cour fédérale d'un certificat fait en application du paragraphe (2) ou de l'exécution des procédures de recouvrement du montant attesté dans le certificat sont recouvrables de la même manière que s'ils avaient été inclus dans ce montant au moment de l'enregistrement du certificat.

(5) Un document délivré par la Cour fédérale et faisant preuve du contenu d'un certificat enregistré à l'égard d'un débiteur en application du paragraphe (3), un bref de cette cour délivré au titre du certificat ou toute notification du document ou du bref (ce document ou bref ou cette notification étant appelé "extrait" au présent article) peut être produit, enregistré ou autrement inscrit en vue de grever d'une sûreté, d'une priorité ou d'une autre charge un bien du débiteur situé dans une province, ou un droit sur un tel bien, de la même manière qui peut l'être, au titre ou en application de la loi provinciale, un document faisant preuve:

a) soit du contenu d'un jugement rendu par la cour supérieure de la province contre une personne pour une dette de celle-ci;

b) soit d'un montant payable ou à remettre par une personne dans la province au titre d'une créance de Sa Majesté du chef de la province.

(6) Une fois l'extrait produit, enregistré ou autrement inscrit en application du paragraphe (5), une sûreté, une priorité ou une autre charge grève un bien du débiteur situé dans la province, ou un droit sur un tel bien, de la même manière et dans même la mesure qui si l'extrait était un document faisant preuve du contenu d'un jugement visé à l'alinéa (5)a) ou d'un montant visé à l'alinéa (5)b). Cette sûreté, priorité ou autre charge prend rang après tout autre sûreté, priorité ou charge à l'égard de laquelle les mesures requises pour la rendre opposable aux autres créanciers ont été prises avant la production, l'enregistrement ou autre inscription de l'extrait.

(7) L'extrait produit, enregistré ou autrement inscrit dans une province en application du paragraphe (5) peut, de la même manière et dans la même mesure que s'il s'agissait d'un document faisant preuve du contenu d'un jugement visé à l'alinéa (5)a) ou d'un montant visé à l'alinéa (5)b), faire l'objet dans la province de procédures visant notamment:

a) à exiger le paiement du montant attesté par l'extrait, des intérêts y afférents et des frais et dépens payés ou engagés en vue de la production, de l'enregistrement ou autre inscription de l'extrait ou en vue de l'exécution des procédures de recouvrement du montant;

b) à renouveler ou autrement prolonger l'effet de la production, de l'enregistrement ou autre inscription de l'extrait;

c) à annuler ou à retirer l'extrait dans son ensemble ou uniquement en ce qui concerne un ou plusieurs biens ou droits sur lesquels l'extrait a une incidence;

d) à différer l'effet de la production, de l'enregistrement ou autre inscription de l'extrait en faveur d'un droit, d'une sûreté, d'une priorité ou d'une autre charge qui a été ou qui sera produit, enregistré ou autrement inscrit à l'égard d'un bien ou d'un droit sur lequel l'extrait a une incidence.

Toutefois, dans le cas où la loi provinciale exige -- soit dans le cadre de ces procédures, soit préalablement à leur exécution -- l'obtention d'une ordonnance, d'une décision ou d'un consentement de la cour supérieure de la province ou d'un juge ou d'un fonctionnaire de celle-ci, la Cour fédérale ou un juge ou un fonctionnaire de celle-ci peut rendre une telle ordonnance ou décision ou donner un tel consentement. Cette ordonnance, cette décision ou ce consentement a alors le même effet dans le cadre des procédures que s'il était rendu ou donné par la cour supérieure de la province ou par un juge ou un fonctionnaire de celle-ci.

(8) L'extrait qui est présenté pour production, enregistrement ou autre inscription en application du paragraphe (5), ou un document concernant l'extrait qui est présenté pour production, enregistrement ou autre inscription dans le cadre des procédures visées au paragraphe (7), à un agent d'un régime d'enregistrement foncier ou des droits sur des biens meubles ou autres droits d'une province est accepté pour production, enregistrement ou autre inscription de la même manière et dans la même mesure que s'il s'agissait d'un document faisant preuve du contenu d'un jugement visé à l'alinéa (5)a) ou d'un montant visé à l'alinéa (5)b) dans le cadre de procédures semblables. Aux fins de la production, de l'enregistrement ou autre inscription de cet extrait ou ce document, l'accès à une personne, à un endroit ou à une chose situé dans une province est donné de la même manière et dans la même mesure que si l'extrait ou le document était un document semblable ainsi délivré ou établi. Lorsque l'extrait ou le document est délivré par la Cour fédérale ou porte la signature ou fait l'objet d'un certificat d'un juge ou d'un fonctionnaire de cette cour, tout affidavit, toute déclaration ou tout autre élément de preuve qui doit, selon la loi provinciale, être fourni avec l'extrait ou le document ou l'accompagner dans le cadre des procédures est réputé avoir été ainsi fourni ou accompagner ainsi l'extrait ou le document.

