TC sends Collection Agency after me

This forum has been developed to discuss aviation related topics.

Moderators: lilfssister, North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, I WAS Birddog

Post Reply
CD
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2731
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 5:13 pm
Location: Canada

Post by CD »

complexintentions wrote:This fee is a tax, pure and simple, ostensibly for a service (AIP) that no longer exists in the form it did when this tax was introduced. (Read: implemented unilaterally with no debate nor input from those affected.)
Well, you actually did have the opportunity to debate and provide input if you were either a member of, or represented by a group that was part of the Regulatory Services Fees Technical Committee back in the 1990's:
The members of the Regulatory Services Fees Technical Committee of CARAC include Aero Club of Canada, Aerospace Industries Association of Canada, Air Canada, Aircraft Maintenance Engineers Association (Atlantic) Inc., Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association - Canada, Air Transport Association of Canada, Association québécoise des transporteurs aériens inc., Aviation Québec, British Columbia Aviation Council, Calgary Flying Club, Canada 3000 Airlines - Pilots Association, Canadian Airlines International, Canadian Air Line Pilots Association, Canadian Association of Aviation Colleges, Canadian Business Aircraft Association, Canadian Helicopters Ltd., Canadian Owners and Pilots Association, Canadian Transportation Agency, Central AME Association, Diamond Aircraft Industries, Experimental Aircraft Association - Canadian Council, Fantasy Sky Promotions, Helicopter Association of Canada, Home Aviation, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, International Council of Air Shows, Light Aircraft Manufacturers Association of Canada, Northern Air Transport Association, Phoenix Aviation Resources, Pratt and Whitney Canada Inc., Shuswap Air, Soaring Association of Canada, Ultralight Pilots Association of Canada, and Union of Canadian Transport Employees.
As a member of the general public, you also usually have the opportunity to provide comment on any regulation proposed by the Federal Government when it is published in the Canada Gazette. In the case of the fees charged, they have existed for years so I'm not sure when they were first introduced. The earliest publication that I have found online is old Air Regulation 820, which references a Schedule 1 where the fees at the time were:
Issue of a licence validation certificate for

(a) a commercial pilot or airline transport pilot
(i) for a six-month period - $45
(ii) for a one-year period - $70

(b) a private pilot, balloon pilot or glider pilot
(i) for a one-year period - $50
(ii) for a two-year period - $85
(iii) for a five-year period - $185

Old Air Regulations - Part VIII

When the fees were revised in 1997, we all missed the boat as the regulatory change document records the following information:
Consultation

Part I, Subpart 4 (Charges) was prepublished in Canada Gazette, Part I on 2 August 1997. Fewer than twenty comments were received many of which have been taken into account in the revisions to this regulation and its accompanying fee schedule...
RIAS Archive Files - Subpart 104 96-433 October 2, 1996
RIAS Archive Files - Subpart 104 97-542 December 24, 1997

When the fees were revised again in 2000, the public comment period was omitted as the regulatory change appears to have been published directly in the Canada Gazette, Part II:
Currently, Schedule IV to Subpart 4, item 20, lists a separate fee for the processing of a medical certificate for each combination of type of pilot licence or permit and for each validity period. The validity period is the maximum amount of time that a pilot may fly before he/she must again satisfy the Department of Transport that he/she continues to satisfy the medical criteria for the applicable licence or permit. These validity periods vary according to the type of licence or permit held and the age of the applicant. For example, the validity period for a commercial or airline transport pilot under 40 years old is 12 months while that for a commercial or airline transport pilot 40 or over is 6 months. On the other hand, the validity period for a recreational pilot permit may be either 2 years (for a pilot aged 40 or older) or 5 years (for a pilot younger than 40). In total, there are 14 separate combinations of pilot documents and validity periods for which a fee is charged for the processing of a medical certificate. The fees range from a low of $55, generally for a 6 month or a 12 month validity period, to $185, for a 5-year validity period. These fees were intended to recover not only the costs of processing medical certificates but also the costs of other services provided to pilots without charge, such as safety publications.

Over the coming year, Transport Canada intends to make many of its publications available on the Internet free of charge. Included in this plan are many of the safety publications provided to pilots. The costs of producing and mailing safety publications to pilots will significantly diminish. Consequently, the justification for higher fees based on the length of the medical certificate validity period diminishes as well.

