R. v. Porisky (R.A.) et al.

• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Judge: Chiasson, J.A.
• Citation: 2012 BCCA 309,(2012), 325 B.C.A.C. 161 (CA)
• Date: 04 July 2012

R. v. Porisky (R.A.) (2012), 325 B.C.A.C. 161 (CA);

    553 W.A.C. 161

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2012] B.C.A.C. TBEd. JL.037

Regina (respondent) v. Russell Anthony Porisky (appellant/applicant)

(CA039937; 2012 BCCA 309)

Indexed As: R. v. Porisky (R.A.) et al.

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Chiasson, J.A.

July 12, 2012.

Summary:

Porisky was convicted of tax evasion, GST evasion and counselling to commit fraud. He was sentenced to 54 months' incarceration and a fine of $274,815. He appealed his conviction and sentence and sought judicial interim release. He also applied to suspend payment of the fine pending the disposition of the appeal.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, per Chiasson, J.A., dismissed the application for judicial interim release, but suspended payment of the fine pending the disposition of the appeal.

Criminal Law - Topic 3300

Compelling appearance, detention and release - Interim release or detention of accused pending trial or appeal - General - Considerations - The British Columbia Court of Appeal, per Chiasson, J.A., stated that "it is clear that the strength or weakness of the grounds of appeal is a factor that must be taken into account when considering the public interest factor on an application for judicial interim release. Strong grounds will favour reviewability, that is, release; weak grounds will favour enforcement, that is, rejection of the application. Seldom will this factor be determinative in and of itself; it is an aspect of considering whether detention is necessary in the public interest" - See paragraph 16.

Criminal Law - Topic 3310

Compelling appearance, detention and release - Interim release or detention of accused pending trial or appeal - Release pending appeal - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4979 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 3310.1

Compelling appearance, detention and release - Interim release or detention of accused pending trial or appeal - Release pending sentence appeal - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4979 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4979

Appeals - Indictable offences - Powers of court of appeal - Power to stay payment of fine pending appeal - Porisky was convicted of tax evasion, GST evasion and counselling to commit fraud - He was sentenced to 54 months' incarceration and a fine of $274,815 - He appealed his conviction and sentence and sought judicial interim release - He also applied to suspend payment of the fine pending the disposition of the appeal - The British Columbia Court of Appeal, per Chiasson, J.A., dismissed the application for judicial interim release - The court concluded that enforceability outweighed reviewability in the circumstances of this case - The sentence appeal was weak, the conviction appeal was without merit, the offences were serious, and any reduction of sentence was unlikely to result in a conditional sentence - However, the court suspended payment of the fine pending the disposition of the appeal.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Ali (M.S.) (2008), 253 B.C.A.C. 167; 425 W.A.C. 167; 77 B.C.L.R.(4th) 289; 2008 BCCA 147, refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Dawydiuk (M.N.) (2008), 256 B.C.A.C. 233; 431 W.A.C. 233; 2008 BCCA 243, refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Al-Maliki (A.) (2003), 190 B.C.A.C. 304; 311 W.A.C. 304; 2003 BCCA 698, refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Alexander (W.J.), [2002] B.C.A.C. Uned. 33; 53 W.C.B.(2d) 181; 2002 BCCA 203, refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Gould (E.) (2012), 325 B.C.A.C. 167; 553 W.A.C. 167; 2012 BCCA 308, refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Klundert (J.) (2008), 244 O.A.C. 377; 2008 ONCA 767, leave to appeal refused (2009), 396 N.R. 390 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Sydel, 2006 BCPC 346, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Turnir, 2006 BCPC 460, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Amell (D.P.) et al. (2010), 361 Sask.R. 61; 2010 SKPC 107, refd to. [para. 7].

Kennedy v. Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, [2000] O.J. No. 3313; 2000 D.T.C. 6524 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Lindsay (D.-K.) (2006), 224 B.C.A.C. 172; 370 W.A.C. 172; 265 D.L.R.(4th) 193; 2006 BCCA 150, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Lindsay (D.K.) (2011), 302 B.C.A.C. 76; 511 W.A.C. 76; 2011 BCCA 99, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. B.S.B. (2008), 263 B.C.A.C. 51; 443 W.A.C. 51; 2008 BCCA 483, refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Bath (S.S.) (2012), 322 B.C.A.C. 72; 549 W.A.C. 72; 2012 BCCA 221, refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Mapara (S.) (2001), 156 B.C.A.C. 138; 255 W.A.C. 138; 158 C.C.C.(3d) 312; 2001 BCCA 508, refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Dhesi (G.) (2012), 314 B.C.A.C. 301; 534 W.A.C. 301; 2012 BCCA 9, refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Ruffolo (R.A.) (2011), 309 B.C.A.C. 247; 523 W.A.C. 247; 2011 BCCA 247, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Schiel (A.K.) et al., [2011] B.C.A.C. Uned. 58; [2011] G.S.T.C. 60; 2011 BCCA 160, refd to. [para. 14].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 679(1), sect. 679(3) [para. 5].

Counsel:

Appellant appeared in person;

W.P. Riley, for the respondent.

This application was heard in Chambers on July 4, 2012, at Vancouver, B.C., before Chiasson, J.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal, who delivered the following judgment on July 12, 2012.