(9) Malgré les lois fédérales et provinciales, ni le shérif ni une autre personne ne peut, sans le consentement écrit du ministre, vendre un bien ou autrement en disposer ou publier un avis concernant la vente ou la disposition d'un bien ou autrement l'annoncer, par suite de l'émission d'un bref ou de la création d'une sûreté, d'une priorité ou d'une autre charge dans le cadre de procédures de recouvrement d'un montant attesté dans un certificat fait en application du paragraphe (2), des intérêts y afférents et des frais. Toutefois, si ce consentement est obtenu ultérieurement, tout bien sur lequel un tel bref ou une telle sûreté, priorité ou charge aurait une incidence si ce consentement avait été obtenu au moment de l'émission du bref ou de la création de la sûreté, priorité ou charge, selon le cas, est saisi ou autrement grevé comme si le consentement avait été obtenu à ce moment.

223.(10) Établissement des avis

(10) Dans le cas où des renseignements qu'un shérif ou une autre personne doit indiquer dans un procès-verbal, un avis ou un document à établir à une fin quelconque ne peuvent, en raison du paragraphe (9), être ainsi indiqués, le shérif ou l'autre personne doit établir le procès-verbal, l'avis ou le document en omettant les renseignements en question. Une fois le consentement du ministre obtenu pour l'application de ce paragraphe, une autre procès-verbal, avis ou document indiquant tous le renseignements doit être établi à la même fin. S'il se conforme au présent paragraphe, le shérif ou l'autre personne est réputé se conformer à la loi, à la disposition réglementaire ou à la règle qui exige que les renseignements soient indiqués dans le procès-verbal, l'avis ou le document.

(11) S'il ne peut se conformer à une loi ou à une règle de pratique en raison des paragraphes (9) ou (10), le shérif ou l'autre personne est lié par toute ordonnance rendue, sur requête ex parte du ministre, par un juge de la Cour fédérale visant à donner effet à des procédures ou à une sûreté, une priorité ou une autre charge.

(11.1) La sûreté, la priorité ou l'autre charge créée selon le paragraphe (6) par la production, l'enregistrement ou autre inscription d'un extrait en application du paragraphe (5) qui est enregistrée en conformité avec le paragraphe 87(1) de la Loi sur la faillite et l'insolvabilité est réputée, à la fois:

a) être une réclamation garantie et, sous réserve du paragraphe 87(2) de cette loi, prendre rang comme réclamation garantie aux termes de cette loi;

b) être une réclamation visée à l'alinéa 86(2)a) de cette loi.

(12) Malgré les lois fédérales et provinciales, dans le certificat fait à l'égard d'un débiteur en application du paragraphe (2), dans l'extrait faisant preuve du contenu d'un tel certificat ou dans le bref ou document délivré en vue du recouvrement d'un montant attesté dans un tel certificat, il suffit, à toutes fins utiles:

a) d'une part, d'indiquer, comme montant payable par le débiteur, le total des montants payables par celui-ci et non les montants distincts qui forment ce total;

b) d'autre part, d'indiquer de façon générale le taux d'intérêt prescrit en application de la présente loi sur les montants payables au receveur général comme étant le taux applicable aux montants distincts qui forment le montant payable, sans détailler les taux applicables à chaque montant distinct ou pour une période donnée.


225.1. (1) Where a taxpayer is liable for the payment of an amount assessed under this Act, other than an amount assessed under subsection 152(4.2), 169(3) or 220(3.1), the Minister shall not, for the purpose of collecting the amount,

(a) commence legal proceedings in a court,(b) certify the amount under section 223,

(c) require a person to make a payment under subsection 224(1),

(d) require an institution or a person to make a payment under subsection 224(1.1),

(e) require the retention of the amount by way of deduction or set-off under section 224.1,

(f) require a person to turn over moneys under subsection 224.3(1), or

(g) give a notice, issue a certificate or make a direction under subsection 225(1)

until after the day that is 90 days after the day of the mailing of the notice of assessment.

(2) Where a taxpayer has served a notice of objection under this Act to an assessment of an amount payable under this Act, the Minister shall not, for the purpose of collecting the amount in controversy, take any of the actions described in paragraphs 225.1(1)(a) to 225.1(1)(g) until after the day that is 90 days after the day on which notice is mailed to the taxpayer that the Minister has confirmed or varied the assessment.

