Canada (National Revenue) v. Lizotte

Canada (National Revenue) v. Lizotte

The motion was dismissed because the supporting affidavit did not establish any connection between the judgment debtor and his shareholdings in the garnishee, did not justify an exemption from notice under Rule 395, and the draft order failed to specify the state in which the garnishee's shares are held; the motion records were therefore insufficient.

Citation
2003 FC 1508
Parties
Judgment Creditor: Deputy Minister of Revenue of Quebec (representing Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada); Judgment Debtor: Benoit Lizotte; Garnishee: 9086-7516 Québec Inc.
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 December 2003
Procedural Posture
Garnishment Motion (ex Parte) / Ex Parte Motion; Dismissed Without Prejudice
Outcome
motion dismissed without prejudice
Legal Topics
Excise Tax Act, Garnishee Proceedings, Notice Exemption Under Rule 395, Affidavit Evidence, Draft Order Specificity
Source Language
English
Tax Garnishment Procedural Law Administrative Law Excise Tax Act Garnishee Proceedings Notice Exemption Under Rule 395 Affidavit Evidence +1 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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Deputy Minister of Revenue of Quebec (representing Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada)

Judgment Creditor

Benoit Lizotte

Judgment Debtor

9086-7516 Québec Inc.

Garnishee

Procedural Posture

Garnishment Motion (ex Parte) / Ex Parte Motion; Dismissed Without Prejudice

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the affidavit established a connection between the judgment debtor and his shareholdings in the garnishee
  2. 2 Whether exemption from notice under Rule 395 of the Federal Court Rules, 1998 was justified and documented
  3. 3 Whether the draft garnishee order sufficiently and specifically addressed the state in which the garnishee's shares are held

Ratio Decidendi

The motion was dismissed because the supporting affidavit did not establish any connection between the judgment debtor and his shareholdings in the garnishee, did not justify an exemption from notice under Rule 395, and the draft order failed to specify the state in which the garnishee's shares are held; the motion records were therefore insufficient.

Court Disposition

motion dismissed without prejudice

Orders

  • Motion dismissed without prejudice; judgment creditor may file another motion after remedying deficiencies in the affidavit and draft order.