R. v. Melnychuk, [1999] 3 CTC 255

Diehl Prov. J.:

I. Introduction:

This is an application by way of Notice of Motion for Orders as set out therein as follows:

1. For an order excluding evidence obtained by Revenue Canada, Taxation in the course of an audit under section 231.1 of the Income Tax Act.

2. For an order excluding evidence obtained under a Search Warrant issued under The Criminal Code by a judge of the Provincial Court of Saskatchewan, such warrant being dated September 21, 1995, authorizing the search of the personal residence of Gerald Melnychuk and Marilyn Melnychuk, and all storage facilities occupied or controlled by them, located on the southwest quarter of section 14, township 45, range 2, west of the second meridian, Saskatchewan in the rural municipality of Hudson Bay.

3. For an order excluding evidence obtained under a Search Warrant issued under the Criminal Code by a judge of the Provincial Court of Saskatchewan, such warrant being dated September 21, 1995, authorizing the search of the hunting facilities/lodge owned or operated by Gerald Melnychuk operating as Overflow River Outfitters, and all storage facilities occupied or controlled by him, located on any one or more of lots 3,4,5, and 6, plan BT 4826, Prince Albert land registration district and lots 12,13 and 14, plan CH 3927, Prince Albert land registration district and all lots located in Block 5 in the hamlet of Erwood, Saskatchewan.

4. For an order excluding evidence obtained under a Search Warrant issued under the Criminal Code by a judge of the Provincial Court of Saskatchewan, such warrant being dated September 21, 1995, authorizing the search of the offices and all storage facilities occupied or controlled by Meyers, Norris, Penney & Co., Chartered Accountants, located at 103 Churchill Street, P.O. Box 1300, Hudson Bay, Saskatchewan.

AND FURTHER TAKE NOTICE that the grounds of the said application are as follows:

I. The information obtained during the audit was obtained in breach of Gerald Melnychuk’s rights under section 7 and 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that such information was obtained during an investigation and not as part of a regulatory function authorized by the Income Tax Act (Canada) or Excise Tax Act.

2. The Search Warrants were granted by the Judge of the Provincial Court on the basis of information which had been obtained contrary to Gerald Melnychuk’s rights under sections 7 and 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and upon excising the information to obtain Search Warrants under reasonable and probable grounds to believing that information existed which would afford evidence with respect to the commission of offences against the Income Tax Act and the Excise Tax Act was correct.

3. Such further an other grounds as counsel may advise and this Honourable Court may allow.

AND FURTHER TAKE NOTICE that in support of the said application the applicant intends to introduce viva voce evidence and such further and other material as counsel may advise and this Honourable Court may allow.

II Facts:

A. Tip & Response

On or about December 1, 1994, Revenue Canada received an anonymous “tip” that Gerald Melnychuk of Hudson Bay may be “operating underground” with his outfitting business, Overflow River Outfitters.

The auditor from Revenue Canada, Excise who received the “lead”, Stephen Draude, had for over a year prior to investigating the affairs of Gerald Melnychuk been involved in investigating the forest industry underground economy.

Revenue Canada, Taxation, had in place in December of 1994 the “formal separation” of the special investigation and audit functions. Steve Sawchyn and Julius Calyniuk both testified that Revenue Canada, Excise, was not organized in the same fashion in December of 1994. As stated by Stephen Draude, auditors in Revenue Canada, Excise, particularly those like himself who were investigating the forest industry were given “wide latitude” in the performance of their duties investigating the underground economy.

In response to the “tip” received by Revenue Canada, Stephen Draude, an auditor with Revenue Canada, Excise, did the following on or before December 7, 1994:

(a) Drove to Gerald Melnychuk’s personal residence and observed the premises;

(b) Searched Gerald Melnychuk’s GST and tax information in the possession of Revenue Canada;

(c) Conducted Personal Property Registry searches on Gerald Melnychuk.

B. Revenue Canada & SERM

On or about December 7, 1994, Stephen Draude, an auditor with Revenue Canada, Excise, contacted Saskatchewan Environment and Resource Management (“SERM”) in an attempt to determine information in the possession of SERM. In particular, Dave Harvey, the senior provincial intelligence officer with SERM, was contacted by Stephen Draude and after discussions he agreed to share information with Revenue Canada and agreed he would provide any information SERM had with respect to Gerald Melnychuk to Revenue Canada.