(3) Where a taxpayer has appealed from an assessment of an amount payable under this Act to the Tax Court of Canada, the Minister shall not, for the purpose of collecting the amount in controversy, take any of the actions described in paragraphs 225.1(1)(a) to 225.1(1)(g) before the day of mailing of a copy of the decision of the Court to the taxpayer or the day on which the taxpayer discontinues the appeal, whichever is the earlier.

(4) Where a taxpayer has agreed under subsection 173(1) that a question should be determined by the Tax Court of Canada, or where a taxpayer is served with a copy of an application made under subsection 174(1) to that Court for the determination of a question, the Minister shall not take any of the actions described in paragraphs 225.1(1)(a) to 225.1(1)(g) for the purpose of collecting that part of an amount assessed, the liability for payment of which will be affected by the determination of the question, before the day on which the question is determined by the Court.

(5) Notwithstanding any other provision in this section, where a taxpayer has served a notice of objection under this Act to an assessment or has appealed to the Tax Court of Canada from an assessment and agrees in writing with the Minister to delay proceedings on the objection or appeal, as the case may be, until judgment has been given in another action before the Tax Court of Canada, the Federal Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court of Canada in which the issue is the same or substantially the same as that raised in the objection or appeal of the taxpayer, the Minister may take any of the actions described in paragraphs 225.1(1)(a) to 225.1(1)(g) for the purpose of collecting the amount assessed, or a part thereof, determined in a manner consistent with the decision or judgment of the Court in the other action at any time after the Minister notifies the taxpayer in writing that

(a) the decision of the Tax Court of Canada in that action has been mailed to the Minister,

(b) judgment has been pronounced by the Federal Court of Appeal in that action, or

(c) judgment has been delivered by the Supreme Court of Canada in that action,

as the case may be.

225.1.(6) Where ss. (1) to (4) do not apply

(6) Subsections 225.1(1) to 225.1(4) do not apply with respect to

(a) an amount payable under Part VIII;

(b) an amount required to be deducted or withheld, and required to be remitted or paid, under this Act or the Regulations;

(c) an amount of tax required to be paid under section 116 or a regulation made under subsection 215(4) but not so paid;

(d) the amount of any penalty payable for failure to remit or pay an amount referred to in paragraph 225.1(6)(b) or 225.1(6)(c) as and when required by this Act or a regulation made under this Act; and

(e) any interest payable under a provision of this Act on an amount referred to in this paragraph or any of paragraphs 225.1(6)(a) to 225.1(6)(d).

(7) Where an amount has been assessed under this Act in respect of a corporation for a taxation year in which it was a large corporation, subsections 225.1(1) to 225.1(4) do not apply to limit any action of the Minister to collect

(a) at any time on or before the particular day that is 90 days after the day of the mailing of the notice of assessment, 1/2 of the amount so assessed; and

(b) at any time after the particular day, the amount, if any, by which the amount so assessed exceeds the total of

(i) all amounts collected before that time with respect to the assessment, and

(ii) 1/2 of the amount in controversy at that time.

(8) For the purposes of this section, a "large corporation" in a particular taxation year means

(a) a corporation by which tax under Part I.3 is payable,

(i) where the particular year ended before July 1989, for its first taxation year that ends after June 1989, or

(ii) where the particular year ended after June 1989, for the particular year,

or would, but for subsection 181.1(4), have been so payable, or

(b) a corporation that, at the end of the particular year, is related (for the purpose of section 181.5, as that section reads in its application to the 1992 taxation year) to a corporation that is a large corporation in its taxation year that includes the end of the particular year,

and, for the purpose of subparagraph 225.1(8)(a)(i), a corporation formed as a result of the amalgamation or merger of 2 or more predecessor corporations shall be deemed to be the same corporation as, and a continuation of, each of the predecessor corporations.

225.1. (1) Dans le cas où un contribuable est redevable du montant d'une cotisation établie en vertu de la présente loi, exception faite des paragraphes 152(4.2), 169(3) et 220(3.1), le ministre, pour recouvrer le montant impayé, ne peut, avant le lendemain du 90e jour suivant la date de mise à la poste de l'avis de cotisation:

a) entamer une poursuite devant un tribunal;

b) attester le montant, conformément à l'article 223;

c) obliger une personne à faire un paiement, conformément au paragraphe 224(1);

d) obliger une institution ou une personne visée au paragraphe 224(1.1) à faire un paiement, conformément à ce paragraphe;

e) exiger la retenue du montant par déduction ou compensation, conformément à l'article 224.1;

f) obliger une personne à remettre des fonds, conformément au paragraphe 224.3(1);

g) donner un avis, délivrer un certificat ou donner un ordre, conformément au paragraphe 225(1).

