Recent Cases
Ryan et al. V. Minister of National Revenue
Client’s Problem
Alleged members of the UN gang were served with Letters of Requirement which demanded that they provide net worth statements for the past three tax years. Failure to respond would result in prosecution.
The concern was that the Minister had no real interest in the client’s tax affairs but rather was gathering information for the police. There is an exception to the privacy provisions of the Income Tax Act which permits the police to obtain taxpayer information from the Canada Revenue Agency, (“CRA”) when a charge is pending in court.
Instructions
Judicially review the decision of the Minister to issue the Letters of Requirement and seek an order quashing the letters.
Evidence Obtained on Cross-Examining CRA Witnesses
The Abbotsford Police had forwarded the client names to the Combined Forces Special Enforcement Unit, (“CFSEU”). CFSEU in turn had forwarded the client names to Income Tax investigators. There were discussions between members of the Abbotsford Police Department and the head of CFSEU with regards to obtaining information back from CRA arising from this referral.
The team leader who signed the Letters of Requirement did not have the authority to issue them.
Court Ruling
Letters of Requirement were quashed for the following reasons:
- They were not signed by the person with authority to issue them. Further the attempt by the Director of Vancouver Tax Service Office to delegate such power to the team leader was not permitted under the Income Tax Act.
- The Letters of Requirement were not issued for a purpose relevant to the administration and enforcement of the Income Tax Act. The best evidence of that was the manner of service of the Letters of Requirement: in the middle of the night with multiple police officers and police cars in a manner consistent with a police raid. The police entered the property of the clients, gathered information as to vehicles and persons present.
The Applicants were also awarded their costs of bringing the proceeding.
Read the Honourable Judge Michael L. Phelan’s judgement.
The Queen v. [Client Name Witheld]
Client’s Problem
The client was charged with two counts of sexual assault following two nights in which he slept at his friend’s sister’s house. The two nights were a month apart. A week after the latter night, the sister complained to the police she had been sexually assaulted in her bedroom which she slept with the client.
Instructions
Defend the charge. The client insisted he was innocent.
Trial Evidence
The complainant testified that she was sexually assaulted on the two occasions when the client slept over. She did not want to have sex with him. Further the sex they had was forced and very rough. She had received injuries on both occasions resulting in bruising. Following the last assault she showed the police her bruises.
The complainant was unable to explain why the police had no record of any bruising and did not take any photos of her injuries. She was not able to explain why she had invited the client over a second time after he had raped her on the first occasion. She was also not able to explain her delay in going to the police: a week after the second rape.
Most significantly, the complainant was contradicted on the statements that she had given the police.
The client did not testify.
Judge’s Ruling
Client was acquitted of both charges. The complainant’s evidence was not worthy of belief. The Crown had not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Queen v. Walker-Huria
Client’s Problem
The client was charged with second degree murder arising from a drunken confrontation with another young man. When interviewed by the police after speaking to counsel the client admitted to stabbing the young man but said he did not intend to kill him.
Instructions
Defend charge and attempt to reduce the charge from murder to manslaughter.
The Preliminary Inquiry
The evidence led by the Crown established that the client and his friends had been drinking heavily throughout the afternoon and evening of the day of the incident. The deceased and the client were dating the same girl. All three of them were drinking together and were later joined by the deceased best friend. At some point the deceased became upset at the client and started to berate him verbally, throw planters at the house, and demanding that he come outside and confront him. When the deceased was beating up and biting their respective girlfriend, the client exited the premises with a large kitchen knife and said: “I’ve got a knife you better watch out.”
The deceased reacted to the presence of the client by charging at him and right into the knife. The deceased suffered a single stab wound to the stomach which nicked his iliac artery. He was rushed to the local hospital and then transferred to Vancouver General Hospital. He died en route.
The Provincial Court Judge committed the client to trial and reduced the charge from murder to manslaughter.
Read the Honourable Judge J. Auxier’s ruling.
Plea and Sentencing
The client wished to plead guilty to manslaughter. He was able to do so before the same provincial court judge as a result of waiving eight other charges in from Ontario. The client received a total jail sentence of four years for the manslaughter and the Ontario charges. He was given credit for time served awaiting trial resulting in a remaining jail term of ten months.