R. v. Schiel (A.) et al., 2012 BCCA 1

• Judge: Bennett, J.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: November 25, 2011
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: 2012 BCCA 1;(2012), 314 B.C.A.C. 236 (CA)

R. v. Schiel (A.) (2012), 314 B.C.A.C. 236 (CA);

    534 W.A.C. 236

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2012] B.C.A.C. TBEd. JA.019

Regina (respondent) v. Endeavour Developments Ltd., Golden Horizon Resort Ltd., Adolf Schiel and Sandy Schiel (applicants)

(CA038797; 2012 BCCA 1)

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

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Bennett, J.A.

January 4, 2012.

Summary:

A father and daughter were convicted of offences contrary to ss. 327(1)(a) and (d) of the Excise Tax Act. The charges involved allegations of false statements in relation to Goods and Services Tax (GST) refunds. They were convicted along with two of their companies of obtaining over $1.9 million in GST refunds to which they were not entitled. They appealed and applied for the appointment of counsel pursuant to s. 684 of the Criminal Code.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, per Bennett, J.A., dismissed the application.

Criminal Law - Topic 4974

Appeals - Indictable offences - Powers of Court of Appeal - Power to appoint counsel for accused - A father and daughter (the Schiels) were convicted of offences contrary to ss. 327(1)(a) and (d) of the Excise Tax Act - The charges involved allegations of false statements in relation to Goods and Services Tax (GST) refunds - They were convicted along with two of their companies of obtaining over $1.9 million in GST tax refunds to which they were not entitled - They appealed and applied for the appointment of counsel pursuant to s. 684 of the Criminal Code - The British Columbia Court of Appeal, per Bennett, J.A., dismissed the application - There were two fundamental requirements for appointment of appellate counsel under s. 684: (1) it had to be desirable in the interests of justice that the applicant have legal assistance and (2) the applicant must not have sufficient means to obtain that assistance - The Schiels had not satisfied the second criterion - They had provided considerable information setting out their personal circumstances and it appeared that they had few assets and little income - However, they filed no affidavit evidence with supporting documents showing the disbursement of the substantial amount of money they received in GST refunds - When the court asked where the money went, the response was vague.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Kienapple, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 729; 1 N.R. 322, refd to. [para. 3].

R. v. Baig (1990), 58 C.C.C.(3d) 156 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Bernardo (P.K.) (1997), 105 O.A.C. 244; 121 C.C.C.(3d) 123 (C.A.), appld. [para. 6].

Counsel:

Adolf Schiel and Sandy Schiel appeared in person;

Raymond D. Leong, for the respondent.

This application was heard in Chambers at Vancouver, B.C., on November 25, 2011, by Bennett, J.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal, who delivered the following decision on January 4, 2012.