Martineau c. Canada (Ministre du revenu national)

Martineau c. Canada (Ministre du revenu national)

Appeal dismissed. The applicant's reliance on his own affidavit violated Rule 82 and no sufficient reasons justified departure from the rule; the Customs Act penal provisions relevant to the allegations are time-barred so s.11(c) Charter protection does not apply; compensatory confiscation is not a penal measure attracting s.11(c); the prothonotary's order was not manifestly erroneous and allowance of examination under Rule 236 was appropriate. Therefore the prothonotary's decision of December 11, 2001 is upheld and the appeal is rejected with costs.

Citation
2002 FCT 85
Parties
Applicant/plaintiff: Normand Martineau; Respondent/defendant: The Minister of National Revenue
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 January 2002
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From Prothonotary Decision (federal Court)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Self Incrimination, Solicitor's Affidavit Rule (rule 82), Examination for Discovery (rule 236), Statute of Limitations, Forfeiture/compensatory Confiscation, Appellate Review of Prothonotary Discretion
Source Language
English
Customs Law Constitutional Law Evidence Law Civil Procedure Administrative Law Self Incrimination Solicitor's Affidavit Rule (rule 82) Examination for Discovery (rule 236) +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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Normand Martineau

Applicant/plaintiff

The Minister of National Revenue

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From Prothonotary Decision (federal Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicant can be compelled to testify in this civil action or is protected by s.11(c) of the Charter
  2. 2 Whether the affidavit sworn by the applicant-attorney breaches Rule 82 and is admissible
  3. 3 Whether the prothonotary's order of Dec 11, 2001 was manifestly erroneous or an improper exercise of discretion

Ratio Decidendi

Appeal dismissed. The applicant's reliance on his own affidavit violated Rule 82 and no sufficient reasons justified departure from the rule; the Customs Act penal provisions relevant to the allegations are time-barred so s.11(c) Charter protection does not apply; compensatory confiscation is not a penal measure attracting s.11(c); the prothonotary's order was not manifestly erroneous and allowance of examination under Rule 236 was appropriate. Therefore the prothonotary's decision of December 11, 2001 is upheld and the appeal is rejected with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • Prothonotary Morneau's decision dated December 11, 2001 is upheld.