C. Special Investigation Request

On or about December 12, 1994, Stephen Draude, an auditor with Revenue Canada, sent a request form to the Special Investigations Division of the Saskatoon District Revenue Canada office. In such request Draude requested, inter alia, a criminal record check on Gerald Melnychuk and Marilyn Melnychuk.

In response to such request, Bill Bray, a member of Special Investigations, conducted a criminal record search. In addition, Bill Bray made contact with a “source” and requested any information on Melnychuk’s business known as “Overflow River Outfitters”.

On or about December 13, 1994, Bill Bray, a member of Special Investigations Division of the Saskatoon District Revenue Canada office, Saskatoon, sent a memorandum to Dan Herzog, Special Investigations Division, Central Excise region, regarding Gerald Melnychuk and information obtained from a second anonymous source which had been provided with respect to Gerald Melnychuk. Such memorandum was forwarded to the Auditor, Stephen Draude.

D. Action Plan

On or about December 13, 1994, Stephen Draude, an auditor with Revenue Canada met with Dave Harvey of SERM and was provided with intelligence reports held by SERM with respect to Gerald Melnychuk. Further information was provided to Revenue Canada by Gary Harrison of SERM providing rough estimates of Gerald Melnychuk’s outfitting business. In response to such estimates, Stephen Draude estimated business income for the calendar year 1993 and concluded there was approximately $138,000.00 potentially not reported on Gerald Melnychuk’s income tax. At that time, Stephen Draude noted certain recommendations with respect to the further investigation of Gerald Melnychuk which included obtaining further information from SERM and potentially auditing certain individuals with whom it was believed Gerald Melnychuk dealt to determine money paid to Gerald Melnychuk. On or about January 16, 1995, Stephen Draude received information from SERM related to Gerald Melnychuk’s outfitting operations. The Government of Saskatchewan had labelled some such information as “SUPPLIED FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES ONLY”.

E. Additional Information

In February of 1995, Stephen Draude of Revenue Canada continued to investigate Gerald Melnychuk by reviewing documentation obtained from several sources including Gary Harrison of SERM. Such information provided by Gary Harrison included information relating to a house on Gerald Melnychuk’s property and any information Mr. Harrison might have in regard thereto.

F. Audit Assignment: GST & I. T .

On or about February 21, 1995, Stephen Draude of Revenue Canada was “assigned” to audit the GST aspects of Gerald Melnychuk’s business. On or about March 7, 1995, Murray Wolfe of Revenue Canada, Taxation was assigned to audit the income tax aspects of Gerald Melnychuk.

G. Audit Letters to Taxpayers

In later March, 1995, almost four months after Stephen Draude began investigating Gerald Melnychuk, audit letters were sent by Revenue Canada to Gerald Melnychuk and Marilyn Melnychuk indicating that an audit of their records would be conducted and that they were to provide in the course of the audit various documentation to revenue Canada.

H. Revenue Canada Interviews Melnychuks

On or about April 23, 1995, almost five months after Stephen Draude began investigating Gerald Melnychuk, Stephen Draude and Murray Wolfe, auditors with revenue Canada, arranged a meeting with Gerald Melnychuk for the alleged purpose of an audit. Such meeting was held and Gerald Melnychuk and Marilyn Melnychuk provided information to Stephen Draude and Murray Wolfe in personal interviews. For approximately three days, Stephen Draude and Murray Wolfe investigated and reviewed the information and records provided by Gerald Melnychuk. Gerald and Marilyn Melnychuk provided such records and information on the belief that they were required to provide such information as part of his statutory obligations in the audit process.

At no time during the meetings with Gerald Melnychuk in April, 1995 did Stephen Draude or Murray Wolfe advise Gerald Melnychuk or Marilyn Melnychuk that they were investigating Gerald Melnychuk for the purposes of tax evasion. This was despite several inquiries by Gerald Melnychuk as to why he was being audited. Murray Wolfe went so far as to advise Gerald Melnychuk in response to one such request the he “was not certain and that in many ways it was the luck of the draw”.

