Judgments

Decision Information

Decision Content

A-241-78
The Queen (Appellant)
v.
Emilien Letarte (Respondent)
Court of Appeal, Pratte and Le Dain JJ. and Hyde D.J.—Montreal, October 21, 1980.
Customs and excise — Appeal from decision of Trial Judge that seizure of undeclared goods was unlawfully made despite fact that par. 18(6) of Customs Act had not been complied with — Whether the good faith of declarants is a consideration when applying s. 180 of the Act — Appeal allowed — Customs Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-40, ss. 18(b), 180.
APPEAL. COUNSEL:
J. M. Aubry for appellant. M. Kaylor for respondent.
SOLICITORS:
Deputy Attorney General of Canada for appellant.
Gottlieb, Kaylor & Swift, Montreal, for respondent.
The following is the English version of the reasons for judgment of the Court delivered orally by
PRATTE J.: We are all of the view that the appeal should be allowed.
It is clear that paragraph 18(b) of the Customs Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-40, was not observed in the case at bar. The decision of the Trial Judge [[1979] 1 F.C. 605] that, despite this fact, the seizure of the undeclared goods was not legally made appears to have been based on the good faith of the truckers, who failed to comply with para graph 18(b). This reasoning appears to the Court to be without legal validity. Under section 180, a seizure results from failure to comply with section 18, regardless of whether the individuals in ques tion acted in good faith.
Counsel for the respondent argued that the sei zure was premature. In his submission, when the customs officers realized that the truckers con cerned in this matter had made incomplete decla-
rations, they should have brought this irregularity to their attention and asked them to correct it. The Court finds no support for this argument in statute or precedent.
The appeal will accordingly be allowed with costs, the decision of the Trial Judge will be quashed and the action of respondent dismissed with costs.
 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.