(2) Dans le cas où un contribuable signifie en vertu de la présente loi un avis d'opposition à une cotisation pour un montant payable en vertu de cette loi, le ministre, pour recouvrer la somme en litige, ne peut prendre aucune des mesures visées aux alinéas (1)a) à g) avant le lendemain du 90e jour suivant la date de mise à la poste d'un avis au contribuable où il confirme ou modifie la cotisation.

(3) Dans le cas où un contribuable en appelle d'une cotisation pour un montant payable en vertu de la présente loi, auprès de la Cour canadienne de l'impôt, le ministre, pour recouvrer la somme en litige, ne peut prendre aucune des mesures visées aux alinéas (1)a) à g) avant la date de mise à la poste au contribuable d'une copie de la décision de la cour ou la date où le contribuable se désiste de l'appel si celle-ci est antérieure.

(4) Dans le cas où un contribuable convient de faire statuer conformément au paragraphe 173(1) la Cour canadienne de l'impôt sur une question ou qu'il est signifié au contribuable copie d'une demande présentée conformément au paragraphe 174(1) devant la Cour canadienne de l'impôt pour qu'elle statue sur une question, le ministre, pour recouvrer la partie du montant d'une cotisation, dont le contribuable pourrait être redevable selon ce que la cour statuera, ne peut prendre aucune des mesures visées aux alinéas (1)a) à g) avant la date où la cour statue sur la question.

(5) Malgré les autres dispositions du présent article, lorsqu'un contribuable signifie, conformément à la présente loi, un avis d'opposition à une cotisation ou en appelle d'une cotisation devant la Cour canadienne de l'impôt et qu'il convient par écrit avec le ministre de retarder la procédure d'opposition ou la procédure d'appel jusqu'à ce que la Cour canadienne de l'impôt, la Cour d'appel fédérale ou la Cour suprême du Canada rende jugement dans une autre action qui soulève la même question, ou essentiellement la même, que celle soulevée dans l'opposition ou l'appel par le contribuable, le ministre peut prendre les mesures visées aux alinéas (1)a) à g) pour recouvrer tout ou partie du montant de la cotisation établi de la façon envisagée par le jugement rendu dans cette autre action, à tout moment après que le ministre a avisé le contribuable par écrit que, selon le cas:

a) le jugement de la Cour canadienne de l'impôt dans l'action a été posté au ministre;

b) la Cour d'appel fédérale a rendu jugement dans l'action;

c) la Cour suprême du Canada a rendu jugement dans l'action.

225.1.(6) Non-application des par. (1) à (4)

(6) Les paragraphes (1) à (4) ne s'appliquent pas:

a) aux montants payables en application de la partie VIII;

b) aux montants à déduire ou à retenir, et à remettre ou à payer, en application de la présente loi ou de son règlement;

c) à l'impôt à payer en application de l'article 116 ou d'un règlement d'application du paragraphe 215(4) et qui n'a pas encore été payé;

d) aux pénalités payables pour défaut de remettre ou de payer un montant visé à l'alinéa b) ou c) de la manière et dans le délai prévus à la présente loi ou à sone règlement;

e) aux intérêts payables en application de la présente loi sur l'un des montants visés au présent alinéa ou aux alinéas a) à d).

(7) Lorsqu'une cotisation est établie en vertu de la présente loi relativement à une société pour une année d'imposition au cours de laquelle elle est une grande société, les paragraphes (1) à (4) ne peuvent être appliqués en vue de restreindre les mesures que le ministre peut prendre pour recouvrer:

a) à tout moment jusqu'au 90e jour suivant la date de mise à la poste de l'avis de cotisation, la moitié du montant de la cotisation ainsi établie;

b) à tout moment après le 90e jour suivant la date de mise à la poste de l'avis de cotisation, l'excédent éventuel du montant de la cotisation ainsi établie sur le total des montants suivants:

(i) les montants recouvrés avant ce moment relativement à la cotisation,

(ii) la moitié de la somme en litige à ce moment.

