Merchant Law Group v. Canada (Revenue Agency)

Merchant Law Group v. Canada (Revenue Agency)

The amended statement of claim was struck because it failed to plead a reasonable cause of action: the misfeasance claim is deficient for failing to name the public officer(s) and for lacking material facts showing deliberate unlawful conduct and intent to harm; restitution/wrongful receipt claims are precluded by the statutory recovery scheme for GST and the Tax Court's exclusive jurisdiction under s.12 Tax Court of Canada Act and s.312 Excise Tax Act; therefore the Federal Court lacked jurisdiction to grant the relief sought and the pleading was properly struck under Rule 221.

Citation
2009 FC 755
Parties
Plaintiff (respondent): MERCHANT LAW GROUP; Plaintiff (respondent): STEVENSON LAW OFFICE; Plaintiff (respondent): ANNE BAWTINHIMER; Plaintiff (respondent): DUANE HEWSON; Plaintiff (respondent): JUDITH LEWIS; Plaintiff (respondent): MARCEL WOLF; Defendant (applicant): CANADA REVENUE AGENCY; Defendant (applicant): ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Class Action Alleged Recovery of GST (excise Tax) / Motion to Strike Amended Statement of Claim Under Rule 221 (pre Trial)
Outcome
Motion granted; Amended Statement of Claim struck for disclosing no reasonable cause of action; action struck out
Legal Topics
GST (excise Tax Act), Misfeasance in Public Office, Exclusive Jurisdiction of Tax Court, Statutory Recovery Scheme (s.312 Eta), Restitution/wrongful Receipt, Rule 221 Federal Courts Rules
Source Language
English
Tax Law Administrative Law Tort Law Restitution Class Actions Procedural Law GST (excise Tax Act) Misfeasance in Public Office +4 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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MERCHANT LAW GROUP

Plaintiff (respondent)

STEVENSON LAW OFFICE

Plaintiff (respondent)

ANNE BAWTINHIMER

Plaintiff (respondent)

DUANE HEWSON

Plaintiff (respondent)

JUDITH LEWIS

Plaintiff (respondent)

MARCEL WOLF

Plaintiff (respondent)

CANADA REVENUE AGENCY

Defendant (applicant)

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

Defendant (applicant)

Procedural Posture

Class Action Alleged Recovery of GST (excise Tax) / Motion to Strike Amended Statement of Claim Under Rule 221 (pre Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the amended statement of claim discloses a reasonable cause of action for misfeasance in public office against the Crown
  2. 2 Whether a restitution or wrongful receipt claim for GST is available outside the statutory scheme
  3. 3 Whether the Federal Court has jurisdiction given s.12 Tax Court of Canada Act and s.312 Excise Tax Act

Ratio Decidendi

The amended statement of claim was struck because it failed to plead a reasonable cause of action: the misfeasance claim is deficient for failing to name the public officer(s) and for lacking material facts showing deliberate unlawful conduct and intent to harm; restitution/wrongful receipt claims are precluded by the statutory recovery scheme for GST and the Tax Court's exclusive jurisdiction under s.12 Tax Court of Canada Act and s.312 Excise Tax Act; therefore the Federal Court lacked jurisdiction to grant the relief sought and the pleading was properly struck under Rule 221.

Court Disposition

Motion granted; Amended Statement of Claim struck for disclosing no reasonable cause of action; action struck out

Orders

  • Motion to strike the Amended Statement of Claim granted
  • Amended Statement of Claim struck out pursuant to Rule 221 of the Federal Courts Rules