Date: 20070326
Docket: ITA-4559-04
Citation: 2007FC319
Ottawa, Ontario, Monday, this 26th day of March 2007
PRESENT: MADAM PROTHONOTARY MIREILLE TABIB
IN THE MATTER OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,
- and –
IN THE MATTER OF an assessment or assessments
by the Minister of National Revenue
under one or more of the following: THE INCOME TAX ACT,
CANADA PENSION PLAN, EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
against:
PAUL CAMERON
90 Devon Road
Sudbury, Ontario
P3B 3B3
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] At issue on the motion before me is whether the decision of this Court in Canada (Minister of National Revenue) v. Guterres, [1994] F.C.J. No. 1076, rendered on the basis of the laws of execution of British Columbia, should equally be applicable in Ontario. In Guterres, the Court held that a writ of fieri facias (now known as a writ of seizure and sale) delivered by a competent officer for execution against RRSP funds is sufficient authority for a financial institution to collapse the fund and deliver the proceeds thereof to the officer, without the need for a specific order of the Court.
[2] On the motion before me, CIBC Trust, the trustee of an RRSP constituted by the Judgment Debtor, admitted and confirmed that under the terms of the RRSP account, the Judgment Debtor has the ability to demand that CIBC Trust collapse the account, sell the units currently in it and remit the proceeds to him. There is accordingly no question, under the laws and jurisprudence of Ontario, that the RRSP account herein is exigible and may be seized pursuant to a writ of seizure and sale (see National Trust Co. Ltd. v. Lorenzetti et al., (1983) 41 O.R. (2d) 772).
[3] In Guterres, Prothonotary Hargrave found that the provisions of section 52 of the Court Order Enforcement Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, Ch. 75 provided sufficient authority for a Sheriff or other officer to compel the Trustee of an exigible RRSP account to sell the securities held therein and deliver up the proceeds to the Sheriff.
[4] Subsection 19(1) of the Execution Act, R.S.O., 1990, c.E.24, is in all relevant respects identical to section 52 of the Court Order Enforcement Act on which Guterres was based. If anything, subsection 19(1), in conjunction with subsection 19(2), provides even more explicit and wide ranging authority than section 52 of the British Columbia Act. These subsections read as follows:
|
“19. (1) The sheriff shall seize any money or banknotes, including any surplus of a former execution against the debtor, and any cheques, bills of exchange, promissory notes, bonds, mortgages, specialties or other securities for money belonging to the person against whom the execution has been issued, and, subject to the Creditors’ Relief Act, shall pay or deliver to the party who sued out the execution the money or banknotes so seized, or a sufficient part thereof, and hold such cheques, bills of exchange, promissory notes, bonds, mortgages, specialties or other securities for money as security for the amount directed to be levied, or so much thereof as has not been otherwise levied or raised, and the sheriff may sue in his or her own name for the recovery of the sums secured thereby.
(2) The sheriff may seize any book debts and other choses in action of the execution debtor and may sue in his or her own name for the recovery of the money payable in respect thereof.”
|
« 19. (1) Le shérif saisit l’argent ou les billets de banque, y compris tout excédent provenant d’une exécution forcée antérieure pratiquée contre le débiteur, ainsi que les chèques, lettres de change, billets à ordre, obligations, hypothèques, actes scellés ou autres titres de créance appartenant au débiteur saisi. Sous réserve de la Loi sur le désintéressement des créanciers, le shérif remet au créancier saisissant l’argent ou les billets de banque ainsi saisis, ou une part suffisante de ceux-ci. Il garde en sa possession les chèques, lettres de change, billets à ordre, obligations, hypothèques, actes scellés et autres titres de créance en garantie des sommes d’argent qu’il est tenu de prélever ou la partie de ces sommes qui n’a pas été autrement prélevée ou recueillie. Le shérif peut intenter, en son propre nom, une action en recouvrement des sommes ainsi garanties.
(2) Le shérif peut saisir tous les comptes débiteurs et autres droits d’action qui appartiennent au débiteur saisi. Il peut intenter, en son propre nom, une action en recouvrement des sommes exigibles à l’égard des comptes débiteurs ou des droits d’action. » |
[5] As a result, I can find no reason why the ruling in Guterres would not also be applicable in the province of Ontario.
[6] The cases cited by CIBC Trust as introducing uncertainty as to the applicability of Guterres outside British Columbia were decided under provincial legislation other than Ontario’s, and, more importantly, involved a determination of whether the RRSPs in question were exigible, in the sense of whether the Trustees under the accounts had the obligation to collapse the fund and remit the proceeds thereof upon simple request by the beneficiary. As there is no question as to the exigibility of the fund in this matter, these authorities are not relevant to the determination herein.
[7] I therefore conclude that a writ of execution delivered by a Sheriff on a financial institution holding, as Trustee, RRSP funds of a Judgment Debtor under a plan allowing the Judgment Debtor to collapse and redeem the account on demand is sufficient, without a further specific order of the Court, to require the financial institution to sell the assets in the RRSP and remit the proceeds thereof to the Sheriff in satisfaction of the writ.
ORDER
1. CIBC Securities, as agent for CIBC Trust (collectively “CIBC”), shall comply with the writ of seizure and sale served upon it by the Sheriff of the city of Toronto in respect of the debt owed to the Crown by Paul Cameron by selling the assets in the Judgment Debtor’s registered retirement savings plans held at the CIBC until the proceeds of that sale, after transaction fees and required statutory deductions, are enough to satisfy the writ or until all the assets are sold, whichever comes first, and remit the proceeds thereof to the Sheriff in satisfaction of the writ.
2. There shall be no costs on this motion.
“Mireille Tabib”
Prothonotary
FEDERAL COURT
NAME OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
STYLE OF CAUSE: IN THE MATTER OF THE INCOME TAX ACT et al. v. PAUL CAMERON
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: March 19, 2007
REASONS FOR ORDER: MADAM PROTHONOTARY MIREILLE TABIB
APPEARANCES:
|
Mr. Kevin Dias
|
(Her Majesty the Queen)
|
|
Mr. Onofrio Ferlisi
|
(CIBC) |
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
|
Mr. John H. Sims, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada
|
(Her Majesty the Queen) |
|
Kronis Rotsztain Margles Cappel Barristers and Solicitors Toronto, Ontario
|
(CIBC) |