Date: 19991112 Docket: T-34-99
BETWEEN:
GABRIEL AZOUZ
Applicant
and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
TEITELBAUM, J:
[1] This is an appeal from a decision of the Prothonotary dated October 12, 1999 in which he denied the applicant an Order extending the time within which the applicant could file the affidavit of Sydney Sweibel in support of an application for judicial review.
Page: 2
FACTS
[2] On January 8, 1999, the applicant filed with this Court a judicial review application to declare invalid the Request for Information dated September 30,1998 that the Minister of National Revenue sent to the Internal Revenue Service of the United States (IRS) with respect to the applicant.
[3] In his application, the applicant made a written request for the production of documents pursuant to Rule 317 of the Federal Court Rules, 1998 in which he was asking for an important number of documents.
[4] The respondent provided to the applicant's solicitor and the Court Registry all the alleged relevant material that formed the basis of the Minister's decision to send a Request for Information to the IRS in September 1998 but, with respect to the other documents requested, filed an objection on the basis of lack of specificity and relevancy and of section 37 of the Canada Evidence Act.
[5] By an Order dated June 7, 1999 this Court maintained the respondent's objection and no additional documents were filed.
[6] The admissions, dated July 7, 1999, signed by the solicitors for each party were filed in this Court's record.
Page: 3
[7] In August 1999, the applicant filed with this Court his affidavits in support of his judicial review application including one from Sydney Sweibel.
[8] The motion to extend the time to file an additional affidavit was made to add additional evidence, namely the content of discussions held during a meeting, to which Sydney Sweibel attended on September 14, 1999 with representatives of the respondent, and a document dated September 14, 1999 that was given to Mr. Sweibel on that day.
[9] In his decision to dismiss the applicant's motion for extension of time, the Prothonotary gives as his reasons "Motion denied for the reasons expressed in paragraphs 9 to 12, 14 and 15 of the "Prétentions écrites du défendeur" filed with the Prothonotary on September 27, 1999.
[10] Paragraphs 9 to 12, 14 and 15 state:
9. Nous soutenons que tous les faits et documents pertinents à la présente affaire ont été déposés au dossier de la Cour et qu'il n'y a pas lieu d'ajouter l'affidavit supplémentaire tel que demandé par la requête du demandeur;
10. Au surplus, la preuve par affidavit que les procureurs du demandeur cherchent à introduire par la présente requête, provient d'une rencontre que ces derniers ont eue, le 14 septembre 1999, avec les représentants du Ministre du revenu national et ce, sans l'autorisation et sans la présence des procureurs de l'intimé;
Dossier de réponse: p. 1 à 7 Affidavit de Sonya Belland et échange de correspondance entre les procureurs.
11. Toutes les autres démarches que le Ministre peut avoir faites relativement au dossier fiscal du demandeur
depuis qu'il a envoyé la demande de renseignements à PIRS, dont notamment la préparation d'un projet d'avis de cotisation à l'endroit du demandeur, sont des faits et documents postérieurs qui n'ont aucune pertinence aux fins de déterminer la validité de la demande de renseignements adressée à PIRS en septembre 1998;
12. Il est constant en jurisprudence que les faits postérieurs à la décision ou à l'acte attaqué par contrôle judiciaire n'ont aucune pertinence et ne doivent pas être admis;
« There is no provision in the governing legislation or rules which provides for the introduction of fresh evidence on the merits on Judicial Review. This is not surprising, because it is clear from the powers of review set out in s. 18.1(4) of the Federal Court Act that judicial review is intended to address errors made during the Board's proceedings » Extrait de la cause: Franz c. MEI, 80 FTR 79, à la p. 80
« By this motion, the court is being asked to add material to the case that was not before the adjudicator when he made his decision and couldn't have been before him because it did not exist at that time. This court has declined to make such an order in such circumstances. (Compare Garland Wilson v. Canada Employment and Immigration Commission - File A445-88, August 16, 1990, per Hugessen, J.A. See also Optical Recording Corp. v. Minister of National Revenue (1987), 79 N.R. 23 (F.C.A.), at pp. 26 and 27.) » Extrait de la cause Pacific Press c. Canada, (1990) 127 NR 323 (CAF) à la p. 324.
« Enfin, en tant que point de droit, je dirai que les Règles de la Cour fédérale [C.R.C., ch. 663] ne prévoient pas la présentation de nouveaux éléments de preuve dans le cadre d'une demande de contrôle judiciaire: Franz c. Ministre de l'Emploi et de l'Immigration (1994), 80 F.T.R. 79 (C.F. 1`einst.), et ce, pour une bonne raison, parce que, comme l'a fait remarquer le juge Simpson, à la page 80, « ce contrôle a pour but d'examiner les erreurs faites au cours des délibérations de la Commission. » Extrait de la cause Via Rail c. Canada, (1998) 1 F.C. 376, à la p. 389.
14. Nous soutenons que la requête pour production de l'affidavit supplémentaire de Sydney Sweibel est manifestement mal fondée;
15. Nous demandons à cette cour de rejeter la requête du demandeur avec dépens que nous demandons à cette Cour de fixer à 200,00 $;
Page: 5
DISCUSSION
[11] I believe that it is now trite law that the only evidence that may be placed before the judge hearing a judicial review application is that evidence which was before the decision-maker whose decision is being judicially reviewed.
[12] There appears to be no doubt that the decision for which a judicial review application has been filed by the applicant was made on September 30, 1998wherein the Minister of National Revenue sent a request for information to the Internal Revenue Service of the United States.
[13] The affidavit that the present applicant asks to be filed and for which an extension of time was refused by the Prothonotary deals with an affidavit of Sydney Sweibel in which he wants to make evidence of facts that took place on September 14, 1999 (see affidavit of Sydney Sweibel at page 63 of Applicant's Motion Record).
[14] It is clear that the evidence, if true, may be relevant to the judicial review application filed by the applicant.
[15] It is also clear that this evidence was not made available to the applicant before the 14 `" of September 1999 and the applicant tried to file an affidavit soon after obtaining this information.
Page: 6
[16] I am told by counsel for both parties that the parties are in the process of crossexaminations of the affiants.
[17] I was also not given any evidence of any prejudice to the respondent.
[18] In addition, the judge who will hear the judicial review application will give what weight he or she will want to give to the statements made by Mr. Sweibel in his affidavit sworn on September 16, 1999 and will decide if any of this evidence should be allowed.
[19] As I have said, it is apparent that the evidence sworn to in Mr. Sweibel's affidavit only came to be known by him on September 14, 1999 and appears, and the judge hearing the judicial review will decide, to have some relevancy to the decision about the tax investigation of the applicant.
[20] The affidavit of Mr. Sweibel sworn to on September 16, 1999 may be filed and the judge hearing the judicial review will decide what weight, if any, will be given to the statements made by Mr. Sweibel.
[21] Costs in the cause.
"Max M. Teitelbaum"
J.F.C.C.
Ottawa, Ontario November 12, 1999
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF SOLICITORS AND SOLICITORS ON THE RECORD
COURT FILE NO.: T-34-99
STYLE OF CAUSE: Gabreil Azouz
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS DEALT WITH IN WRITING WITHOUT THE APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE TEITELBAUM
DATED: November 12, 1999
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY:
Mr. Michel Mathieu FOR APPLICANT
Ms. Maria Grazia Bittichesu FOR RESPONDENT Mr. Pierre Lamothe
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Sweibel Novak FOR APPLICANT Montréal, Québec
Mr. Morris Rosenberg FOR RESPONDENT Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Montréal, Québec