Canada (Attorney General) v. Best Buy Canada Ltd.

Canada (Attorney General) v. Best Buy Canada Ltd.
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2021-08-05
Neutral citation
2021 FCA 161
File numbers
A-348-19
Notes
A correction was made on March 27, 2023.
Decision Content
Date: 20210805
Docket: A-348-19
Citation: 2021 FCA 161
CORAM:
NEAR J.A.
GLEASON J.A.
LEBLANC J.A.
BETWEEN:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Appellant
and
BEST BUY CANADA LTD.
Respondent
Heard by online video conference hosted by the Registry on January 19, 2021.
Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on August 5, 2021.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:
NEAR J.A.
CONCURRING REASONS BY:
GLEASON J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY:
LEBLANC J.A.
Date: 20210805
Docket: A-348-19
Citation: 2021 FCA 161
CORAM:
NEAR J.A.
GLEASON J.A.
LEBLANC J.A.
BETWEEN:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Appellant
and
BEST BUY CANADA LTD.
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
NEAR J.A.
I. Overview
[1] This is an appeal by the Attorney General of Canada from a decision of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (CITT), reported as Best Buy Canada Ltd., 2019 CanLII 110846 (CA CITT), 2019 CarswellNat 14479 (WL Can) [Best Buy (CITT 2019)]. In that decision, the CITT classified television stands imported by the respondent, Best Buy Ltd., as “parts” of televisions, under tariff item No. 8529.90.90 of the schedule to the Customs Tariff, S.C. 1997, c. 36.
[2] The CITT decision under appeal was itself a reconsideration of an earlier CITT decision, reported as Best Buy Canada Ltd., 2017 CanLII 149295 (CA CITT), 22 T.T.R. (2d) 57 [Best Buy (CITT 2017)]. Canada appealed the 2017 decision to this Court, which remitted the matter back to the CITT, Canada v. Best Buy Canada Ltd., 2019 FCA 20, 2019 CarswellNat 168 (WL Can) [Best Buy (FCA 2019)], which in turn maintained its original result. Canada once again appeals the CITT’s decision.
[3] This appeal raises the question of whether this Court may review a CITT decision for issues other than questions of law, contrary to the wording of the Customs Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (2nd Supp.). In my view, subsection 67(3) and section 68 of the Customs Act preclude this Court from reviewing CITT decisions for errors of fact or mixed fact and law that are not so egregious as to rise to the level of errors of law.
[4] Canada alleges the CITT both erred in law, and in applying the law to the facts of the case. I am not convinced that the CITT made an error of law. Further, given my conclusion that this Court may only review CITT decisions on questions of law, I would accordingly dismiss the appeal.
II. Background
[5] The goods in issue, which I refer to as “the Best Buy stands”, are metal and wooden models of floor stands for flat-panel televisions. On October 2, 2014, Best Buy requested an advance ruling from the CBSA on the tariff classification of the goods. Best Buy, relying on an earlier CITT decision dealing with similar floor stands, Sanus Systems v. President of the Canada Border Services Agency (8 July 2010), AP-2009-007 (CITT), 2010 CarswellNat 5288 (WL Can), 14 T.T.R. 576 [Sanus Systems], sought to have the goods classified under tariff item No. 8529.90.90.
[6] Prior to issuing its advance ruling on the Best Buy stands, the CBSA, in August 2015, filed a request with the World Customs Organization (WCO) Harmonized System Committee (the “WCO Committee”) for guidance on the tariff classification of audio-visual carts designed to hold televisions and other audio-visual apparatuses. The request informed the WCO Committee of the CITT ruling in Sanus Systems and set out the CBSA’s position that the goods in Sanus Systems were not “parts” of televisions but instead “furniture”.
[7] The WCO Committee held a vote and decided to direct the Secretariat to prepare Classification Opinions classifying television stands like those at issue in Sanus Systems as “furniture”, not “parts” of televisions. The Classification Opinions were published on June 1, 2016. I refer to the stands covered by these Classification Opinions as “the WCO stands”.
[8] In July 2016, the CBSA provided Best Buy with its advanced ruling on the goods in issue, classifying them as “furniture” under tariff heading No. 94.03, in accordance with the Classification Opinions.
[9] Best Buy appealed to the CITT, which allowed the appeal: Best Buy (CITT 2017). Canada appealed the CITT’s decision to this Court, which allowed the appeal and remitted the matter back to the CITT for reconsideration.
