Russell Anthony Porisky - Poriskyite Extraordinaire!

[Dr. Caligari]

The sentences in the U.S. for equivalent tax offenses would likely be much longer. Porisky is lucky to be living in such a civilized place as Canada.

[Burnaby49]

I just finished reading an article on that very issue, how about 80% of American tax evaders get jail but very few Canadian evaders do. Our sentences are also, on average, much shorter. Porisky's sentence was very long for Canada but only a year and a half was for evasion. Four years was for counseling fraud. Given the scope of his scheme and his persistance in pushing it even when it was known it attracted criminal charges he should have got more.

[Burnaby49]

His sentencing finally made the news;

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c ... -1.3709094

[Burnaby49]

Porisky and Gould's sentencing decision has been released. This is what the judge read out in court and you can, if you wish to waste some time, compare it to the version I've previously posted here based on my attempts to desperately scrawl it down while the judge quick-marched through it.

R. v. Porisky, 2016 BCSC 1757
http://canlii.ca/t/gttrn

Some entirely subjective highlights. First the court's understanding of how the Paradigm theory worked. Or, more accurately, the court's admission that it didn't have a clue;

[15] Mr. Porisky and Ms. Gould derived income from the percentages paid by the educators and students to Paradigm for its material. The material that was seized from the home of Mr. Porisky and Ms. Gould demonstrates that Mr. Porisky taught his scheme on a large scale to at least 30 educators and to 800 students. All of these individuals paid a percentage to Mr. Porisky to learn and to disperse the Paradigm theory.

[16] The scheme is difficult to describe. As noted in the case authorities dealing with Paradigm, it lacks common sense and is nonsensical. Mr. Porisky and the Paradigm theory have been analyzed in many cases in respect of the conviction and sentencing of Mr. Porisky's acolytes. There have been seven educators and 17 students convicted and sentenced. There are nine pending matters before this court, the B.C. Provincial Court, and other courts across the country.

[17] Trying to describe the Paradigm theory in a logical manner is impossible and inadvertently lends credence to it. Generally, Mr. Porisky and his Paradigm theory was based on the concept that, as natural persons as opposed to artificial persons, no tax on income was payable. As a natural person, Mr. Porisky, Ms. Gould, his educators and students could arrange their affairs by using contracts for hire, confidentiality clauses, amendments to the signature box on tax returns, disclaimers, and withdrawing from government benefit plans by using forms that Mr. Porisky and Paradigm prepared and provided to them.

[18] These unusual and irregular procedures were aimed at evading liability for the payment of taxes and GST. The materials were used to enable others to structure their affairs as a “natural person working in his or her own capacity under private contract for his or her own benefit”. Mr. Porisky and Paradigm, through Mr. Porisky's tortured logic, taught that the money earned under this arrangement was exempt from income tax and no GST was payable on it.

[19] The Paradigm theory taught individuals that this nonsensical interpretation of the law would frustrate the ability of the Crown to prove the requisite mens rea to secure a conviction for evasion of income taxes or counselling fraud. The theory of Mr. Porisky and Paradigm was that the Crown could not prove intent, or mens rea, if one had an honest belief in the law.

On to ballpark calculations of the overall fraud involved in the scheme;

[23] The Crown admits that determining the scale of fraud counselled through Paradigm by Mr. Porisky is virtually impossible. There are several methods suggested. The first is by using the 7% payments that students were making to Paradigm from their income and extrapolating the taxes that would be evaded, on average, if all students acted on the teachings. This amount is estimated by the Crown to be over $11.5 million.

[24] The second method is by accepting the amounts that other courts have used in their convictions and sentencing of Paradigm followers. Of approximately 800 students and 30 educators, there are 31 known sentencing decisions relating to the Paradigm teachings. The total taxes (GST and income tax) evaded by these 31 individuals was $4,478,930, calculated using the fines imposed and the percentage of the taxes that the fines represented.

Then on to the real victim in all of this; Russell Porisky!

[30] Mr. Porisky says that the various costs associated with this court matter and the matter before Myers J., as well as the time he spent in custody in 2012 following the sentence by Mr. Justice Myers, have had a negative effect on his finances and the family is now counting change to purchase gas for their vehicle. He is currently earning less through his work in construction than he did in the past.

[31] Mr. Porisky also describes his years of dealing with Canada Revenue Agency, including the search warrant executed on his and Ms. Gould's home in 2008, and his apprehension of the court process as having been “most stressful, [and which] occupied much of his waking thoughts and affected his sleep”.

Paragraph 32 is pretty much what Keith Lawson also said at his sentencing hearing. He was always trying to do the honourable thing and act as an honourable man.

[32] Mr. Porisky offered that he attempted to work with Canada Revenue Agency and always tried to do what, in his view, was right.

The judge tosses Porisky's prior sentencing out the window;

[52] The Crown also refers to the sentencing decision of Myers J. following the first trial. I am not bound by the conclusions of Myers J. regarding the global sentences to be imposed on these offenders. Since those sentences were imposed in 2012, there have been several additional authorities in respect of Paradigm educators and students that I must consider. This demonstrates the extent of the potential and actual amount of tax revenue defrauded through Mr. Porisky's counselling and is clearer as each of his followers are convicted and sentenced. The extent of the resources expended by the Canada Revenue Agency and the criminal law to enforce the law is much greater than Myers J. could have known in May 2012, when he imposed sentence, and the enforcement continues. As noted, there are several cases that are pending before the courts.

Then a point I've discussed in some detail in Keith Lawson's discussion. How Lawson continued flogging the Paradigm evasion scheme for three years after the Sydel decision resulted in Eva Sydel being convicted of tax evasion and sentenced to prison for following Paradigm. This didn't phase Porisky and Lawson at all. It was still full speed ahead grabbing that sweet, sweet tax-free cash flow from counseling tax evasion to suckers until the CRA actually shut things down with search warrants and confiscations.

[61] The Crown refers to the high degree of moral culpability of Mr. Porisky, including that he was the mastermind behind Paradigm; he had knowledge of the illegality of the Paradigm theory; Mr. Porisky's persistence in his teaching, despite clear words of the courts in convicting those who followed the Paradigm theory; Mr. Porisky's continued mindset of distrust and defiance of authority of the CRA and the courts.

[62] The Crown also refers to the pre-sentence report, which demonstrates that Mr. Porisky regrets his own financial instability and the stress of the criminal justice process, but does not appear to make any expressions of regret or remorse in relation to the public or those educators and students of Paradigm and the civil and criminal consequences that they face.

Then time to dump on Russ;

[71] I accept the aggravating factors as outlined by the Crown: the multiple tax years and over an extended period of time; that the offences were planned and deliberate; that they were part of an organized pseudo�legal commercial argument scheme that Paradigm operated on a large scale and it was a sophisticated enterprise teaching tax fraud; and the tax amounts evaded by both Ms. Gould and Mr. Porisky were substantial.

