Mohawk Council of Akwesasne v. Toews

Mohawk Council of Akwesasne v. Toews

The Court held that CBSA vehicle seizures under the Customs Act did not engage s.8 of the Charter because they were civil regulatory enforcement measures not carried out in a criminal or administrative investigatory context implicating privacy; s.89 Indian Act did not bar these seizures because its protection targets creditor processes and taxation that erode reserve interests rather than regulatory customs enforcement; and the Manager had valid delegated authority under the CBSAA and the Interpretation Act to decide appeals under ss.129-133 of the Customs Act.

Citation
2012 FC 1442
Parties
Plaintiffs: Mohawk Council of Akwesasne et al; Defendants: The Honourable Vic Toews; Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness; Canada Border Services Agency
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 December 2012
Procedural Posture
Action and Application (judicial Review) / Preliminary Determination of Common Questions of Law Under Rule 220
Outcome
Common questions answered: s.8 not engaged; s.89 not applicable to these seizures; delegation valid. Plaintiffs' claims dismissed insofar as based on these common issues; no costs ordered.
Legal Topics
Section 8 Charter (search and Seizure), Section 89 Indian Act (property on Reserve), Delegation of Statutory Authority, Customs Act Seizure Regime, Preliminary Question Procedure (rule 220)
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Indigenous Law Customs Law Judicial Review Section 8 Charter (search and Seizure) Section 89 Indian Act (property on Reserve) Delegation of Statutory Authority +2 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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohawk Council of Akwesasne et al

Plaintiffs

The Honourable Vic Toews; Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness; Canada Border Services Agency

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Action and Application (judicial Review) / Preliminary Determination of Common Questions of Law Under Rule 220

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether CBSA seizures of vehicles under the Customs Act engage s.8 Charter protection against unreasonable search or seizure
  2. 2 Whether s.89 Indian Act protects plaintiffs' vehicles situated on reserve from seizure under the Customs Act
  3. 3 Whether the Manager of the CBSA Appeals Division had properly delegated authority to make the impugned decisions

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that CBSA vehicle seizures under the Customs Act did not engage s.8 of the Charter because they were civil regulatory enforcement measures not carried out in a criminal or administrative investigatory context implicating privacy; s.89 Indian Act did not bar these seizures because its protection targets creditor processes and taxation that erode reserve interests rather than regulatory customs enforcement; and the Manager had valid delegated authority under the CBSAA and the Interpretation Act to decide appeals under ss.129-133 of the Customs Act.

Court Disposition

Common questions answered: s.8 not engaged; s.89 not applicable to these seizures; delegation valid. Plaintiffs' claims dismissed insofar as based on these common issues; no costs ordered.

Orders

  • The seizure of vehicles by the CBSA at the POE at Cornwall does not engage s.8 of the Charter and cannot constitute a violation of it.
  • A Plaintiff's vehicle is not protected from seizure under the Customs Act on the facts of this case by virtue of s.89 of the Indian Act.