Master Tech Inc. v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness)

Master Tech Inc. v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2019-01-09
Neutral citation
2019 FCA 4
Decision Content
Date: 20190109
Docket: A-129-16
Citation: 2019 FCA 4
CORAM:
GAUTHIER J.A.
RENNIE J.A.
GLEASON J.A.
BETWEEN:
MASTER TECH INC.
Appellant
and
THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
Respondent
Heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on January 9, 2019.
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario, on January 9, 2019.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY:
GAUTHIER J.A.
Date: 20190109
Docket: A-129-16
Citation: 2019 FCA 4
CORAM:
GAUTHIER J.A.
RENNIE J.A.
GLEASON J.A.
BETWEEN:
MASTER TECH INC.
Appellant
and
THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario, on January 9, 2019).
GAUTHIER J.A.
[1] Master Tech has failed to convince us that the Federal Court erred in dismissing its action. We essentially agree with the Federal Court’s analysis. The concession reproduced at paragraph 14 of the Federal Court decision applies only to the situation as of the date of the seizure of the machinery – July 6, 2011. Nothing more.
[2] The Federal Court properly determined that it was not incumbent upon the CBSA or the Minister to allow exportation of the machines pending compliance with current export restrictions. The Federal Court cannot grant the relief sought by Master Tech in an action under section 135 of the Customs Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (2nd Supp.) [Act] which, in fact, would amount to an export licence for its goods to Iran. We note that a comparison of the English and French versions of paragraph 132(1)(a) of the Act makes clear that a “removal from custody” (“levée de garde” in French) of the items after a finding of no contravention only implies the lifting of the seizure as a measure – not that the hitherto seized items may now be exported without the proper permits and authorizations.
[3] Indeed, it is possible that seized goods became subject to new regulations requiring permits or permissions during the time they remained seized, and Master Tech simply cannot avoid compliance with those export restrictions. Should Master Tech seek to export the machines to Iran following the resolution of this case, it must first follow the appropriate procedures and apply for the proper permits with the applicable regulatory authorities according to the current rules and regulations.
[4] For the foregoing reasons, the appeal will be dismissed with costs set at an amount of $3,200.00 all inclusive.
“Johanne Gauthier”
J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE O'REILLY DATED DECEMBER 18, 2015, DOCKET NO. T-385-14
DOCKET:
A-129-16
STYLE OF CAUSE:
MASTER TECH INC. v. THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
PLACE OF HEARING:
Ottawa, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING:
January 9, 2019
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY:
GAUTHIER J.A.
RENNIE J.A.
GLEASON J.A.
DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY:
GAUTHIER J.A.
APPEARANCES:
Steven Greenberg
For The Appellant
Joël J. Robichaud
Shain Widdifield
For The Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Steven Greenberg
Barrister and Solicitor
Ottawa, Ontario
For The Appellant
Nathalie G. Drouin
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
For The Respondent