Date: 20101208
Docket: IMM-1704-10
Citation: 2010
FC 1253
Ottawa, Ontario, December 8, 2010
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice O'Keefe
BETWEEN:
|
|
TANYA MASYCH
|
|
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
|
|
Respondent
|
|
|
|
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND
JUDGMENT
[1]
This
is an application pursuant to subsection 72(1) of the Immigration and
Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (the Act), for judicial review of
a decision by a visa officer (the officer) at the Canadian Embassy in Kyiv,
Ukraine, dated March 24, 2010, wherein the officer denied the applicant’s
application for a temporary work permit.
[2]
The applicant requests an order setting aside the decision of the
officer and remitting the matter back for reconsideration by a different visa
officer.
Background
[3]
Tetyana
(a.k.a. Tanya) Masych (the applicant) is a citizen of the Ukraine. She is
married and has one son who is seventeen years old. She owns a home and a
building and construction company in Buchach, Ukraine with her
husband.
[4]
The
applicant is trained as a cook and baker. She studied cooking at the Ternopil Technology College from 1985 to
1987. She then became certified as an engineer and technologist in bread and
pasta making at the University of Food Industry in Kyiv, Ukraine.
Further, she completed correspondence education on restaurant organization and
etiquette in 2008 and 2009. She has worked as a cook and chef since 1987.
[5]
The
applicant worked in Middlesex, England, at the New England
Restaurant and Bar from 2002 to 2006 as a chef assistant.
[6]
The
applicant has not been convicted of a criminal offence in the Ukraine or the United
Kingdom (UK).
[7]
Olga
Lozinski, the owner and operator of the Way Out Inn in Candle Lake, Saskatchewan,
interviewed the applicant for a position as a cook in her inn over the internet
using Skype. Ms. Lozinski offered the applicant employment and room and board
at her inn and obtained a positive labour market opinion (LMO) from Human
Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC) on December 16, 2009 for the
applicant in the position of cook.
[8]
The
applicant is aware of the Saskatchewan Immigrant Nominee Program (SINP) where
she can work for six months in a skilled occupation in Saskatchewan and then be
nominated for permanent residence to Canada. The applicant asserts
she does not want to live without legal status in Canada.
[9]
The
applicant applied for a temporary work permit at the Canadian Embassy in Kyiv, Ukraine.
She was interviewed by the officer on February 8, 2010. The applicant indicated
to the officer that she had lived and worked for several years as a chef
assistant in the UK. The officer told the applicant that she had
one month to provide work references and income tax returns from the UK and to
undergo a medical exam. He also provided her with a letter stating this.
[10]
The
officer called the applicant on March 17, 2010 to remind her of the documents
which were pending.
[11]
After
passing the medical exam, the applicant returned to the Canadian Embassy on
March 24, 2010 with a reference from her previous employer in the UK and a letter
from her cousin indicating that she had lived with him while working there. She
did not provide income tax returns for the period that she lived and worked in
the UK.
[12]
Her
application was denied on March 24, 2010.
Visa Officer’s Decision
[13]
The
officer’s March 24, 2010 letter states, through checked boxes, that the
applicant did not satisfy him that she met the requirements of Regulation 179
of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 (the
Regulations) and that she would leave Canada at the end of the
temporary period of authorized stay.
[14]
The
officer also checked the box “Other” and wrote “failure to provide UK Tax
Documents.”
[15]
The
Computer Assisted Immigration Processing System (CAIPS) notes indicate that in
the initial interview the officer found that the applicant was comfortable with
English and had relevant experience as a cook. The officer requested UK income tax
returns and references. The CAIPS notes further specify that over one month
later, the officer called the applicant and reminded her about the documents
which were pending.
[16]
The
officer found that the applicant had not submitted the documentation pertaining
to her tax status in the UK and that she likely had not reported any
income. Accordingly, he found that he could not conclude that she was not
inadmissible and he refused the temporary work permit application.
