Date: 19991028
Docket: T-1216-99
BETWEEN:
JUDY CHUA
Applicant
AND:
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
ROULEAU, J.
1� This is a motion by the applicant dated September 3, 1999, under Rule 359 of the Federal Court Rules for an order directing that the respondent comply with paragraph 3 of my order issued July 30, 1999, produce Stephen M. Ehrlich for cross-examination before September 30, 1999 as per paragraph 6 of my order of July 30, 1999, and produce the letter the IRS sent to Revenue Canada requesting collection assistance on the matter of the applicant and any further communications between the IRS and Revenue Canada regarding any aspect of that request not yet disclosed.
2� After hearing and considering the submissions of counsel on October 13, 1999, I dismissed the application for the following reasons.
3� First, paragraph 3 of my order dated July 30, 1999 was in response to an initial application brought by the applicant seeking injunctive relief and other remedies with respect to Revenue Canada's seizure of bank accounts and the registration of a memorial against realty owned by the applicant. On consent, however, that matter was resolved at the original hearing before me on July 30, 1999.
4� Although my order of that date reflects that resolution, paragraph 3 was erroneously included given that the initial stage of this dispute is the determination of a Charter argument by the applicant with respect to the Canada-United States Income Tax Convention, 1980.
5� Further to the hearing of October 13, 1999, counsel for the applicant suggested that at the same time that the Court was dealing with the constitutional arguments, it also entertain the administrative law arguments which he wishes to make.
6� I am of the view that they should not proceed simultaneously. Should the applicant's constitutional challenge succeed there would be no further reason to pursue the application. Accordingly, counsel are directed to prepare their motion records with respect to the constitutional challenge. Were the administrative law argument to proceed at the same time, it could give rise to additional and lengthy delays. It may well be that the Minister is obligated to produce affidavits and/or other documentary evidence with respect to the administrative law arguments raised by applicant's counsel. However, at the present time none of that material is relevant to the Charter issue now before the Court.
JUDGE
OTTAWA, Ontario
October 28, 1999