R. v. Charles (B.A.) et al., (1999) 186 Sask.R. 1 (ProvCt)

• Court: Provincial Court of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: November 22, 1999
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (1999), 186 Sask.R. 1 (ProvCt)

R. v. Charles (B.A.) (1999), 186 Sask.R. 1 (ProvCt)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1999] Sask.R. TBEd. NO.070

Her Majesty The Queen, as  represented by the Attorney General of Canada v. Boyd A. Charles, Orlin T. Hector, Blake P. Kotylak, Mark R. Melle, Donald M. Skoretz, Ivan Sakundiak, Dwight A. Lischka, Lyman L. Carpenter, Kerry K. Ziola, Sheldon D. Wallin, Devin J. Raynard, Don Raynard, Kenneth F. Oberkirscii, David J. Fedirko, Richard A. Fedirko, Douglas L. Domeij, John D. King, Barren V. Winczura, Robby D. Shaw, Joey A.S. Mizu, Dale E. Muxlow, Duane P. Tessier, Arthur Mainil, Stephanie Mainil, Gary K. Tucker and Norman Colhoun

Indexed As: R. v. Charles (B.A.) et al.

Saskatchewan Provincial Court

Henning, A.C.J.P.C.

November 22, 1999.

Summary:

The accused were charged with unlawfully exporting goods, failing to provide a license granted by the Canadian Wheat Board for export of wheat, failing to report in writing goods (wheat) prior to their exportation and wilfully evading compli­ance with the seizure of their vehicles.

The Saskatchewan Provincial Court found the accused guilty of each offence that they were charged with under ss. 114 and 153(c) of the Act (failing to place in custody items seized) and each offence under ss. 3 and 96(1) of the Act (failing to report in writing goods prior to export).

Civil Rights - Topic 3107

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - General principles and definitions - Void for vagueness doctrine - [See fourth Customs - Topic 8067 ].

Customs - Topic 5

General principles - General - Interpreta­tion of legislation - The customs officials advised the accused of the seizure of their vehicles and the grounds for the seizure - The accused retained control of the vehicles and removed them from the cus­toms office area - The accused were charged with, inter alia, unlawfully remov­ing goods (their vehicles) from a "customs office" - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court dismissed these charges - The court considered the meaning of the phrase "customs office" in relation to the Customs Act - At no time did the customs officials assert physical control over the goods seized, therefore the vehicles removed by the accused were never in a customs office within the meaning of the Act - See para­graphs 57 to 60.

Customs - Topic 3003

Search and seizure - General - Applica­tion of search and seizure provisions (Cus­toms Act) - [See Customs - Topic 5 ].

Customs - Topic 3003

Search and seizure - General - Applica­tion of search and seizure provisions (Cus­toms Act) - The customs officials advised the accused of the seizure of their vehicles, but the accused retained control of the vehicles and removed them from the cus­toms office area - The accused were charged with, inter alia, wilfully evading compliance with s. 114 of the Customs Act by failing to place in the customs officers' custody their seized vehicles - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court found the accused guilty of this offence - The ac­cused's erroneous views that they had contravened no laws was not a defense to their deliberate removal of the vehicles - By removing their vehicles the accused were failing to place them in the custody of the seizing officers - See paragraphs 57 to 58.

Customs - Topic 3082

Search and seizure - Seizure - Warrantless seizure - The accused were charged with, inter alia, unlawfully export­ing grain and their vehicles were seized - The accused asserted that: the seizure was invalid because no force was used to detain the vehicles; by allowing them to take their vehicles on one occasion, the customs officials were not serious in the charge of unlawfully exporting grain; and in not forcibly detaining them or their vehicles that they were entrapped - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court dismissed these arguments - Officially induced error could only be established when a respon­sible official had been given inaccurate information regarding legal obligations imposed at law under circumstances where the information provided would be expected to be relied upon and where the providing of such information was within the scope of the official's duties - See paragraphs 14 to 15.

Customs - Topic 8010

Offences and penalties - General - Strict liability offences - The accused were charged with unlawfully exporting goods, failing to provide a license granted by the Canadian Wheat Board for export of wheat and wilfully evading compliance with the seizure of their vehicles - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court held that these offences were strict liability offences - See paragraph 25.

Customs - Topic 8066

Offences and penalties - Offences - Gen­eral - Failure to report goods - [See Cus­toms - Topic 8010 ].

Customs - Topic 8067

Offences and penalties - Offences - Gen­eral - Re export licence - The accused were charged with, inter alia, failing to provide a license granted by the Canadian Wheat Board for export of wheat - The Crown asserted that a Wheat Board export license must be tendered with the appro­pri­ate bills of lading or scale ticket - The accused were in possession of a United States Customs inbound manifest and/or a cus­toms broker invoice, which contained essentially the same information as the scale tickets - The Saskatchewan Provin­cial Court held that the tendering of these documents, even if not accepted by cus­toms officers, would constitute compliance with the reporting requirement less the license aspect - The refusal to accept the documents would permit the defense of officially induced error for those who tendered and experienced the refusal - See paragraphs 23 to 27.

