SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

COURT FILE NO.: 12-9675

DATE: 20150909

RE: R. v. Lawrence Watts

BEFORE: Bale J.

COUNSEL:
Erin Carley and Jason Morische, for the Crown

Lawrence Watts in person

HEARD: July 30 and 31, 2015

ENDORSEMENT

[1] The accused was charged with two counts of fraud pursuant to s. 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code. One of the counts has been stayed. The remaining count alleges that the accused:

between January 1, 2007 and December 1, 2011, in the City of Markham, in the Central East Region, and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario, by deceit, falsehood, or other fraudulent means, unlawfully did defraud the Government of Canada of money in an amount greater than five thousand dollars ($5,000), by participating in the preparation of false T1 Income Tax and Benefit Returns for individuals, thereby committing an offence contrary to section 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, as amended.

[2] On this application, the accused requests particulars pursuant to section 587(1) of the Code. He says that the charge, as stated in the indictment, is vague, unclear, unspecific and lacking in substance; and that, as a result, he doesn’t understand the charge, and will be unable to make full answer and defence, in the absence of the requested particulars.

[3] The particulars requested are the following:

• whether “Government of Canada” refers to the “public” or to a “person”;

• the identity of those with whom the accused is alleged to have participated in committing the offence;

• the identity of the “individuals” referred to in the indictment; and

• “documentary evidence of how any of the legislation previously referred to applies to the accused.”

[4] With respect “Government of Canada”, the accused points out that under s. 380 of the Code, one of the elements of the offence is that “the public or any person” be defrauded, and says that it is not clear to him in which of the two classes of victim “Government of Canada” is alleged to be. He suggests that it is in neither. In support of his argument, he relies upon the decision of the Prince Edward Island Court of Appeal in R. v. Laybolt (1985), 1985 173 (PE SCAD), 20 C.C.C. (3d) 263. In that case, on an indictment charging that the accused had defrauded “the Province of Prince Edward Island”, the court held that “the Province of Prince Edward Island is a small land mass separated from the mainland of Canada by the Strait of Northumberland. It cannot, in law, be defrauded.”

[5] For the following reasons, the decision in Laybolt is of no assistance to the accused in the present case. First, I don’t agree with it, and prefer the later decision in R. v. Goris (1986), 1986 7231 (NS CA), 75 N.S.R. (2d) 171, in which the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal came to the opposite conclusion on an indictment charging that an accused had defrauded the Province of Nova Scotia. Second, nothing could be more clear than that a fraud on the Government of Canada (being the set of institutions that govern this country) is a fraud on the public, and all those persons who comprise the public.

[6] With respect to the “individuals” referred to in the indictment, the accused has been provided with the names of the 241 persons whose tax returns are the subject of the charge. The persons with whom it is alleged he participated in preparing the returns are the same 241 persons, and anyone else that may have assisted him by entering data into his computer system.

[7] With respect to the request for documentary evidence of how s. 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code applies to him, the accused has been provided with a well-organized USB drive containing electronic copies of all of the exhibits that the Crown intends to tender at trial, as well as spreadsheets which summarize the case against him, with links to the supporting documents.

[8] The accused acknowledges that he has been given all of this information, but argues that it should have appeared in the indictment. He has not, however, moved for an order quashing the indictment.

[9] The application for particulars is dismissed. The accused has the requested particulars, and the indictment contains sufficient detail to comply with s. 581 of the Code.

Date: September 9, 2015