R. v. Gerlitz (C.H.), (2014) 589 A.R. 53 (QB)

• Judge: Gates, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: April 25, 2014
• Citations: (2014), 589 A.R. 53 (QB);2014 ABQB 252

R. v. Gerlitz (C.H.) (2014), 589 A.R. 53 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2014] A.R. TBEd. OC.034

Her Majesty the Queen (Crown) v. Christopher Henry Gerlitz (accused)

(100537372Q2; 2014 ABQB 252)

Indexed As: R. v. Gerlitz (C.H.)

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Calgary

Gates, J.

April 25, 2014.

Summary:

The accused was charged with two counts of making false or deceptive statements on tax returns (Income Tax Act, s. 239(1)), two counts of fraud over $5,000 (Criminal Code, s. 380(1)), one count of making a false document (Criminal Code, s. 268(1)(b)), and one count of theft over $5,000 (Criminal Code, s. 334). He applied for the exclusion of evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, arguing that his s. 8 Charter right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure was violated during the execution of a search warrant at his residence.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at (2013), 571 A.R. 154, dismissed the application. The accused applied for an extension of time to file his application for a writ of certiorari challenging his committal for trial.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at (2013), 571 A.R. 136, dismissed the application. The Crown applied to admit the videotaped evidence of Lucille Hetherington (a bookkeeper and accountant who did work for the accused and his corporations) as a principled exception to the hearsay rule.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at (2013), 571 A.R. 173, allowed the application and ruled that the accused would have the right to cross-examine Hetherington under controlled settings. The accused applied for an adjournment to allow the Crown to provide him with information that he sought regarding the authority of Her Majesty the Queen and Parliament to enact laws in Canada.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at (2014), 589 A.R. 34, dismissed the application. The accused filed an application challenging the constitutional validity of the Income Tax Act and the Criminal Code.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at (2014), 589 A.R. 43, dismissed the application as the accused failed to give the federal and provincial Attorney General proper notice of his constitutional challenge. The accused applied for a stay of proceedings pursuant to s. 24(1) of the Charter, arguing that his arrest and subsequent detention at the Calgary Remand Centre resulted in violations of his ss. 7, 9, 10(a), 10(b), 10(c) and 12 Charter rights.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application.

Civil Rights - Topic 3141

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Arrest - Right to be taken before a court within reasonable time - Gerlitz was arrested on a Friday night - He was taken before a justice of the peace (JP) on Saturday morning - Gerlitz requested a show cause hearing - The JP refused and adjourned the judicial interim release hearing until Monday - Gerlitz argued that this refusal and his subsequent remand into custody for the weekend violated his s. 10(c) Charter right to have the validity of his detention determined by way of habeas corpus - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench disagreed - It seemed likely that the JP wanted Gerlitz to have the benefit of duty counsel to speak to his release - Further, the timing of Gerlitz's first appearance and the adjournment to Monday complied with the relevant provisions of the Criminal Code (ss. 503(1)(a) and 516(1)) - See paragraphs 92 to 97.

Civil Rights - Topic 3142

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal proceedings - Arrest or detention - Right to be informed of reasons for (Charter, s. 10(a)) - Gerlitz was charged with several offences under the Income Tax Act and the Criminal Code - A warrant was issued for his arrest - Gerlitz made repeated requests to see the warrant justifying his arrest - Contrary to s. 29(1) of the Criminal Code, the arresting officers did not have a copy of the warrant at the time they arrested Gerlitz, despite the fact that it would have been feasible for them to have a copy - Gerlitz argued that the failure to comply with s. 29(1) amounted to a violation of his s. 10(a) Charter rights - He applied for a stay of proceedings pursuant to s. 24(1) of the Charter - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that there was no violation of s. 10(a) - The arresting officers told Gerlitz that he was being arrested for outstanding warrants related to tax or fraud - Despite the fact that the officers could have easily satisfied s. 29(1), the information provided to Gerlitz upon his arrest and detention, viewed reasonably in all the circumstances, was sufficient for him to assess his legal position at the time - Even if there was a breach of s. 10(a), the circumstances fell far short of the standard required for a stay of proceedings - See paragraphs 82 to 87 and 115 to 120.

