INCOME TAX |
Seizures |
Marcoux v. Canada (Attorney General)
A-816-99
2001 FCA 92, Noël J.A.
2/4/01
8 pp.
Appeal from Trial Division judgment ((1999), 2000 D.T.C. 6010) dismissing appellant's application for judicial review to quash peremptory request for payment made pursuant to Income Tax Act, s. 224(1) requiring Manulife Financial to pay Receiver General 30 percent of amount owed appellant under supplemental pension plan--Appellant challenged formal demand for payment for 1998 financial year, alleging amounts covered by Code of Civil Procedure, art. 553(7) and of Civil Code of Quebec, arts. 2377 and 2378, exempt from seizure--Evidence employer in fact assessed appellant's pension plan and Trial Judge could not initially exclude application of Code of Civil Procedure, art. 553(7)--Issue only involved question of statutory construction--Parliament of Canada has legislative authority to raise money "by any Mode or system of Taxation"--Jurisdiction includes that of recovering tax so raised--Act, s. 224 part of legitimate exercise of power--Challenge to Trial Division judgment must be dismissed since cannot speak of silence of Parliament here--Parliament remains free to exclude civil law when it legislates on area within its jurisdiction--Contrary to what counsel for appellant argued, Parliament has spoken on point at issue--Use of power mentioned in s. 225 reserved for seizure of goods and chattels, while s. 224 reserved for seizure of debts--Wrong to say exemption of tax debtor's property from seizure depends on recovery procedure selected by National Revenue--Trial Judge therefore properly concluded seizure made in case at bar legal despite exemption contained in Code of Civil Procedure, art. 553(7)--Appeal dismissed--Income Tax, R.S.C., 1985 (5th Supp.), c. 1, ss. 224 (am. by S.C. 1994, c. 21, s. 101(1); S.C. 1997, c. 12, s. 128), 225--Civil Code of Quebec, S.Q. 1991, c. 64, arts. 2377, 2378--Code of Civil Procedure, R.S.Q. 1977, c. C-25, art. 553(7).