Angle v. MNR (1974), 2 N.R. 397 (SCC)
MLB headnote and full text
Angle v. Minister of National Revenue
Indexed As: Angle v. Minister of National Revenue
Supreme Court of Canada
Martland, Judson, Spence, Laskin and Dickson, JJ.
May 27, 1974.
Summary:
This case arose out of an application by a taxpayer to set aside a writ of extent in the third degree which was issued against the taxpayer on an ex parte application by the Crown. The Crown alleged that a company owed income tax to the Crown in excess of $100,000. and that a company controlled by the taxpayer was indebted to the first company. In turn, the Crown alleged that the taxpayer was indebted to the company controlled by the taxpayer. The taxpayer alleged that the purported debt owing to the company controlled by the taxpayer could not support the writ of extent because the taxpayer had been assessed for benefits which gave rise to the debt – the assessment was affirmed after trial by the Exchequer Court. An application to the Exchequer Court to set aside the writ of extent against the taxpayer was dismissed.
On appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada the appeal was dismissed and the judgment of the Exchequer Court respecting the validity of the writ of extent was affirmed. The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Crown was not estopped from alleging the existence of the debt because of the earlier adjudication by the Exchequer Court. The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the tax assessment in respect of the benefit received by the taxpayer is not inconsistent with the obligation to pay for the benefit – see paragraph 6. Laskin and Spence, JJ., dissenting, would have set aside the writ of extent because when the taxpayer in the earlier proceedings alleged a loan as the defence to the assessment and the allegation failed, then such allegation cannot later be “reactivated as between the same parties to provide a different basis upon which to attempt to capture the same sum twice” – see paragraph 25.
Estoppel – Topic 380
Estoppel by record – Res judicata as to subsequent proceedings – A taxpayer was assessed for benefits (indoor swimming pool) which the taxpayer received from a company which was controlled by the taxpayer – The assessment was affirmed after trial in the Exchequer Court – Subsequently in a separate matter a writ of extent in the third degree was issued by the Crown against the taxpayer on the allegation that the taxpayer was indebted to the company which debt arose out of the receipt of the swimming pool by the taxpayer – The Supreme Court of Canada refused to set aside the writ of extent against the taxpayer because the indebtedness of the taxpayer to the company for the swimming pool was not abrogated by the Exchequer Court decision – The Supreme Court of Canada stated that a tax assessment for a benefit received is not inconsistent with an obligation to pay for the benefit – See paragraph 6.
Evidence – Topic 2245
Judicial notice of judicial proceedings – Proof of reasons of judgment – The Supreme Court of Canada granted leave to counsel to refer to reasons of judgment in another matter in the same court which reasons for judgment were not proved at trial – See paragraph 13.
Estoppel – Topic 251
Estoppel by record – Purpose of the rule of issue estoppel and cause of action estoppel – The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the rule is founded on “the general interest of the community in the termination of disputes, and in the finality and conclusiveness of judicial decisions and … the right of the individual to be protected from vexatious multiplication of suits and prosecutions …” – See paragraph 23.
Cases Noticed:
Thoday v. Thoday (1964) P. 181, 198, folld. [paras. 3, 16].
Hoysted v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1921), 29 C.L.R. 537, 561, folld. [paras. 3, 20].
Carl Zeiss Stiftung v. Rayner & Keeler Ltd. (No. 2), [1967] 1 A.C. 853, 935, folld. [paras. 3, 16, 20].
Duchess of Kingston’s Case (1776), 20 St. Tr. 355, 538n, folld. [paras. 3, 24].
R. v. Hutchings (1881), 6 Q.B.D. 300, 304, folld. [para. 3].
Society of Medical Officers of Health v. Hope, [1960] A.C. 551, folld. [paras. 3, 20].
Hoystead v. Commissioners of Taxation, [1926] A.C. 155, folld. [para. 3].
Spens v. I.R.C., [1970] 3 All E.R. 295, 301, folld. [para. 3].
Curlett v. Minister of National Revenue, [1961] Ex. C.R. 427, folld. [para. 6].
R. v. Poynton, [1972] 3 O.R. 727, folld. [para. 6].
Attorney General for Trinidad and Tobago v. Eriche, [1893] A.C. 518, 522, folld. [para. 7].
Angle v. Minister of National Revenue, [1969] C.T.C. 624, refd to. [para. 12].
Blair v. Curran (1939), 62 C.L.R. 464, folld. [para. 16].
Caffoor v. Income Tax Commissioner, [1961] A.C. 584, folld. [para. 20].
Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd. v. Broken Hill Municipal Council, [1926] A.C. 94, folld. [para. 20].
New Brunswick Railway Co. v. British and French Trust Corp. Ltd., [1939] A.C. 1, folld. [para. 23].
McIntosh v. Parent (1924), 55 O.L.R. 552, folld. [para. 23].
Wright, McDermott and Feeley v. The Queen, [1963] S.C.R. 539, folld. [para. 24].
Fonseca v. Attorney General of Canada (1889), 17 S.C.R. 612, folld. [para. 24].
Counsel:
C.C. Sturrock, for the appellant;
N.A. Chalmers, Q.C. and G.O. Eggertson, for the respondent.
This appeal was heard by the Supreme Court of Canada on November 7, 1973. Judgment was delivered by the Supreme Court of Canada, May 27, 1974 and the following opinions were filed:
DICKSON, J. – see paragraphs 1 to 9;
LASKIN, C.J.C. – see paragraphs 10 to 27.
MARTLAND and JUDSON, JJ., concurred with DICKSON, J.
SPENCE, J., concurred with LASKIN, J.