I. Senior Technical Advisor Involved

Subsequent to Stephen Draude and Murray Wolfe’s first meetings with Gerald Melnychuk in April of 1995, meetings were held with Julius Calyniuk, a senior technical advisor with Revenue Canada. The auditors told Julius Calyniuk that they thought they had “a special investigations file”. They were told by Calyniuk in response that “they did not have enough information for a reassessment let alone for a special investigations referral”. At that point in time, Calyniuk advised the auditors what information they would have to compile to obtain a special investigations referral. After receiving such advice, the auditors, in conjunction with Julius Calyniuk, set out on a course of action to obtain such information. In particular, Calyniuk advised the auditors that they would require the accountant’s papers and the supporting records of Gerald Melnychuk.

Julius Calyniuk, despite being a senior technical advisor with Revenue Canada, Taxation, was unaware in 1995 of Revenue Canada’s policies with respect to how “leads” were to be treated. Policy 1143.1 (4)(C), which was in effect in 1995, states as follows:

Sections other than SI may receive tax leads through phone calls or personal visits from informants etc. In these cases, the employee dealing with the informant will first try to get the informant to contact Special Investigations Section. Where this is not possible, the employee will accept the information, record it on Form T2020 and pass it directly to Special Investigations, without initiating any further action. Every effort should be made to have the informant identify himself in order that follow up action can be taken, if required. [emphasis added].

Similarly, at all relevant times, Stephen Draude was not aware of Revenue Canada policy 1143.1 (4)(C).

J. Meeting with Accountant by Senior Technical Advisor

Subsequent to April 26, 1995, Julius Calyniuk participated in the gathering of further evidence from Gerald Melnychuk and from Gerald Melnychuk’s accountant, Dave Henlisia of Meyers Norris & Penney.

Subsequent to meetings between Stephen Draude and Julius Calyniuk, Stephen Draude and Julius Calyniuk attended upon Gerald Melnychuk’s accountant, Dave Henlisia of Meyers, Norris & Penney purportedly under their audit powers and obtained financial information and records. At no time was Dave Henlisia of Meyers, Norris & Penney advised that Gerald Melnychuk had been under investigation for tax evasion since December 1, 1994.

In addition to the “lead” received on December 1, 1994, Revenue Canada received a subsequent “lead” on June 5, 1995. Julius Calyniuk, senior technical advisor with Revenue Canada, knew of the lead and did not turn the lead over to Special Investigations as per Revenue Canada’s policy as set out in policy 1143.1.

K. Formal Referral to Special Investigations

On or about June 29, 1995, a formal referral was made by Stephen Draude and Murray Wolfe to Revenue Canada, Special investigations.

Based predominantly upon information obtained by Stephen Draude and Murray Wolfe in their investigation/audit of Gerald Melnychuk, Rob Kellin of Revenue Canada, Special Investigations swore an Information to obtain search warrants to search the personal residence of Gerald Melnychuk, the hunting lodge of Gerald Melnychuk and Gerald Melnychuk’s accountants, Meyers Norris and Penney of Hudson Bay. Based upon such information, search warrants were obtained and search and seizure was carried out resulting in the obtaining of numerous books and records of Gerald Melnychuk.

At no time prior to the search and seizure carried out by Revenue Canada on September 26, 1995, was Gerald Melnychuk, Marilyn Melnychuk or his accountants, Meyers, Norris & Penney, made aware that Gerald Melnychuk was being investigated for tax evasion.

Prior to November 29, 1997, at no time subsequent to the search and seizure being carried out on September 26, 1995 did any officer of Revenue Canada ever advise or acknowledge that Revenue Canada, Special Investigations had been consulted during the audit process.

At all relevant time, Revenue Canada had policy guidelines with respect to Leads, being Policy 1140 and Interviews With Taxpayers Under Investigation being Tax Operations Manual 11(10).

III Issues:

A Was the role of Revenue Canada after December, 1994 part of an investigation of Gerald Melnychuk or an audit of Gerald Melnychuk.

B Whether Evidence obtained from Gerald Melnychuk during the audit under Section 231.1 of the Income Tax Act was obtained in violation of Gerald Melnychuk’s rights under Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

C Whether Evidence obtained during the audit under Section 231.1 of The Income Tax Act was obtained in violation of Gerald Melnychuk’s rights under Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

D In the event there was a breach of Gerald Melnychuk’s Charter of Rights, should such evidence be excluded under Section 24(2) of The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

IV Position Statement:

I have heard, read and reviewed the submissions of counsel, the written briefs filed, including the voluminous documentation and cited authorities.

