Canada (National Revenue) v. Ross

Canada (National Revenue) v. Ross

The Court found the Agency's affidavits provided reasonable grounds that delay would jeopardize collection — specifically evidence of converting seizable assets to allegedly exempt forms and attempts to transfer the fishing company and licence to the son — applicants' evidence did not rebut those grounds; therefore the ex parte jeopardy collection order was properly authorized and is upheld.

Citation
2010 FC 594
Parties
Judgment Creditor: Canada (National Revenue); Debtor Respondent: Gérard Ross; Debtor Respondent: Claire Ross
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 June 2010
Procedural Posture
Income Tax — Application Under S.225.2(8) of the Income Tax Act to Review Ex Parte Jeopardy Collection Order / Summary Review of Ex Parte Authorization (225.2(8))
Outcome
Application dismissed; jeopardy collection order dated March 15, 2010 upheld; applicants ordered to pay lump sum costs of $5,000 to the Agency.
Legal Topics
Jeopardy Collection Order, Ex Parte Authorization, Assessment and Reassessment, Seizure and Collection, Costs
Source Language
English
Tax Administrative Law Indigenous Law Civil Procedure Jeopardy Collection Order Ex Parte Authorization Assessment and Reassessment Seizure and Collection +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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Canada (National Revenue)

Judgment Creditor

Gérard Ross

Debtor Respondent

Claire Ross

Debtor Respondent

Procedural Posture

Income Tax — Application Under S.225.2(8) of the Income Tax Act to Review Ex Parte Jeopardy Collection Order / Summary Review of Ex Parte Authorization (225.2(8))

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Minister demonstrated reasonable grounds under s.225.2(2) that collection would be jeopardized by delay
  2. 2 Whether the Agency acted in bad faith or misled the issuing judge
  3. 3 Whether the absence of a notice of assessment precluded an authorization under s.225.2(3)

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found the Agency's affidavits provided reasonable grounds that delay would jeopardize collection — specifically evidence of converting seizable assets to allegedly exempt forms and attempts to transfer the fishing company and licence to the son — applicants' evidence did not rebut those grounds; therefore the ex parte jeopardy collection order was properly authorized and is upheld.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; jeopardy collection order dated March 15, 2010 upheld; applicants ordered to pay lump sum costs of $5,000 to the Agency.

Orders

  • Application dismissed
  • Jeopardy collection order dated March 15, 2010 upheld