RoBINSON,
J.:—This
is
an
appeal
from
a
judgment
rendered
by
Judge
John
O’Meara,
on
June
10,
1963,
which
reads
as
follows
:
‘‘In
the
present
case,
the
defendant
was
charged
with
failure
to
comply
with
a
demand
by
the
Minister,
made
upon
him
by
registered
letter,
requiring
him
to
file
with
the
Minister
a
return
of
income
(Tl,
1961)
in
virtue
of
8.
126
ss.
2
&
6
of
the
Act
and
in
contravention
of
the
dispositions
of
8S.
131
ss.
2
of
the
Act.
For
the
reasons
given
in
my
judgment
in
the
case
of
H.M.
the
Queen
ex
rel.
J.
L.
Poulin
vs
Robert
Gaulin,
No.
4730
(1962),
the
facts
of
which
case
are
identical
with
those
of
the
present
case
and
a
copy
whereof
is
hereunto
annexed,
I
find
that
the
complaint
in
the
instant
case
was
wrongly
taken
and,
accordingly,
I
find
the
defendant
not
guilty
and
I
dismiss
the
complaint.”
The
Court
has
read
and
considered
the
rather
lengthy
judgment
that
Judge
O’Meara
rendered
in
the
above-mentioned
case
of
Robert
Gaulin,
and
does
not
agree
with
his
opinion
that
because
the
Act
provides
for
two
alternative
modes
of
prosecution
for
the
failure
to
file
an
income
tax
return
when
called
upon
to
do
so,
and
in
one
ease
the
fine
is
greater
than
in
the
other,
that
is
a
justification
for
a
potential
taxpayer
to
refuse
to
file
an
income
tax
return
when
called
upon;
nor
does
the
Court
agree
with
his
opinion
that
it
is
only
during
the
course
of
an
investigation
that
a
taxpayer
may
be
called
upon
to
file
a
return.
These
issues
have
been
carefully
examined
and
considered
by
Mr.
Justice
Roger
Ouimet
of
this
Court,
in
the
case
of
Attorney-
General
Canada
v.
Belanger
(1962),
38
Criminal
Reports,
Canada,
page
85,
and
this
Court
considers
that
the
refusal
by
Judge
O’Meara
to
share
this
opinion,
although
with
great
deference,
was
not
justified.
Every
resident
of
Canada,
and
a
potential
taxpayer,
should
co-operate
with
the
country
that
gives
him
protection
of
the
law
and
should
be
glad
that
he
is
given
the
opportunity
to
file
an
income
tax
return
within
a
reasonable
delay
when
the
Government
finds
that
he
has
failed
to
do
so.
The
accused
in
this
case,
after
his
arraignment,
not
only
failed
to
put
in
his
appearance
at
the
trial
before
Judge
O’Meara
but
also
failed
to
appear
when
this
appeal
was
heard,
either
in
person
or
by
counsel.
The
Court
cannot
understand
his
deliberate
indifference.
The
Court
approves
the
remarks
of
Judge
O’Meara,
where
he
says
:
‘
it
becomes
clear
that
the
evil
envisaged
by
the
non-compliance
with
or
by
the
contravention
of
the
said
sections
of
the
Act
is
one
which
goes
to
the
very
heart
of
the
administration
and
perception
of
the
revenue
of
the
state,
and
a
failure
on
the
part
of
any
person
to
comply
with
such
dispositions
or
such
person
to
contravene
the
same,
may,
in
the
given
circumstances,
be
considered
almost
as
a
fraud
perpetrated
upon
the
constituted
agency
of
Government
to
which
is
entrusted
the
administration
and
enforcement
of
the
Act.”’
The
evidence
produced
proves
the
charge
that
was
laid
against
the
defendant-respondent,
and
for
the
reasons
given
by
Mr.
Justice
Roger
Ouimet
in
the
above-mentioned
Belanger
case,
and
the
jurisprudence
therein
cited:
I
Maintain
the
present
appeal
and
reverse
the
judgment
of
the
Court
of
first
instance
which
dismissed
the
charge
against
the
respondent.
I
now
proceed
to
give
the
judgment
that
should
have
been
given;
and
DECLARE
the
respondent,
Tracy
S.
Ludington,
guilty
of
the
offence
charged
and
CoNDEMN
him
to
the
following
penalties:
(1)
A
fine
of
Two
Hundred
Dollars
($200)
;
and
(2)
In
default
of
payment,
to
one
month’s
imprisonment
;
the
whole
with
costs
fixed
at
$50.
Email this Content