Robertson v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue)

Robertson v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue)

The application was dismissed because it was barred by res judicata given the identical stay/injunction issue had already been dismissed by Tremblay-Lamer J., the plaintiffs failed to show new facts or special circumstances to justify re-argument, and the matter was moot/outside Federal Court jurisdiction because the Minister's decision was under appeal to the Tax Court; accordingly the motion to dismiss is allowed and the application dismissed with costs.

Citation
2001 FCT 365
Parties
Plaintiff Respondent: Camil Duchesne; Plaintiff Respondent: Germain Paul; Plaintiff Respondent: Bernard Robertson; Defendant Applicant: Minister of National Revenue; Simon-Nicholas Cr
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 April 2001
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Motion to Dismiss Decided (application Dismissed)
Outcome
Motion to dismiss allowed; application for judicial review dismissed with costs to the defendant.
Legal Topics
Res Judicata, Mootness, Jurisdiction, Right to Silence, Administrative Inquiry, Stay/injunction, Costs
Source Language
English
Administrative Law Tax Law Procedural Law Criminal Law Res Judicata Mootness Jurisdiction Right to Silence +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 5 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Camil Duchesne

Plaintiff Respondent

Germain Paul

Plaintiff Respondent

Bernard Robertson

Plaintiff Respondent

Minister of National Revenue

Defendant Applicant

Simon-Nicholas Cr

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Motion to Dismiss Decided (application Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs application was barred by res judicata due to prior dismissal of a stay application by Tremblay-Lamer J.
  2. 2 Whether there were new facts or special circumstances justifying re-litigation.
  3. 3 Whether the Federal Court had jurisdiction given the Minister's decision was under appeal to the Tax Court of Canada (mootness/jurisdiction).

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because it was barred by res judicata given the identical stay/injunction issue had already been dismissed by Tremblay-Lamer J., the plaintiffs failed to show new facts or special circumstances to justify re-argument, and the matter was moot/outside Federal Court jurisdiction because the Minister's decision was under appeal to the Tax Court; accordingly the motion to dismiss is allowed and the application dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Motion to dismiss allowed; application for judicial review dismissed with costs to the defendant.

Orders

  • Application for judicial review filed January 5, 2000 dismissed with costs against the plaintiffs.