[10] In remitting the matter, this Court relied on section 11 of the Customs Tariff, which reads:
Interpretation
Interprétation de la liste des dispositions tarifaires
11 In interpreting the headings and subheadings, regard shall be had to the Compendium of Classification Opinions to the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System and the Explanatory Notes to the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System, published by the Customs Co-operation Council (also known as the World Customs Organization), as amended from time to time.
11 Pour l’interprétation des positions et sous-positions, il est tenu compte du Recueil des Avis de classement du Système harmonisé de désignation et de codification des marchandises et des Notes explicatives du Système harmonisé de désignation et de codification des marchandises et de leurs modifications, publiés par le Conseil de coopération douanière (Organisation mondiale des douanes).
[11] This Court found that, “[a]lthough the Opinions were relevant because they dealt with goods that were materially the same as those before the Tribunal, the Tribunal failed to consider or have regard to the Opinions as required under the Customs Tariff”: Best Buy (FCA 2019) at para. 5. It thus remitted the matter with instructions to the CITT to have regard to the Opinions in its redetermination.
III. The CITT decision under appeal
[12] The CITT maintained its position that the WCO Classification Opinions, which dealt with wheeled audio/video equipment floor stands, were not relevant in the classification of the Best Buy stands, the latter being television-specific, non-wheeled floor stands. It reiterated that, “[h]aving had regard to the classification opinions, the Tribunal finds that they cover goods of different form and function than the goods at issue”: Best Buy (CITT 2019) at para. 14. This was material because, in the CITT’s view, the goods in issue were more like cases and cabinets than those covered by the classification opinion. The explanatory notes to heading No. 85.29, which captures “Parts suitable for use solely or principally with the apparatus of headings 85.25 to 85.28”, explicitly includes cases and cabinets specialized to receive televisions: Best Buy (CITT 2019) at para. 14.
[13] Finally, the CITT repeated at length its rejection, as set out in its original decision, of Canada’s argument that “parts” of televisions must be articles essential to the functionality of the devices: Best Buy (CITT 2019) at paras. 19–20. It therefore maintained its original decision, namely that the floor stands are “parts” of televisions, rather than “furniture”.
IV. Issues and standard of review
[14] Canada launched this appeal in September 2019, prior to the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, 441 D.L.R. (4th) 1. It also filed its written submissions in March 2020, prior to this Court’s decisions in Neptune Wellness Solutions v. Canada (Border Services Agency), 2020 FCA 151, 2020 CarswellNat 4287 (WL Can) [Neptune]; and Canada (Attorney General) v. Impex Solutions Inc., 2020 FCA 171, 2020 CarswellNat 4332 (WL Can) [Impex]. In Vavilov, the Supreme Court of Canada changed how courts must treat appeals from administrative tribunals. In Neptune and Impex, this Court addressed how these changes impact the way it must conduct appeals from CITT decisions under section 68 of the Customs Act, which are limited to questions of law. In Neptune, Rennie J.A. posited that “[t]here may nonetheless be judicial review of questions of fact or mixed fact and law from which a legal issue cannot be extricated by virtue of general principles and section 28 of the Federal Courts Act”: at para. 15. However, in both Neptune and Impex, this Court found that the issues before it were questions of law that fell within the ambit of section 68. Rennie J.A.’s comments in Neptune were therefore obiter dicta.
[15] In its written submissions, Canada argued that it is a question of law whether the CITT had sound reason to, in this case, disregard the WCO Classification Opinion. The standard of review on an appeal from a CITT decision on a question of law, by way of section 68 of the Customs Act, is now correctness: Vavilov at para. 37; Neptune at para. 18; Impex at para. 32.
[16] However, Canada also argued that the CITT’s application of the law to the facts was unreasonable. Canada argued that the CITT considered irrelevant factors in reaching its conclusion about the inapplicability of the WCO Classification Opinion: namely, the practices and procedures of the WCO Committee; and the opinion of an interior designer who testified as a witness. Canada acknowledged that these were, in both instances, issues of mixed fact and law.
[17] In light of the obiter comments made in Neptune, Canada requested, and was granted, time after the hearing of this case to make additional submissions on the issue of whether matters other than questions of law are reviewable and, if so, via what procedure and under which standard of review?
