Cressaty v. M.N.R.
T-75-97
Morneau P.
5/2/97
10 pp.
Interrelationship between Customs Act, s. 135, Federal Court Act, s. 39 and Civil Code, art. 2895-Statement of claim filed on May 16, 1995 under Customs Act, s. 135 to appeal decision of M.N.R. dated March 12, 1996-On July 10, 1996, defendant presenting motion to strike out statement of claim; motion allowed on September 13, 1996-On December 12, 1996, plaintiff filing amended statement of claim in same case, now regarded as new statement of claim dated December 12-In instant motion, applicant arguing, based on date of Minister's decision (March 12) or of filing of statement of claim (May 16), appeal time-barred under Customs Act, s. 135 providing for mandatory limitation period of 90 days-Motion dismissed-Federal Court Act, s. 39 allowing reliance on Civil Code's rules of prescription, including art. 2895, contains rule dealing with interruption of prescriptive period, as apparently no federal provision dealing with interruption of prescriptive or limitation period contrary to art. 2895-Art. 2895 extending effect of interruption of prescriptive period, initially accomplished by filing on May 16, 1996-Affects institution of interruption of prescription by prolonging effect thereof, provided s. 135 limitation period initially complied with-Customs Act, R.S.C., 1985 (2nd Supp.), c. 1, s. 135 (as am. by S.C. 1990, c. 8, s. 49)-Federal Court Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. F-7, s. 39 (as am. by S.C. 1990, c. 8, s. 10)-Civil Code of Québec, art. 2895.