Issues
[17]
The
applicant submitted the following issue for consideration:
Did the officer deny the
applicant procedural fairness?
[18]
I
would rephrase the issues as follows:
1. What is the
appropriate standard of review?
2. Did the officer deny
the applicant procedural fairness?
3. Did the officer err
in law by requiring the applicant to produce income tax returns from the United
Kingdom?
Applicant’s Written Submissions
[19]
The
applicant submits that the officer was required to issue her a temporary work
permit because she met the criteria for issuance under the Act. The applicant
submits that the officer is required by Regulation 200 to issue a work permit
to a foreign national unless that national has engaged in unauthorized study or
work in Canada unless a
period of six months has lapsed.
[20]
The
applicant submits that she was not rejected because of Regulation 179 but rather
on her failure to produce UK tax documentation which was an arbitrary
and extraneous factor and contrary to the principles of natural justice. The
applicant further submits that the Overseas Processing Manual, OP11 – Temporary
Residents, does not instruct overseas visa officers to consider taxes paid in
foreign countries in assessing temporary residence.
[21]
The
applicant also submits that the officer’s notes and refusal letters were not sufficient
to meet the level of procedural fairness required.
[22]
The
applicant submits that the officer failed to consider the relevant information
before him, including the applicant’s strong ties to the Ukraine, her desire
to have legal status and be with her husband and son and her dual intent. The
applicant submits that this information which was overlooked was evidence that
she would comply with any and all Canadian laws.
Respondent’s Written Submissions
[23]
The
respondent submits that the applicant’s arguments about procedural fairness
must be considered in context. An application for a temporary work permit
requires a lower level of procedural fairness than a negative decision for
deportation.
[24]
The
respondent submits that there is no onus on visa officers to re-interview an
applicant or take steps to satisfy any concerns arising from documents the
applicant did not supply.
[25]
The
respondent submits that the applicant did not comply with either subsections
11(1) or 16(1) of the Act and that Regulation 200 only requires a visa officer
to issue a work permit where the prescribed criteria are met. The respondent
submits that the jurisprudence is clear that a visa officer is justified in
denying an application for permanent residence if the applicant fails to
provide the necessary documentation and the visa officer cannot determine
whether the applicant is inadmissible.
[26]
The
respondent further submits that the overseas processing manual is simply a
guide for visa officers, whereas subsection 16(1) is law and requires the
applicant to produce all relevant documentation.
[27]
The
respondent submits that while the requested UK tax
documentation related to work that occurred over four years ago, it was still
relevant for determining whether the applicant was inadmissible. The officer
was concerned that the applicant’s failure to submit tax documentation may
signify that the applicant did not comply with the applicable tax laws in the UK, which would
make her inadmissible. The respondent submits that the applicant had a duty to
satisfy the officer that she had not committed an offence and that she was not
inadmissible. Her refusal to comply with the request resulted in the reasonable
refusal of her application. As such, this Court should not interfere with the
officer’s decision.
Analysis and Decision
[28]
Issue
1
What is the appropriate
standard of review?
A refusal of a temporary work
permit is an administrative decision made within the officer’s legislative
authority, is ostensibly a determination of fact (see Samuel v. Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 FC 223 at paragraph 26). The Supreme
Court has directed that administrative fact-finding is to be afforded a high degree of
deference and reasonableness is the appropriate standard of review (see Khosa v. Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 SCC 12, [2009] 1 S.C.R. 339
at paragraph 46).
[29]
Any
issues of procedural fairness involving visa officers, including the adequacy
of reasons, are evaluated on a correctness standard (see Miranda v. Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 FC
424 at paragraph 10; Khosa above, at paragraph 43). No
deference is afforded a decision-maker in this regard and “it is up to this
Court to form its own opinion as to the fairness of the hearing” (see Gonzalez
v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC
983, 169 A.C.W.S. (3d) 173 at paragraph 16).
