A Prince George couple alleging Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) trespassed on their property and falsely imprisoned them will not get their day in court
because they missed the deadline for
filing a legal action, a B.C. Supreme Court Justice found.
According to a reasons for judgment released Monday, Nathan and Elly Foote also claimed the CRA breached their privacy and Charter Rights, but those allegations too will not be heard after Supreme Court Justice John Savage ruled on Monday that they took too long to take the matters to court.
The Footes did get a break on one other allegation - that CRA committed public misfeasance by ignoring evidence in the Footes favour and concealing it in
pursuit of a warrant.
The Footes argue they learned of this only after receiving a response through an access to information request sometime after the search warrant had been conducted and therefore deserve more time.
The couple argued their delayed legal action was a result of the time it took to get all the necessary documents together. However in making the ruling, Savage agreed with CRA counsel that their claims are too late under the province's Limitation Act.
In most cases involving personal or economic injury, the statute sets out a two-year limit on the time a plaintiff can launch an action after the date on which the right to do so arose.
The Footes filed their action against CRA on March 31, 2010, slightly more than three years after CRA executed a search warrant on the Footes' home and business on March 14, 2007, which
Savage said was the root of the matter.
The search warrant was executed as part of a criminal investigation the CRA was conducting against the Footes. The investigation ended Feb. 25, 2009 with no charges being laid, and the Footes were advised of the outcome by letter dated March 17, 2009.
However, the Footes' daughters are now under investigation after CRA learned the Footes transferred funds to them prior to declaring bankruptcy.
The CRA assessed the daughters in June 2009 and notices of objection to those assessments have since been filed, Savage noted in the judgment.
Savage concluded the issue could not be properly heard under the type of application CRA had made to dismiss the claims.