[18] In its supplementary submissions, Canada argued that judicial review of CITT decisions on questions of mixed fact and law that do not rise to the level of an error of law is available via an application for judicial review, under paragraph 28(1)(e) of the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7. In its supplementary submissions, Best Buy agreed with this proposition. Both parties agreed that the standard of review on such questions of fact or mixed fact and law is reasonableness.
[19] However, Canada also acknowledged that the Supreme Court’s decision in Vavilov has now cast doubt on this proposition and, performing a role it submitted was somewhat akin to that of an amicus curiae, Canada presented arguments against this Court accepting jurisdiction to review CITT decisions on the basis of errors of fact or mixed fact and law that are not sufficiently egregious to rise to the level of questions of law as contemplated by the operation of subsection 67(3) and section 68 of the Customs Act.
[20] Thus, before addressing the issue of whether the CITT’s application of the law to the facts was reasonable, this Court must first decide whether it has jurisdiction to review the CITT’s decision on such questions of mixed fact and law.
[21] Finally, if this Court did conclude that it has jurisdiction to review CITT decisions for errors beyond the scope of the appeal as set out in section 68 of the Customs Act, it would also be required to determine how, as a matter of procedure, this review can be conducted. Generally, past practice in statutory appeals under the Customs Act was to review the CITT decision for reasonableness on the whole: see e.g. Igloo Vikski Inc. v. Canada (Border Services Agency), 2014 FCA 266, 2014 CarswellNat 4603 (WL Can) at para. 2 [Igloo Vikski (FCA)], reversed but not on that point, Canada (Attorney General) v. Igloo Vikski Inc., 2016 SCC 38, [2016] 2 S.C.R. 80 [Igloo Vikski (SCC)]. Both parties agreed that, after Vavilov, a separate application for judicial review would be necessary. Thus if this Court were to decide it could review the CITT decision for errors beyond those contemplated by section 68 of the Customs Act, it would also have to determine how to deal with the procedural challenge caused by requiring separate proceedings for review of matters of law—under section 68 of the Customs Act—and on any of the other grounds for review under the Federal Courts Act.
V. Analysis
[22] In my view, the CITT did not err in law by declining to classify the Best Buy stands in accordance with the WCO Classification Opinion. Further, the only mechanism for review of a CITT decision made under the Customs Act is the section 68 appeal. Given that appeals under section 68 are limited in scope to questions of law, I am of the view that CITT tariff classification decisions may not be interfered with unless an extricable legal error warrants this Court’s intervention. Given my conclusion on this issue, it is unnecessary to deal with the procedural problems conducting such a review would pose.
A. Did the CITT err in law by not following the WCO Classification Opinion?
[23] Canada contends that the CITT, by considering the process by which the WCO produces a classification opinion, made an error in law when it decided the Opinions do not apply in this case. According to Canada, interpreting and applying WCO Explanatory Notes and Classification Opinions are questions of law, reviewable on a correctness standard.
[24] In my view, Canada has failed to demonstrate that the appeal raises an extricable legal question to which this Court must provide the correct answer. While I agree that interpretation of how the different provisions of the Customs Tariff interact will generally raise questions of law (see e.g. Impex at para. 40; Neptune at para. 18), the actual application of the provisions to a set of facts is more likely to be a matter of mixed fact and law: Impex at para. 34, citing Canada (Border Services Agency) v. Decolin Inc., 2006 FCA 417, 356 N.R. 284 at para. 41. In other words, whether a specific product fits the description of a tariff item number, in light of its physical characteristics and relevant Explanatory Notes and Classification Opinions, will generally not be a question of law.
[25] It is possible that a reviewable error of law may be extricated from a CITT finding of fact or application of law to the facts. For example, findings of fact must generally be supported by evidence, and making a finding of fact without any supporting evidence has often been characterized as an error of law, as opposed to one of fact: see e.g. Schuldt v. The Queen, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 592, 24 D.L.R. (4th) 453 at p. 604, cited with approval in R. v. J.M.H., 2011 SCC 45, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 197 at para. 25. Thus an egregiously incorrect and unsupported finding of fact would be reviewable on a section 68 appeal.
[26] The CITT’s application of the relevant law may also be reviewable for an error of law if, in applying a legal rule or principle, it effectively misinterpreted or undermined the rule or principle. As the Supreme Court, Iacobucci J.A., put it in Canada (Director of Investigation and Research) v. Southam Inc., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 748, 144 D.L.R. (4th) 1 at para. 39:
[…] After all, if a decision-maker says that the correct test requires him or her to consider A, B, C, and D, but in fact the decision-maker considers only A, B, and C, then the outcome is as if he or she had applied a law that required consideration of only A, B, and C. If the correct test requires him or her to consider D as well, then the decision-maker has in effect applied the wrong law, and so has made an error of law.
[27] In my view, this Court’s analysis of one of the issues raised in Impex illustrates this principle at work with regard to a CITT tariff classification decision. The case dealt with whether certain disposable shoe coverings were plastic or textile. This Court determined that, in misapplying the tariff schedule, the CITT had effectively erred in law. The relevant portion reads as follows:
[41] I am also satisfied that the appellant’s second ground of appeal, which concerns the Tribunal’s alleged failure to consider Note 1 to Chapter 39 upon determining that the goods in issue were articles of plastics, raises a question of law. The appellant contends that this Note directed the Tribunal to determine first whether the goods’ constituent material was a textile defined in Section XI, and more particularly a nonwoven defined in the Explanatory Notes to heading No. 56.03, before even considering whether Chapter 39 covered the goods in issue. In refusing or in neglecting to do so, the argument goes, the Tribunal overlooked a crucial analytical step prescribed by Note 1 to Chapter 39.
[42] This second issue requires the Court to determine whether Note 1 to Chapter 39 entails that the goods’ constituent material must be assessed in light of Section XI before turning to Chapter 39. In other words, the issue is whether the logic and structure of the Tariff Schedule require that a constituent material that combines textiles and plastics be assessed in a specific order. If they do, then it is an error of law not to assess that material in that order. This, again, is a question of law reviewable on a standard of correctness.
[28] Thus in Impex, the issue was not that the CITT allegedly erred in weighing certain factors against each other, or in unreasonably exercising a discretionary power conferred to it. Instead, this Court concluded that the CITT’s reasoning evidenced a misapprehension of the requirements of the tariff schedule—in other words, of the applicable law. Had this Court not intervened, the proper functioning of the legal rule—the interplay of the different sections of the tariff schedule involved—would have been undermined. The appellant successfully demonstrated that the CITT’s tariff classification decision on the merits raised an extricable question of law, reviewable on a section 68 appeal.
[29] However, in this case, no question of law was properly raised. A question of law is defined by its substance, not its form: see Canadian National Railway Company v. Emerson Milling Inc., 2017 FCA 79, [2018] 2 F.C.R. 573 at paras. 49–50 [Emerson Milling]. In substance, this appeal is not about whether the CITT must have regard to WCO Classification Opinions, as that question is settled: see Best Buy (FCA 2019). Section 11 of the Customs Tariff requires the CITT have regard to WCO Classification Opinions when determining a tariff classification: see also Best Buy (FCA 2019).
[30] What having proper regard entails is also settled. In its earlier decision in this matter, this Court, in remitting the matter to the CITT, summarized what this provision requires, at paragraph 4:
The phrase “regard shall be had” under section 11 of the Customs Tariff entails that, while not binding, opinions of the WCO must “at least be considered” in determining the classification of goods imported into Canada (Canada (Attorney General) v. Igloo Vikski Inc., 2016 SCC 38 at para. 8, [2016] 2 S.C.R. 80 [Igloo Vikski]). Similarly, this Court has examined the definition of “regard” in the context of section 11 of the Customs Tariff, and found that it means “to consider, heed, take into account, pay attention to, or take notice of” (Canada (Attorney General) v. Suzuki Canada Inc., 2004 FCA 131 at para. 13, [2004] F.C.J. No. 615 [Suzuki]). Having “regard” further entails that the Tribunal should respect WCO opinions unless there is “sound reason” to do otherwise (Suzuki at para. 13). The Tribunal may ultimately disagree with the Opinions but it must consider them and provide a sound reason as to why it chose not to follow them.
[31] I would reiterate that, generally, the CITT should respect and follow WCO Classification Opinions. This means that the CITT should seek to, if possible, make tariff classifications that are in harmony with WCO Classification Opinions, rather than in opposition to them.
