R. v. Sedhu (J.), (2015) 368 B.C.A.C. 198 (CA)

Judge:Chiasson, Tysoe and Willcock, JJ.A.
Court:Court of Appeal of British Columbia
Case Date:January 15, 2015
Jurisdiction:British Columbia
Citations:(2015), 368 B.C.A.C. 198 (CA);2015 BCCA 92
 
FREE EXCERPT

R. v. Sedhu (J.) (2015), 368 B.C.A.C. 198 (CA);

    633 W.A.C. 198

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] B.C.A.C. TBEd. MR.021

Regina (respondent) v. Jasvinder Singh Sedhu (appellant)

(CA041513; 2015 BCCA 92)

Indexed As: R. v. Sedhu (J.)

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Chiasson, Tysoe and Willcock, JJ.A.

March 3, 2015.

Summary:

The Canada Revenue Agency served the accused with 11 Notices of Requirement to file tax returns within 90 days pursuant to s. 231.2(1) of the Income Tax Act (ITA) and s. 289(1) of the Excise Tax Act (ETA). The accused did not file the required returns within 90 days. He was charged with 10 counts of failing to comply with the notices pursuant to s. 238(1) of the ITA and one count of failing to comply with a notice pursuant to s. 326(1) of the ETA.

The British Columbia Provincial Court found the accused not guilty because the Crown failed to prove that the 90 day time period was reasonable in the circumstances. The Crown appealed.

The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a decision reported at [2013] B.C.T.C. Uned. 2323, allowed the appeal, holding that the Crown was not required to prove that the time specified in a notice was reasonable. The accused appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. Convictions under s. 231.2(1) of the ITA and s. 289(1) of the ETA rested upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of identity, jurisdiction, service of the notice, and failure to comply with the notice. Once those were established on the evidence, an accused person had to have an opportunity to demonstrate due diligence, that the time provided to comply with the requirement was unreasonable, or that the demand was not made for purposes related to the administration or enforcement of the legislation.

Income Tax - Topic 9348

Enforcement - Offences - Failure to comply with demand to file a return - See paragraphs 29 to 37.

Sales and Service Taxes - Topic 5404

Goods and Services Tax (incl. Harmonized Sales Tax) - Offences and penalties - Failure to comply with a demand for returns - See paragraphs 29 to 37.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. MacDonald, 2005 BCPC 398, refd to. [para. 6].

Richardson (James) & Sons Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue, [1983] 1 F.C. 3 (T.D.), affd. [1983] 1 F.C. 257; 42 N.R. 283 (F.C.A.), revd. [1984] 1 S.C.R. 614; 54 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Logan (L.R.J.) (2014), 357 B.C.A.C. 129; 611 W.A.C. 129; 2014 BCCA 240, refd to. [para. 18].

Skalbania v. Canada, [1991] 1 C.T.C. 160 (B.C. Co. Ct.), refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Dakus (1988), 87 A.R. 374 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Stevens (D.L.), [2006] B.C.T.C. 1585; 2006 BCSC 1585, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Tait, [1992] B.C.J. No. 2693 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Merkle, [1980] 1 W.W.R. 361; 19 A.R. 353 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Highland Enterprises Ltd. (1981), 30 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 515; 84 A.P.R. 515; 60 C.C.C.(2d) 78 (P.E.I.S.C.), refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Rolbin, [1982] 2 C.R.R. 166 (Que. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 25].

Canada (Canadian Human Rights Commission) v. Canada (Attorney General) - see Canada (Attorney General) v. Mowat.

Canada (Attorney General) v. Mowat, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 471; 422 N.R. 248; 2011 SCC 53, refd to. [para. 26].

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; 2000 SCC 18, refd to. [para. 30].

Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Bankrupt), Re, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27; 221 N.R. 241; 106 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 30].

65302 British Columbia Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 804; 248 N.R. 216, refd to. [para. 31].

Stubart Investments Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue, [1984] 1 S.C.R. 536; 53 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 31].

Will-Kare Paving & Contracting Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 915; 255 N.R. 208; 2000 SCC 36, refd to. [para. 31].

Singleton v. Minister of National Revenue, [2001] 2 S.C.R. 1046; 275 N.R. 133; 2001 SCC 61, refd to. [para. 31].

Merk v. International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers, Local 771 - see R. v. International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers, Local 771.

R. v. International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers, Local 771, [2005] 3 S.C.R. 425; 341 N.R. 357; 275 Sask.R. 1; 365 W.A.C. 1; 2005 SCC 70, refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Wholesale Travel Group Inc. and Chedore, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 154; 130 N.R. 1; 49 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 35].

Statutes Noticed:

Excise Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-15, sect. 289(1) [para. 3].

Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985 (5th Supp.), c. 1, sect. 231.2(1) [para. 2].

Counsel:

D.T. Redekopp, for the appellant;

P. Meneguzzi, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard at Vancouver, B.C., on January 15, 2015, before Chiasson, Tysoe and Willcock, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. Willcock, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the court on March 3, 2015.

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP