Canada (National Revenue) v. Lachapelle

Canada (National Revenue) v. Lachapelle

The motion was dismissed because the contested paragraphs of the affidavit were sufficiently precise such that the examination only elaborated existing allegations rather than introducing new, surprising facts; furthermore, the mis en cause failed to file the proposed affidavits with the motion record and did not demonstrate attempts to obtain third-party affidavits, so leave to file additional affidavits was not justified.

Citation
2007 FC 418
Parties
Seizing Creditor / Judgment Creditor: Canada (National Revenue); Judgment Debtor: Pierre Lachapelle; Third Party: B.M.T. 06 CAPITAL CORPORATION (Bull Market Trading); Third Party: TD WATERHOUSE CANADA INC. (formerly Ameritrade Canada); Mis En Cause: ANIMATION JL INC.
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 April 2007
Procedural Posture
Garnishment Proceeding Under the Income Tax Act / Motion for Leave to File Additional Affidavits Under Rule 84 During Examination on Affidavit
Outcome
Motion dismissed
Legal Topics
Leave to File Evidence, Examination on Affidavit, Rule 84, Seizure/garnishment, Procedural Compliance
Source Language
English
Tax Law Civil Procedure Garnishment Federal Court Practice Leave to File Evidence Examination on Affidavit Rule 84 Seizure/garnishment +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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Canada (National Revenue)

Seizing Creditor / Judgment Creditor

Pierre Lachapelle

Judgment Debtor

B.M.T. 06 CAPITAL CORPORATION (Bull Market Trading)

Third Party

TD WATERHOUSE CANADA INC. (formerly Ameritrade Canada)

Third Party

ANIMATION JL INC.

Mis En Cause

Procedural Posture

Garnishment Proceeding Under the Income Tax Act / Motion for Leave to File Additional Affidavits Under Rule 84 During Examination on Affidavit

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the mis en cause may file two additional affidavits after examinations on affidavit
  2. 2 Whether answers given during examination constitute new and surprising facts justifying additional evidence
  3. 3 Whether the mis en cause made reasonable efforts to obtain affidavits from third parties

Ratio Decidendi

The motion was dismissed because the contested paragraphs of the affidavit were sufficiently precise such that the examination only elaborated existing allegations rather than introducing new, surprising facts; furthermore, the mis en cause failed to file the proposed affidavits with the motion record and did not demonstrate attempts to obtain third-party affidavits, so leave to file additional affidavits was not justified.

Court Disposition

Motion dismissed

Orders

  • Motion dismissed
  • Costs in the cause