Skotidakis Goat Farm v. Canada (Border Services Agency)

Skotidakis Goat Farm v. Canada (Border Services Agency) Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2023-03-09 Neutral citation 2023 FCA 53 File numbers A-40-22 Decision Content Date: 20230309 Docket: A-40-22 Citation: 2023 FCA 53 [ENGLISH TRANSLATION] CORAM: BOIVIN J.A. LEBLANC J.A. GOYETTE J.A. BETWEEN: SKOTIDAKIS GOAT FARM Appellant and CANADA BORDER SERVICES AGENCY Respondent Hearing held at Montreal, Quebec, on March 9, 2023. Judgment delivered from the bench at Montreal, Quebec, on March 9, 2023. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: BOIVIN J.A. Date: 20230309 Docket: A-40-22 Citation: 2023 FCA 53 CORAM: BOIVIN J.A. LEBLANC J.A. GOYETTE J.A. BETWEEN: SKOTIDAKIS GOAT FARM Appellant and CANADA BORDER SERVICES AGENCY Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Delivered from the bench at Montreal, Quebec, on March 9, 2023.) BOIVIN J.A. [1] This is an appeal from an order rendered by Justice Pamel of the Federal Court (the Judge) on December 6, 2021 (21-T-46), dismissing the appellant’s motion for an extension of time to file an application for judicial review to challenge the detailed adjustment statement issued by the Canada Border Services Agency (the Agency) on April 22, 2021. The statement followed an audit of the appellant conducted by the Agency to determine whether the appellant met the requirements of the Duties Relief Program in accordance with the Customs Tariff (S.C. 1997, c. 36) and the Customs Act (R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (2nd Supp.)). [2] The appellant served its motion for an extension of time on September 29, 2021, that is, five months after the statement was provided to the appellant and close to four months after the time limit set out in subsection 18.1(2) of the Federal Courts Act (R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7). [3] It is apparent from the Judge’s order that he correctly applied the law and correctly identified the test applicable to a motion for an extension of time. He determined that none of the test criteria had been met in this case. Among other things, he found that the appellant had no continuing intention to pursue its application and that, since there was no notice of application, it had not established that the application had some merit. In addition, there is nothing in the record to explain the appellant’s inaction between June 28, 2021, the date of the last correspondence between the parties, and September 29, 2021, the date the motion for an extension of time was filed. Furthermore, there is no evidence to support the appellant’s claim that its inaction was due to COVID‑19 and a fire on its premises in the summer of 2020. Given this factual vacuum, the Judge was not persuaded that it was in the interests of justice to allow the appellant’s motion. [4] We are all of the view that, in exercising his discretion to dismiss the appellant’s motion for an extension of time to file an application for judicial review, the Judge did not commit an error that would warrant our intervention (Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235). We note that our role on appeal in this case is not to reassess the matter in order to come to our own conclusions. [5] For these reasons, the appeal will be dismissed with costs. “Richard Boivin” J.A. FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-40-22 STYLE OF CAUSE: SKOTIDAKIS GOAT FARM v. CANADA BORDER SERVICES AGENCY PLACE OF HEARING: MontrEal, Quebec DATE OF HEARING: March 9, 2023 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: BOIVIN J.A. LEBLANC J.A. GOYETTE J.A. DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: BOIVIN J.A. APPEARANCES: ROBERT FRAGASSO For the Appellant SAROM BAHK For the Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Robert Fragasso Saint‑Eustache, Quebec For the Appellant Shalene Curtis-Micallef Deputy Attorney General of Canada For the Respondent