R. v. Derose (A.S.) et al., 2002 ABPC 154

• Judge: Allen, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: October 15, 2002
• Citations: 2002 ABPC 154;(2002), 326 A.R. 241 (PC)

R. v. Derose (A.S.) (2002), 326 A.R. 241 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2002] A.R. TBEd. NO.050

Her Majesty The Queen v. Antonio Salvatore Derose

Her Majesty The Queen v. Maria Derose

Her Majesty The Queen v. Sam Rocco Derose

(91081448P10101-05; 91081364P10101-04; 91081687P10101-04; 2002 ABPC 154)

Indexed As: R. v. Derose (A.S.) et al.

Alberta Provincial Court

Allen, P.C.J.

October 15, 2002.

Summary:

The accused taxpayers were charged with making false tax returns and income tax evasion (Income Tax Act, ss. 239(1)(a), 239(1)(d)). The Crown's theory was that the accused had suppressed income by pocketing or skimming cash from their various cash businesses (restaurants and a retail store).

The Alberta Provincial Court, in a decision reported 297 A.R. 51, acquitted the accused. Two months later the accused applied for an order of costs against the Crown to remedy alleged Charter breaches under ss. 7 and 11(d). They argued that the Charter breach flowed from the Crown's having pursued the prosecution despite their having knowledge of evidentiary and methodological flaws in their case. The parties asked the court to determine the court's post-judgment jurisdiction to hear the application. The Crown also argued that the court was precluded from hearing the application because it was not a "court of competent jurisdiction" as contemplated in s. 24(1).

The Alberta Provincial Court, in a decision reported 313 A.R. 47, held that it was a court of competent jurisdiction to award costs under s. 24(1) of the Charter and it had jurisdiction to hear the application. The application proceeded.

The Alberta Provincial Court dismissed the application.

Editor's note: for related cases involving these accused see 264 A.R. 359, 268 A.R. 154, 275 A.R. 201 and 275 A.R. 210.

Civil Rights - Topic 3165.1

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Evidence - General - The accused taxpayers were acquitted on charges of making false tax returns and income tax evasion - The accused sought costs against the Crown under s. 24(1) of the Charter to remedy an alleged breach of, inter alia, their s. 7 Charter right - They argued that an individual had a Charter guarantee that the Crown's evidence would meet a particular standard, a reasonable prospect of conviction, as set out in the Justice Canada Crown Counsel Policy, and that this standard applied throughout the trial process - The Alberta Provincial Court held that there was no such s. 7 Charter right guarantee - To find such a s. 7 Charter right would be entering into the realm of public policy - See paragraphs 19 to 36.

Civil Rights - Topic 4909

Presumption of innocence - General principles - Circumstances not infringing presumption - The accused taxpayers were acquitted on charges of making false tax returns and income tax evasion - The accused sought costs against the Crown under s. 24(1) of the Charter to remedy an alleged breach of, inter alia, their right to be presumed innocent (Charter, s. 11(d)) - They argued that an individual had a Charter guarantee that the Crown's evidence would meet a particular standard, a reasonable prospect of conviction, and this standard applied throughout the trial process - The Alberta Provincial Court held that s. 11(d) was inapplicable - The right to the presumption of innocence was never rebutted, as the Crown did not meet the evidentiary onus of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt - The applicants were acquitted because of the application of the specific guarantee contained in s. 11(d) - See paragraphs 14 to 18.

Civil Rights - Topic 8380.7

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Costs - The Alberta Provincial Court stated that "Generally, the cases pertaining to costs awards against the Crown are based upon the premise that the Crown's conduct has infringed an accused's Charter rights, and that an award of costs will be a just and appropriate remedy pursuant to s. 24(1) of the Charter.... In some limited circumstances, the Court pursuant to its s. 24(1) Charter power can order costs to be paid by the Crown to offset related expenses by an accused person. A key factor in determining whether the award of costs against the Crown is appropriate is the nature of the Crown's conduct. If the Crown's conduct represents a marked departure from the reasonable standards of prosecution then costs may be awarded but the award of costs must relate to expenses that arose because of the Charter infringement." - See paragraph 2.

Civil Rights - Topic 8380.7

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Costs - The accused taxpayers were acquitted on charges of making false tax returns and income tax evasion - The accused sought costs against the Crown under s. 24(1) of the Charter to remedy an alleged breach of their ss. 7 and 11(d) Charter rights - They argued that an individual had a Charter guarantee that the Crown's evidence would meet a particular standard, a reasonable prospect of conviction, as set out in the Justice Canada Crown Counsel Policy, and that this standard applied throughout the trial process - The Alberta Provincial Court held that the accused failed to prove that the Crown's conduct amounted to an infringement of those Charter rights - Alternatively, their application for a s. 24(1) remedy failed because the accused failed to demonstrate that, in conducting the prosecution of them, the Crown markedly departed from the reasonable standards expected of the prosecution - See paragraphs 59 to 75.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265; 74 N.R. 276; 56 C.R.(3d) 193; [1987] 3 W.W.R. 699; 38 D.L.R.(4th) 508; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 1].

