R. v. Brooks (J.) et al.,

• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Judge: Kennedy
• Neutral Citation: 2003 NSSC 149
• Date: 14 January 2003
• Court: Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)

R. v. Brooks (J.) (2003), 215 N.S.R.(2d) 182 (SC);

 675 A.P.R. 182

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2003] N.S.R.(2d) TBEd. JL.026

Her Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. Jason Brooks and Elson Safatli (respondents)

(ST 181474; ST 181475; 2003 NSSC 149)

Indexed As: R. v. Brooks (J.) et al.

Nova Scotia Supreme Court

Kennedy, C.J.S.C.

July 15, 2003.

Summary:

Brooks was convicted under s. 78(3)(a)(ii) of the Revenue Act Regulations for selling more than five cartons of cigarettes to a consumer. Safatli was convicted under s. 40 of the Revenue Act with transporting tobacco without possession of the required documentation. The sentencing judge ordered forfeiture of the cigarettes and fined Brooks $2,000 and Safatli $1,000. The Crown appealed the sentences.

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court allowed the appeal and imposed the minimum fine of $10,000 on each accused.

Sales and Service Taxes - Topic 3842

Tobacco tax - Offences and penalties - Contraband, possession, sales, etc. - Brooks was convicted under s. 78(3)(a)(ii) of the Revenue Act Regulations for selling more than five cartons of cigarettes - Safatli was convicted under s. 40 of the Revenue Act with transporting tobacco without possessing the required documentation - When the offences were committed, s. 89(1) of the Act provided a minimum fine of $10,000 - Before sentencing, s. 89 was amended - The accused were entitled to the benefit of any lesser punishment - The new s. 89(2) provided a greater penalty than the old s. 89(1) and applied to offences involving possession, purchase, acquisition or storage of tobacco - If the offences did not fall under s. 89(2), the new s. 89(1) applied (lesser punishment) - The sentencing judge strictly interpreted s. 89(2) to not apply to "selling" and "transporting" - Accordingly, the new s. 89(1) applied and the accused were sentenced to fines of $2,000 and $1,000 respectively - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court held that the trial judge's strict interpretation created an irrational result - Interpreting s. 89(2) according to its plain meaning and legislative intent, the offences fell under the new s. 89(2) (greater punishment), so the old s. 89(1) (lesser punishment) applied - The court substituted the minimum fine of $10,000 for both Brooks and Safatli.

Statutes - Topic 510

Interpretation - General principles - Strict interpretation - [See Sales and Service Taxes - Topic 3842 ].

Statutes - Topic 516

Interpretation - General principles - Ordinary meaning of words - [See Sales and Service Taxes - Topic 3842 ].

Cases Noticed:

Bell Express Vu Limited Partnership v. Rex et al. (2002), 287 N.R. 248; 166 B.C.A.C. 1; 271 W.A.C. 1; 212 D.L.R.(4th) 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 29].

Municipal Contracting Ltd. v. Nova Scotia (Attorney General) (2001), 199 N.S.R.(2d) 362; 623 A.P.R. 362 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 30].

Statutes Noticed:

Revenue Act, S.N.S. 1996-97, c. 17, sect. 89(1) [paras. 17, 18].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Driedger, Elmer A., Construction of Statutes (1st Ed. 1974), pp. 153, 154 [para. 25].

Driedger, Elmer A., Construction of Statutes (4th Ed. 2002), generally [para. 28].

Sullivan, Ruth, Statutory Interpretation (1997), p. 32 [para. 40].

Counsel:

John P. Nisbet (Public Prosecution Service), for the Crown/appellant;

Peter R. Lederman (Archibald & Lederman), for the respondents.

This appeal was heard on January 14, 2003, at Truro, N.S., before Kennedy, C.J.S.C., of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court, who delivered the following judgment on July 15, 2003.