Kris Gurprasad

The appellant sought an interim injunction in the Superior Court of Justice to prevent the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) from collecting unpaid taxes, interest, and penalties pending a breach of contract claim.

The motion judge struck the claim, finding the Federal Court had exclusive jurisdiction under s. 18(1) of the Federal Courts Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, confirming that s. 18(1) applies to all injunctions, including interim ones, and that the CRA is a federal board, commission, or other tribunal when exercising tax collection powers.

The defendants brought a motion to strike a paragraph of the plaintiff’s statement of claim seeking an interlocutory injunction restraining the Canada Revenue Agency from collecting outstanding tax liabilities.

The underlying action alleged torts including misrepresentation, breach of contract, misfeasance in public office, and intentional interference with economic relations arising from the handling of a taxpayer relief application.

The court held that s. 18 of the Federal Courts Act grants exclusive jurisdiction to the Federal Court to issue injunctions against federal boards, commissions, or tribunals, including the CRA when exercising tax collection powers.

Although superior courts retain jurisdiction over damages claims against the Crown grounded in tort or contract, they cannot grant injunctive relief against such federal entities.

The impugned paragraph seeking injunctive relief was therefore struck without leave to amend.

The applicants sought judicial review of the Minister of Revenue's decision denying their request for an extension of time to file Retail Sales Tax returns.

The applicants had been assessed for unpaid taxes and failed to file a Notice of Objection within the 180-day limitation period.

Seven years later, they requested an extension to file late returns.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding it moot because the four-year limitation period for the Minister to reassess taxes had expired, meaning an extension would have no practical effect.

The court also declined to exercise its discretion because the applicants had failed to utilize the statutory remedies available to them.