This amendment will replace the 14 separate combinations of pilot documents and validity periods and the 4 alternative fees with a single fee for the processing of pilot medical certificates, regardless of the type of licence or permit held or of the length of the validity period. The new fee will be the lowest of the current 4 alternative possibilities, i.e., $55 for the processing of a medical certificate. Those pilots currently paying $55 for the processing of their medical certificates will continue to pay $55. Those pilots who currently pay more than $55 will realize a reduction of between $15 and $130 in the fees they pay under this proposal.

Consultation

The proposal to simplify the fees listed under CAR 104.01, Schedule IV, item 20 to a single fee of $55 was discussed at the Personnel Licensing and Training Technical Committee of the Canadian Aviation Regulation Advisory Council (CARAC) on March 28, 2000. Also discussed at that Technical Committee meeting was the proposal to fast-track this amendment by proceeding directly to final approval and publication in Part II of the Canada Gazette. The fast-tracking of this amendment is considered necessary to ensure equitable treatment of all pilots. New validity periods will be coming into force shortly and some of these do not have an existing fee for processing the medical certificate. Without the simplified fee structure, or some other similar regulatory amendment which would include these new validity periods, pilots subject to these new validity periods would not be subject to any medical certificate fee. This would result in some pilots being subject to fees for processing of their medical certificates and others not. Proceeding with the simplified, consolidated fee structure as soon as possible will avoid this inequitable situation.

At the Technical Committee meeting, Transport Canada committed to developing a brochure to explain the new simplified fee structure for distribution to aviation personnel. As well, notice of the proposed change will be placed in the July 13, 2000 Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP) to be sent to all pilots.

Industry representatives present during the Technical Committee meeting included participants from the Canadian Owners and Pilots Association (COPA), from the Airline Pilots Association (ALPA) and from the Air Transport Association of Canada (ATAC). The members of the Technical Committee indicated their support for the proposal to fast-track the publication of amendment to CAR 104.01, Schedule IV, item 20 which will address the simplified fee structure. These members have also agreed to participate in communicating the details of the fee simplification and to prepare information articles for publication in trade magazines and newsletters.
RIAS Archive Files - Canada Gazette, Part II (Subpart 104 - July 5, 2000)
---------- ADS -----------
 
Justwannafly
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 896
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 12:12 am
Location: Cyberspace

Post by Justwannafly »

the_professor wrote:
the_professor wrote:I started reading this thread 8 pages ago and then stopped.

And it is still going on.

What a petty bunch of people, complaining about a charge that amounts to either $0.15/day or $0.30/day (age dependant) to keep your flying privileges valid.

Give me a fucking break.

Do you think they'd complain about stupid shit like this in Iraq, where people blow themselves up in supermarkets on a daily basis?

Jesus Christ, you guys. Give it up.
I can see why so many operators allegedly act like dickheads towards their employees, if this is the kind of shit you guys complain about. It is probably the most pathetic thing I've ever seen.
Wow...not only did you post 3 posts in a row...BUT you quoted your self!

& yea get a life....NO ONE here is talk'n about Iraq WTH are you?.... Next thing your going to do is tell us to eat our veggies cuase there are starving kids in Iraq who dont get to eat them.....Why don't YOU go to IRAQ, make sure to put a sign on your back that says "I'm far superior to everyone else"

Aparently you havn't been paying attention durring the last 8 pages, so let me explain it to you....What we are talking about is TC charging us for something that doesn't exist & then AFTER we pay this BS tax sending us to the collections agency.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Image
Justwannafly
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 896
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 12:12 am
Location: Cyberspace

Post by Justwannafly »

Justwannafly wrote:
the_professor wrote:
the_professor wrote:I started reading this thread 8 pages ago and then stopped.

And it is still going on.

What a petty bunch of people, complaining about a charge that amounts to either $0.15/day or $0.30/day (age dependant) to keep your flying privileges valid.

Give me a fucking break.

Do you think they'd complain about stupid shit like this in Iraq, where people blow themselves up in supermarkets on a daily basis?

