Wetmore,
J.:—
The
facts:
A
search
warrant
was
executed
under
the
appropriate
provisions
of
the
Criminal
Code
upon
documents
inter
alia
of
Michael
Vukelich.
It
was
based
upon
reasonable
and
probable
grounds
that
he
was
involved
in
offences
contrary
to
the
Narcotic
Control
Act.
From
other
information
set
forth
in
the
affidavit
filed
in
support
of
this
application,
including
information
received
from
police
officers
who
have
examined
the
documents
seized,
there
are
valid
reasons
for
the
appropriate
officers
under
the
Income
Tax
Act,
,
R.S.C.
1952,
c.
148
(am.
S.C.
1970-71-72,
c.
63)
(herein
called
"I.T.A.")
to
examine
the
records
seized
of
Vukelich
and
his
company,
Americana
Greenhouse
Corp.
Those
I.T.A.
officials
apply
under
subsection
490(15)
of
the
Criminal
Code
to
inspect
and
copy,
where
relevant,
those
documents
seized
as
"a
person
who
has
an
interest
in
what
has
been
detained".
Conclusion:
This
identical
problem
was
decided
by
Hall,
J.
in
the
matter
of
an
application
of
the
M.N.R.
and
Szalontai
(Vancouver
Registry
No.
CC930183)
on
February
25,
1993.
I
agree
with
those
reasons
with
respect
and
gratitude.
Additional
submissions:
1.
Counsel
argues
this
application
involves
an
application,
not
merely
for
the
administrative
resolution
of
income
taxes
properly
exigible,
but
also
to
examine
those
records
seized
for
the
purpose
of
determining
whether
there
has
been
an
offence(s)
under
paragraph
239(1)(a)
or
(d)
of
the
I.T.A.,
criminal
tax
evasions
sections.
I
have
examined
the
file
in
the
M.N.R.
v.
Szalontai
application.
That
same
purpose
was
included
in
that
application.
In
reading
the
reasons
for
judgment
of
Hall,
J.
it
seems
apparent
to
me
that
in
applying
"the
balance
wheel”
of
Sopinka,
J.
my
distinguished
and
careful
colleague
was
fully
aware
of
the
purposes
for
which
examination
and
copying
of
documents
in
that
case
were
sought.
2.
There
does
not
appear
to
have
been
any
application
under
the
seizure
provisions
of
the
Code
by
Vukelich
for
the
return
of
documents
alleged
to
be
irrelevant
to
the
narcotics
inquiry.
Presumably
they
must
pertain
to
that
offence
as
well.
The
argument
is
made
that
because
there
is
no
search
warrant
for
I.T.A.
offences,
or
presumably
any
other
offences
except
narcotics,
these
items
cannot
be
seized
for
those
other
purposes
without
the
additional
warrant.
That,
of
course,
is
not
the
application
here,
it
is
merely
to
inspect
and
copy
the
documents.
Section
8
of
the
Charter
grants
the"
right
to
be
secure
against
unreasonable
search
and
seizure”.
Those
words
alone
and
combined
with
section
7,
according
to
the
Supreme
Court
of
Canada,
are
based
on
notions
of
privacy
to
the
individual.
The
argument
then
proceeds
that
I
should
refuse
this
motion
and
require
the
M.N.R.
to
obtain
its
own
warrant.
That
warrant
would
probably
be
likewise
attacked
on
the
basis
of
reasonable
grounds
for
its
issuance
coming
from
the
information
obtained
by
virtue
of
the
earlier
one,
which,
it
would
be
argued,
was
wrongly
given
to
the
M.N.R.
by
other
officers
of
the
state,
the
R.C.M.P.
These
arguments
at
this
point
are
purely
academic.
(a)
There
is
no
charge
of
tax
evasion
now.
(b)
The
remedy
for
a
Charter
breach
may
be
the
quashing
of
a
search
warrant,
but
only
after
due
consideration
of
subsection
24(2)
of
the
Charter
and
the
balance
wheel
of
public
versus
private
security
and
safety.
(c)
Subsection
490(15)
is
not
challenged,
nor
should
it
be,
in
this
application.
All
that
Parliament
has
decreed
is
that
a
party
who
has
"an
interest"
may
examine
the
documents.
Whether
that
examination
results
in
evidence
sought
to
be
adduced
at
trial
will
have
to
await
the
Court's
determination
of
its
admissibility.
All
of
that
is
speculative
and
totally
dependent
on
whether
evidence
even
exists
to
show
reasonable
and
probable
grounds
for
a
charge.
See
R.
v.
Horth
and
Quinn,
August
28,
1992,
Vancouver
Registry
No.
CC920975
and
R.
v.
Wittrup,
[1993]
B.C.W.L.D.
1108,
February
24,
1993,
(S.C.)
Vancouver
Registry
No.
CC911246,
as
examples
of
premature
applications.
Application
allowed.
Email this Content