Young - Supreme Court of Nova Scotia finds that Jarvis principle did not exclude evidence gathered before referral to criminal investigation

An auditor (Power) performed an audit of a company, that then extended to seven related companies, that had very poor record-keeping and that had been making large input tax credit and rebate claims. A month after having visited the business premises and interviewed the registrants, she concluded that the matter should be referred to the Criminal Investigation Division. In concluding that the evidence gathered by Power should not be excluded on Jarvis grounds (so that it was admissible in the subsequent criminal proceeding), Gogan J stated:

[I]t is a nuanced distinction … between a registrant being unable to support claims made (the audit conclusion and one potentially explained by poor record keeping) and a registrant making false or fraudulent statements to CRA (a criminal conclusion potentially explained by having no legitimate records). In this case, I am satisfied that any evidence obtained came as a result of Power’s audit inquiries.

… I find that the predominant purpose of the investigation did not turn to criminal or penal liability until after the completion of Power’s interviews with each of the accused. …

Neal Armstrong. Summary of R v Young, 2021 NSSC 361 under ETA s. 288(1).