Cases set at Federal Court this week involve excise tax, by-election, requested fee waiver
This week, hearings set before the Federal Court of Appeal and the Federal Court included matters relating to the Customs Act, the Excise Tax Act, legal costs, and a nomination and election process.
The appeal court scheduled the cases of Attorney General of Canada v. Medline Canada Corporation, A-81-24 and Attorney General of Canada v. Medline Canada Corporation, A-159-24 on Mar. 11, Tuesday. This matter involved the Customs Act, 1985.
The Canadian International Trade Tribunal issued a tariff classification decision determining that surgical gloves were “for use in” surgical instruments like scalpels. These judicial review applications wanted to set aside the decision on the basis that it misinterpreted the tariff.
The court set Moosomin First Nation et al. v. The King, T-1848-11 on Mar. 10, Monday. This proceeding revolved around Rath & Company (R&C), former solicitors of record for the Moosomin First Nation and its members (MFN).
The MFN terminated R&C’s retainer then retained Bailey Wadden & Duffy LLP (BWD) as solicitors of record to represent their interests in the underlying action. In March 2023, R&C filed a motion against its ex-clients and against BWD and later abandoned this motion.
R&C moved to compel certain answers after cross-examinations on affidavits. In January 2024, the court dismissed the motion to compel. The parties disagreed on the costs of the motion to compel and filed their costs submissions.
Last July 9, in Moosomin First Nation v. Canada, 2024 FC 1081, the Federal Court ordered R&C to pay costs of the motion to compel. These costs amounted to $32,392.50 for BWD and $10,435 for the MFN, both inclusive of taxes.
The court scheduled Garbitt v Chief Sunshine et al., T-2684-24 on Mar. 12, Wednesday. The applicant in this case urgently requested an interim injunction halting a nomination and election process pending the outcome of his appeal against his removal from the Council of Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation.
Last Oct. 15, in Garbitt v. Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation, 2024 FC 1635, the Federal Court granted a two-week interim injunction pausing the by-election process. The case met the tripartite test for interim injunctive relief and favoured a short-term injunction to enable the applicant to exercise his appeal rights relating to the removal decision, the court said.
The court set Anwar v. NSIRA, 24-T-123 on Mar. 13, Thursday. Here, the applicant moved for orders waiving his court fees for a judicial review application based on financial hardship and exceptional circumstances, as well as directing that the fee waiver be in line with a prior court decision granting him a similar waiver in analogous financial circumstances.
The applicant also asked for an order varying or dispensing with the requirement for a traditionally sworn affidavit due to his exceptional circumstances. Last Nov. 18, in Anwar v. Canada (National Security and Intelligence Review Agency), 2024 FC 1818, the Federal Court entirely dismissed the motion of the applicant, including the request for a fee waiver.
The court scheduled Gold Line Telemanagement Inc et al. v. Attorney General of Canada, T-1974-24 on Mar. 13, Thursday. This case revolved around the Group of Gold Line, which has been involved in telecommunications since 1993.
The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) started auditing the group’s returns under part IX of the Excise Tax Act, 1985 in 2018. The CRA reassessed the group’s GST/HST accounts in April 2021. The Minister of National Revenue, through the CRA, brought a collection action against the applicants, which were several companies within the group.
In August 2023, the applicants moved for an interlocutory order prohibiting the minister from taking any further collection action against them until the final disposition of their judicial review application and compelling the minister to return the funds withdrawn from the group’s bank accounts because of the collection action.
Last Aug. 14, in Gold Line Telemanagement Inc v. Canada (Attorney General), 2024 FC 1264, the Federal Court prohibited the minister from proceeding with further collection matters until the application’s final disposition. The court then refused to compel the minister to return the funds withdrawn from the group’s accounts due to the collection action.
Regarding the stay motion, the court ruled that the applicants met the three-part test for granting a stay. The court found irreparable and non-speculative harm, saw no frivolous or vexatious issues raised by the applicants, and concluded that the balance of convenience weighed in the applicants’ favour in the circumstances.