Jesus Christ, you guys. Give it up.
I can see why so many operators allegedly act like dickheads towards their employees, if this is the kind of shit you guys complain about. It is probably the most pathetic thing I've ever seen.
Wow...not only did you post 3 posts in a row...BUT you quoted your self!

& yea get a life....NO ONE here is talk'n about Iraq WTH are you?.... Next thing your going to do is tell us to eat our veggies cuase there are starving kids in Iraq who dont get to eat them.....Why don't YOU go to IRAQ, make sure to put a sign on your back that says "I'm far superior to everyone else"

Aparently you havn't been paying attention durring the last 8 pages, so let me explain it to you....What we are talking about is TC charging us for something that doesn't exist & then AFTER we pay this BS tax sending us to the collections agency.
Just Quoting my self so I can be like my hero "the_professor" :P
---------- ADS -----------
 
Image
the_professor
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1130
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 3:03 pm

Post by the_professor »

complexintentions wrote:Your rant is one of the most pathetic and bizarre ones I've ever read on this forum, suggesting ANYONE on this thread is equating the medical fee ripoff with suicide bombers in Iraq. WTF? That's like saying we shouldn't be trying to solve our local problems because, y'know, like, people are starving in Africa.
I wasn't equating the two issues, you fool.

I'm saying that if the $55 fee is enough for you guys to start mobilizing some sort of letter-writing campaign, then you really must not have much to worry about in your life..... unlike people in Iraq who, instead of worrying about government tax grabs, instead have to worry about IEDs and suicide bombers.

Sorry if you're too juvenille to see why some perspective is needed.

$0.15/day. You've got to be kidding me.
---------- ADS -----------
 
the_professor
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1130
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 3:03 pm

Post by the_professor »

gr8gazu wrote:Fight it anyway you like but in the mean time, pay it. If it is affecting your credit rating, who is to blame but you?
No shit.

For anyone whose credit rating has been affected by non-payment of the fee because you protested by not paying it (always a smart approach to dealing with the government), please PM me with your company name. I want to make sure I'm never dumb enough to get on board an aircraft where the PIC's judgement is that poor.

This thread's title should read "The crybaby crowd" :smt010
---------- ADS -----------
 
Youngback
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 372
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 10:08 pm
Location: 15,070km from CYYJ
Contact:

Post by Youngback »

In my case the collections letter was the first notice I got about the amount.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Cat Driver
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 18921
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm

Post by Cat Driver »

the -professor:

This shows the shallow depth of understanding you have regarding the excessive tax structure in Canada.
" Sorry if you're too juvenille to see why some perspective is needed.

$0.15/day. You've got to be kidding me. "
Fees are nothing less than double taxation, if you are to lacking in brain power to figure out the concept of death by a thousand cuts I suggest you research how many other "fees" your government keep piling on you poor sheep.

And please do not include me in your assumption that we are juvenile.
---------- ADS -----------
 
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no


After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
Youngback
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 372
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 10:08 pm
Location: 15,070km from CYYJ
Contact:

Post by Youngback »

Professor, you tell us to get a grip when there are people in Iraq getting bombed and people starving in Africa, yet there is another major issue that will affect us (global warming) and you bury your head in the sand. Good on ya for stepping up to the plate and showing us how it's done.
---------- ADS -----------
 
the_professor
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1130
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 3:03 pm

Post by the_professor »

Cat Driver wrote:This shows the shallow depth of understanding you have regarding the excessive tax structure in Canada.
Based on what I paid in tax last year, according to the stats can site, I am in a higher tax bracket than the majority of the people on this board, and I am well aware of taxation policies.
Cat Driver wrote:Fees are nothing less than double taxation
Fees can be double taxation. That does not mean all fees are double taxation.

Let's play this game: I am Transport, and you are yourself. You and others are always bitching about the lack of oversight of smaller operators. So I, as Transport, tell you that the funds for the medical fee are now used to pay the salaries of 35 inspectors across the country. You want to dump the fee? Well then we'll dump 35 inspectors.

Happy now?

(your turn to respond)
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Cat Driver
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 18921
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm

Post by Cat Driver »

" Based on what I paid in tax last year, according to the stats can site, I am in a higher tax bracket than the majority of the people on this board, and I am well aware of taxation policies "
Based on what I paid in income tax last year I must have zero understanding of your tax burden. Thanks to your thugs in TCCA I no longer am a productive citizen in Canada.
" Fees can be double taxation. That does not mean all fees are double taxation.