My analysis of the law and the circumstances draws me to the conclusion that the applicant-accused must succeed on his application.

I am drawing most heavily on his arguments the details of which are most adequately set out in his brief the repetition of which here in detail is not called for.

The “predominant purpose test in determining whether inquiries leave the realm of audit and enter the realm of investigation” is central to approach to be taken. See: British Columbia (Securities Commission) v. Branch, [1995] 5 W.W.R. 129 (S.C.C.) @ 137.

Since Branch , other decisions dealing with audit/investigative function of Revenue Canada are:

• R. v. Norway Insulation Inc. (1995), 95 D.T.C. 5328 (Ont. Gen. Div.)

• Del Zotto v. Canada (1997), 97 D.T.C. 5328 (Fed. C.A.)

• R. v. Jarvis, [1997] 5 W.W.R. 461 (Alta. Prov. Ct.)

° R. v. Warawa (1997), 208 A.R. 81 (Alta. Q.B.)

In Norway once Special Investigations became involved warrantless search under the Income Tax Act amounted to unreasonable search in violation of Section 8 Charter rights.

In Del Zotto the court held that once criminal investigation steps are taken the normal standards must be applied.

In Jarvis the court held that once a criminal investigation began, the taxpayer ought to be advised of his right to remain silent under Section 7 of the Charter. Absent such advice any information obtained was tainted and had to be excised from an Information to Obtain a Search Warrant.

In Warawa the same rights to silence and related Charter protection under Sections 7 and 8 were afforded to a suspect accountant from whom oral and documentary evidence respecting both himself and his clients had been obtained by Revenue Canada. In excluding the evidence obtained the court characterized Revenue Canada’s conduct not as an audit but as an investigation.

In /?. v. Ling (June 5, 1998), Doc. Terrace 19810 (B.C. S.C.) Mr. Justice Millward stated at para 18:

[para 18] An integral component of the regulatory system is the imposition of sanctions on those who do not honestly claim their income and expenses. To find that information gathered during an “innocent” audit could not be used in a prosecution would render those portions of the Act ineffective and without that information, a search warrant for the purposes of an investigation could not be obtained.

Were the Actions of Revenue Canada an Audit or an Investigation?

And further in paras 22 et seq:

[para22] However, Mr. Thatcher had concluded by that point in time that the evidence supported a penalty application and ultimate referral to the Special Investigations Section. This finding, combined with an objective view of the circumstances of Mr. Ling’s audit, leads me to disagree with the trial judge’s conclusion that the audit did not become an investigation until the first week of January 1996.

[para23] The predominant purpose of the auditor’s actions after the December 18, 1995 meeting was to gather information that the Special Investigations Section would use in their criminal investigation. As a result, Mr. Ling’s Charter rights were engaged and warnings should have been issued before further information was sought from Mr. Ling.

Although the lack of a Charter warning may not dictate the exclusion of any evidence gathered after this point, it will be necessary to categorize the evidence gathered after this point and examine it in light of s. 24(2) of the Charter. A retrial is ordered for this purpose.

A. Was the Role of Revenue Canada after December, 1994 Part of an Investigation or an Audit?

Section 231.1 of the Income Tax Act and Section 288 of the Excise Tax Act provide similar regulatory authority to “authorized persons” to inspect a taxpayer’s documents and requires the taxpayer to provide assistance to such persons (auditors). Compelling the taxpayer to co-operate may lead to a blurring of the line between the audit function toward which the sections are directed and the investigatory function toward which they are not directed.

There are three time periods before me requiring scrutiny:

(i) December 1, 1994 - April 25, 1995 - being the date upon which the “lead” was received by Stephen Draude of Revenue Canada, Excise up to the date of the initial interview with Gerald Melnychuk;

(ii) April 25, 1995 - May 10, 1995 - being the date of the initial interview and review of certain books and records of Gerald Melnychuk up to the date of the interview with David Henlisia and the obtaining of the books and records of David Henlisia (the accountant) and Gerald Melnychuk;

(iii) May 10, 1995 - June 29, 1995 - being the date upon which the books and records of Gerald Melnychuk were obtained from Gerald Melnychuk and from Dave Henlisia, accountant up to the date the file of Gerald Melnychuk was referred to Special Investigations.