Civil Rights - Topic 3504

Detention and imprisonment - General - Right to habeas corpus - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3141 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 3603

Detention and imprisonment - Detention - What constitutes arbitrary detention - Gerlitz was charged with several offences under the Income Tax Act and the Criminal Code - A warrant was issued for his arrest - Gerlitz made repeated requests to see the warrant justifying his arrest - Contrary to s. 29(1) of the Criminal Code, the arresting officers did not have a copy of the warrant at the time they arrested Gerlitz, despite the fact that it would have been feasible for them to have a copy - Gerlitz argued that the failure to comply with s. 29(1) amounted to a violation of his s. 9 Charter rights - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench disagreed - The arrest and initial detention of Gerlitz was authorized by law whether or not the officers had a copy of the warrant on them to show to Gerlitz - The arrest and detention were not arbitrary - See paragraphs 68 to 72.

Civil Rights - Topic 3608

Detention and imprisonment - Detention - Right to be informed of reasons for - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3142 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8374

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Stay of proceedings - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3142 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 3219

Compelling appearance, detention and release - Arrest - Appearance of accused before judge or justice of the peace - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3141 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 3242

Compelling appearance, detention and release - Arrest - Warrants - Execution of - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3142 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Bohn (J.A.) (2000), 136 B.C.A.C. 263; 222 W.A.C. 263; 2000 BCCA 239, refd to. [para. 54].

Gallaird v. Laxton (1862), 2 B. & S. 363; 31 L.J.M.C. 123; 9 Cox C.C. 127; 121 E.R. 1109 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 54].

Codd v. Cabe (1876), 1 Ex. D. 352; 45 L.J.M.C. 101, refd to. [para. 54].

R. v. Linder, [1924] 2 W.W.R. 646; 42 C.C.C. 289 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 54].

R. v. J.E.B. (1989), 94 N.S.R.(2d) 312; 247 A.P.R. 312; 52 C.C.C.(3d) 224 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 55].

R. v. Cornell (J.M.) (2010), 404 N.R. 133; 487 A.R. 1; 495 W.A.C. 1; 2010 SCC 31, refd to. [para. 56].

R. v. Patrick (R.S.) (2007), 417 A.R. 276; 410 W.A.C. 276; 2007 ABCA 308, affd. (2009), 387 N.R. 44; 454 A.R. 1; 455 W.A.C. 1; 2009 SCC 17, refd to. [para. 58].

R. v. Grant (D.) (2009), 391 N.R. 1; 253 O.A.C. 124; 2009 SCC 32, refd to. [para. 59].

R. v. Gamracy, [1974] S.C.R. 640, refd to. [para. 61].

Wall v. British Columbia et al., [1995] B.C.T.C. Uned. A98 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 61].

R. v. Lord (D.W.) (1997), 99 B.C.A.C. 73; 162 W.A.C. 73 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 61].

R. v. Carson (T.A.) (2007), 421 A.R. 139; 2007 ABPC 58, refd to. [para. 62].

R. v. Wrightman (D.), 2004 ONCJ 210, affd. [2005] O.T.C. Uned. 343 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 62].

R. v. Gunn (P.B.) (1997), 193 A.R. 222; 135 W.A.C. 222; 1997 ABCA 35, refd to. [para. 63].

Campbell v. Lobreght, Hudyma and Ryckman (1985), 66 A.R. 222; 1985 ABCA 286, refd to. [para. 63].

Cloutier v. Langlois and Bédard, [1987] Q.J. No. 1000 (C.A.), revd. [1990] 1 S.C.R. 158; 105 N.R. 241; 30 Q.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 63].

R. v. Jennings, 2007 BCPC 358, refd to. [para. 63].

R. v. Beune, 2005 BCPC 175, refd to. [para. 65].

R. v. Mann (P.H.) (2004), 324 N.R. 215; 187 Man.R.(2d) 1; 330 W.A.C. 1; 2004 SCC 52, refd to. [para. 68].

Christie v. Leachinsky, [1947] A.C. 573 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 73].

R. v. Evans (W.G.), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 869; 124 N.R. 278, refd to. [para. 73].

R. v. Nguyen (T.V.) et al. (2008), 462 A.R. 240; 2008 ABQB 721, refd to. [para. 77].

R. v. Nguyen (T.V.) - see R. v. Ta (B.V.).

R. v. Ta (B.V.), [2009] A.R. Uned. 115; 2009 ABQB 234, affd. (2010), 487 A.R. 168; 495 W.A.C. 168; 2010 ABCA 145, refd to. [para. 77].

R. v. Vu (T.L.), [2010] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1260; 2010 BCSC 1260, revd. (2011), 315 B.C.A.C. 36; 535 W.A.C. 36; 2011 BCCA 536, affd. (2013), 451 N.R. 199; 345 B.C.A.C. 155; 589 W.A.C. 155; 2013 SCC 60, refd to. [para. 78].