[72] I accept that, as aggravating factors, Mr. Porisky was the mastermind behind these offences; that both offenders continued these offences, despite knowing of the criminal and civil pursuit by the Canada Revenue Agency; and by the fact that both offenders maintain their views as noted by the pre-sentence report.

[73] The effect on the community is significant, addressing the number of educators and students; the public funds that have been placed at risk are significant; and the enforcement expenses in relation to the tax evasion and GST evasion and the fraud are large.

[74] I have referred to the mitigating factors of no prior criminal history and the personal circumstances of the offenders, and those are the factors that I have addressed as mitigating factors. I have also referred to the situations of similar offenders committing similar offences in similar circumstances.

[75] I note that the disgorging of profits of an offence by imposing a fine does not address all the principles of sentencing. I thus agree with the Crown that the history of tax filings and correspondence with the CRA by these offenders, the procedural history of this matter, and the content of the pre-sentence report suggest a strong need at effecting specific deterrence. I agree that jail is a necessary part of a fit sentence for all the counts. The offence here is grave, and the degree of responsibility of the offenders is significant, particularly in the case of Mr. Porisky, who was, after all, at the top of this pyramid scheme and derived the greatest revenue and fame from it.

. . . . .

[78] Mr. Porisky, please stand. Mr. Porisky, your moral culpability is higher than any of those who have already been convicted and sentenced of similar offences. I have described you as a mastermind of the Paradigm theory. You were proselytizing it and it was followed by your acolytes. You received significant financial benefit from it, both before and after the theory was discredited by several court decisions. You bear added responsibility.

[79] The wake of your counselling fraud is extensive and continues to grow. I find that the three years imposed as a sentence on Count 4 by Myers J. does not represent an appropriate and fit sentence in 2016.

. . . . .

[80] I find there is no cogent reason to depart from those sentences that have been suggested by the Crown, and I have determined that the cumulative effect of the consecutive sentence is just and appropriate.

[81] I sentence you to 18 months' jail, a jail sentence on Counts 1 and 3, and four years on Count 4. The sentences must be served consecutively. The sentence imposed on you for Count 4 must be served consecutively to the sentence I impose in respect of Counts 1 and 3. These offences are not part of a linked series of acts in a single endeavour. Mr. Porisky, you could have evaded taxes without Paradigm, and vice versa. Your choice to evade taxes and to counsel others to do so gives rise to separate and distinct offences requiring a sentence that reflects the gravity of each offence.

[82] I therefore sentence you to an 18 month jail sentence concurrent on Counts 1 and 3, and a consecutive jail sentence of four years on Count 4. The total sentence is five and a half years in jail, less credit for 404 days (based on the 202 days that you served in custody following your previous conviction, credited on a two to one basis), plus a mandatory fine of $193,333.26 in respect of Count 1, and $66,149.07 in respect of Count 3.

But not to worry. Russ has already appealed his conviction so no doubt he'll be a free man in no time. Be very interesting to see it he's let out on bail while awaiting the appeal result this time. I attended the trial and if there are any grounds for appealing I missed them. Since he (and Gould) essentially put up no defense they can't argue that the judge made a mistake on that basis.

The only possible avenue for appeal that I can see is to contest the judge's charges to the jury, the instructions regarding law that they had to follow while making their deliberations. They might appeal on the basis that the judge did not allow them to argue mistake in law (that they tried to comply with the law but misunderstood it) or to explain the Paradigm theory to the jurors. Both arguments are losers but he has to come up with something if he plans to actually try and work through the appeals system. Perhaps he's just desperately trying to stay out of jail. The last time he appealed, in 2012, he got four years of freedom while his retrial worked its way through the system. Maybe he thinks he can do it again and just wear the Crown out through constant retrials. Not this time.

[Burnaby49]

Porisky and Gould filed appeals on August 25th. I assume that they are out on bail but I wasn't paying the $6 necessary to access the appeal file and find out.

[Burnaby49]

I've been wondering how Porisky's and Lawson's appeals were going so this morning I went to the British Columbia Court of Appeal registry and checked out their files. I was greatly relieved to find that Porisky, in his Notice of Appeal or Leave to Appeal, has finally decided to rely on the advice of someone knowledgeable and experienced enough in the law to provide him with at least one valid argument to make in his appeal.

Me.

On February 12th, 2016, the day of Porisky's conviction, I posted this;

So how'd my pubbing go? We have a policy of one beer in each pub then move on so we went to;

The Moose
The Morrissey
Yaletown Brewery
Red Racer
The Railway Club
Steamworks

Then home by 10:00 to find an email waiting for me saying that the jury had decided by 9:20 and found P&G guilty on all counts. Masses of evidence, complex tax law, over a hundred hours of video, four charges with two defendants, over thirty pages of judges instructions, and it took the jury less time to decide than I spent having an evening's pubbing. When you knock off the three hours for lunch and dinner they deliberated about five hours. That's impressive efficiency.

Well this apparently seemed like a damn good point to Russ too because one of his grounds for appeal is;

15. The Jury's verdict unreasonable, upon the following grounds;

a. On February 12th 2016, the Honourable Madame Justice Gropper took an hour to carefully read out to the Jury her CHARGE TO THE JURY that consisted of 38 pages.

Saying; "Each of you must make your own decision whether either accused is guilty or not guilty. You should reach your decision only after consideration of the evidence with your fellow jurors. Your duty is to try and reach a unanimous verdict after a sincere consideration of the facts and the law and an honest discussion with your fellow jurors".
The Honourable Madame Groper CHARGE TO THE JURY page 7 paragraph [21]

The jury cannot have acted justiciably in reaching a verdict in 5 (five) hours given the extensive evidentiary evidence and documentary evidence before it; The Honourable Madame Justice Groper read out her CHARGE TO THE JURY at 11:40am. The jury came back with their decision at 9:11pm, and was said to the court at 9:25pm. With the lunch and dinner breaks excluded the jury deliberated for approximately 5 (five) hours. The Court Exhibit List consisted of 7 (seven) pages, displaying the massive amount of document, book, video, and electronic storage media evidence each juror was Charged with considering.

You're welcome Russ, glad I could help.

As for the other arguments, can't say that I'm impressed but since Porisky and Gould are still unrepresented I suppose it's the best that Russ could do. However they've both applied for legal aid and said that they may amend their appeal filings if their applications for Legal Aid are approved.

So on to the other grounds for appeal. I'll keep it short, Russ is very wordy. When I get around to posting this on Media Fire you can read it for yourselves, if interested.

Whine argument 2 was about an exhibit. Exhibit 26 was an unfinished PowerPoint Russ made in 2007 and had stored on his computer. It was titled "Are Wages For Labour Performed Deductible?" According to Russ this PowerPoint was proof 'for the condensed supported position of Russ Porisky and the authorities he researched and based his foundational beliefs upon." But, notwithstanding that this evidence was available in the exhibits, he was found guilty anyhow. Proof indeed of an unreasonable jury verdict!

