|
Stare Decisis - Federal Court. Best Buy Canada Ltd. v. Canada (Border Services Agency)
In Best Buy Canada Ltd. v. Canada (Border Services Agency) (Fed CA, 2025) the Federal Court of Appeal dismisses a joint appeal/JR application, here seeking to "set aside the decision of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal".
Here Stratas JA usefully discusses stare decisis (in the relationship between decisions of courts of different rank), and horizontal stare decisis (in the relationship between decisions of courts of same rank):A. The statutory appeal
[2] The Tribunal classified certain goods, wine coolers, for tariff purposes. The appellant says that in doing so, the Tribunal erred in law by following an earlier decision of this Court: Danby Products Limited v. Canada (Border Services Agency), 2021 FCA 82, leave dismissed on January 20, 2022 (S.C.C. No. 39755). The appellant urges us to reverse Danby. If Danby still applies, we must dismiss the appeal.
[3] Danby decided the issues in this case, particularly the issues of legislative interpretation. We must follow Danby and cannot consider new issues related to legislative interpretation like the presumption of ordinary meaning, unless Danby is "“manifestly wrong”", i.e., it "“overlooked a relevant statutory provision, or a case that ought to have been followed”" or can be distinguished on its facts: R. v. Sullivan, 2022 SCC 19, [2022] 1 S.C.R. 460; Miller v. Canada, 2002 FCA 370 at para. 10. We are an intermediate appellate court, not an apex court like the Supreme Court. We can depart from previous decisions only exceptionally when the exacting criteria in Miller are met.
[4] In Danby, this Court cited portions of Sullivan on the Construction of Statutes, 6th ed. (Markham, Ontario: LexisNexis, 2014). The appellant says this Court did not rely on other portions of the Sullivan text, thereby "“overlooking an authority”". But under Miller at para. 10, "“overlooking an authority”" is a high, rarely met threshold: the fundamental basis of the previous authority must be open to serious question or is incontestably wrong. This promotes stability, a highly prized value: Canada v. Boloh 1(a), 2023 FCA 120 at para. 24.
[5] Here, rather than working within the strictures of Miller, the appellant reargues the merits of Danby, going deeply into its reasoning, such as how it used the Sullivan text or went about legislative interpretation. It does so, just like we are sitting in an appeal from Danby. But we do not sit on appeal from other panels: Ignace v. Canada (Attorney General), 2019 FCA 239 at para. 27; Apotex Inc. v. Eli Lilly Canada Inc., 2016 FCA 267, [2017] 3 F.C.R. 145 at para. 2. In this case, if Danby is to be reversed, the appellant should seek leave to the Supreme Court.
[6] The appellant says that the evidentiary record in Danby was sparse compared to this case, it answered a call in Danby for evidence of trade meaning, and so we should revisit Danby. But, in a factual finding that binds us, the Tribunal found (at para. 39) that the "“padded evidentiary record”" was "“of the same nature” "and only "“slightly different”" from Danby. In its view, the evidence did not "“fundamentally [shift] the parameters of the debate”" (at para. 38). Miller does not allow us to depart from an earlier authority just because it was not prosecuted or decided as well as it might have been: see, e.g., David Polowin Real Estate Ltd. v. Dominion of Canada General Insurance Co. (2005), 2005 CanLII 21093 (ON CA), 255 D.L.R. (4th) 633 (Ont. C.A.) at para. 113, citing R. v. Bell (1977), 1977 CanLII 42 (ON CA), 75 D.L.R. (3d) 755 (Ont. C.A.) at 761.
[7] The Tribunal, bound by Danby, applied it without legal error. We are not persuaded that the Tribunal committed legal error in any other way. Thus, we will dismiss the statutory appeal with costs. . Magren Holdings Ltd v. Canada
In Magren Holdings Ltd v. Canada (Fed CA, 2024) the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed a appeal, this from a dismissed Tax Court appeal, this from a Ministerial assessment "imposing tax on the basis that all of the capital dividends those corporations paid in 2006 were excess dividends", and "where a corporation pays a capital dividend in excess of the balance of its capital dividend account, the corporation is liable for tax".
Here the court considers horizontal stare decisis, here in the federal court:[99] Absent "“exceptional circumstances”", decisions of a panel of this Court also bind future panels of this Court: Miller v. Canada (Attorney General) 2002 FCA 370, 220 D.L.R. (4th) 149 at para. 9; Feeney v. Canada, 2022 FCA 190, 2022 A.C.W.S. 5833 at para. 16; Chen v. Canada, 2023 FCA 146, 2023 A.C.W.S. 2685. Exceptional circumstances exist "“where the decision was ‘manifestly wrong’, in the sense that the Court overlooked a relevant statutory provision, or case that ought to have been followed”", "“when the decision has been overtaken by subsequent Supreme Court jurisprudence”", or "“where there are compelling reasons to [depart from the previous decision] and correctness prevails over certainty”": Tan v. Canada (Attorney General), 2018 FCA 186, [2019] 2 F.C.R. 648 at para. 31.
|