[32] However, where the CITT is of the view that such a harmonious classification is not possible, the CITT is not bound to follow the WCO Classification Opinions: see Best Buy (FCA 2019) at para 4; (Canada (Attorney General) v. Suzuki Canada Inc., 2004 FCA 131, 319 N.R. 299 at paras. 14–17 [Suzuki]. The language of section 11 makes the WCO Explanatory Notes and Classification Opinions factors that must be weighed in the tariff classification process, not binding criteria. It must balance the WCO Classification Opinions and Explanatory Notes against any other factors it considers relevant. For example, it might weigh WCO Classification Opinions against apparently contradictory expert evidence: see e.g. Suzuki at para. 17. The appropriate weight to place on a WCO Classification Opinion will vary depending on the specific facts of the case and, most importantly, the characteristics of the goods in issue as compared to those covered by relevant Classification Opinions.
[33] As a matter of law, the CITT is entitled to classify a product contrary to a WCO Classification Opinion when it has “sound reason” to do so: Best Buy (FCA 2019) at para. 4; Suzuki at para. 14. Whether it has sound reason in any specific case is unlikely to be a question of law but instead, as is the case here, one that can only be answered with reference to a particular set of facts. In other words, it will generally be a question of mixed fact and law.
[34] Nevertheless, Canada argues that the CITT erred in law by taking into account WCO internal processes as part of its assessment of the WCO opinions. The CITT did indeed cite portions from its decision in Mattel Canada Inc., 2019 CanLII 110865 (CA CITT), 2019 CarswellNat 14487 (WL Can), that describes how the WCO Classification Opinions are created: Best Buy (CITT 2019) at para. 9. However, in my view, it is open to the CITT to consider, in having “regard” to WCO Classification Opinions, how or why those opinions were produced. For example, it might be appropriate for the CITT to take notice of how goods reviewed by the WCO for a Classification Opinion came before the WCO, so that the CITT can assess whether the goods it is classifying are sufficiently similar to those covered by the WCO Classification Opinion. As the CITT noted, the Classification Opinions themselves are short, technical descriptions of products, and without further context—such as the background leading to publication of a specific Classification Opinion—the CITT might not be able to properly have “regard” to an opinion. Indeed, I am reticent to read into section 11 of the Customs Tariff strict limits on what the CITT can consider in reaching a tariff classification. In my view, it is important that this specialized tribunal be able to consider the disputes that come before it in context, which might include taking notice of the WCO’s deliberation processes.
[35] In sum, Canada has failed to convince me that the CITT, by taking into account the deliberative process the WCO Committee used to create the Classification Opinions, made an error of law in its tariff classification decision.
B. Is the CITT’s application of the law to the facts reviewable by this Court?
[36] This Court has, in the past, reviewed CITT decisions for issues of mixed fact and law. For example, in HBC Imports (Zellers Inc.) v. Canada (Border Services Agency), 2013 FCA 167, 446 N.R. 352 [HBC Imports], this Court reviewed, and upheld, the reasonableness of the CITT’s classification of a type of toboggan. In framing the issue before it, this Court noted:
[4] The question of whether the Astra Sled should be classified under heading 95.03 requires an interpretation of the expression “other toys” as used in this heading and the application of this interpretation to the Astra Sled. This is a question of mixed fact and law which requires an interpretation of the Tribunal’s own statute. The standard of review is reasonableness, which means that deference is to be given to the Tribunal (Canadian Tire Corp. Ltd. v. President of the Canada Border Services Agency, 2011 FCA 242, at paragraph 4; Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190, Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner) v. Alberta Teachers' Association, 2011 SCC 61 (CanLII), [2011] 3 S.C.R. 654).
[37] While other decisions are not so explicit, in many cases this Court has effectively reviewed the CITT’s decision on the merits, assessing the reasonableness of its application of the law to the facts before it, without identifying an extricable legal principle at issue: see e.g. Canada (Attorney General) v. RBP Imports Inc., 2018 FCA 167 at paras. 3–5 [RBP Imports]; Containerwest Manufacturing Ltd. v. Canada (Border Services Agency), 2016 FCA 110 at para. 12 [Containerwest Manufacturing Ltd.]; Igloo Vikski (FCA) at para. 2. In these decisions, this Court did not distinguish between questions of fact, of law and of mixed fact and law, but instead reviewed the CITT’s decision on a tariff classification for its reasonableness on the whole.
[38] However, these decisions came before the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Vavilov, in which it noted the following, at paragraph 8:
[…] While the application of the reasonableness standard is grounded, in part, in the necessity of avoiding “undue interference” in the face of the legislature’s intention to leave certain questions with administrative bodies rather than with the courts (see Dunsmuir, at para. 27), that standard has come to be routinely applied even where the legislature has provided for a different institutional structure through a statutory appeal mechanism.