R. v. Proulx - see Proulx v. Québec (Procureur général).

Proulx v. Québec (Procureur général) (2001), 276 N.R. 201; 159 C.C.C.(3d) 225 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Rose (J.) (1998), 232 N.R. 83; 115 O.A.C. 201; 129 C.C.C.(3d) 449 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Généreux, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 259; 133 N.R. 241; 70 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Pearson (E.), [1992] 3 S.C.R. 665; 144 N.R. 243, addendum 147 N.R. 335; 52 Q.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Wust (L.W.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 455; 252 N.R. 332; 134 B.C.A.C. 236; 219 W.A.C. 236; 143 C.C.C.(3d) 129, refd to. [para. 18].

Reference Re Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (B.C.), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486; 63 N.R. 266, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Beare; R. v. Higgins, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 387; 88 N.R. 205; 71 Sask.R. 1; 45 C.C.C.(3d) 57, refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Morgentaler, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30; 82 N.R. 1; 26 O.A.C. 1; 44 D.L.R.(4th) 385; 31 C.R.R. 1; 37 C.C.C.(3d) 449; 62 C.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 24].

Cloutier v. Langlois and Bédard, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 158; 105 N.R. 241; 30 Q.A.C. 241; 53 C.C.C.(3d) 257, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Hebert, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 151; 110 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Heikel et al. (No. 3) (1990), 110 A.R. 161 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. S.V.L., [1995] O.J. No. 2867 (Prov. Ct.), dist. [para. 31].

R. v. Jedynack (1994), 16 O.R.(3d) 612 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [paras. 31, 68].

Nelles v. Ontario et al., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 170; 98 N.R. 321; 35 O.A.C. 161; 60 D.L.R.(4th) 609, refd to. [para. 38].

Dix v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2002), 315 A.R. 1 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. O'Connor (H.P.), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 411; 191 N.R. 1; 68 B.C.A.C. 1; 112 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 47].

R. v. Power (E.), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 601; 165 N.R. 241; 117 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 269; 365 A.P.R. 269; 89 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 52].

R. v. Jewitt, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 128; 61 N.R. 159; [1985] 6 W.W.R. 127; 21 C.C.C.(3d) 7, refd to. [para. 62].

R. v. C.A.M., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 500; 194 N.R. 321; 73 B.C.A.C. 81; 120 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 66].

R. v. 974649 Ontario Inc. et al. (2001), 279 N.R. 345; 154 O.A.C. 345; 47 C.R.(5th) 316 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 67].

R. v. Dumont (D.L.) (2002), 308 A.R. 334 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 68].

R. v. Logan (P.) (2002), 159 O.A.C. 165 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 68].

R. v. Peekeekoot (O.J.) (2002), 311 A.R. 95 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 68].

R. v. Pawlowski (M.) (1993), 61 O.A.C. 276; 79 C.C.C.(3d) 353 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 68].

R. v. Dodson (P.M.) et al. (1999), 128 O.A.C. 290; 70 C.R.R.(2d) 65 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 68].

R. v. Robinson (C.J.) (1999), 250 A.R. 201; 213 W.A.C. 201; 142 C.C.C.(3d) 303 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 68].

R. v. Pang (B.L.), [1995] 4 W.W.R. 442; 162 A.R. 24; 83 W.A.C. 24; 95 C.C.C.(3d) 60 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 70].

R. v. Mills, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 863; 67 N.R. 241; 16 O.A.C. 81; 52 C.R.(3d) 1; 26 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 76].

R. v. Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 326; 130 N.R. 277; 120 A.R. 161; 8 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 78].

R. v. Regan (G.A.) (1999), 179 N.S.R.(2d) 45; 553 A.P.R. 45; 137 C.C.C.(3d) 449 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 78].

R. v. Rollin (M.), [2000] O.T.C. 572; 3 C.P.C.(5th) 116 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 81].

R. v. R.E.B. (1997), 208 A.R. 206 (Prov. Ct.), varied [1998] A.R. Uned. 507 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 82].

R. v. Dix (J.) (2000), 259 A.R. 328 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 83].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Canada, Crown Counsel Policy Manual, Department of Justice (Canada) January 1993, generally [para. 1].

Martin, Arthur G., Report of the Attorney General's Advisory Committee on Charge Screening, generally [para. 1].

Martin Report - see Martin, Arthur G., Report of the Attorney General's Advisory Committee on Charge Screening.

Counsel:

B.F. Hughson, for the respondent;

R. Davidson, Q.C., for the applicants.

This application was heard at Edmonton, Alberta, by Allen, P.C.J., who released the following judgment on October 15, 2002.