Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. v. M.N.R.
T-2393-97
Richard J.
23/1/98
10 pp.
Motion for order striking out originating notice of motion and dismissing proceeding for want of jurisdiction, lack of standing, prematurity and abuse of process-Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. originally seeking order quashing MNR's decision certain tobacco products meeting definition of "tobacco stick" in Excise Act-Applicant submitted four product samples for advance ruling as to whether products would be considered "cigarettes" or "tobacco sticks" in Excise Act-One product, product "A", for all intents and purposes, identical to new product kit applicant believed about to be introduced by competitor, Imperial Tobacco Ltd.-Applicant made representations as to why product should be considered "cigarette" rather than "tobacco stick" (excise duty and excise tax for tobacco sticks approximately one-third lower than for cigarettes)-Advance ruling two of four samples, including product "A", tobacco sticks-Senior management confirmed advance ruling-Motion granted-Advance ruling not decision within meaning of Federal Court Act, s. 18.1-Fact Assistant Deputy Minister used word "decision" in correspondence not transforming action taken by Revenue Canada into decision within meaning of Act, s. 18.1-In same letter, ADM warned ruling may be reversed-Department's advance rulings and technical interpretations have no binding legal effect, and Department would not be estopped by its ruling-Advance ruling does not grant right, nor does it have legal consequences-At most, non-binding opinion-Since jurisdiction of Court rationae materiae depending on presence of "decision" within meaning of Act, s. 18.1, motion to strike granted-Federal Court Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. F-7, s. 18.1 (as enacted by S.C. 1990, c. 8, s. 5)-Excise Act, R.S.C., c. E14, s. 6 "cigarette" (as am. by S.C. 1991, c. 42, s. 6), "tobacco stick" (as am. idem).