(8) Pour l'application du présent article, les sociétés suivantes sont des grandes sociétés au cours d'une année d'imposition donnée:

a) la société qui a un impôt payable en vertu de la partie I.3 pour les années ci-après, ou qui aurait un tel impôt payable n'eût été le paragraphe 181.1(4):

(i) sa première année d'imposition qui se termine après 1989, dans le cas où l'année donnée a pris fin avant juillet 1989,

(ii) l'année donnée, dans le cas où cette année a pris fin après juin 1989;

b) la société qui, à la fin de l'année donnée, est liée, pour l'application de l'article 181.5, dans sa version applicable à l'année d'imposition 1992, à une société qui est une grande société au cours de son année d'imposition qui comprend la fin de l'année donnée.

Pour l'application de l'alinéa a)(i), la société issue de la fusion ou de l'unification de plusieurs sociétés remplacées est réputée être la même société que chacune de ces sociétés et en être la continuation.


225.2. (1) In this section, "judge" means a judge or a local judge of a superior court of a province or a judge of the Federal Court.

(2) Notwithstanding section 225.1, where, on ex parte application by the Minister, a judge is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the collection of all or any part of an amount assessed in respect of a taxpayer would be jeopardized by a delay in the collection of that amount, the judge shall, on such terms as the judge considers reasonable in the circumstances, authorize the Minister to take forthwith any of the actions described in paragraphs 225.1(1)(a) to 225.1(1)(g) with respect to the amount.

(3) An authorization under subsection 225.2(2) in respect of an amount assessed in respect of a taxpayer may be granted by a judge notwithstanding that a notice of assessment in respect of that amount has not been sent to the taxpayer at or before the time the application is made where the judge is satisfied that the receipt of the notice of assessment by the taxpayer would likely further jeopardize the collection of the amount, and for the purposes of sections 222, 223, 224, 224.1, 224.3 and 225, the amount in respect of which an authorization is so granted shall be deemed to be an amount payable under this Act.

(4) Statements contained in an affidavit filed in the context of an application under this section may be based on belief with the grounds therefor.

(5) An authorization granted under this section in respect of a taxpayer shall be served by the Minister on the taxpayer within 72 hours after it is granted, except where the judge orders the authorization to be served at some other time specified in the authorization, and, where a notice of assessment has not been sent to the taxpayer at or before the time of the application, the notice of assessment shall be served together with the authorization.

(6) For the purposes of subsection 225.2(5), service on a taxpayer shall be effected by

(a) personal service on the taxpayer; or

(b) service in accordance with directions, if any, of a judge.

(7) Where service on a taxpayer cannot reasonably otherwise be effected as and when required under this section, the Minister may, as soon as practicable, apply to a judge for further direction.

(8) Where a judge of a court has granted an authorization under this section in respect of a taxpayer, the taxpayer may, on 6 clear days notice to the Deputy Attorney General of Canada, apply to a judge of the court to review the authorization.

(9) An application under subsection 225.2(8) shall be made

(a) within 30 days from the day on which the authorization was served on the taxpayer in accordance with this section; or

(b) within such further time as a judge may allow, on being satisfied that the application was made as soon as practicable.

(10) An application under subsection 225.2(8) may, on the application of the taxpayer, be heard in camera, if the taxpayer establishes to the satisfaction of the judge that the circumstances of the case justify in camera proceedings.

(11) On an application under subsection 225.2(8), the judge shall determine the question summarily and may confirm, set aside or vary the authorization and make such other order as the judge considers appropriate.

(12) Where any question arises as to the course to be followed in connection with anything done or being done under this section and there is no direction in this section with respect thereto, a judge may give such direction with regard thereto as, in the opinion of the judge, is appropriate.

(13) No appeal lies from an order of a judge made pursuant to subsection 225.2(11).

225.2. (1) Au présent article, "juge" s'entend d'un juge ou d'un juge local d'une cour supérieure d'une province ou d'un juge de la Cour fédérale.

(2) Malgré l'article 225.1, sur requête ex parte du ministre, le juge saisi autorise le ministre à prendre immédiatement des mesures visées aux alinéas 225.1(1)a) à g) à l'égard du montant d'une cotisation établie relativement à un contribuable, aux conditions qu'il estime raisonnables dans les circonstances, s'il est convaincu qu'il existe des motifs raisonnables de croire que l'octroi à ce contribuable d'un délai pour payer le montant compromettrait le recouvrement de tout ou partie de ce montant.

(3) Le juge saisi peut accorder l'autorisation visée au paragraphe (2), même si un avis de cotisation pour le montant de la cotisation établie à l'égard du contribuable n'a pas été envoyé à ce dernier au plus tard à la date de la présentation de la requête, s'il est convaincu que la réception de cet avis par ce dernier compromettrait davantage, selon toute vraisemblance, le recouvrement du montant. Pour l'application des articles 222, 223, 224, 224.1, 224.3 et 225, le montant visé par l'autorisation est réputé être un montant payable en vertu de la présente loi.