R. v. Kelly (1985), 7 O.A.C. 46; 17 C.C.C.(3d) 419 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 79].

R. v. Yurko (M.S.), [2004] A.R. Uned. 636; 2004 ABPC 171, refd to. [para. 79].

R. v. Nguyen (C.N.) (2008), 232 O.A.C. 289; 231 C.C.C.(3d) 541; 2008 ONCA 49, refd to. [para. 85].

R. v. Hebert (1990), 110 N.R. 1; 57 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 89].

R. v. Bartle (K.) (1994), 172 N.R. 1; 74 O.A.C. 161; 92 C.C.C.(3d) 289 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 90].

R. v. Smith (1989), 99 N.R. 372; 50 C.C.C.(3d) 308 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 90].

R. v. Luong (G.V.) (2000), 271 A.R. 368; 234 W.A.C. 368; 2000 ABCA 301, refd to. [para. 90].

Charkaoui, Re, [2007] 1 S.C.R. 350; 358 N.R. 1; 2007 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 95].

R. v. Brown (K.) et al. (2009), 255 O.A.C. 13; 2009 ONCA 633, refd to. [para. 96].

New Brunswick (Minister of Health and Community Services) v. J.G. and D.V., [1999] 3 S.C.R. 46; 244 N.R. 276; 216 N.B.R.(2d) 25; 552 A.P.R. 25, refd to. [para. 98].

R. v. Nasogaluak (L.M.), [2010] 1 S.C.R. 206; 398 N.R. 107; 474 A.R. 88; 479 W.A.C. 88; 2010 SCC 6, refd to. [para. 99].

R. v. Studer (J.), [2010] A.R. Uned. 596; 2010 ABPC 239, refd to. [para. 101].

R. v. Gangl (D.A.) (2010), 492 A.R. 326; 2010 ABPC 105, affd. (2011), 515 A.R. 337; 532 W.A.C. 337; 2011 ABCA 357, refd to. [para. 101].

R. v. Steele (K.) (2010), 485 A.R. 321; 2010 ABQB 191, refd to. [para. 102].

R. v. R.L.F. (2005), 373 A.R. 114; 2005 ABPC 28, refd to. [para. 102].

R. v. Jara, [2006] A.J. No. 1804 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 102].

R. v. Gladue (1993), 23 W.C.B.(2d) 342 (Alta. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 102].

R. v. Pigeon (C.) (1992), 14 B.C.A.C. 139; 26 W.A.C. 139; 73 C.C.C.(3d) 337 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 102].

R. v. Walters (N.W.) (2012), 529 A.R. 126; 2012 ABQB 83, refd to. [para. 102].

R. v. Desrosiers (D.M.) (2013), 549 A.R. 386; 2013 ABQB 24, refd to. [para. 102].

R. v. Bellusci (R.) (2012), 433 N.R. 135; 2012 SCC 44, refd to. [para. 103].

R. v. Morrisey (M.L.) (No. 2), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 90; 259 N.R. 95; 187 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 585 A.P.R. 1; 2000 SCC 39, refd to. [para. 104].

R. v. Smith (E.D.), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1045; 75 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 104].

Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 3; 281 N.R. 1; 2002 SCC 1, refd to. [para. 104].

Weatherall v. Canada (Attorney General), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 872; 154 N.R. 392, refd to. [para. 105].

R. v. Chan (N.C.) (2005), 387 A.R. 123; 2005 ABQB 615, refd to. [para. 106].

New Brunswick (Minister of Health and Community Services) v. J.G. and D.V. (1999), 244 N.R. 276; 216 N.B.R.(2d) 25; 552 A.P.R. 25 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 106].

R. v. Tran (Q.H.) et al. (2010), 264 O.A.C. 125; 103 O.R.(3d) 131; 2010 ONCA 471, refd to. [para. 107].

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. 117].

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Tobiass et al., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 391; 218 N.R. 81, refd to. [para. 118].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Halsbury's Laws of Canada, Criminal Offences and Defences (2012), para. HCR-50 [para. 75].

Counsel:

Barbara A. Mercier and Tyler Lord (Alberta Justice), for the Crown;

Christopher Gerlitz, the defendant, appeared on his own behalf.

This application was heard on September 13 and 16-18, 2013, before Gates, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Calgary, who delivered the following reasons for judgment on April 25, 2014.