Argument 3 - With all of the "voluminous documentary evidence on record" there was no evidence that Russ had ever applied for a "commercial registered business number "BN". Apparently this proved that he was not required to collect or remit GST.

Argument 4 - The judge did not allow the jury to take Porisky's 1999 Income Tax Act into the jury room with them. This contained "post it notes, highlighted sections, and folded corners. It supports Mr. Porisky's due diligence in his years of research."

Argument 5 - Something about Exhibit 26 again. Apparently the PowerPoint slides supported his position that his income was not taxable.

Argument 6 - Back to argument 3 and the BN. Not applying for a BN apparently proved that he was not in pursuit of profit. I suppose this meant that if he actually had any profits (as Crown contended) they were not taxable because he got them by accident. Like lifting the couch cushions and finding a $100 bill there. Just wild chance. Porisky included in this ground for appeal that he'd written a letter to the CRA and Department of Justice in 2004 stating his rights and principles. He didn't explain in the Notice of Appeal what this comment had to do with anything.

Then back to that five-hour verdict. That really gnaws at him. Those years of work, his brilliant analysis of why he didn't have to pay tax explained in vast detail in the Paradigm publications, the dozens of videos explaining all this. And it was all summarily dismissed by the jury in less time than it took me to swill a few beers. To show how it burns just check the answer to this standardized question on the form;

16. If a new trial is ordered and you have a right to a trial by jury do you wish a trial by jury? No.

What does he want from the appeal?

i. . . . an Order to quash or set aside the Jury's verdict on Counts 1,3, and 4 as the Jury verdict unreasonable; and could not be supported by the weight of the evidence . . .

j. . . . an Order to quash the convictions and sentence, and entering a judgement (sic) of acquittal . . .

and signed and dated (August 25th) at the bottom with, under his name, this plaintive notation;

Appellant in custody, Russell Anthony Porisky per eg

It might have helped his appeal had he shown the slightest interest in his trial while it was being held rather than just sitting there like a store dummy. It's difficult, after the fact, to contest entered evidence or complain about evidence not entered if you did not object to the first or try and enter the second.

And, on an entirely different note;

Donald Trump Wins The Election!!!!!!

No, that is not my political position or my electoral forecast, but the learned and reasoned opinion of an expert in the intricacies of the American electoral system and an infallible prognosticator of tomorrow's events; a bulldog leashed to a railing a few feet from me while I had a coffee this morning.

Before going to the registry I went over to the Terra Bread Bakery in Olympic Village for a coffee and an almond croissant. A fair distance out of my way but if it was convenient I'd weigh 300 pounds by now from those croissants. Overcast but not raining so I sat outside. A customer leashed his bulldog to the railing beside me and went in. A woman at a nearby table immediately came over and fawned on the dog. She kept asking it who was going to win, Donald or Hillary? I was too slavishly obsessed with my oral gratification to catch the answer but she announced to us all that the dog had gone with The Donald. She went around the restaurant telling everyone about this miracle. I don't think the dog was a Trump fan, it seemed barely interested. Perhaps it was just being modest.

So ignore those lying polls, that's a prediction you can take to the bank!

[wserra]

Donald Trump Wins The Election!!!!!!

My only comment on this entire remarkably stupid two-year exercise in civic torture:

https://youtu.be/WLYHu0AG8GI

[Burnaby49]

Meet the greatest political prognosticator of this election cycle! A Canadian!

[Burnaby49]

In my posting of November 9th, 2016 I wrote;

So on to the other grounds for appeal. I'll keep it short, Russ is very wordy. When I get around to posting this on Media Fire you can read it for yourselves, if interested.

I was referring to putting up Porisky's Notice of Appeal on Media Fire. I finally got around to it;

http://www.mediafire.com/file/fd0mdwpux ... notice.pdf

[Burnaby49]

On April 30th I attended yet another appeal of a Poriskyite tax evasion conviction, this time it was Russell Porisky, the man himself! Russ and his wife Elaine Gould had a joint appeal against their convictions for income tax evasion and counseling fraud. Russ was the man who, through diligent research, realized that we Canadians actually didn't had to pay income tax if we chose not to. He teased this out of his own bizarre convoluted interpretation of the Income Tax Act, an interpretation that only he could discern, and he packaged all of this tax knowledge together into a course of instruction presented by an organization he called the Paradigm Education Group. Paradigm consisted of Porisky at the top and numerous "educators" under him who gave seminars and lessons on how to evade paying taxes. Porisky skimmed a fee off the top from the suckers who bought into his scheme and the educators also took a cut for doing the gruntwork of teaching the Paradigm scheme. Unfortunately, while avoiding tax is entirely legal, Russ's scheme actually entailed evading taxes, a criminal act. The net result was dozens, maybe hundreds, of criminal charges laid against Porisky and his "students". Virtually all were convicted. Some got conditional sentences and criminal penalties and some, like Porisky, got jail sentences. Porisky's tax evasion trial, conviction, and sentencing is written up in detail in an earlier part of this thread. The April 30th hearing was his appeal of his, and his wife Elaine Gould's, convictions. This was Porisky's last chance at redemption, the final chance, from the man, who's brainchild the Paradigm system was, to convince a court that he was correct.

And it was a sad, sad, spectacle. The man who single-handedly created and ran one of the largest tax evasion scams in Canada's history was abandoned, almost forgotten, with only four spectators to watch his fate, Michael Millar, a true believer facing his own day of reckoning next month, two guys apparently from the prosecution side, and me. Porisky didn't look, or sound, well. He had a limp and looked worn out. He was self-represented and barely seemed to have any personal involvement in the job at hand. Unlike Keith Lawson he seemed defeated before he started.

The hearing started with the court (three appellate judges) asking Russ how much time he thought he needed to present his case. If you'll recall Keith Lawson used his entire allotment of two hours, spending it futilely flailing away hoping that something would stick. Porisky needed a bit less time than Keith, one hour and fifty-three minutes less to be precise. He told the court he'd take about ten minutes but I timed him and he was done in seven minutes.

The court told him that they'd read his factum and materials and he should bear that in mind when giving his arguments. They asked the two appellants if both were speaking or just one of them;

Russ - mumble, mumble, mumble.

The court asked him to speak louder.

Russ - mumble, mumble, mumble.

This was an ongoing problem for me but not a lengthy one given the seven minutes that Russ actually spoke. Porisky started by passing a paper to the Crown and the court. He said that he faced difficulty speaking in open court so he wanted to enter the paper (an affidavit) he'd passed over as his submission and he'd read it out orally. This was news to Crown and court but neither appeared to have any problem with the approach so he read out the document. Because of difficulty hearing him I can't guarantee I got everything but there didn't seem to be much. Porisky said that he wanted to enter his oral argument this way because he had difficulty speaking in open court and doing so "elevated" his distress and he was overwhelmed.