(4) Les déclarations contenues dans un affidavit produit dans le cadre de la requête visée au présent article peuvent être fondées sur une opinion si des motifs à l'appui de celle-ci y sont indiqués.

(5) Le ministre signifie au contribuable intéressé l'autorisation visée au présent article dans les 72 heures suivant le moment où elle est accordée, sauf si le juge ordonne qu'elle soit signifiée dans un autre délai qui y est précisé. L'avis de cotisation est signifié en même temps que l'autorisation s'il n'a pas été envoyé au contribuable au plus tard au moment de la présentation de la requête.

(6) Pour l'application du paragraphe (5), l'autorisation est signifiée au contribuable soit par voie de signification à personne, soit par tout autre mode ordonné par le juge.

(7) Lorsque la signification au contribuable ne peut par ailleurs être raisonnablement effectuée conformément au présent article, le ministre peut, dès que matériellement possible, demander d'autre instructions au juge.

(8) Dans le cas où le juge saisi accorde l'autorisation visée au présent article à l'égard d'un contribuable, celui-ci peut, après avis de six jours francs au sous-procureur général du Canada, demander à un juge de la cour de réviser l'autorisation.

(9) La requête visée au paragraphe (8) doit être présentée:

a) dans les 30 jours suivant la date où l'autorisation a été signifiée au contribuable en application du présent article;

b) dans le délai supplémentaire que le juge peut accorder s'il est convaincu que le contribuable a présenté la requête dès que matériellement possible.

(10) Une requête visée au paragraphe (8) peut, à la demande du contribuable, être entendue à huis clos si le contribuable démontre, à la satisfaction du juge, que les circonstances le justifient.

(11) Dans le cas d'une requête visée au paragraphe (8), le juge statue sur la question de façon sommaire et peut confirmer, annuler ou modifier l'autorisation et rendre toute autre ordonnance qu'il juge indiquée.

(12) Si aucune mesure n'est prévue au présent article sur une question à résoudre en rapport avec une chose accomplie ou en voie d'accomplissement en application du présent article, un juge peut décider des mesures qu'il estime les plus aptes à atteindre le but du présent article.

(13) L'ordonnance rendue par un juge en application du paragraphe (11) est sans appel.

Federal Court Act,

R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7

18. (1) Subject to section 28, the Trial Division has exclusive original jurisdiction

(a) to issue an injunction, writ of certiorari, writ of prohibition, writ of mandamus or writ of quo warranto, or grant declaratory relief, against any federal board, commission or other tribunal; and

(b) to hear and determine any application or other proceeding for relief in the nature of relief contemplated by paragraph (a), including any proceeding brought against the Attorney General of Canada, to obtain relief against a federal board, commission or other tribunal.

Loi sur la Cour fédérale,

L.R.C. 1985, c. F-7

18. (1) Sous réserve de l'article 28, la Section de première instance a compétence exclusive, en première instance, pour_:

a) décerner une injonction, un bref de certiorari, de mandamus, de prohibition ou de quo warranto, ou pour rendre un jugement déclaratoire contre tout office fédéral;

b) connaître de toute demande de réparation de la nature visée par l'alinéa a), et notamment de toute procédure engagée contre le procureur général du Canada afin d'obtenir réparation de la part d'un office fédéral.


28. (1) The Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to hear and determine applications for judicial review made in respect of any of the following federal boards, commissions or other tribunals:

(a) the Board of Arbitration established by the Canada Agricultural Products Act;

(b) the Review Tribunal established by the Canada Agricultural Products Act;

(c) the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission established by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act;

(d) the Pension Appeals Board established by the Canada Pension Plan;

(e) the Canadian International Trade Tribunal established by the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act;

(f) the National Energy Board established by the National Energy Board Act;(g) [Repealed, 1992, c. 49, s. 128]

(h) the Canada Industrial Relations Board established by the Canada Labour Code;

(i) the Public Service Staff Relations Board established by the Public Service Staff Relations Act;

(j) the Copyright Board established by the Copyright Act;

(k) the Canadian Transportation Agency established by the Canada Transportation Act;

(l) the Tax Court of Canada established by the Tax Court of Canada Act;

(m) umpires appointed under the Employment Insurance Act;

(n) the Competition Tribunal established by the Competition Tribunal Act;

(o) assessors appointed under the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act; and

(p) the Canadian Artists and Producers Professional Relations Tribunal established by subsection 10(1) of the Status of the Artist Act.

