Le mardi 26 octobre 2004 23:00:50 UTC-4, roy a écrit :   
   > Docket no. 15743   
   > Nelson, B.C.   
   >    
   > IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   
   >    
   >    
   > THE QUEEN   
   > 									Plaintiff   
   >    
   > v.   
   >    
   > JOSEPH JACQUES   
   >    
   > 									Accused   
   >    
   >    
   > REASONS FOR JUDGMENT   
   >    
   >    
   > THE HONOURABLE MADAM 	)	Hearing held on 17 May 1999   
   > JUSTICE T. ALEXANDER		)	Judgment reserved on 3 September 1999   
   >    
   >    
   >    
   > The accused, Joseph Jacques, has been charged with four counts of having    
   > disobeyed, in contravention of subsection 238(1) of the Income Tax Act,    
   > an order of this Court made by Mr. Justice Paradis on 13 December 1997.   
   >    
   > The accused has pleaded not guilty.   
   >    
   > The Crown called the following witnesses: Michel Leblanc of Revenue    
   > Canada; Ms. Best, court clerk in the hearing room at the time of    
   > sentencing; and Elaine Hill, a manager of records at the Revenue Canada    
   > Taxation Centre in Surrey.    
   >    
   > For its part, the defence called David Strang and Jim Bass. The accused    
   > did not testify.   
   >    
   > The Crown argued that Mr. Justice Paradis' order, made on 13 December    
   > 1997, required the accused to file his tax returns for the years 1992,    
   > 1993, 1994 and 1995 no later than the 31st of March, 1998. Exhibit 3    
   > consists of four documents presented as tax returns for the years 1992,    
   > 1993, 1994 and 1995; they are signed by the accused and dated 28 March    
   > 1998.   
   >    
   > Mr. Leblanc testified that Revenue Canada did indeed receive the    
   > documents in question. However, he added, he removed them from the    
   > records of Revenue Canada because, in his view, the documents as    
   > submitted were incomplete: the accused had written "N/A" to identify his    
   > sources of income and to report all other information required on the T1    
   > form.   
   >    
   > The Crown alleges that the documents filed by the accused as income tax    
   > returns do not provide any information and, as such, are not proper tax    
   > returns. The prosecution further alleges that the accused is making a    
   > mockery of the taxation system and is guilty of disobeying a court    
   > order.    
   >    
   > The defence, for its part, alleges that the prosecution has failed to    
   > prove the existence of the compliance order. In the alternative, the    
   > defence argues that the documents submitted as tax returns are    
   > sufficient as presented to fulfil the requirements of the Income Tax Act    
   > and the order itself. The two defence witnesses, it is argued, both    
   > filled out their income tax returns in the same manner after facing    
   > similar charges, and Revenue Canada accepted them.    
   >    
   > The case at bar is a criminal trial. The prosecution has the burden of    
   > proving every element of the alleged offences beyond a reasonable doubt.    
   > The accused does not have to prove his innocence. Nor is it the role of    
   > the Court to speculate regarding the facts under dispute. The Court's    
   > sole function is to determine, after hearing all of the evidence,    
   > whether the prosecution has met its burden of proof.    
   >    
   > In the case before us, we have but two issues to decide: Has the    
   > prosecution proven the existence of the compliance order issued on 13    
   > December 1997 by Mr. Justice Paradis? And, if so, are the documents    
   > submitted as returns, as filed by the accused, sufficient in the sense    
   > that the accused has complied with the requirements of the said order?   
   >    
   > As to the first issue, there is more than one way to prove the existence    
   > of a court order; the prosecution is not restricted to those means    
   > prescribed by the Canada Evidence Act.   
   >    
   > 		Construction   
   >    
   > 36. This Part shall be deemed to be in addition to and not in derogation    
   > of any powers of proving documents given by any existing Act or existing    
   > at law.   
   >    
   > To prove the existence of the order in question, the prosecution relied    
   > on the provisions of the Income Tax Act, specifically, subsection 244   
   > (12):   
   >    
   > 		Judicial notice   
   >    
   > 244(12) Judicial notice shall be taken of all orders or regulations made    
   > under this Act without those orders or regulations being specially    
   > pleaded or proven.   
   >    
   > In support of its contentions, the prosecution cited the decision of the    
   > New Brunswick Court of Appeal in R. v. Steen (1976) 30 C.C.C. (2d) 456.    
   > The defence did not base its objections on any authority.   
   > The prosecution also cited the verbal transcripts in this case and    
   > called on the testimony of the court clerk, Ms. Best, who was in charge    
   > of recording the hearing and the sentencing on 13 December 1997. In her    
   > testimony, Ms. Best identified the accused and confirmed that he was    
   > present in the hearing room on 13 December 1997. It was also Ms. Best    
   > who obtained the signature of Mr. Justice Paradis on the court    
   > transcript.    
   >    
   > The evidence clearly demonstrates that the accused was subject to a    
   > compliance order issued by Mr. Justice Paradis on 13 December 1997, and    
   > I am convinced of that fact beyond any reasonable doubt. In the order,    
   > Mr. Justice Paradis requires the accused to file his income tax returns    
   > for the years 1992, 1993, 1994 and 1995. I would add that the efforts    
   > made by the accused in filing his T1s and sending them to Revenue Canada    
   > prior to the deadline set out in the order indicate that he understood    
   > his obligations.    
   >    
   > It remains to be determined whether the documents submitted as returns    
   > are sufficient to comply with the order issued pursuant to subsection    
   > 238(2) of the Income Tax Act, which reads as follows:   
   >    
   > 		Compliance order   
   >    
   > 238(2) Where a person has been convicted by a court of an offence under    
   > subsection (1) for a failure to comply with a provision of this Act or a    
   > regulation, the court may make such order as it deems proper in order to    
   > enforce compliance with the provision.   
   >    
   > The purpose of a compliance order is to rectify the omission of which a    
   > taxpayer has been convicted and to ensure that he fulfils the    
   > requirements of the Act.   
   >    
   > In the so-called tax returns filed by the accused, he disclosed his    
   > name, address, date of birth, social insurance number, marital status    
   > and name of spouse. For every item of financial information required,    
   > though, he indicated "N/A". As in Hart (1959) 59 D.T.C. 1192 (Man.    
   > C.A.), cited by the Crown, the accused provided no other information or    
   > explanation.   
   >    
   > The fact that Revenue Canada may have accepted similar returns from    
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)