[30]
Issue
2
Did the
officer deny the applicant procedural fairness?
The
requirements of procedural fairness will vary depending on the case being
considered. In Qin v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration),
2002 FCT 815 at paragraph 5, Mr. Justice Marshall Rothstein held that
“…when there is no evidence of serious consequences to the Applicant….the
requirements for procedural fairness will be relatively minimal.” Since the
applicant can re-apply for a temporary work permit and there is no evidence
that doing so will cause her hardship, the procedural requirements in assessing
her application will be relatively low.
[31]
The
onus is on the applicant to satisfy the officer of all parts of her
application. The officer is under no obligation to ask for additional
information where the applicant’s material is insufficient. Nor is the officer
obliged to provide the applicant with several opportunities to satisfy points she
may have overlooked (see Madan v. Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), 172 F.T.R. 262 (F.C.T.D.), [1999] F.C.J.
No. 1198 (QL) at paragraph 6). That said, the applicant was given several opportunities
to have her case heard. She was interviewed by the officer, provided with a
letter indicating what she needed to present in order to complete her
application, the officer called her to remind her about the pending documents
and then she was given another opportunity to submit the required documents. This
meets the requirements of procedural fairness.
[32]
In
addition, while the reasons of the officer were short, they too met the
requirements of procedural fairness.
[33]
The
Supreme Court of Canada established in Baker v. Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817, [1999] S.C.J. No. 39
(QL) at paragraph 43 that:
…in certain circumstances, the duty of
procedural fairness will require the provision of a written explanation for a
decision. The strong arguments demonstrating the advantages of written reasons
suggest that, in cases such as this where the decision has important
significance for the individual, when there is a statutory right of appeal, or
in other circumstances, some form of reasons should be required.
[34]
This
Court has held that the duty to provide reasons is met when the decision-maker
sets “out its findings of fact and the principal evidence upon which those
findings were based” (see VIA Rail Canada Inc. v. National Transportation
Agency, [2001] 2 F.C. 25, [2000] F.C.J. No. 1685 (QL) (F.C.) at paragraph
22).
[35]
It
is settled law that the CAIPS notes form part of the reasons for the decision
(see Toma
v. Canada (Minister of
Citizenship & Immigration), 2006 FC 779, 295 F.T.R. 158 at paragraphs 10
and 12).
[36]
The
refusal letter and the CAIPS notes indicate that the officer’s decision is
based on the finding that the applicant did not submit the requested
documentation regarding income tax for the time she worked in the UK and, as such,
she did not satisfy the officer that she met the requirements of Regulation
179, that she was not inadmissible.
[37]
Since
the applicant was given several chances to satisfy the officer of all aspects
of her application and the reasons provided to her were clear about why her
application was refused, the duty of procedural fairness was met.
[38] Issue 3
Did the
officer err in law by requiring the applicant to produce income tax returns
from the United Kingdom?
According to subsection 11(1)
of the Act, the officer had a duty to be satisfied that the applicant was not
inadmissible. In addition, the applicant was required to produce all relevant
documents that the officer reasonably required as stipulated in subsection
16(1) of the Act.
[39]
An
applicant is inadmissible if he or she commits an act outside of Canada which
is an offence in the country committed and would be an offence punishable by
indictment in Canada (see the Act at paragraph 36(2)(c)). Failing to pay income
tax can be an indictable offence in Canada (see Income Tax Act,
R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.), subsections 238(1), 239(2) and paragraph
239(1)(d)). Moreover, failing to pay income tax is also an offence in the UK (see United Kingdom Finance
Act 2000, c. 17, subsection 144(1)). Consequently, if the applicant failed
to pay income tax in the UK, she could be inadmissible under the Act.
[40]
Given
the combination of the Act, the Regulations and the respective income tax
legislation from Canada and the UK, it was reasonable for
the officer to require UK income tax returns to determine the
admissibility of the applicant.