28. (1) La Cour d'appel a compétence pour connaître des demandes de contrôle judiciaire visant les offices fédéraux suivants_:

a) le conseil d'arbitrage constitué par la Loi sur les produits agricoles au Canada;

b) la commission de révision constituée par cette loi;

c) le Conseil de la radiodiffusion et des télécommunications canadiennes constitué par la Loi sur le Conseil de la radiodiffusion et des télécommunications canadiennes;

d) la Commission d'appel des pensions constituée par le Régime de pensions du Canada;

e) le Tribunal canadien du commerce extérieur constitué par la Loi sur le Tribunal canadien du commerce extérieur;

f) l'Office national de l'énergie constitué par la Loi sur l'Office national de l'énergie;

g) [Abrogé, 1992, ch. 49, art. 128]

h) le Conseil canadien des relations industrielles au sens du Code canadien du travail;

i) la Commission des relations de travail dans la fonction publique constituée par la Loi sur les relations de travail dans la fonction publique;

j) la Commission du droit d'auteur constituée par la Loi sur le droit d'auteur;

k) l'Office des transports du Canada constitué par la Loi sur les transports au Canada;

l) la Cour canadienne de l'impôt constituée par la Loi sur la Cour canadienne de l'impôt;

m) les juges-arbitres nommés en vertu de la Loi sur l'assurance-emploi;

n) le Tribunal de la concurrence constitué par la Loi sur le Tribunal de la concurrence;

o) les évaluateurs nommés en application de la Loi sur la Société d'assurance-dépôts du Canada;

p) le Tribunal canadien des relations professionnelles artistes-producteurs constitué par le paragraphe 10(1) de la Loi sur le statut de l'artiste.

(2) Sections 18 to 18.5, except subsection 18.4(2), apply, with such modifications as the circumstances require, in respect of any matter within the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal under subsection (1) and, where they so apply, a reference to the Trial Division shall be read as a reference to the Court of Appeal.

(2) Les articles 18 à 18.5 s'appliquent, exception faite du paragraphe 18.4(2) et compte tenu des adaptations de circonstance, à la Cour d'appel comme si elle y était mentionnée lorsqu'elle est saisie en vertu du paragraphe (1) d'une demande de contrôle judiciaire.


(3) Where the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to hear and determine any matter, the Trial Division has no jurisdiction to entertain any proceeding in respect of the same matter.

(3) La Section de première instance ne peut être saisie des questions qui relèvent de la Cour d'appel.

56. (1) In addition to any writs of execution or other process that are prescribed by the Rules for enforcement of its judgments or orders, the Court may issue process against the person or the property of any party, of the same tenor and effect as those that may be issued out of any of the superior courts of the province in which any judgment or order is to be executed, and where, by the law of that province, an order of a judge is required for the issue of any process, a judge of the Court may make a similar order with respect to like process to issue out of the Court.

56(2)

56. (1) Outre les brefs de saisie-exécution ou autres moyens de contrainte prescrits par les règles pour l'exécution des jugements ou ordonnances de la Cour, celle-ci peut délivrer des moyens de contrainte visant la personne ou les biens d'une partie et ayant la même teneur et le même effet que ceux émanant d'une cour supérieure de la province dans laquelle le jugement ou l'ordonnance doivent être exécutés. Si, selon le droit de la province, le moyen de contrainte que doit délivrer la Cour nécessite l'ordonnance d'un juge, un juge de la Cour peut rendre une telle ordonnance.

(2) No person shall be taken into custody under process of execution for debt issued out of the Court.

(2) La délivrance, par la Cour, d'un bref de saisie-exécution pour dette ne peut donner lieu à incarcération.


(3) All writs of execution or other process against property, whether prescribed by the Rules or authorized by subsection (1), shall, unless otherwise provided by the Rules, be executed, with respect to the property liable to execution and the mode of seizure and sale, as nearly as possible in the same manner as similar writs or process, issued out of the superior courts of the province in which the property to be seized is situated, are, by the law of that province, required to be executed, and the writs or other process issued by the Court shall bind property in the same manner as similar writs or process issued by the provincial superior courts, and the rights of purchasers thereunder are the same as those of purchasers under those similar writs or process.

(3) Sauf disposition contraire des règles, les brefs de saisie-exécution ou autres moyens de contrainte visant des biens - qu'ils soient prescrits par les règles ou autorisés aux termes du paragraphe (1) - sont, quant aux catégories de biens saisissables et au mode de saisie et de vente, exécutés autant que possible de la manière fixée, pour des moyens de contrainte semblables émanant d'une cour supérieure provinciale, par le droit de la province où sont situés les biens à saisir. Ils ont les mêmes effets que ces derniers, quant aux biens en question et aux droits des adjudicataires.(4) Every claim made by any person to property seized under a writ of execution or other process issued out of the Court, or to the proceeds of the sale of that property, shall, unless otherwise provided by the Rules, be heard and disposed of as nearly as may be according to the procedure applicable to like claims to property seized under similar writs or process issued out of the courts of the province.