[39] In Vavilov, the Supreme Court of Canada reiterated that respect for legislative intent is the “polar star” of judicial review: at para. 33, citing C.U.P.E. v. Ontario (Minister of Labour), 2003 SCC 29, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 539 at para. 149. It also held that lower courts should no longer effectively ignore the language of statutory appeal mechanisms and treat appeals launched under them as, essentially, applications for judicial review: Vavilov at para. 45. Instead, courts are now required “to give effect to the legislature’s institutional design choices to delegate authority through statute”: Vavilov at para. 36.
[40] In my view, the Supreme Court’s dicta in Vavilov provides sufficient basis for this Court to refocus its approach in dealing with statutory appeals under the Customs Act in order to more accurately reflect Parliament’s intent. In its post-Vavilov decisions on appeals under the Customs Act, this Court has not had to decide the issue of whether it lacks jurisdiction to review CITT decisions for errors falling outside the apparent scope of the section 68 statutory appeal, as these cases turned on questions of law: Neptune at para. 18; Impex at para. 40. This case, in which Canada has, in my view, failed to identify an extricable legal issue, but nonetheless also challenges the reasonableness of the CITT’s classification decision on the merits, requires this Court to first decide whether it has jurisdiction to conduct such a review.
[41] At first blush, the language of the Customs Act would seem to preclude this Court from reviewing CITT decisions via any procedure other than the statutory appeal provided in that Act. As the statutory appeal is only available on questions of law, this Court would appear to lack jurisdiction to review CITT decisions for any errors other than purely legal ones. The relevant sections of the legislation read as follows:
Appeal to the Canadian International Trade Tribunal
Appel devant le Tribunal canadien du commerce extérieur
67 (1) A person aggrieved by a decision of the President made under section 60 or 61 may appeal from the decision to the Canadian International Trade Tribunal by filing a notice of appeal in writing with the President and the Canadian International Trade Tribunal within ninety days after the time notice of the decision was given.
67 (1) Toute personne qui s’estime lésée par une décision du président rendue conformément aux articles 60 ou 61 peut en interjeter appel devant le Tribunal canadien du commerce extérieur en déposant par écrit un avis d’appel auprès du président et du Tribunal dans les quatre-vingt-dix jours suivant la notification de l’avis de décision.
[…]
[…]
Judicial review
Recours judiciaire
(3) On an appeal under subsection (1), the Canadian International Trade Tribunal may make such order, finding or declaration as the nature of the matter may require, and an order, finding or declaration made under this section is not subject to review or to be restrained, prohibited, removed, set aside or otherwise dealt with except to the extent and in the manner provided by section 68.
(3) Le Tribunal canadien du commerce extérieur peut statuer sur l’appel prévu au paragraphe (1), selon la nature de l’espèce, par ordonnance, constatation ou déclaration, celles-ci n’étant susceptibles de recours, de restriction, d’interdiction, d’annulation, de rejet ou de toute autre forme d’intervention que dans la mesure et selon les modalités prévues à l’article 68.
[…]
[…]
Appeal to Federal Court
Recours devant la Cour d’appel fédérale
68 (1) Any of the parties to an appeal under section 67, namely,
68 (1) La décision sur l’appel prévu à l’article 67 est, dans les quatre-vingt-dix jours suivant la date où elle est rendue, susceptible de recours devant la Cour d’appel fédérale sur tout point de droit, de la part de toute partie à l’appel, à savoir :
(a) the person who appealed,
a) l’appelant;
(b) the President, or
b) le président;
(c) any person who entered an appearance in accordance with subsection 67(2),
may, within ninety days after the date a decision is made under section 67, appeal therefrom to the Federal Court of Appeal on any question of law.
c) quiconque a remis l’acte de comparution visé au paragraphe 67(2).
Disposition of appeal
Issue du recours
(2) The Federal Court of Appeal may dispose of an appeal by making such order or finding as the nature of the matter may require or by referring the matter back to the Canadian International Trade Tribunal for re-hearing.
(2) La Cour d’appel fédérale peut statuer sur le recours, selon la nature de l’espèce, par ordonnance ou constatation, ou renvoyer l’affaire au Tribunal canadien du commerce extérieur pour une nouvelle audience.
