C. Zary

The accused, charged with fraud over $5,000 for allegedly defrauding the government of customs duties, brought a pre-trial motion to adduce alternate suspect evidence implicating five employees.

The Crown conceded for three employees but opposed for two.

The court granted the accused's application, finding sufficient connection between the employees and the crime.

The Crown also brought a motion to admit the videotaped statement of a deceased employee.

The court dismissed the Crown's application as premature, without prejudice to renew it before the close of its case.

The accused, a chartered accountant, was convicted of defrauding the Government of Canada of income tax and GST/HST over $5,000.

The Crown sought a three-year penitentiary sentence and a $500,000 fine, arguing the fraud exceeded $1 million.

The court found the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the fraud exceeded $1 million, so the statutory aggravating factor did not apply.

Considering the accused's lack of prior record, good character, and the availability of a conditional sentence at the time of the offence, the court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day and a fine of $445,789.30.

The applicant, charged with fraud related to an alleged RRSP stripping scheme, brought a Charter application under ss. 8 and 24(2) to exclude evidence seized from various financial institutions and his residence.

He argued the affiant made intentional misrepresentations and omissions in the Informations to Obtain (ITOs).

The court conducted a Garofoli review and found that, despite some minor errors and one misrepresentation regarding a CRA auditor's opinion, there remained sufficient evidence upon which the issuing justices could have granted the authorizations.

The court also found the applicant had a negligible expectation of privacy in the bank and business records.

The application was dismissed, and the court noted that even if a breach had occurred, the evidence would be admissible under s. 24(2).

The applicant, convicted of tax evasion and fined $687,000, applied for a ten-year extension to pay the outstanding fine.

The Crown consented to a two-year extension but sought an order for monthly payments.

The court granted the two-year extension without mandating monthly payments, noting the applicant's lack of financial disclosure and failure to seek employment, but finding that a monthly payment order would prioritize form over substance.

The accused applied under ss. 8 and 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to exclude documents seized from a correctional facility pursuant to a search warrant seeking handwriting samples connected to alleged tax fraud offences.

The court held that the accused had no reasonable expectation of privacy in documents contained in institutional administrative files, but retained a limited privacy interest in personal papers stored in his jail cell.

Although a correctional officer lawfully seized the accused’s belongings under institutional authority in preparation for the warrant’s execution, the police officer exceeded the scope of the warrant by seizing all property without first determining whether items fell within its terms.

This constituted a breach of s. 8.

Applying the framework in R. v. Grant, the court declined to exclude the evidence, finding the breach unintentional, the privacy impact minimal, and the evidence important to the prosecution.

Sentencing decision for two counts of fraud over $5,000 arising from an extensive tax fraud scheme committed by a tax preparer.

The offender manipulated client tax returns to include false deductions and unmade charitable donations, resulting in more than $17 million in tax evasion and significant financial hardship for numerous victims following reassessments by the Canada Revenue Agency.

The court found numerous aggravating factors under section 380.1 of the Criminal Code, including the magnitude and planning of the fraud, the large number of victims, and the offender’s abuse of trust.

No mitigating factors were identified, particularly given the offender’s lack of remorse and flight from the jurisdiction prior to trial.

Emphasizing general and specific deterrence, the court imposed maximum concurrent custodial sentences and a substantial fine equal to the taxes evaded on one count.

The Crown applied for a ruling that a criminal trial had commenced and that the accused had absconded, seeking authorization to continue the proceedings in the accused’s absence under ss. 475 and 598 of the Criminal Code.

The accused, charged with large-scale tax fraud involving thousands of income tax returns and millions of dollars in understated tax liability, failed to appear for scheduled trial proceedings despite prior compliance with court appearances.

The court found that the accused had deliberately absconded and that the trial had commenced when pre-trial motions were heard following the preferring of the indictment.

The court further held that the accused had waived her election for a jury trial by failing to appear without legitimate excuse.

However, the court concluded that it was not yet in the interests of justice to proceed with the trial in the accused’s absence and adjourned the Crown’s application to allow further efforts to locate the accused.