(i) December 1, 1994 - April 25, 1995

In accordance with the position taken in Warawa and Branch that all evidence obtained in an audit is tainted evidence if subsequently used by Special Investigations in the criminal prosecution, the information gathered after December 1, 1994 is tainted and in violation of the accused’s Charter rights.

(ii) April 25, 1995 - May 10, 1995

The actions of the auditors prior to their meeting with the accused On or about April 25-27, 1995 was to confirm their suspicions that the accused had unreported income. In accordance with Jarvis the evidence obtained thereafter, was subject to the accused’s Charter rights.

(iii) May 10, 1995 - June 29, 1995

The purpose of the meeting by officers of Revenue Canada with the accused’s accountant was to gather books and records of the accused and the accountant to support a referral to Special investigations. In accordance with Norway Insulation, Warawa, and Jarvis all such information is tainted and subject to the accused’s Charter rights.

B. Whether the Evidence Obtained from the Accused During the Audit under the Income Tax Act was Obtained in Violation of the Accused’s Rights under Section 7 of the Charter

Briefly, with respect to the information obtained in December, 1994 prior to the obtaining of the search warrant - there having been reported that considerable income had not been accounted for - the focus changed to an investigation. All books and records obtained thereafter were wrongfully obtained under Section 8 of the Charter.

The evidence obtained through the Charter breach must be excised from the Information to Obtain a Search Warrant. See: R. v. Carrier (1996), 181 A.R. 284 (Alta. C.A.) per Cote J.A. at page 302.

Absent reasonable grounds in the issuing of a search warrant, that portion of the warrant becomes void and any search arising therefrom is warrantless. A warrantless search is prima facie unreasonable.

In order to rebut the presumption of unreasonableness, the Crown must establish:

(a) that the search was authorized by law;

(b) that the law authorizing the search was reasonable; and

(c) that the manner in which the search was carried out was reasonable.

Unless rebutted, a warrantless search infringes Section 8 of the Charter. See: R. v. Collins (1987), 33 C.C.C. (3d) 1 (S.C.C.) @ 14; R. v. Stillman (1997), 144 D.L.R. (4th) 193 (S.C.C.).

Reasonable privacy expectations may be offended by a search of the premises of a third party. Jarvis concluded that a taxpayer has a reasonable expectation of privacy of his financial records held by his accountant, and accordingly a warrantless search of the accountant’s premises was unreasonable.

V. Conclusion on the Information to Obtain a Search Warrant

The evidence of Julius Calyniuk provides clearly that there was not sufficient evidence to swear an Information to obtain which would support the granting of a Search Warrant prior to May 10, 1995. He testified that when he was approached by the auditors after their meeting with the accused on April 26 thru 27, 1995, he advised them in response to their query that “there was not enough evidence to reassess, let alone to refer to Special investigation.” Julius Calyniuk, it will be recalled was the senior technical advisor with Revenue Canada and who testified that he was the person that “almost all Special Investigation referrals went through.” It may be concluded that there could not have been enough information to provide the reasonable and probable grounds necessary for obtaining a search warrant.

The testimony of Rob Kellin of Revenue Canada Special investigations, who swore out the Information to Obtain Search Warrants on the personal residence of the accused, the hunting lodge, and the accused’s accountants, also indicates that there was, in his opinion insufficient evidence to obtain such search warrant if there is excised from the Information to Obtain, information obtained during the audit/investigation prior to the referral to Special Investigations.

