Master Tech Inc. v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness)

Master Tech Inc. v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2019-01-09 Neutral citation 2019 FCA 4 Decision Content Date: 20190109 Docket: A-129-16 Citation: 2019 FCA 4 CORAM: GAUTHIER J.A. RENNIE J.A. GLEASON J.A. BETWEEN: MASTER TECH INC. Appellant and THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS Respondent Heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on January 9, 2019. Judgment delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario, on January 9, 2019. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: GAUTHIER J.A. Date: 20190109 Docket: A-129-16 Citation: 2019 FCA 4 CORAM: GAUTHIER J.A. RENNIE J.A. GLEASON J.A. BETWEEN: MASTER TECH INC. Appellant and THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario, on January 9, 2019). GAUTHIER J.A. [1] Master Tech has failed to convince us that the Federal Court erred in dismissing its action. We essentially agree with the Federal Court’s analysis. The concession reproduced at paragraph 14 of the Federal Court decision applies only to the situation as of the date of the seizure of the machinery – July 6, 2011. Nothing more. [2] The Federal Court properly determined that it was not incumbent upon the CBSA or the Minister to allow exportation of the machines pending compliance with current export restrictions. The Federal Court cannot grant the relief sought by Master Tech in an action under section 135 of the Customs Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (2nd Supp.) [Act] which, in fact, would amount to an export licence for its goods to Iran. We note that a comparison of the English and French versions of paragraph 132(1)(a) of the Act makes clear that a “removal from custody” (“levée de garde” in French) of the items after a finding of no contravention only implies the lifting of the seizure as a measure – not that the hitherto seized items may now be exported without the proper permits and authorizations. [3] Indeed, it is possible that seized goods became subject to new regulations requiring permits or permissions during the time they remained seized, and Master Tech simply cannot avoid compliance with those export restrictions. Should Master Tech seek to export the machines to Iran following the resolution of this case, it must first follow the appropriate procedures and apply for the proper permits with the applicable regulatory authorities according to the current rules and regulations. [4] For the foregoing reasons, the appeal will be dismissed with costs set at an amount of $3,200.00 all inclusive. “Johanne Gauthier” J.A. FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE O'REILLY DATED DECEMBER 18, 2015, DOCKET NO. T-385-14 DOCKET: A-129-16 STYLE OF CAUSE: MASTER TECH INC. v. THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa, Ontario DATE OF HEARING: January 9, 2019 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: GAUTHIER J.A. RENNIE J.A. GLEASON J.A. DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: GAUTHIER J.A. APPEARANCES: Steven Greenberg For The Appellant Joël J. Robichaud Shain Widdifield For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Steven Greenberg Barrister and Solicitor Ottawa, Ontario For The Appellant Nathalie G. Drouin Deputy Attorney General of Canada For The Respondent