He gave a history of the case management hearings to date including a failed Section 684 (of the Criminal Code) application for legal assistance. Every application they made during the case management was denied. They'd argued about the legality of the search warrant, asked for an adjournment, something about the bill of rights and privacy. They'd wanted a "private appeal", whatever that was supposed to be. He also noted that they were appealing on the basis that they were prejudiced by the trial judge using the words "avoid" and "evade" interchangeably in the instructions to the jury.

We thought the jury would review the evidence and realize our non-commercial intention and the government's attempts to commercialize us, neither of us wanted a commercial enterprise or make a profit. Elaine was a housewife taking care of seven children and I was pursuing a private endeavor. (Note - The comment about commercializing them was in reference to the CRA assigning Russ and Elaine a Goods and Service Tax number, according to Russ this was a violation of their rights). And that was about it. After seven minutes he was done.

Russ was essentially making the same argument that Keith Lawson made in his appeal;

http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtop ... 00#p274711

but, as impossible as it seems, his failure to provide any context for phrases like "commercial enterprise" and "private endeavor" resulted in him making even less sense than Keith did. Keith had explicitly argued that the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Stewart meant that he didn't have to pay tax if he chose not to. Porisky argued the same thing but without mentioning Stewart or any other decision to support his position. He just said things. He had two years or so to prepare for this hearing and all he managed to cough up was seven minutes of gibberish on a single sheet of paper.

The court asked him if he was relying on his written factum. Yes.

Then Elaine Gould, his wife and co-defendant, spoke up. As best I can recall this is the first time she's spoken in the entire series of trial and appeal hearing. At least it's the first time in a hearing I've attended. She told the court that the CRA took them from their natural rights to make them commercial enterprises. "We had to defend our rights by entering the system. We got issued a GST number but we are not a business. We have tried from the beginning to try and establish our rights. I'm a stay at home mom and Russ ran a personal endeavor." And that was it for Elaine.

With Russ and Elaine done it was the Crown's turn. First point considered was the evade and avoid argument. Crown said that the trial judge had applied the correct usage of the words and had followed legal authorities and this court.

Rollin' in my sweet baby's arm's
Rollin' in my sweet baby's arm's
I'm goin to lay around the shack till the mail train comes back
Then I'll be rollin' in my sweet baby's arms.

I ain't goin' to work down on the railroad
Ain't goin' to work down on the farm
Goin' lay around the shack till the mail train comes back
Then I'll be rollin' in my sweet baby's arms.

Sorry, a bottle of red wine and Leon Russell on the headset distracted me from the travails of Russ and Elaine. Back on track wherever that was. Right; Crown arguments. To be fair they didn't really interest me that much at trial either. Like Keith Lawson's appeal this disaster was DOA and all that Crown really had to do, as with Keith's hearing, was show up. But Crown deserves their turn so on to Porisky's personal endeavor idiocy. Crown said that the personal endeavor argument had no air of reality to it. Crown cited paragraphs 6 to 9 of Mahmood;

R. v. Mahmood
2016 ONCA 75
http://canlii.ca/t/h32dj

Which state;

[6] Mr. Mahmood’s principal submission is that the trial judge confused the jury by making no distinction between tax evasion (illegal) and tax avoidance (legal) in the course of his charge to the jury.

[7] I do not accept this submission. In his jury charge, the trial judge set out the essential elements of the offence of tax evasion that the Crown must prove:

For you to find Mr. Mahmood guilty of any of these counts, Crown counsel must prove each of these essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

i. that Mr. Mahmood knew that tax was owed under the Act as charged;
ii. that Mr. Mahmood did something or engaged in a course of conduct that avoided or attempted to avoid the payment of tax;
iii. that Mr. Mahmood intended to avoid or intended to attempt to avoid payment of that tax.

[8] In my view, this was an accurate and sufficient charge on this issue. The language the trial judge used mirrors this court’s enumeration of the elements of the offence of tax evasion in R. v. Klundert (2004), 2004 CanLII 21268 (ON CA), 187 C.C.C. (3d) 417, at para. 47:

In most cases of tax evasion, the trial judge will adequately describe the elements of the offence by instructing the jury that they must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused:

• did something or engaged in a course of conduct that avoided or attempted to avoid the payment of tax imposed by the Act;
• knew there was tax imposed by the Act; and
• engaged in the conduct for the purpose of avoiding or attempting to avoid payment of tax imposed by the Act or knowing that avoiding payment of tax imposed by the Act was a virtual certain consequence of his actions. [Footnotes omitted.]

[9] Moreover, I would observe that in the context of $3,000,000 in fees and commissions over a four-year period, no income tax returns filed for those years, and not one penny of income tax or GST remitted, there is no air of reality to a potential tax avoidance versus tax evasion explanation for Mr. Mahmood’s conduct.

Which I find a touch confusing because my notes show this quote relates to the Crown's personal endeavor argument but it clearly relates to the avoid vs. evade argument. Blame it on my difficulty in taking notes. Russ spoke too low and the Crown went to fast for my rudimentary skills. The only speaker I could both clearly hear and keep up with was Elaine.

I'll note at this point that that the court treated Elaine and Russ much more kindly than they did Keith Lawson. Not that this had any effect on the outcome but the atmosphere was much more sympathetic to the defendants. The court was very perfunctory with Keith, hustling him along and being quite sharp in response to his idiotic arguments. But not here. The judges were polite and considerate. At Keith's hearing they told the Crown that the court didn't need to hear from them. But the court didn't say that here although Russ and Elaine's arguments made no more sense than Keith's.

She came down from Birmingham one cold December day
As she rolled into the station you could hear all the people say
There's a girl from Tennessee, she's long and she's tall
She came down from Birmingham on the Wabash Cannonball

Sorry, drifting again. Just listening to The Wabash Cannonball. The Roy Acuff version, not the classic and superior Carter Family version. But who cares if I'm wandering? Let's be realistic, by 10:30 Russ and Elaine had shown us they had nothing and the hearing was, for all intents and purposes, over. However, in contrast to Keith Lawson's hearing, the court actually asked Crown some questions. Perfunctory, rote, softball questions, but questions nonetheless. The court questioned a point in Porisky's factum, something about how the Crown had shown at trial that Elaine and Russ had made $1,800,000 from of Paradigm between 2004 to 2008. Since the answer to that question is buried in a mountain of documentary evidence I doubt that the court really expected a detailed response. As far as I could tell the question was irrelevant to the appeal because the quantum of income made but not reported was a fact and, apart from exceptional circumstances (palpable and overriding error), facts aren't appealable issues. My notes, at best marginally coherent, were hopeless at this point and I have no idea what Crown said in response except that I recall that they referred to the document trail presented at trial. As best I can read the notes the Crown's response was;

Any suggestion that a personal endeavor is a lawful (?) relies on Paradigm's theory which has been refuted by the courts.

Court - Is material properly before court?

Crown - No.

And that was it for the Crown. Then Elaine wanted to speak again in response.

