Digests

Decision Information

Decision Content

[2011] 3 F.C.R. D-10

Customs and Excise

Customs Act

Determination of two questions of law under Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106, r. 220(1)(a)  in action seeking return of diamonds purportedly seized under Customs Act, R.S.C., 1985 (2nd Supp.), c. 1 (Act)—Two questions ordered to be determined before trial—Diamonds seized at airport when plaintiff attempting to clear U.S. Customs from Canada—Plaintiff claiming diamonds brought into Canada more than six years before seizure, that diamonds accordingly exempt therefrom—Seizure of diamonds herein constituting seizure under Act—In context of present case, goods seized under Act meaning seizure made by officer believing on reasonable grounds that Act or regulations contravened—First question of law whether limitation periods at Act, ss. 106(2), 135(1) applying to bar proceedings such as present case, seeking return of goods purportedly seized under Act,  even if contravention may have occurred more than six years before purported seizure, whereby seizure running afoul of Act, s. 113—Limitation periods under Act, ss. 106(2), 135(1) applying to bar proceedings such as present proceeding, unless officer seizing goods not believing on reasonable grounds that Act or regulations contravened in respect of goods—If officer not having such reasonable grounds, no seizure occurring under Act, s. 110—Second question of law whether claim barred by limitations of actions against defendant provided in Act, s. 106(1), Public Authorities Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.38, s. 7(1)—Limitation period at Act, s. 106(1), Public Authorities Protection Act, s. 7(1) barring claim as against officer involved, defendant by virtue of Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-50, s. 3(b)(i) since plaintiff not alleging in pleadings that officer who seized diamonds did so without any reasonable belief that Act or regulations breached—Action dismissed with leave granted to amend statement of claim.

Zolotow v. Canada (Attorney General) (T-1075-08, 2011 FC 816, Zinn J., judgment dated July 5, 2011, 21 pp.)

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.