[41]
The
applicant submitted that “the letter from her employer in England stated that
she did not pay taxes because she only worked part-time.” The applicant also
submitted that the officer’s request regarding tax issues had been completely
answered by the applicant.
[42]
However,
there is no evidence that the applicant addressed the officer’s concerns. The
letter from the applicant’s employer at the New England Restaurant and Bar
stated only that she worked part-time; it was silent regarding her income tax. In
addition, the only evidence where the applicant addressed the issue of income
tax was one line in her affidavit which stated that following the officer’s
request for tax returns, she answered that “it had been almost six years ago
and that I worked part-time and was paid cash, but I would try to get a
reference.”
[43]
The
officer denied the application because he found that the applicant did not meet
the requirements of Regulation 179. Regulation 179(e) states that an officer
shall issue a temporary resident visa to a foreign national if it is
established that the foreign national is not inadmissible. The applicant did
not provide all relevant evidence and documents that the officer reasonably
required as set out in subsection 16(1). As such, the applicant did not satisfy
the officer that she was not inadmissible and it was reasonable for the officer
to conclude that he could not make that determination without the documents he
requested.
[44]
The
applicant has not demonstrated that the decision-making process was
procedurally unfair or that the officer erred in requiring the applicant to
produce income tax documentation from the UK, therefore
the judicial review will be dismissed.
[45]
The
applicant submitted the following proposed serious question of general
importance for my consideration for certification:
Can a temporary resident visa be denied
for a worker with a Labour Market Opinion where that worker is not barred by
any of the factors under Regulation 179 of the Immigration and Refugee
Protection Regulations?
[46]
In order
for a question to be certified, this Court has stated in Dehar v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration),
2007 FC 558, [2008] 2 F.C.R. 358 at paragraph 37:
It is trite law that for a question to be
certified, it must: 1) transcend the interests of the immediate parties to the
litigation; 2) contemplate issues of broad significance or general applicant;
and 3) be determinative of the appeal. …
I am not prepared to certify the question as it would not be
determinative of the appeal. There is no doubt that the applicant would receive
a temporary resident visa if he or she met the requirements of Regulation 179.
However, in this case, the issue is whether the applicant was inadmissible.
JUDGMENT
[47]
IT IS
ORDERED that:
1. The application for judicial review
is dismissed.
2. The proposed
serious question submitted by the applicant will not be certified.
“John
A. O’Keefe”
ANNEX
Relevant Statutory Provisions
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27
|
11.(1) A foreign national must, before
entering Canada, apply to an officer for a visa or for
any other document required by the regulations. The visa or document may be
issued if, following an examination, the officer is satisfied that the
foreign national is not inadmissible and meets the requirements of this Act.
16.(1) A
person who makes an application must answer truthfully all questions put to
them for the purpose of the examination and must produce a visa and all
relevant evidence and documents that the officer reasonably requires.
36.(2) A
foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of criminality for
. . .
(c) committing
an act outside Canada that is an offence in the place where it was committed
and that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an indictable
offence under an Act of Parliament; or
. . .
(3) The
following provisions govern subsections (1) and (2):
(a) an offence
that may be prosecuted either summarily or by way of indictment is deemed to
be an indictable offence, even if it has been prosecuted summarily;
. . .
(c) the
matters referred to in paragraphs (1)(b) and (c) and (2)(b) and (c) do not
constitute inadmissibility in respect of a permanent resident or foreign
national who, after the prescribed period, satisfies the Minister that they
have been rehabilitated or who is a member of a prescribed class that is
deemed to have been rehabilitated;
(d) a
determination of whether a permanent resident has committed an act described
in paragraph (1)(c) must be based on a balance of probabilities; and . . .
72.(1)
Judicial review by the Federal Court with respect to any matter — a decision,
determination or order made, a measure taken or a question raised — under
this Act is commenced by making an application for leave to the Court.
|
11.(1)
L’étranger doit, préalablement à son entrée au Canada, demander à l’agent les
visa et autres documents requis par règlement. L’agent peut les délivrer sur preuve, à la suite d’un contrôle,
que l’étranger n’est pas interdit de territoire et se conforme à la présente
loi.
