Fuchs v. Canada
T-1703-96
Teitelbaum J.
1/4/97
8 pp.
Judicial review of Minister of National Revenue's refusal to cease all proceedings to collect debts owing for 1974 to 1978 taxation years-In 1984 applicant reaching settlement with Minister and in 1985 new notices of assessment in amount of $15,082.31 issued for taxation years in question-Applicant not making any payments-In 1991 Minister retaining applicant's GST credits; in 1994 and 1996 sending requirement to pay notices to Ager Holdings Ltd., company of which applicant sole shareholder, and to Hongkong Bank of Canada to claim portion of RRSP-Both Ager Holdings Ltd. and Hongkong Bank Ltd. complying-On June 26, 1996 applicant's counsel communicating with collection officer belief tax debt extinguished under B.C. Limitation Act-Application dismissed-Collection officer for Minister can be considered "federal board, commission or other tribunal"-As Minister's representative, collection officer can make decisions binding on Minister-But mere fact collection officer within definition under Federal Court Act, s. 2 not meaning all statements can be considered as decisions subject to judicial review-That "decision" communicated to party in telephone conversation, nature of decision not altered-If Minister's decision, or that of representative communicated to party by any means, such decision can be subject of judicial review providing disposing of substantial question before federal board, commission or other tribunal: Mahabir v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 1 F.C. 133 (C.A.)-Communication to applicant's counsel not "decision", but merely expression of collection officer's opinion in course of wide-ranging telephone conversation discussing collection of funds owed for income tax arrears-Actual decision was collection of GST credits in 1991, issuance of requirements to pay in 1994-Necessary legal proceedings should have been commenced within 30-day delay when respondent retaining applicant's GST credits or issuing requirements to pay-At that time could have alleged no monies owing because of statutory prescription-Extension refused as no valid explanation for why failed to file application for judicial review within legal delays; extension for substantial period of time (two and one half to five and one half years); no evidence applicant having any intention to contest legality of Minister's decision by way of judicial review application-Applicant out of time to bring application for judicial review of Minister's decision to set off GST payments or to issue requirements to pay-Judicial review application invalid-Limitation Act, R.S.B.C., 1979, c. 236-Federal Court Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. F-7, ss. 2, 18.1 (as enacted by S.C. 1990, c. 8, s. 5).