Gould - All of the evidence before every judge tried to make Russ and I a partnership. Russ was not a business, he was doing a personal endeavor. I was a stay at home housewife bringing up seven children. We adapted to what happened but it wasn't a business. The search warrant happened the GST number was added by the CRA one year after the search.

I wondered what the hell this had to do with the right to respond to the Crown's submission, a thought obviously shared by the court;

Court (cutting into Elaine's stream of consciousness) - I offered you an opportunity to respond to Crown. Not other things.

Gould - All those cheques to Russ and I were not for Russ and I. (note - that's an exact quote). Then something about her Section 684 application and done. During all of this Russ was just sitting there, as far as I could tell totally uninvolved, as if he had nothing invested in the outcome.

The court said they were going to stand down then let us know what they were going to do next. So we had a short break. We sat around for five minutes then the court came back and said that they'd recess for an hour, be back at 11:30, and they'd give their decision. So I wandered off for an hour and was back by 11:30. Hearing resumed;

Court - We are in a position to give judgment. The judge gave a rundown of the history of the case. The charges related to a business operation run by Russell Porisky. Paradigm has been consistently described by the courts as bogus and nonsensical. The judge referred to the Steinkey and Lawson decisions and noted that Paradigm had business-like characteristics and that the appellants had not reported the income they made from it.

Then the court told Porisky that they were going to toss his seven minute speech and the affidavit he'd read it from because it contained only questions of fact and facts do not form any grounds for an appeal. This meant that the appeal was restricted to whatever was in the factum and the only ground for appeal in the factum was the issue of avoid vs evade in the trial court's instructions to the jury. It took the judge one sentence to eliminate that ground;

In my view the jury was properly instructed and there is no basis for this court to intervene.

As a basis for this the court cited a number of cases,

[R. v. Klundert (2004)
http://canlii.ca/t/21j7z

R. v. Kennedy
http://canlii.ca/t/1jflb

Lawson
http://canlii.ca/t/hzj87

Samaroo
http://canlii.ca/t/hzn28

Samaroo is a very recent case I'm planning to write up but haven't gotten around to yet. The other three have been reviewed on Quatloos. The judge read quickly from a prepared decision. I didn't bother to try and keep up with her since the decision would probably be released fairly promptly and I could just cut and paste from that. A few points;

The judge said that the appellants did not point to specific parts of their trial decision to support the contention that the judge had used avoid and evade synonymously.

While Gould had argued that they were not a partnership documents showed otherwise.

Given my lackadaisical approach to writing up the appeal the decision was released before I sat down last night to write this so you can review the actual decision rather than relying on my ramblings;

R. v. Porisky
2019 BCCA 159
http://canlii.ca/t/j05gw

As best I can recall this released decision is exactly the same as the decision read out in court. As with Keith's Lawson's decision I'm a bit skeptical that the court managed to put that together in the hour break. I'm assuming that it was largely written before the hearing since it must have been obvious to the court that the only issue in the factum, the evade/avoid argument, was totally without merit. The court would have made this change to update for the affidavit;

[6] At the hearing of the appeal, the appellants advised us that they had requested the appeal to be only in writing, that they had made a limited application for appointment of counsel under s. 684 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C﷓46, which was unsuccessful, and subsequently abandoned their pursuit of a full s. 684 application. They produced the affidavits they filed in support of those applications for the purpose of demonstrating their intentions in respect of what they characterize as their personal endeavor, or perhaps more particularly, Mr. Porisky’s personal endeavor.

[7] I appreciate the appellants’ distress regarding these proceedings. However, the matters they raised before us this morning are matters of fact that do not form any ground of appeal before us. This appeal must be determined on the basis of the appellants’ written arguments as contained in their factums.

And torpedoed the avoid/evade issue with this;

[15] The appellants do not point to any particular part of the judge’s instructions to the jury to support their proposition that the judge used the words “avoid” and “evade” synonymously. The Crown identifies one instance where the judge was discussing the fault component of the crime:
Did Ms. Gould and/or Mr. Porisky know that there was tax imposed by the Act on her/his income for at least one of the years 2004, 2005, 2006, or 2007? And if so, did she or he engage in the conduct that gave rise to avoiding the payment of income tax for the purpose of avoiding or attempting to avoid payment of that tax or knowing that avoiding payment of income tax was a virtual certain consequence of her or his action?

These questions raise the mental or fault element of the offence charged. They are related to one another and because of that I will deal with them together. They require a consideration of whether the Crown has proven that the purpose of the prohibited conduct was to avoid or evade the payment of taxes.
[Emphasis added.]

[16] I agree with the Crown’s submission that this passage would not have been confusing in light of the judge’s clear instruction that the Crown was required to prove that the appellants knew that tax was owing under the Income Tax Act.

[17] In addition, the evidence before the jury was that between 2004 and 2008, the appellants received gross revenues, based on cheques made payable to Mr. Porisky, Ms. Gould or Paradigm, of about $1.4 million, and invoiced revenue of about $1.1 million. They reported none of it. While Ms. Gould argued before us that she and Mr. Porisky were not a partnership, the evidence before the jury was based on documents, and there is no basis on which we could interfere with these factual matters.

[18] The circumstances are similar to those in R. v. Mahmood, 2016 ONCA 75 (CanLII), where the defendant received fees and commissions of $3 million over a four-year period yet filed no tax returns and remitted no payment. Given the evidence before the jury in this case, I would come to the same conclusion as the court in Mahmood, that there was “no air of reality to a potential tax avoidance versus tax evasion explanation” for the appellants’ conduct.

With the appeal done the next point to be considered by the court was a potential appeal of Russ and Elaine's sentences. But the court had no record of a sentencing appeal being filed and told the Crown that there seemed to be no reason for the court to review the sentences. Elaine helpfully explained the situation;

Russ is on parole and I've served my sentence so sentencing is not part of this.

What? They've already served their sentences? News to me. Turned out that Russ had served out his jail time, spent time in a halfway house, and was just finishing his term of parole. Elaine had done her conditional sentence and was finished. Keep in mind that they did not have to serve their sentences while their conviction appeal was in process. The court would, as they did with Keith Lawson, have allowed Russ and Elaine to remain free on bail until their conviction appeal had been heard had they requested bail. Did they have so little faith in their own appeals that they thought they might as well get their inevitable sentences done? If so why bother to appeal the convictions? They certainly seemed to have made an absolute minimum effort to prepare and present a case.

And that was it, over before noon, and I wandered off to Harvy's for a burger. To recap Russ and Elaine were tried and convicted back in 2012, got the conviction quashed on appeal, were tried, and convicted again, appealed again, and lost this time. Barring filing a leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, which would certainly be denied, that's the end of Russ and Elaine's epic trial journey.

Up next, Keith Lawson's sentencing appeal at the end of the month and Michael Millar's conviction appeal in June.

[notorial dissent]

You know, I have a feeling listening to paint dry or watching water drip would be more entertaining than the actual Porisky train wreck. Boring and stupid is a lethal combination at the best of times. At least you got some good wine and music out of it. Braver soul than I Gungha Din.