Let's play this game: I am Transport, and you are yourself. You and others are always bitching about the lack of oversight of smaller operators. So I, as Transport, tell you that the funds for the medical fee are now used to pay the salaries of 35 inspectors across the country. You want to dump the fee? Well then we'll dump 35 inspectors.

Happy now? "
If fees levied by a government are not a tax, what are they, a tithe to your beliefe system or maybe a willing gift?

Lets play this game, pretend I am Transoprt.

I would get rid of all the deadwood on the payroll and use the monies already being pissed against the wall employing people like you who are unable to recognize inneficiency when they see it in action.

There would then be sufficient money to send inspectors into the field to actually do something worthwhile such as find the outlaws and shut them down.
" Happy now? "
No I am not, I am depressed reading this myopic drivel you are trying to pass off as being a realistic observation of the subjects being discussed here.
" (your turn to respond) "


No need for you to respond, we have already laid out our positions.

Cat
---------- ADS -----------
 
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no


After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
xsbank
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5655
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 4:00 pm
Location: "The Coast"

Post by xsbank »

Professor, what an annoying little pratt you are. If you do not wish to deal with the issue then stop posting and wasting our time.

The issue is unfair, discriminatory taxation for an alleged purpose that has no meaning as the task is already performed by our doctors. It sucks money out of the hands of those who either can't afford it or whom already pay too much tax; takes significant revenue from companies that pay it on our behalf and plays fast and loose with the taxation system.

What do we get for it? A laser-copied piece of paper that the doc has already hand-written and diminishing service from the regulator.

Its the f*cking principal that has everyone exercised, not the money. Maybe all this energy can be channelled into something useful, coz God knows we rarely agree on anything.
---------- ADS -----------
 
"What's it doing now?"
"Fly low and slow and throttle back in the turns."
xsbank
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5655
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 4:00 pm
Location: "The Coast"

Post by xsbank »

DP
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by xsbank on Sat Mar 17, 2007 2:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"What's it doing now?"
"Fly low and slow and throttle back in the turns."
xsbank
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5655
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 4:00 pm
Location: "The Coast"

Post by xsbank »

DP
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by xsbank on Sat Mar 17, 2007 2:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"What's it doing now?"
"Fly low and slow and throttle back in the turns."
the_professor
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1130
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 3:03 pm

Post by the_professor »

Youngback wrote:Professor, you tell us to get a grip when there are people in Iraq getting bombed and people starving in Africa, yet there is another major issue that will affect us (global warming) and you bury your head in the sand. Good on ya for stepping up to the plate and showing us how it's done.
Having a dissenting opinion does not equate to burying one's head in the sand. Quite the contrary in fact. It is those who are unquestioning in their acceptance of the majority opinion that are burying their heads in the sand.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Cat Driver
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 18921
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm

Post by Cat Driver »

" Having a dissenting opinion does not equate to burying one's head in the sand. Quite the contrary in fact. It is those who are unquestioning in their acceptance of the majority opinion that are burying their heads in the sand. "
Spoken like a true bureaucrat, pure gobbldy gook word salading.
---------- ADS -----------
 
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no


After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
the_professor
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1130
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 3:03 pm

Post by the_professor »

xsbank wrote: Its the f*cking principal that has everyone exercised, not the money. Maybe all this energy can be channelled into something useful, coz God knows we rarely agree on anything.
Agreed. But if you're going to channel energy into improving something for the pilot community, it seems like there should be much bigger & better battles than a $0.15/day irritant, principle or not.

Anyway, back to your 9 page rant. I won't bother you with any more posts on this one.
---------- ADS -----------
 
LH
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1364
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 12:39 am
Location: Canada

Post by LH »

Professor -------I have asked Ottawa some time ago what the $55 fee was for because at that point I had never been asked to pay it before.
I was told that I always had paid a fee similar to that, but the payment was hidden in other tax revenues. I asked what the fee was for and they replied..."It's a filing fee, to put it into the system via computer and then the hard copy into a filing cabinet basically". They explained that the only difference now was that those having need of the service were the ones that would pay and that it wouldn't be paid out of the General Revenues of the Ministry any longer. So based upon what you have stated, someone at the Ministry of Transport either lied to you or me. Please don't tell me that they really didn't lie to either of us because that's tantamount to being "half-pregnant" and that may apply in Ottawa, but in my world that's termed "bafflegab" or B.S.

