Jason Morische

The applicant sought relief in a motion before the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The court reviewed the record and applied the governing legal and procedural standards, including deference to factual and discretionary determinations where required.

The matter concluded with the following disposition: Motion dismissed.

The accused applied for particulars under s. 587(1) of the Criminal Code in relation to a fraud charge alleging he participated in preparing false T1 income tax returns defrauding the Government of Canada of more than $5,000.

The accused argued the indictment was vague and failed to specify whether the alleged victim was the public or a person, identify co-participants, and identify the individuals referenced in the indictment.

The court held that a fraud against the Government of Canada clearly constitutes a fraud against the public and rejected the accused’s reliance on contrary appellate authority.

The court further found that the accused had already received extensive disclosure, including the identities of the 241 individuals whose tax returns were involved.

The indictment contained sufficient detail to comply with s. 581 of the Criminal Code, and the request for further particulars was dismissed.

The accused applied to quash production orders and search warrants obtained during a CRA criminal investigation into alleged tax-related fraud.

He argued that the Income Tax Act had not been proven to have received Royal Assent, that Ontario Court of Justice judges lacked jurisdiction to issue the warrants, and that requests for his tax returns violated his Charter rights under ss. 7 and 8.

The court rejected these arguments, holding that consolidated statutes published by the Minister constitute evidence of the statute’s existence, that Criminal Code investigative powers permit warrants issued by a justice, and that the requests to file overdue tax returns did not violate the Charter.

After excising references to the accused’s later tax returns from the information to obtain, the court found that reasonable grounds for the search warrants remained.