[svezg]

Interesting write up, again. Thank you.

Samaroo is a very recent case I'm planning to write up but haven't gotten around to yet.

I look forward to it.

The other three have been reviewed on Quatloos.

Would you mind linking to them if convenient? I started searching but there are SO MANY posts that contain the word Klundert etc, and so can be difficult to find your excellent write ups.

[NYGman]

The other three have been reviewed on Quatloos.

Would you mind linking to them if convenient? I started searching but there are SO MANY posts that contain the word Klundert etc, and so can be difficult to find your excellent write ups.

I believe the Pink Beaver used to maintain a post with an index to all of these cases, not sure where it is, but perhaps he can re-share, or I could just be completely wrong...

[Burnaby49]

That indolent bastard Burnaby49 has made a lot of empty promises on Quatloos that he's failed to honour. I had the best intentions when I started that centralized discussion on the Poriskyite trials but, like most things in my life, it fell by the wayside when I realized it required at least a minimum effort. That said this is the link to my centralized reference for the Paradigm tax evasion trials;

http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtop ... 50&t=10250

This is Klundert's discussion;

http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtop ... =50&t=5876

Kennedy is a pivotal case generally cited in Paradigm tax evasion trials but while it is frequently mentioned in Quatloos I don't think there is a specific discussion on it. The trial took place before I started actually attending in court. You've just read Lawson and Samaroo remains to be reviewed by me.

As you probably notice I really didn't get that too engaged by Porisky's hearing. Seven minutes of nonsense and one completely hopeless ground in his actual appeal. The judge used avoid and evasion interchangeably? That's the best he could cough up after two years? It didn't even matter if he had an arguable point since he didn't work up the enthusiasm to actually argue it. Like Lawson and Chief Rock Sino General at his contempt of court trial Porisky was big on bald statements but provided no actual evidence to support them. Lawson kept yammering on and on how the trial judge had failed in her duty to him as a self-represented litigant but, when challenged by the appeals bench to provide actual examples from the transcript, he couldn't point to a single example supporting his claim. If Porisky had any arguable point at all he needed to prove it by pointing to specific examples in the judge's instructions to the jury where he'd been prejudiced by her interchangeable usage of avoid and evade. But he provided nothing but complaints that she'd screwed up. I think that's why the court asked Crown a few questions, just to try and show that the decision wasn't a foregone conclusion before the hearing even started. But, as I wrote, they showed Porisky more consideration than Lawson. They didn't even make a pretense with Lawson, they stomped him as soon as he'd finished babbling.

[notorial dissent]

The problem for Poriskey, and many other it would seem, is that there wasn't anything in their carefully designed script(s) to cover actual reasonable questions or challenges since more of their responses consist (ed) of "reasons cause" when the mean old nasty judges went off script and asked real question with real answers expected. Going off script just throws them for a complete loop. Seems to be the fate of most/all sovcits/tax protesters/scammers when they get to court.

[Burnaby49]

Four years ago, on this day (although not date), the day before the American Presidential election, I confidently posted on this discussion that Donald J. Trump would be elected as the 45th president of the United States. This was not my opinion. I’d thought, along with the uninformed multitudes, that Hillary had it in the bag. But my false assumption was corrected by Canada’s greatest election expert, a bulldog;

Donald Trump Wins The Election!!!!!!

No, that is not my political position or my electoral forecast, but the learned and reasoned opinion of an expert in the intricacies of the American electoral system and an infallible prognosticator of tomorrow's events; a bulldog leashed to a railing a few feet from me while I had a coffee this morning.

Before going to the registry I went over to the Terra Bread Bakery in Olympic Village for a coffee and an almond croissant. A fair distance out of my way but if it was convenient I'd weigh 300 pounds by now from those croissants. Overcast but not raining so I sat outside. A customer leashed his bulldog to the railing beside me and went in. A woman at a nearby table immediately came over and fawned on the dog. She kept asking it who was going to win, Donald or Hillary? I was too slavishly obsessed with my oral gratification to catch the answer but she announced to us all that the dog had gone with The Donald. She went around the restaurant telling everyone about this miracle. I don't think the dog was a Trump fan, it seemed barely interested. Perhaps it was just being modest.

So ignore those lying polls, that's a prediction you can take to the bank!

But there’s a problem with my giving you Americans guidance on the issue in this election cycle. To consult the Pythia, the Oracle of Delphi, the ancient Greeks had to trudge to the Temple of Apollo on the slopes of Mount Parnassus and I assume that if I want the guidance of my canine prognosticator I have to make my way Terra Breads at Olympic Village on the southern shores of False Creek in Vancouver. This would require that I travel on a generally crowded Skytrain on a working day. Four years ago such a task wouldn’t have warranted a moment’s thought but in the era of Covid it’s not something I’m willing to consider. When I worked I went downtown every day on Skytrain and, reliably, every year I caught whatever flu was going around. I’ve been retired thirteen years and haven’t had the flu that entire time. I attribute this to my absence from the perfect viral transmitter, a packed Skytrain car in winter. This is not a hypothesis I’m willing to empirically test in order to give a day’s warning about the results of tomorrow’s election.

So you Americans are on your own this time, I’m as ignorant as the rest of you as to what tomorrow will bring.

[grixit]

Well, i spent 4 days this week walking through neighborhoods to deposit campaign flyers on people's doorsteps. But all any dog ever said to me was GO AWAY!

[Burnaby49]

Russell Porisky is back in the news again! As is his wife Elaine Gould, perennial protester and Quatloos target David Lindsay, Quatloos contributor Donald Netolitzky, Donald’s sometimes writing partner Richard Warman and the Oceanside Common Law Assembly on Vancouver Island. All in the same news article!

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british- ... -1.5943082

Russell is the headliner for the article because of his status as one of the top ten deadbeats in British Columbia;

In 2016, Porisky was sentenced to five and a half years in prison and ordered to pay $259,482 in fines for tax evasion and counselling others to commit fraud.

Today, those penalties account for two of the top 10 largest unpaid court-ordered fines in B.C. in the last decade, a CBC News investigation has found. Nine out of 10 of those defaulted fines appears to be connected to tax-related offences.

However I doubt the government ever expected to collect Porisky’s fines, that goal was always more aspirational than attainable. By the time the trial ended Porisky was broke and unemployed. Even the judge who imposed them noted that he couldn’t pay them. However the fines were mandatory under provisions of the Income Tax Act so the judge had no discretion.

The article is somewhat of a grab-bag of different topics. Porisky was only the lead because, as Donald has written (and was quoted in the article);

In a 2016 paper for the Alberta Law Review, researcher Donald Netolitzky described Poritsky as "by far the most successful OPCA guru" of his time.

"These are the Typhoid Marys of the OPCA phenomenon, who spread a disease of ideas as they travelled across Canada, often at great price to their customers, and sometimes, to themselves," wrote Netolitzky, now complex litigant management counsel for the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench.

