Humby v. Canada

Humby v. Canada

Plaintiffs’ action dismissed because (1) CRA was statutorily entitled to immediate enforcement of source deduction liabilities and the certified assessments (as modified by Tax Court) supported seizure and sale; (2) High Sheriff executed enforcement in good faith and commercially reasonable manner; and (3) several claims were barred by limitation periods, release and corporate dissolution and, in any event, plaintiffs failed to prove bad faith, unlawful purpose or causation of asserted damages.

Citation
2013 FC 1136
Parties
First Plaintiff: Eli Humby; Second Plaintiff: Central Springs Ltd.; Third Plaintiff: A&E Precision Fabrication and Machine Shop Inc.; First Defendant: Her Majesty the Queen (Canada Revenue Agency); Second Defendant: Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Newfoundland and Labrador, as represented by the Office of the High Sheriff
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Claim for Damages Arising From Tax Enforcement / Judgment After Trial (reasons for Judgment)
Outcome
Plaintiffs' action dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Collection of Tax, Source Deductions/trust Obligations, Seizure and Sale of Assets, Limitation Periods, Misfeasance in Public Office, Judgment Enforcement, Charter Claims (s7, S8, S12)
Source Language
English
Tax Law Administrative Law Civil Litigation Constitutional Law Collection of Tax Source Deductions/trust Obligations Seizure and Sale of Assets Limitation Periods +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eli Humby

First Plaintiff

Central Springs Ltd.

Second Plaintiff

A&E Precision Fabrication and Machine Shop Inc.

Third Plaintiff

Her Majesty the Queen (Canada Revenue Agency)

First Defendant

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Newfoundland and Labrador, as represented by the Office of the High Sheriff

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Claim for Damages Arising From Tax Enforcement / Judgment After Trial (reasons for Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether CRA had lawful authority to certify assessments and immediately enforce collection of source deductions
  2. 2 Whether CRA acted in bad faith, for improper purpose or committed misfeasance in public office or conspiracy
  3. 3 Whether the High Sheriff acted in bad faith or failed to act in a commercially reasonable manner

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiffs’ action dismissed because (1) CRA was statutorily entitled to immediate enforcement of source deduction liabilities and the certified assessments (as modified by Tax Court) supported seizure and sale; (2) High Sheriff executed enforcement in good faith and commercially reasonable manner; and (3) several claims were barred by limitation periods, release and corporate dissolution and, in any event, plaintiffs failed to prove bad faith, unlawful purpose or causation of asserted damages.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' action dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Plaintiffs' action dismissed with costs for each Defendant at the usual scale of Column III of the Court’s Tariff
  • Any aspects of the scale suggesting a range shall be settled at the mid-point of any range