[Emphasis added]
[Nos soulignés]
[42] Read together, the plain and ordinary meaning of the provisions indicate Parliament’s intent to limit judicial review of CITT decisions to statutory appeals on questions of law: Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Re), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27, 154 D.L.R. (4th) 193 at para. 21; Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex, 2002 SCC 42, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 559 at para. 27. Subsection 67(3) purports to limit the ability of a court to interfere with a CITT decision except via the statutory appeal mechanism provided for in section 68. Subsection 68(1) only allows for appeal on questions of law.
[43] This meaning is supported by the legislative context. The Customs Act provides for de novo appeal before the CITT of a CBSA tariff classification decision. Prior to this appeal, the CBSA conducts two levels of internal review: Customs Act, ss. 59–60. By the time a tariff classification matter reaches this Court, any contested factual issues have thus already been subject to multiple levels of review. Similarly, the application of the law to the facts—the tariff classification of the product—has also first been decided by the CBSA, reviewed internally, and then reviewed de novo by the CITT. What the statutory scheme contemplates for this Court to review are contested legal issues, and not factual ones.
[44] Further support for this interpretation can be found by comparing the appeal procedure provided for in the Customs Act to similar procedures for review of other types of CITT decisions. The CITT is a quasi-judicial tribunal created by the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 47 (4th Supp.). It decides a wide variety of matters brought before it pursuant to several different statutory authorities. Appeals to the CITT from certain CBSA decisions are available, for example, under subsection 61(1) of the Special Import Measures Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S-15 [SIMA]. Subsection 61(3) makes these decisions final and conclusive except where subject to appeal, and subsection 62(1) makes appeals to this Court available on questions of law. Notably absent in the SIMA is the language used in the Customs Act to expressly eliminate judicial review of all other CITT decisions made under the SIMA. Indeed, unlike the Customs Act, the SIMA explicitly provides for launching an application for judicial review of certain decisions on grounds other than provided for in the statutory appeal mechanism. For example, section 76 of the SIMA provides:
Application for judicial review
Contrôle judiciaire
76 Subject to subsection 61(3) and Part I.1 or II, an application for judicial review of an order or finding of the Tribunal under this Act may be made to the Federal Court of Appeal on any of the grounds set out in subsection 18.1(4) of the Federal Courts Act.
76 Sous réserve du paragraphe 61(3) et des parties I.1 et II, les ordonnances ou conclusions du Tribunal prévues à la présente loi sont sujettes au contrôle judiciaire de la Cour d’appel fédérale pour l’un des motifs prévus au paragraphe 18.1(4) de la Loi sur les Cours fédérales.
[45] The availability of judicial review is also dealt with at section 96.1 of the SIMA, which enumerates at length the types of CITT decisions and issues subject to judicial review, as opposed to being reviewable under that legislation’s statutory appeal mechanism.
[46] As Canada points out, the explicit reference in the SIMA to the availability of judicial review of CITT decisions made under that Act can be contrasted with Parliament’s explicit statement that CITT decisions made under subsection 67(3) of the Customs Act are “not subject to review or to be restrained, prohibited, removed, set aside or otherwise dealt with except to the extent and in the manner provided by section 68.” In my view, the comparison further supports the plain and ordinary interpretation of the meaning of the Customs Act, which is that judicial review outside the statutory appeal mechanism, and thus for questions of mixed fact and law, is unavailable. If Parliament’s institutional design choices are to be respected, factual issues and issues of mixed fact and law for which no legal question can be extracted must not be subject to review by this Court.
[47] This conclusion runs contrary to the position taken on this issue by both parties. Canada argues, and Best Buy agrees, that paragraph 28(1)(e) of the Federal Courts Act provides this Court with broad jurisdiction to review CITT decisions for matters not subject to the statutory appeal mechanism. In other words, all matters not captured by the term “question of law”. In support of this proposition, Canada argues that the “rule of law” requires judicial review be available to guard against unreasonable CITT rulings on matters of fact or mixed fact and law. As a subsidiary argument, Canada points to past jurisprudence of this Court recognizing the possibility of judicial review of CITT decisions, and indeed of other tribunals subject to similar limited scope appeal clauses, for matters falling outside the scope of the statutory appeal.