After Russell had his moment the article shifted to OPCA and Covid;

Even so, pseudolegal theories denying the power of public officials to enact COVID-related restrictions — or any laws at all — have been gaining popularity over the last year.

"Basically, these will fail as well. They're just the latest incarnation of these ridiculous pseudolegal ideas," Warman said.

Prominent figures in earlier OPCA movements have popped up once again in the world of anti-maskers. That includes David Kevin Lindsay of Kelowna, another anti-tax guru identified by Netolitzky, who now organizes anti-mask rallies.

There’s really nobody mentioned in the article who hasn't already been discussed on Quatloos.

Christopher Prichard
https://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewto ... 48&t=12171

Russell Porisky & Elaine Gould;
https://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewto ... 50&t=10485

David Lindsay in his early OPCA days;
http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtop ... b98e3b683c

David Lindsay and covid protests;
https://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewto ... 48&t=12119

Mak Parhar
http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtop ... 48&t=12181

One-stop shopping on Quatloos! You read it here first!

[JamesVincent]

"These are the Typhoid Marys of the OPCA phenomenon, who spread a disease of ideas as they travelled across Canada, often at great price to their customers, and sometimes, to themselves," wrote Netolitzky, now complex litigant management counsel for the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench.

So was that a promotion or a downgrade?

[Burnaby49]

I thought I was done with Russell Porisky and the Paradigm clown-car of tax evaders. I last wrote about Russ over five years ago, in May 2019, when I attended his, and his wife Elaine Gould’s joint appeal against their convictions for income tax evasion and counseling fraud.

I wasn’t impressed by their joint submission. Porisky barely seemed to be there and was about as animated as a coat rack. As I wrote at the time;

Porisky didn't look, or sound, well. He had a limp and looked worn out. He was self-represented and barely seemed to have any personal involvement in the job at hand. Unlike Keith Lawson he seemed defeated before he started.

. . . . . He just said things. He had two years or so to prepare for this hearing and all he managed to cough up was seven minutes of gibberish on a single sheet of paper.

He was the same at his tax evasion and fraud trial. He barely participated. Instead he seemed essentially an onlooker like myself, watching the Crown do their thing but seemingly about as involved in the proceedings as I was. He submitted no evidence and gave no defense.

Anyhow on May 13, 2019 I walked out of the courtroom thinking that, after nine years of reporting on Rusell Porisky, I’d finally seen the last of him. I was wrong, Yesterday this showed up under Recent Judgments on the Tax Court’s website;

Porisky v. The King
Elaine Louise Gould and His Majesty the King
2024 TCC 84

https://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/ ... 0/index.do

That was the first that I knew they were back in court. The appeal was heard between November 23 and 24, 2022 so it took a year and a half to get a decision out. Given that the appeal related to settled matters from decades ago the court probably didn’t consider it much of a priority. The decision, as released, is one of the worst I’ve seen for legibility and continuity. I’m guessing that this results from problems with web-page formatting issues rather than poor writing because parts seem missing or out of order. It doesn’t matter, anything that Porisky and Gould took to court would have been DOA so even a bare outline is sufficient. When this finally gets posted on CanLii;

https://www.canlii.org/en/

I’ll check it out and see if it is corrected there. If so I’ll link to it.

This was the subject of the appeal;

I. Introduction/Overview

[1] From 2004 to 2008, the appellants promoted and distributed Mr. Porisky’s views on taxation under the name Paradigm Education Group to interested members of the public. The Paradigm system was based on the view that the tax legislation can be interpreted in such a way as to allow one to opt out of paying income tax or collecting GST.

[2] The appellants hosted Paradigm seminars led by Mr. Porisky, and sold tickets to attend. They sold Paradigm books, training manuals, and videos as well as created a cascading fee arrangement whereby they would receive a share of fees collected by educators who taught Paradigm’s views to paying students.

[3] Over the five years under appeal, the appellants received gross revenues totalling over $1.4M while reporting no income, paying no income tax, and remitting no GST. They were convicted of criminal tax offences and served their sentences. The present appeals deal with the assessment side of their Paradigm activities.

II. Issues

[4] The issues are as follows:

With respect to Mr. Porisky:

a)Whether he earned unreported income totalling $569,277 in the 2004 to 2008 taxation years, being half of the net revenue received through Paradigm Education Group during that period; [1]

b)Whether the Minister of National Revenue properly assessed penalties under section 162 of the Income Tax Act for failure to file his 2004 to 2008 returns; [2] and

d)Whether she earned unreported income totalling $569,277 in the 2004 to 2008 taxation years, being half of the net revenue received through Paradigm Education Group during that period; [3] and

f)Whether as a partnership, they failed to collect and remit net GST totalling $67,165.17 for the period from January 1, 2004 to December 31, 2008; [5]

g)Whether as a partnership, they failed to file GST returns for the same period and were liable for penalties under section 280.1 of the Excise Tax Act; [6]

h)Whether the Minister properly assessed them as a partnership for gross negligence penalties under section 285 of the Excise Tax Act for the same period; [7] and

i)Whether as members of the partnership, they were jointly and severally liable under subsection 272.1(5) of the Excise Tax Act, for the partnership’s failure to pay/remit net GST, penalties, and interest totalling $98,632.09. [8]

c) Whether the Minister properly assessed gross negligence penalties with respect to 2004.

With respect to Ms. Gould:
e) Whether the Minister of National Revenue properly assessed penalties under
section 162 of the Income Tax Act for failure to file her 2004 to 2008 returns. [4]

Note that parts c and e are missing from “With Respect to Mr. Porisky” and part d seems to refer to Elaine Gould. In turn her section seems almost entirely missing with only part e remaining. The section titled “With respect to Mr. Porisky and Mrs. Gould” is empty.

Paragraphs 19 to 34 are a recital of the factual background of the history of the Paradigm scheme and Gould and Porisky’s tax evasion aand fraud convictions. You can read them yourselves however this one is of interest to give an idea of the lifestyle that fraud allowed them;

[32] Gross revenue was based on cheques made payable to Mr. Porisky, Ms. Gould, and Paradigm. Disallowed expenses included such items as a time share in Las Vegas in 2006, 2007, and 2008, $33,307 in gold purchased in 2005, a family trip to Disneyland in 2006, a Chilliwack townhouse purchased for $112,540 in 2005, and a Chilliwack house purchased for $316,250 in 2007. The townhouse and house were registered in Ms. Gould’s name. Different rates for the GST were applied depending on the year.