(4) Sauf disposition contraire des règles, l'instruction et le jugement de toute contestation en matière de saisie effectuée en vertu d'un moyen de contrainte de la Cour, ou de toute prétention sur le produit des biens saisis, suivent autant que possible la procédure applicable aux revendications semblables concernant des biens saisis en vertu de moyens de contrainte similaires émanant des tribunaux provinciaux.


Tax Court of Canada Act,

R.S.C. 1985, c. T-2

12. (1) The Court has exclusive original jurisdiction to hear and determine references and appeals to the Court on matters arising under the Air Travellers Security Charge Act, the Canada Pension Plan, the Cultural Property Export and Import Act, Part V.1 of the Customs Act, the Employment Insurance Act, the Excise Act, 2001, Part IX of the Excise Tax Act, the Income Tax Act, the Old Age Security Act and the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act, where references or appeals to the Court are provided for in those Acts.

(2) The Court has exclusive original jurisdiction to hear and determine appeals on matters arising under the War Veterans Allowance Act and the Civilian War-related Benefits Act and referred to in section 33 of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act.

(3) The Court has exclusive original jurisdiction to hear and determine questions referred to it under section 51 or 52 of the Air Travellers Security Charge Act, section 97.58 of the Customs Act, section 204 or 205 of the Excise Act, 2001, section 310 or 311 of the Excise Tax Act or section 173 or 174 of the Income Tax Act.

(4) The Court has exclusive original jurisdiction to hear and determine applications for extensions of time under section 45 or 47 of the Air Travellers Security Charge Act, subsection 28(1) of the Canada Pension Plan, section 33.2 of the Cultural Property Export and Import Act, section 97.52 or 97.53 of the Customs Act, subsection 103(1) of the Employment Insurance Act, section 197 or 199 of the Excise Act, 2001, section 304 or 305 of the Excise Tax Act, or section 166.2 or 167 of the Income Tax Act.

Loi sur la Cour canadienne de l'impôt,

L.R.C. 1985, c. T-2

12. (1) La Cour a compétence exclusive pour entendre les renvois et les appels portés devant elle sur les questions découlant de l'application de la Loi sur le droit pour la sécurité des passagers du transport aérien, du Régime de pensions du Canada, de la Loi sur l'exportation et l'importation de biens culturels, de la partie V.1 de la Loi sur les douanes, de la Loi sur l'assurance-emploi, de la Loi de 2001 sur l'accise, de la partie IX de la Loi sur la taxe d'accise, de la Loi de l'impôt sur le revenu, de la Loi sur la sécurité de la vieillesse et de la Loi de l'impôt sur les revenus pétroliers, dans la mesure où ces lois prévoient un droit de renvoi ou d'appel devant elle.

(2) La Cour a compétence exclusive pour entendre les appels portés devant elle sur les questions découlant de l'application de la Loi sur les allocations aux anciens combattants et de la Loi sur les prestations de guerre pour les civils et visées à l'article 33 de la Loi sur le Tribunal des anciens combattants (révision et appel).

(3) La Cour a compétence exclusive pour entendre les questions qui sont portées devant elle en vertu des articles 51 ou 52 de la Loi sur le droit pour la sécurité des passagers du transport aérien, de l'article 97.58 de la Loi sur les douanes, des articles 204 ou 205 de la Loi de 2001 sur l'accise, des articles 310 ou 311 de la Loi sur la taxe d'accise ou des articles 173 ou 174 de la Loi de l'impôt sur le revenu.

(4) La Cour a compétence exclusive pour entendre toute demande de prorogation de délai présentée en vertu des articles 45 ou 47 de la Loi sur le droit pour la sécurité des passagers du transport aérien, du paragraphe 28(1) du Régime de pensions du Canada, de l'article 33.2 de la Loi sur l'exportation et l'importation de biens culturels, des articles 97.52 ou 97.53 de la Loi sur les douanes, du paragraphe 103(1) de la Loi sur l'assurance-emploi, des articles 197 ou 199 de la Loi de 2001 sur l'accise, des articles 304 ou 305 de la Loi sur la taxe d'accise ou des articles 166.2 ou 167 de la Loi de l'impôt sur le revenu.


 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.