Murray J.:
This is an application by the Plaintiffs for the following relief:
I. An interim order or orders for relief, further to paragraphs (a), (b),
(c) of the claim for relief in the Statement of Claim herein, which relief is that the funds taken or held by the Defendants to date be returned to the Plaintiff Rose Prefontaine.
2. Time for notice of this application be waived or abridged.
3. Such further or other Declarations or Orders as this Honourable Court deems just or appropriate.
4. Costs.
The relevant prayers in the Statement of Claim (a) to (c) read:
(a) Final or interim declarations that the Defendants by their conduct have) conducted unlawful searches and seizures further to The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or such other law(s) as may be applicable.
(b) Final and interim declarations or orders that all attempts of the Defendants to audit the Plaintiffs are without jurisdiction and are to stop, and in any event are to stop in the interim pending the within proceedings.
(c) Declarations or orders that the seizures of funds from the Plaintiffs, by the Defendants, are without authority and are to stop, and in any event are to stop in the interim pending the within proceedings.
There are 15 heads of relief claimed in the prayer.
À cross-application to strike out the Statement of Claim was brought by the Defendants but when the matter came before the Court on January 7 , that was withdrawn since service of the Notice of Motion and supporting affidavit had not been made within the time prescribed by the Rules of Court. I directed that application be brought before the Master and I am now advised that it is scheduled to be heard February I, 1999.
The materials filed by the Plaintiffs were voluminous. The history of these matters goes back many years and centres on the Plaintiffs’ contention that they were improperly assessed by Revenue Canada. A number of these concerns have been dealt with by the Tax Court of Canada and some of those, in turn, have been appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal and dealt with there. The 90-day period provided for in s. 225.1 of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985 (5 Supp.) c.l has expired insofar as the debts forming the basis for the matters complained of.
The affidavit of Marilyn Pushalik filed on behalf of the Defendants sets out the history of the various matters and their current status. There is currently $38,969.43 owed by Rose Prefontaine and $3,548.20 by Maurice which amounts are not subject to appeal. Many allegations are made as to the propriety of these figures. That is not a matter which this Court can deal with. The Tax Court of Canada and the Federal Court of Appeal have sole jurisdiction in the area of assessment. The only role allocated to this Court which is relevant to this matter is in the area of collecting monies found to be owing to Revenue Canada by the Tax Court of Canada and/or the Federal Court of Appeal.
Section 222 of the Income Tax Act reads as follows:
222. Debts to Her Majesty — All taxes, interest, penalties, costs and other amounts payable under this Act are debts due to Her Majesty and recoverable as such in the Federal Court or any other court of competent jurisdiction or in any other manner provided by this Act.
The Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta is a court of competent jurisdiction whose jurisdiction is confined to the area of collection of debts due to Her Majesty the Queen.
Reference is made to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Slattery (Trustee of) v. Slattery, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 430 (S.C.C.) per Iacobucci, J.
When one examines the Statement of Claim, the only allegations which could, by any stretch of the imagination, have anything to do with collection of these debts, are paragraphs 9 insofar as it alleges an unlawful search and seizure, 10(iii), 10(xi), 10(xii), IO(xiii), 10(xvi), 10(xvi), 10(xvii), 11, insofar as it alleges wrongful seizure, and 15 insofar as it alleges unlawful search and seizure. Otherwise, none of the matters complained of fall within the jurisdiction of this Court
The Income Tax Act sets out the means by which collections may be made and the method of doing so in ss. 222 to 228. As far as I can determine from reading the Statement of Claim and the affidavit of Maurice Prefontaine, the complaints in paragraphs 9, 11 and 15 of the Statement of Claim are related to the seizures set out in paragraph 10. If not, the allegations are vague and not tied into any allegations of fact.
With the exception of those paragraphs listed above, the allegations are inflammatory, vague and do not allege facts which show procedural flaws in the steps taken to effect recovery under the Act. They are simply an attempt to collaterally attack the assessments made by the Tax Court of Canada and the Federal Court of Appeal. This Court has no jurisdiction in those matters.
The seizures complained of might be summarized as follows:
1. Seizure of tax refunds since 1992,
2. Seizure of the Plaintiffs’ G.S.T.returns since 1992,
3. Seizure of the Plaintiffs’ Child Tax Benefits since 1992,
4. Seizure of tenant deposits held in trust,
5. Seizure of monies held in trust for Rose Prefontaine’s mother,
6. Seizure of monies from a chequing account which was used for busi ness and personal expenses, and
7. Seizure of severance pay and pension funds owing Rose Prefontaine.
Section 224.1 of the Income Tax Act provides:
Where a person is indebted to Her Majesty under this Act — the Minister may require the retention, by way of deduction or setoff of such amount as the Minister may specify out of any amount that may be or become payable to the person by Her Majesty in Right of Canada.
This section may be the basis for seizing the alleged tax refunds, G.S.T. returns, Child Tax Benefits and the pension funds. There are no particulars given.
The allegation with respect to the seizure of tax refunds owing to the Plaintiffs is contained in paragraph 9 of the affidavit of Maurice Prefontaine wherein he simply claims that the amount was $21,949.18 for the tax years 1994 through 1997. The G.S.T. refund claims amount to $1,500.00 for the years 1993 through 1997 and the Child Tax Benefits to $3,000.00 for the years 1993 through 1997. The trust monies which it is claimed were improperly seized are identified in paragraph 15 of Maurice Prefontaine’s affidavit. The sum of $1,334.65 is said to be held in trust pursuant to the Residential Tenancies Act of Alberta, R.S.A. 190, c. R-15.3, i.e. security deposits on rental property from tenants and the sum of $5,138.17 is alleged to be the property of Rose Prefontaine’s mother. Neither the Statement of Claim nor the affidavit are clear as to what the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce funds relate to other than the fact that there was a general chequing account from which a net amount of $3,296.55 was taken.
Apart from the alleged trust monies, if the Plaintiffs are claiming that any of these monies are exempt from seizure pursuant to the provisions of the Civil Enforcement Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. C-10.5, or any other enactment, they should say so and set out the facts upon which they rely and the basis for making such a claim.
The Plaintiffs must detail in a summary form the material facts on which they rely for their claims that these monies are not collectible under the Act. They must not plead the evidence by which they propose to prove those facts. These are requirements of R. 104 et seq. of the Rules of Court. The only items in respect of which they have made an effort to do so are the alleged security deposits and monies of Rose Prefontaine’s mother.
Should this Court strike out the Statement of Claim following the February I application, that is an end to the matter. Should that application not be allowed, then insofar as this application is concerned, I would direct that the sums of $1,334.65 and $5,138.17 be deposited with the Clerk of this Court and held pending disposition of the trial of an issue as to whether or not those are indeed trust monies and not attachable. The allegation respecting the C.I.B.C. funds is too vague and there is no basis alleged why this money was not attachable under the Act.
In the result, the Plaintiffs’ application is dismissed with the one exception which will only come into effect if the application to strike out the Statement of Claim fails.
As to the question of costs, if the Statement of Claim is struck, the costs will be in favour of the Crown. If the Statement of Claim is not struck and the issues proceed, the costs will be in the cause.
Application dismissed.