I have no problem at all with "user pay" Professor. My gas taxes also "supposedly" pay for my use of the various national highway sytems and again, I have no problem with the principle there of "use pay" either. You don't use the highways, then you don't pay a gas tax...simple. If i personally don't agree with the amount of that "user fee" then I drive less and therefore pay less.

I'll tell you what I DO have a problem with Professor. The idea that it takes that long to enter my medical information "into the system" that it costs $55 to do so. Some sot is woefully slow in their job or some s.o.b. at Transport is grossly overpaid. They are represented by CUPE with the Federal government and don't hesitate to go on strike for whatever. I'm represented by ME only and I'm going on strike against CUPE then. Once they decide that they will charge a reasonable amount for this service they extend in my direction, then I'll be front and center to pay for that service.

Oh yes and the item about Iraq. You'll have to forgive folks like me on that one Professor. See, when I was a kid I was told that I should eat everything on my plate because tonight some poor, starving Chinese kid was going to go to bed without a meal and I should keep that in mind and always eat all of my food even if I didn't like it. That went on for years until one evening when my Mom said it again, I asked her......."Name one Chinese kid". That statement was NEVER said to me again to this day. For that reason Professor your comments about the people of Iraq have small effect on me because as long as I have drawn a breath on this earth, there have always been people starving, being abused because of their race, religion or otherwise and being shot, bombed, raped and/or pursecuted............and I ain't allowing people like you to lay the "guilt trip" on me any longer. See, according to UN stats, there are an average of 49 wars going on during any given year and Iraq id just another one or flavour if you like.
---------- ADS -----------
 
CD
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2731
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 5:13 pm
Location: Canada

Post by CD »

LH wrote:They are represented by CUPE with the Federal government and don't hesitate to go on strike for whatever. I'm represented by ME only and I'm going on strike against CUPE then.
Not that I would complain about your strike against CUPE, but I think you really meant either PSAC or AOGA... CUPE doesn't seem to represent anyone in the Federal Government:

Treasury Board - Collective Agreements (see Bargaining Agents)
CUPE

I also found some history on the charges earlier: Page 8, post 199
---------- ADS -----------
 
LH
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1364
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 12:39 am
Location: Canada

Post by LH »

Ohhhhh, I'm not signing or writing "diddley squat" to be sent anywhere. My momma raised no stupid kids. My lawyer does the letter writing for me as he is the aviation expert. Since the articulling students who do the research for him, do not do so for free, I have copied-down everything in your post and ALL references to anything that Ottawa"spewed-out" concerning this over the years. I thank you for the info and it will be duly noted by me that you helped "grease the skids" for him and/or I.
---------- ADS -----------
 
capt_yaw
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 30
Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2006 8:42 pm

Post by capt_yaw »

" Based on what I paid in tax last year, according to the stats can site, I am in a higher tax bracket than the majority of the people on this board, and I am well aware of taxation policies "
Who would actually bother to look up this stat? The fact that you talk about how much *money* you make makes you a bit of a loser.. Who really cares how much you make. Paying more in taxes doesn't make you more aware of taxation policies either.. If you knew the policies well enough, you would be paying less taxes.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
complexintentions
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2186
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 3:49 pm
Location: of my pants is unknown.

Post by complexintentions »

Taken from another thread...
the_professor wrote: Based on what I've observed on radar, the 727 is consistently in the top three fastest types if you're talking commercial airliners. The only other two types that will consistently match the 27 are the 744 and the MD11, followed closely by the 767. But frequently the 27 still has 20-30kts on those guys. The 27 will sometimes cruise 100+kts faster than a 320/737/RJ.

There aren't even many bizjets that I've observed that are as fast as the 27.

I guess from an Mmo perspective, when all types are considered, both the B744 and the C750 (Citation X) are rated highest at M0.92.

