Canada (National Revenue) v. Nguyen

Canada (National Revenue) v. Nguyen

The motion was dismissed because the debtor failed to present new matter that arose after the February 10 order or which was not discoverable earlier, failed to meet the RJR-Macdonald requirements for a stay (no serious question established, no irreparable harm, balance of convenience favored the Crown), and neither s.399 nor s.397 provided a basis to set aside or vary the prior order.

Citation
2023 FC 371
Parties
Judgment Creditor: Attorney General of Canada (Canada Revenue Agency); Judgment Debtor: Thanh-Long Nguyen; Third Party: Thi Hoang Chau Nguyen
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 March 2023
Procedural Posture
Income Tax Act Enforcement — Execution of Assessment and Seizure / Motion for Reconsideration / to Set Aside or Vary Order (s.397 / S.399) Following Denial of Stay
Outcome
The debtor's motion dated February 20, 2023 seeking reconsideration, setting aside or variance of the February 10, 2023 order is dismissed.
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Reconsideration of Court Order, Setting Aside Orders, Seizure of Safety Deposit Box, RJR Macdonald Test
Source Language
English
Tax Law Civil Procedure Administrative Law Stay of Execution Reconsideration of Court Order Setting Aside Orders Seizure of Safety Deposit Box RJR Macdonald Test

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Attorney General of Canada (Canada Revenue Agency)

Judgment Creditor

Thanh-Long Nguyen

Judgment Debtor

Thi Hoang Chau Nguyen

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Income Tax Act Enforcement — Execution of Assessment and Seizure / Motion for Reconsideration / to Set Aside or Vary Order (s.397 / S.399) Following Denial of Stay

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the debtor met the RJR-Macdonald test for a stay of execution (serious question to be tried, irreparable harm, balance of convenience)
  2. 2 Whether s.399 allows setting aside or varying the February 10, 2023 order based on newly discovered matter or fraud
  3. 3 Whether s.397 allows reconsideration where the order does not accord with reasons or a matter was accidentally omitted

Ratio Decidendi

The motion was dismissed because the debtor failed to present new matter that arose after the February 10 order or which was not discoverable earlier, failed to meet the RJR-Macdonald requirements for a stay (no serious question established, no irreparable harm, balance of convenience favored the Crown), and neither s.399 nor s.397 provided a basis to set aside or vary the prior order.

Court Disposition

The debtor's motion dated February 20, 2023 seeking reconsideration, setting aside or variance of the February 10, 2023 order is dismissed.

Orders

  • The debtor’s motion dated February 20, 2023 seeking the reconsideration, setting aside or variance of the February 10, 2023 order is dismissed.