16.(1)
L’auteur d’une demande au titre de la présente loi doit répondre
véridiquement aux questions qui lui sont posées lors du contrôle, donner les
renseignements et tous éléments de preuve pertinents et présenter les visa et
documents requis.
36.(2)
Emportent, sauf pour le résident permanent, interdiction de territoire pour
criminalité les faits suivants :
. .
.
c)
commettre, à l’extérieur du Canada, une infraction qui, commise au Canada,
constituerait une infraction à une loi fédérale punissable par mise en
accusation;
. .
.
(3)
Les dispositions suivantes régissent l’application des paragraphes (1) et (2)
:
a)
l’infraction punissable par mise en accusation ou par procédure sommaire est
assimilée à l’infraction punissable par mise en accusation, indépendamment du
mode de poursuite effectivement retenu;
. .
.
c)
les faits visés aux alinéas (1)b) ou c) et (2)b) ou c) n’emportent pas
interdiction de territoire pour le résident permanent ou l’étranger qui, à
l’expiration du délai réglementaire, convainc le ministre de sa réadaptation
ou qui appartient à une catégorie réglementaire de personnes présumées
réadaptées;
d)
la preuve du fait visé à l’alinéa (1)c) est, s’agissant du résident
permanent, fondée sur la prépondérance des probabilités; . . .
72.(1)
Le contrôle judiciaire par la Cour fédérale de toute mesure — décision,
ordonnance, question ou affaire — prise dans le cadre de la présente loi est
subordonné au dépôt d’une demande d’autorisation.
|
Immigration
and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227
|
18.(2) The
following persons are members of the class of persons deemed to have been
rehabilitated:
. . .
(c) persons
who have committed no more than one act outside Canada that is an offence in the place where it was committed
and that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an indictable
offence under an Act of Parliament, if all of the following conditions apply,
namely,
(i) the
offence is punishable in Canada by a maximum term of imprisonment of
less than 10 years,
(ii) at least
10 years have elapsed since the day after the commission of the offence,
(iii) the
person has not been convicted in Canada of an indictable offence under an Act
of Parliament,
(iv) the
person has not been convicted in Canada of any summary conviction offence
within the last 10 years under an Act of Parliament or of more than one
summary conviction offence before the last 10 years, other than an offence
designated as a contravention under the Contraventions Act or an offence
under the Youth Criminal Justice Act,
(v) the person
has not within the last 10 years been convicted outside of Canada of an
offence that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an offence under an
Act of Parliament, other than an offence designated as a contravention under
the Contraventions Act or an offence under the Youth Criminal Justice Act,
(vi) the
person has not before the last 10 years been convicted outside Canada of more
than one offence that, if committed in Canada, would constitute a summary conviction
offence under an Act of Parliament, and
(vii) the
person has not been convicted outside of Canada
of an offence that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an indictable offence
under an Act of Parliament.
179. An
officer shall issue a temporary resident visa to a foreign national if,
following an examination, it is established that the foreign national
(a) has
applied in accordance with these Regulations for a temporary resident visa as
a member of the visitor, worker or student class;
(b) will leave
Canada by the end of the period authorized
for their stay under Division 2;
(c) holds a
passport or other document that they may use to enter the country that issued
it or another country;
(d) meets the
requirements applicable to that class;
(e) is not
inadmissible; and
(f) meets the
requirements of section 30.
200.(3) An
officer shall not issue a work permit to a foreign national if
. . .
(e) the
foreign national has engaged in unauthorized study or work in Canada or has failed to comply with a condition of a previous
permit or authorization unless
(i) a period
of six months has elapsed since the cessation of the unauthorized work or
study or failure to comply with a condition,
(ii) the study
or work was unauthorized by reason only that the foreign national did not
comply with conditions imposed under paragraph 185(a), any of subparagraphs
185(b)(i) to (iii) or paragraph 185(c);
|
18.(2)
Font partie de la catégorie des personnes présumées réadaptées les personnes
suivantes :
. .