[48] I have already described why I view this Court’s past practice of reviewing these matters on a reasonableness standard, within the procedural vehicle of a section 68 appeal, as of limited import in determining how it should conduct statutory appeals under the Customs Act going forward. Vavilov implemented “a holistic revision of the framework for determining the applicable standard of review”: at para. 143. The Supreme Court explicitly noted that past cases dealing with “the effect of statutory appeal mechanisms […] will necessarily have less precedential force” after Vavilov: at para. 143. In my view, the past cases in which mixed questions were reviewed, under section 68, on a reasonableness standard, effectively ignored subsection 67(3) and Parliament’s institutional design choice. Vavilov makes clear that this past practice should no longer be sustained going forward. Furthermore, in truth the jurisprudence leans both ways.
[49] As noted above, in some cases this Court has, either explicitly or implicitly, reviewed the CITT’s application of the law to the facts: see e.g. HBC Imports at para. 4; RBP Imports at paras. 3–5; Containerwest Manufacturing at para. 12; Igloo Vikski (FCA) at para. 2.
[50] However, in others, this Court limited its inquiry to whether a reviewable error of law occurred, and declined to review the CITT’s findings of fact or application of law to those facts. In Star Choice Television Network Inc. v. Canada (Commissioner of Customs and Revenue), 2004 FCA 153, 2004 CarswellNat 1004 (WL Can) at para. 9, Strayer J.A. noted that questions of law were “the only matter properly in issue on this appeal”, before concluding the CITT had not made a reviewable error of law. In Deputy Canada (Minister of National Revenue) v. Yves Ponroy Canada, 2000 CanLII 15801 (FCA), 25 Admin L.R. (3d) 101 at para. 36, Sharlow J.A. wrote that “[u]nder subsection 67(3) and subsection 68(1) of the Customs Act, customs tariff classification decisions of the CITT are not subject to judicial review and are subject to appeal to this Court only on questions of law”, before concluding that the CITT had not made a reviewable error of law. And indeed, in one of its handful of decisions on a section 68 appeal, the Supreme Court noted in obiter that, by virtue of subsection 67(3) of the Customs Act, “CITT findings of fact are immune from appellate review”: Canada (Deputy Minister of National Revenue) v. Mattel Canada Inc., 2001 SCC 36, [2001] 2 S.C.R. 100 at para. 26.
[51] Thus in my view, past jurisprudence does not provide a persuasive argument as to why the clear meaning of the Customs Act should be disregarded and judicial review of CITT decisions be permitted outside of the section 68 statutory appeal mechanism. Given that that mechanism is restricted in scope to matters of law, I am of the view that this Court may only intervene in a CITT decision if it discloses a reviewable error of law.
[52] Does this conclusion offend the “rule of law”? Canada argues that it is the constitutional role of the courts to supervise the executive branch of government, and that in order to be fulfilled, this role requires full review of administrative decisions on all matters. In other words, reasonableness review of administrative decisions is constitutionally entrenched, and cannot be limited by legislative act.
[53] It is true that the Supreme Court, in Crevier v. A.G. (Québec) et al., [1981] 2 S.C.R. 220, 127 D.L.R. (3d) 1 [Crevier], held that the legislature cannot completely oust judicial review via use of a privative clause. It is worth reviewing the facts of that oft-cited case, and briefly unpacking the Supreme Court’s holding.
[54] Crevier dealt with the question of whether a provincial legislature can entirely eliminate judicial review of an administrative tribunal empowered to make findings of fact and rule on matters of law. The administrative scheme at issue was set up under Québec’s Professional Code, R.S.Q. 1977, c. C-26, which at the time granted the Professions Tribunal judicial powers to hear appeals of disciplinary decisions made by the different professional orders’ Disciplinary Committees. The Professions Tribunal was composed of judges of the Provincial Court, i.e. not judges appointed by the federal government under section 96 of what was then still the British North America Act, 1867 (UK), 30 & 31 Vict., c. 3, s. 91, since reprinted in R.S.C. 1985, Appendix II., No. 5. At the time, article 194 of the Professional Code purported to completely eliminate recourse to the Superior Courts for review of Professions Tribunal decisions. It read:
194. No extraordinary recourse contemplated in articles 834 to 850 of the Code of Civil Procedure shall be exercised and no injunction granted against the persons mentioned in section 193 acting in their official capacities.
194. Aucun des recours extraordinaires prévus aux articles 834 à 850 du Code de procédure civile ne peut être exercé ni aucune injonction accordée contre les