Location Robert Ltée v. Canada

Location Robert Ltée v. Canada
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2009-05-20
Neutral citation
2009 FC 516
File numbers
T-878-08, T-879-08
Decision Content
Federal Court
Cour fédérale
Date: 20090520
Docket: T-878-08
Citation: 2009 FC 516
BETWEEN:
LOCATION ROBERT LTÉE
Plaintiff
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Defendant
Docket: T-879-08
BETWEEN:
TRANSPORT ROBERT (1973) LTÉE
Plaintiff
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Defendant
REASONS FOR ORDER
(Reasons delivered from the bench at Montréal on May 14, 2009)
HUGESSEN D.J.
[1] Even assuming that the plaintiffs, at trial, would be able to prove the allegations at the basis of their claim for a refund of taxes, I am satisfied that these claims must fail.
[2] The claims are based on an alleged submission made by a public servant, a representative of the Ministère du Revenu, to the effect that the plaintiffs should not file other claims for a refund of the excise taxes paid on the fuel contained in the tanks of the trucks that they exported from Canada for the years subsequent to 1993.
[3] In 2003, Parliament adopted the Budget Implementation Act, 2003, S.C., 2003, c. 15 and, in this Act, it completely eliminated the right of taxpayers to claim excise taxes paid in the circumstances alleged by the plaintiffs, starting from the date of the budget in February 2003.
[4] This is not a case of a limitation period or a time limit. This is simply the elimination of a right previously held by taxpayers.
[5] That Parliament has this right is not in question and, moreover, this right is formally expressed in section 42 of the Interpretation Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. I-21:
42. (1) Every Act shall be so construed as to reserve to Parliament the power of repealing or amending it, and of revoking, restricting or modifying any power, privilege or advantage thereby vested in or granted to any person.
(2) An Act may be amended or repealed by an Act passed in the same session of Parliament.
(3) An amending enactment, as far as consistent with the tenor thereof, shall be construed as part of the enactment that it amends.
42. (1) Il est entendu que le Parlement peut toujours abroger ou modifier toute loi et annuler ou modifier tous pouvoirs, droits ou avantages attribués par cette loi.
(2) Une loi peut être modifiée ou abrogée par une autre loi adoptée au cours de la même session du Parlement.
(3) Le texte modificatif, dans la mesure compatible avec sa teneur, fait partie du texte modifié.
[6] Therefore, once royal assent was given to the Act in question, the plaintiffs no longer had any right to claim the tax payments that are the subject of their claim and, as I said in the beginning, their actions must fail.
[7] I will accept the defendant’s motion for summary judgment in the two actions. I will allow such motions and dismiss the actions.
[8] I will mitigate the plaintiffs’ costs in the circumstances of the case and I will award the costs of the action totalling $500 in fees plus disbursements in one of the files and no fees in the other file.
“James K. Hugessen”
Deputy Judge
Certified true translation
Janine Anderson, Translator
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKETS: T-878-08 and T-879-08
STYLES OF CAUSE: LOCATION ROBERT LTÉE v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
AND
TRANSPORT ROBERT (1973) LTÉE v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: May 14, 2009
REASONS FOR ORDER: HUGESSEN D.J.
DATED: May 20, 2009
APPEARANCES:
Serge Fournier
FOR THE PLAINTIFFS
Stéphane Dion
Jean-Robert Noiseux
FOR THE DEFENDANT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
BCF s.e.n.c.r.l.
Montréal, Quebec
FOR THE PLAINTIFFS
John H. Sims, Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
FOR THE DEFENDANT