.
c) la personne
qui a commis, à l’extérieur du Canada, au plus une infraction qui, commise au
Canada, constituerait une infraction à une loi fédérale punissable par mise
en accusation si les conditions suivantes sont réunies :
(i)
l’infraction est punissable au Canada d’un emprisonnement maximal de moins
de dix ans,
(ii)
au moins dix ans se sont écoulés depuis le moment de la commission de
l’infraction,
(iii) la
personne n’a pas été déclarée coupable au Canada
d’une infraction à une loi fédérale punissable par mise en accusation,
(iv)
elle n’a pas été déclarée coupable au Canada d’une infraction à une loi
fédérale punissable par procédure sommaire dans les dix dernières années ou
de plus d’une telle infraction avant les dix dernières années, autre qu’une
infraction qualifiée de contravention en vertu de la Loi sur les
contraventions ou une infraction à la Loi sur le système de justice pénale
pour les adolescents,
(v)
elle n’a pas, dans les dix dernières années, été déclarée coupable, à
l’extérieur du Canada, d’une infraction qui, commise au Canada, constituerait
une infraction à une loi fédérale, autre qu’une infraction qualifiée de
contravention en vertu de la Loi sur les contraventions ou une infraction à
la Loi sur le système de justice pénale pour les adolescents,
(vi) elle n’a
pas, avant les dix dernières années, été déclarée coupable, à l’extérieur du
Canada, de plus d’une infraction qui, commise au Canada, constituerait une infraction à une loi fédérale
punissable par procédure sommaire,
(vii) elle n’a
pas été déclarée coupable, à l’extérieur du Canada,
d’une infraction qui, commise au Canada, constituerait une infraction à une
loi fédérale punissable par mise en accusation.
179.
L’agent délivre un visa de résident temporaire à l’étranger si, à l’issue
d’un contrôle, les éléments suivants sont établis :
a)
l’étranger en a fait, conformément au présent règlement, la demande au titre
de la catégorie des visiteurs, des travailleurs ou des étudiants;
b) il quittera
le Canada à la fin de la période de séjour autorisée qui lui est applicable
au titre de la section 2;
c) il est
titulaire d’un passeport ou autre document qui lui permet d’entrer dans le
pays qui l’a délivré ou dans un autre pays;
d) il se
conforme aux exigences applicables à cette catégorie;
e) il n’est
pas interdit de territoire;
f) il
satisfait aux exigences prévues à l’article 30.
200.(3)
Le permis de travail ne peut être délivré à l’étranger dans les cas suivants :
. .
.
e) il a
poursuivi des études ou exercé un emploi au Canada
sans autorisation ou permis ou a enfreint les conditions de l’autorisation ou
du permis qui lui a été délivré, sauf dans les cas suivants :
(i) une
période de six mois s’est écoulée depuis les faits reprochés,
(ii)
ses études ou son travail n’ont pas été autorisés pour la seule raison que
les conditions visées à l’alinéa 185a), aux sous-alinéas 185b)(i) à (iii) ou
à l’alinéa 185c) n’ont pas été respectées,
|
Income Tax
Act, 1985, c. 1 (5th
Supp.)
|
238.(1) Every person who has failed to file
or make a return as and when required by or under this Act or a regulation or
who has failed to comply with subsection 116(3), 127(3.1) or 127(3.2),
147.1(7) or 153(1), any of sections 230 to 232 or a regulation made under
subsection 147.1(18) or with an order made under subsection 238(2) is guilty
of an offence and, in addition to any penalty otherwise provided, is liable
on summary conviction to
(a) a fine of
not less than $1,000 and not more than $25,000; or
(b) both the
fine described in paragraph 238(1)(a) and imprisonment for a term not
exceeding 12 months.