Customs - Topic 8067

Offences and penalties - Offences - Gen­eral - Re export licence - The accused were charged with, inter alia, failing to provide a license granted by the Canadian Wheat Board for export of wheat - The Crown asserted that a Wheat Board export license must be tendered with the appro­pri­ate bills of lading or scale ticket - The accused were in possession of a United States Customs inbound manifest and/or a cus­toms broker invoice, which contained essentially the same information as the scale tickets - The Saskatchewan Provin­cial Court held that the failure to tender docu­ments, if the accused were capable of constituting compliance with the require­ment of reporting goods to be exported, due to the information that customs officers were refusing to accept them, would constitute an offence and the defence of officially induced error or due diligence could not be applied - See para­graph 29.

Customs - Topic 8067

Offences and penalties - Offences - Gen­eral - Re export licence - The accused were charged with, inter alia, failing to provide a license granted by the Canadian Wheat Board for export of wheat - The Crown asserted that a Wheat Board export license must be tendered with the appro­pri­ate bills of lading or scale ticket - The accused were in possession of a United States Customs inbound manifest and/or a cus­toms broker invoice, which contained essentially the same information as the scale tickets - The Saskatchewan Provin­cial Court held that they failed to provide docu­mentation to verify the nature and quantity of their cargo into the United States and were guilty of an offence under s. 160 of the Customs Act via s. 3 of the Reporting of Exported Goods Regulations, even if the provisions of the Canadian Wheat Board Act requiring an export licence were not valid - See paragraphs 16 to 31.

Customs - Topic 8067

Offences and penalties - Offences - Gen­eral - Re export licence - The accused were charged with, inter alia, failing to provide an exporting license granted by the Canadian Wheat Board - The accused asserted that compliance with the export licencing provisions, including their pricing requirements, under the Canadian Wheat Board Act and Regulations were unreason­able and void for uncertainty and vague­ness - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court held that the exclusive marketing scheme contained in the Act and Regulations and in particular the export licencing provi­sions with their pricing requirements in s. 46 was valid legislation - The Parliament of Canada did not include in the Charter economic rights or harm committed to such rights - Therefore, it was not open to the court to examine the validity of s. 46 of the Act based upon excessive vagueness - See paragraphs 32 to 51.

Customs - Topic 8067

Offences and penalties - Offences - Gen­eral - Re export licence - [See Customs - Topic 8010 ].

Trade Regulation - Topic 3719

Marketing of agricultural products - Grain - Exporting licence - [See fourth Cus­toms - Topic 8067 ].

Words and Phrases

Customs office - The Saskatchewan Pro­vincial Court discussed the meaning of the phrase "customs office" as found in the Customs Act, R.S.C. 1985 (2nd Supp.), c. 1 - See paragraph 59.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Sault Ste. Marie (City), [1978] 2 S.C.R. 1299; 21 N.R. 295; 85 D.L.R.(3d) 161; 40 C.C.C.(2d) 353; 3 C.R.(3d) 30; 7 C.E.L.R. 53, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Wholesale Travel Group Inc. and Chedore, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 154; 130 N.R. 1; 49 O.A.C. 161; 67 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 8 C.R.(4th) 145, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Cancoil Thermal Corp. and Parkinson (1986), 14 O.A.C. 255; 27 C.C.C.(3d) 295; 52 C.R.(3d) 188 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Biller (V.K.) et al. (1999), 177 Sask.R. 161; 199 W.A.C. 161 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 48].

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. et al. v. Saskatchewan (Minister of Finance) (1998), 170 Sask.R. 109 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Haskovitich (E.J.) (1997), 162 Sask.R. 38 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 56].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Wheat Board Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-12, sect. 2, sect. 4, sect. 5, sect. 45, sect. 46, sect. 47(1) [para. 32].

Canadian Wheat Board Act Regulations, (Can.), Canadian Wheat Board Regula­tions, C.R.C. 1978, c. 397, sect. 9, sect. 14 [para. 32].

Customs Act, R.S.C. 1985 (2nd Supp.), c. 1, sect. 2(1), sect. 31, sect. 95 [para. 52]; sect. 95(1), sect. 95(2), sect. 95(4) [para. 17]; sect. 110(1), sect. 110(2), sect. 110(3), sect. 110(4), sect. 114, sect. 118, sect. 153, sect. 160, sect. 161, sect. 162 [para. 52].

Customs Act Regulations (Can.), Reporting of Exported Goods Regulations, SOR/86-1001, sect. 3, sect. 5 [para. 19].

Counsel:

Horst H. Dahlem, Q.C., for the Crown;

Accused appeared on their own behalf.

This matter was heard before Henning, A.C.J., of the Saskatchewan Provincial Court, who delivered the following decision on November 22, 1999.