The grounds which are based on “tainted evidence” and must be excised from the Information to Obtain is as follows:

i) Subparagraph 3 contains information obtained through an examination of the accountant’s records;

ii) Subparagraph 4 contains information obtained from books and records borrowed and returned to Gerald Melnychuk;

iii) Subparagraph 6 refers to information obtained in the interview with Gerald Melnychuk on April 25 and 26, 1995;

iv) Subparagraph 7 refers to conclusions drawn from documents examined which included the accountant’s records and records borrowed and returned to Gerald Melnychuk;

v) Subparagraphs 9,10,11 and 12 are all based on information referred to above which was tainted evidence and accordingly the information in subparagraphs 9,10,11 and 12 should be excised from the Information to Obtain;

vi) Subparagraph 13 refers to bank deposits which were obtained from the accountant’s records and the records of Gerald Melnychuk;

vii) Subparagraph 14 relies on tainted evidence and, in particular, records obtained from Gerald Melnychuk as to his published rates for the outfitting business and, accordingly, subparagraph 14 should be excised from the Information to Obtain:

viii) Subparagraph 16 relies on tainted evidence and, in particular, Note 2 of Exhibit “A” referred to in subparagraph 16, was obtained from the records of Gerald Melnychuk and, accordingly, subparagraph 16 should be excised from the Information to Obtain;

ix) Subparagraph 17 is based upon tainted evidence and, in particular, notes 3 and 4 of Exhibits “B”, “C” and “D” were obtained from Gerald Melnychuk’s records, and, accordingly, subparagraph 17 should be excised form the Information to Obtain;

x) Subparagraphs 18 and 19 are based upon subparagraph 17 which is based upon tainted evidence and, accordingly,

xi) Subparagraphs 18 and 19 should be excised from the Information to Obtain;

xii) Subparagraphs 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 are all conclusions and such conclusions are based upon tainted evidence and, accordingly, subparagraphs 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 should be excised from the Information to Obtain;

xiii) Subparagraph 27(d) is based upon conclusions reached in subparagraph 23, which was based upon tainted evidence accordingly, subparagraph 27(d) should be excised from the Information to Obtain;

xiv) Subparagraph 29 is based upon interview with Gerald Melnychuk;

xv) Subparagraphs 30,31,32,33 and 35 are all conclusions based upon tainted evidence and, accordingly, subparagraphs 30,31,32,33 and 35 should be excised from the Information to Obtain.

There being insufficient grounds upon which to issue the search warrant, the same is quashed.

C. In the Event that there was a Breach of the Accused’s Charter Rights, Should such Evidence be Excluded under Section 24(2) of the Charter

I adopt the argument of the accused in that to admit such evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. The accused’s ar- gument at page 36 at seq of his brief dated 9 December, 1997 reads in its entirely:

51. The starting point as one seeks an answer to this question must be Collins, supra. At page 714, Lamer J., as he then was, said on behalf of the majority:

It is whether the admission of the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute that is the application test.

52. Section 24 of the Charter reads as follows:

1 Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter,

have been infringed or denied may apply to a Court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the Court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.

2 Where, in a proceeding under subsection I, a Court concludes

that evidence was obtained in a manner that infringed or denied any rights or freedoms guaranteed by this Charter, the evidence shall be excluded if it is established that, having regard to all the circumstances, the admission of it in the proceedings would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

53. Justice Sopinka, writing for the majority in À. v. Kokesch, supra, and relying on Collins, set out the following:

The factors to be considered in assessing the admissibility of evidence under Section 24(2) fall into three broad categories:

(a) Factors concerning the effect of admission on the fairness of the trial;

(b) Factors concerning the seriousness of the violation;

and

(c) Factors concerning the effect of exclusion on the reputation of the administration of justice.

54. In Norway Insulation, supra, the Court held that the administration of justice would suffer far greater disrepute from the admission of evidence than from its exclusion in a case where Special Investigations had any contact with Revenue Canada’s auditors. The Court strongly held that the Court must not be seen to condone conduct of this sort on the part of officials who yield substantial power over private citizens and who do not exercise this power in a thoughtful or knowledgeable fashion.

54. In Jarvis, supra, the Court concluded that the inclusion of evidence gathered by Revenue Canada in the course of an audit, in violation of the accused’s Charter rights, would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, given the serious penalties to which taxpayer would be subject if convicted, and the value to society of ensuring that the enormous powers of Revenue Canada were properly used.

55. In Warawa, supra, the Court concluded that the inclusion of evidence obtained in the course of an audit in violation of the accused’s Charter rights would bring the administration of justice into disrepute particularly where Revenue Canada’s own policies are not followed.

The evidence obtained under the circumstances covered above is excluded.

Application granted.