So at least the deafening roar from those three holes is not in vain... Not bad for a type that has been flying for decades.
So let me get this straight...we have a guy who is presumably ATC, who holds a TC medical, but doesn't pay for it (not unless he happens to be a pilot as well, as many ATC's seem to be wannabe's). And while he's making a decent salary, calling pilots, many of who do NOT make a decent salary...whiners for fighting what they feel is an onerous fee?

I hate to use the same epithet twice in the same thread, but the term "asshole" is about the only one that fits.

I don't pay the fee amymore, having left the socialist paradise of Canada..but tell ya what "Prof" (holy geez), you can step up and pay a few of those pitiful "15 cents a day" fees for a few pilots if it's such a trifle...lol
---------- ADS -----------
 
I’m still waiting for my white male privilege membership card. Must have gotten lost in the mail.
trey kule
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4766
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 7:09 pm

Post by trey kule »

CD.

You gave a reference to the Aeronautics Act regarding the lawful collection of debt owed the Queen. I could not find anywhere in there where it allowed them to attach a garnishee to one's income tax refund.
It did however , very clearly refer to the courts as being used as a remedy. I dont think the courts were involved in the garnishee of tax refunds.

I await your clarification of this reference, as I think maybe this is something that should be brought up with out MP's if Tc has been doing something illegal. It would not be the first time that TC has chosen to ignore the law of the land in order to persue their objectives.

As to this not being worth enough to argue on principal. Its like being pregnant. You are or your not (a teutology, I believe to a philosopher).
It may be on ly $55.00 to a person, but what is the total amount (in millions) that they are gouging us for.

I am glad to see so many in our industry actually standing up to this. If we can remain solid and not pay it despite their tactics, we just might see a change.
---------- ADS -----------
 
snaproll20
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 636
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 7:50 pm

Post by snaproll20 »

i don't think the "professor" is TC, ATC or any of the other "Cs", including "conscious"..

It is clear that he is in some mental institution. Or, he crosses the river daily from Quebec, to drink coffee in that ivory tower equivalent to a mental institution, where soaring thoughts of grandeur are more of a bubble of gas from a septic field.

I don't think I would like to die to protect his right of free expression.

please, ignore him.
---------- ADS -----------
 
CD
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2731
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 5:13 pm
Location: Canada

Post by CD »

trey kule wrote:You gave a reference to the Aeronautics Act regarding the lawful collection of debt owed the Queen. I could not find anywhere in there where it allowed them to attach a garnishee to one's income tax refund.

It did however , very clearly refer to the courts as being used as a remedy. I dont think the courts were involved in the garnishee of tax refunds.
I'm sure that I don't know... I do see that both the Act and the Canada Gazette publications related to the charges both refer to a "...court of competent jurisdiction..." I have an idea of what this may entail but couldn't find a half-decent, generic definition via Google. I also note that the Canada Gazette publications include this notification:
Compliance and Enforcement

Charges payable under these Regulations will be recovered through the Department’s current administrative collection procedures. Collection of outstanding debts due the Crown may, through the provisions set out in sections 4.4 and 4.5 of the Aeronautics Act, be recovered in any court of competent jurisdiction.
I suppose that one would have to dig into the history behind those "administrative collection procedures" to really determine where that all comes from... :?:

Perhaps LH can have his lawyers articling students sink their teeth into that one... :wink:
---------- ADS -----------
 
LH
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1364
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 12:39 am
Location: Canada

Post by LH »

I have no doubt that any and all cases would be heading towards something called "Tax Court". It's jurisdiction relates to tax and revenue matters. It was created in 1983 to replace the Tax Review Board. It also could be termed " a court of competent jurisdiction".

Garnishee orders all have to originate and be signed by some Judge or his legally designated representative in some form of Office/Chambers before they can be enacted. Compare them to something like Search Warrants if you like. Good and proper evidence for obtaining same has to be produced and questions answered, Once that is satisfied to their satisfaction, then the paperwork to make it legal is generated and sent out to the various locations/offices doing the actual granishee. Once they have that, it is treated as an order from a Judge and they have the document to validate their actions. Without that, nothing gets done nor commences because withholding money from paycheques without said documents leads to a wide world of other grief.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “General Comments”