239.(1) Every
person who has
. . .
(d) wilfully,
in any manner, evaded or attempted to evade compliance with this Act or payment
of taxes imposed by this Act, or
(e) conspired
with any person to commit an offence described in paragraphs 239(1)(a) to
239(1)(d),
is guilty of
an offence and, in addition to any penalty otherwise provided, is liable on
summary conviction to
(f) a fine of
not less than 50%, and not more than 200%, of the amount of the tax that was
sought to be evaded, or
(g) both the
fine described in paragraph 239(1)(f) and imprisonment for a term not
exceeding 2 years.
(2) Every
person who is charged with an offence described in subsection 239(1) or
239(1.1) may, at the election of the Attorney General of Canada, be
prosecuted on indictment and, if convicted, is, in addition to any penalty
otherwise provided, liable to
(a) a fine of
not less than 100% and not more than 200% of
(i) where the
offence is described in subsection 239(1), the amount of the tax that was
sought to be evaded, and
(ii) where the
offence is described in subsection 239(1.1), the amount by which the amount
of the refund or credit obtained or claimed exceeds the amount, if any, of
the refund or credit to which the person or other person, as the case may be,
is entitled; and
(b)
imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years.
|
238.(1)
La personne qui ne produit ou ne présente pas ou ne remplit pas une
déclaration de la manière et dans le délai prévus à la présente loi ou à son
règlement ou qui contrevient au paragraphe 116(3), 127(3.1) ou (3.2),
147.1(7) ou 153(1) ou à l’un des articles 230 à 232 ou à une disposition
réglementaire prise en vertu du paragraphe 147.1(18) ou encore qui
contrevient à une ordonnance rendue en application du paragraphe (2) commet
une infraction et encourt, sur déclaration de culpabilité par procédure
sommaire et outre toute pénalité prévue par ailleurs :
a) soit une amende
de 1 000 $ à 25 000 $;
b)
soit une telle amende et un emprisonnement maximal de 12 mois.
239.(1)
Toute personne qui, selon le cas :
. .
.
d) a,
volontairement, de quelque manière, éludé ou tenté d’éluder l’observation de
la présente loi ou le paiement d’un impôt établi en vertu de cette loi;
e)
a conspiré avec une personne pour commettre une infraction visée aux alinéas
a) à d),
commet une
infraction et, en plus de toute autre pénalité prévue par ailleurs, encourt,
sur déclaration de culpabilité par procédure sommaire :
f)
soit une amende de 50 % à 200 % de l’impôt que cette personne a tenté
d’éluder;
g)
soit à la fois l’amende prévue à l’alinéa f) et un emprisonnement d’au plus 2
ans.
(2) Toute
personne accusée d’une infraction visée aux paragraphes (1) ou (1.1) peut, au
choix du procureur général du Canada, être poursuivie par voie de mise en
accusation et, si elle est déclarée coupable, encourt, en plus de toute autre
pénalité prévue par ailleurs :
a) d’une part,
une amende de 100 % à 200 % des montants suivants :
(i) dans le
cas de l’infraction visée au paragraphe (1), l’impôt que cette personne a
tenté d’éluder,
(ii)
dans le cas de l’infraction visée au paragraphe (1.1), l’excédent du montant
du remboursement ou du crédit obtenu ou demandé sur le montant auquel elle ou
l’autre personne, selon le cas, a droit;
b)
d’autre part, un emprisonnement maximal de cinq ans.
|
United Kingdom Finance Act 2000 (2000 c 17)
144. Offence of
fraudulent evasion of income tax
(1) A person
commits an offence if he is knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of
income tax by him or any other person.
(2) A person
guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a) on summary
conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not
exceeding the statutory maximum, or both;
(b) on
conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years
or a fine, or both.
(3) This section
applies to things done or omitted on or after 1st January 2001.
Email this Content