The heart of the Porisky’s appeal seems to be the same moronic bullshit that he, Gould and Keith Lawson had tried, and failed, to get their juries to accept at their criminal trials; that their income wasn’t taxable because it came from a “personal endeavour”, in other words, a hobby.They held the idiotic belief that if they declared their income to be from a hobby rather than a business that it somehow magically became tax exempt. It didn’t matter what the source of the income was, from being a dentist, a plumber, butcher, baker, candle stick maker, all they had to do was say the magic words ‘personal endeavour’ and it wasn’t taxable. They had some difficulties convincing sceptical juries of this but apparently this belief persists for Porisky and Gould because they tried it again at this Tax Court hearing. The only problem with this defense is that there is absolutely nothing in the Income Tax Act to support it. If you have a money-making activity conducted in a business-like manner then it’s a business regardless of what you chose to call it. As the Tax Court judge wrote;

[38] In addition to using Mr. Porisky’s views on taxation to guide their own tax decisions, the appellants sold the information to interested purchasers in the form of seminars, videos, books, and study manuals. They created a pyramid-like, cascading system of compensation which gave them a percentage share of monies received by educators even when the appellants were not directly involved with a particular group of students.

[39] Over the five-year period under appeal, they earned gross revenue totalling over $1.4M from these activities and other than some occasional building work done by Mr. Porisky, they had no other revenue source. During this time, they used these earnings to pay for every aspect of their lives including the purchase of (among other things) a Las Vegas time share, a townhouse, a second house, gold, and a family vacation to Disneyland.

[40] The seminar organized by Ms. Gould’s friend in about 2000 to gauge interest in Mr. Porisky’s views on taxation might be considered the start-up phase. Once the appellants realized there was significant interest, they marketed the information and created a system by which to earn revenue from it.

[41] It is clear that by 2004, Paradigm was a profit-making activity conducted in a manner consistent with objective standards of business-like behaviour. For example, the appellants advertised seminars directly or through Paradigm educators, they sold tickets for these seminars, they booked and paid for venues in which to hold these seminars, they marketed and sold training materials by mail order and telephone order, and they created a cascading system of compensation which ensured that they received the lion’s share of profits.

[42] The appellants offer a convoluted and head-spinning interpretation of the tax legislation that relies on semantics to say that the Income Tax Act and Excise Tax Act do not apply to their situation. However, their assertion that Mr. Porisky was Paradigm only means that Paradigm was unincorporated.

[43] Therefore, Paradigm was an income source for the appellants.

Another point was whether Porisky and Gould had a partnership running Paradigm and, if so, should the income be split 50-50? Yes and yes.

The gross negligence penalty was a third point considered. This is a penalty of 50% on taxes owing if the taxpayer is nailed by this provision of the Act;

163. (2) False statements or omissions – Every person who, knowingly, or under circumstances amounting to gross negligence, has made or has participated in, assented to or acquiesced in the making of, a false statement or omission in a return, form, certificate, statement or answer (in this section referred to as a “return”) filed or made in respect of a taxation year for the purposes of this Act, is liable to a penalty…

That one was fish in a barrel.

[59] Mr. Porisky reported no income and no tax payable in his 2004 return while knowing that: (a) he and Ms. Gould received gross revenue of $174,195 from their Paradigm activities that year, (b) he had negligible or no income from any other source, and (c) his and his family’s lifestyle was funded by the Paradigm revenue.

[60] His views on taxation led him to conclude that Paradigm’s activities fell outside the Income Tax Act. Regardless of whether he genuinely believed so or not, his decision not to report the Paradigm income was a false statement or omission. He either demonstrated an indifference as to whether the law was complied with or not, or a deliberate preference not to comply. It is at the heart of gross negligence.

This was for income tax. The judge went through a similar analysis for equivalent issues under the Goods and Services Tax (GST), an additional tax administered under the Excise Tax Act. I didn’t know much about GST when I was a tax auditor and had little interest in it. I spent 35 years administering the Income Tax Act and the Excise Tax Act, unbelievable as it seems, was even duller than the ITA. So I’ll just point out that Porisky and Gould lost all of their GST appeals too.

As a final grasping at straws Porisky and Gould tried to introduce some kind of Charter argument, probably claiming their rights had been violated. Totally pointless because Charter arguments require a complex procedural dance before they're allowed to be presented to a court and Porisky/Gould had done absolutely none of it and, in any case, you can’t introduce a new argument at appeal and they hadn’t made the argument at trial. End result;

XX. Conclusion

[83] Ms. Gould’s appeal numbered 2012-3780(IT)G is allowed, as conceded by the respondent.

[84] Mr. Porisky’s appeal numbered 2012-3782(IT)G is quashed.
[85] The remaining appeals, being 2012-3460(IT)G, 2012-3462(GST)G, 2012-3459(IT)G, 2012-3461(GST)G, and 2012-3463(GST)G are dismissed.

The Crown conceded one point before trial although it isn’t explained, I don’t know what it’s about, and it was obviously of no consequence;

III. Preliminary matters

[5] At the commencement of the hearing, the respondent advised the Court that they were conceding Ms. Gould’s appeal numbered 2012-3780(IT)G. The respondent also brought a corresponding preliminary motion to quash Mr. Porisky’s appeal numbered 2012-3782(IT)G because he purported to appeal this assessment of Ms. Gould.

[6] The motion to quash was granted because Ms. Gould is the proper appellant with respect to her assessment numbered 2012-3780(IT)G, which has now been conceded by the respondent in any event.

[7] The summary of issues at paragraph 2 of these reasons does not include these two matters and the remaining five appeals were heard on common evidence.

Best guess is that it’s about some technical issue in respect to who should be assessed for what and it was corrected before trial.

Now to the most futile part of this whole farce, the most pointless decision made by a court that I’ve ever seen.

[86] Given the substantial success of the respondents, the respondent is entitled to costs.

[87] The parties shall have until October 1, 2024 to reach an agreement as to costs, failing which the respondent shall file written submissions by November 1, 2024 and the appellants shall file a written response by December 2, 2024. Any such submissions shall not exceed ten pages in length.

[88] If the parties do not advise the Court that they have reached an agreement and no submissions are received by these dates, then one set of costs shall be awarded to the respondent in accordance with Tariff B.

Why not order them to climb Everest in swimsuits? That’s just as likely to be obeyed. In March 2021 I wrote this on a prior posting on this thread;

In 2016, Porisky was sentenced to five and a half years in prison and ordered to pay $259,482 in fines for tax evasion and counselling others to commit fraud.

Today, those penalties account for two of the top 10 largest unpaid court-ordered fines in B.C. in the last decade, a CBC News investigation has found. Nine out of 10 of those defaulted fines appears to be connected to tax-related offences.

I doubt that’s changed at all. Porisky is a worn-out old man (Burnaby49 can empathize) who’s days as a carpenter are long gone and he probably has very little income to seize. He certainly had little at trial and whatever the Crown could get has either been long collected or written off. Awarding costs to the Crown is about as useful as me trying to charge the crows a fee for flying over my backyard. I doubt the Crown will bother with a written response and they certainly won’t go to the trouble of trying to collect.

This pathetic exercise in futility is probably the last flicker of resistance from the long deceased Paradigm movement. Everyone but Porisky seems to have moved on and he’s finally used up all of his options. Given the trivial effort he put into this hearing I don’t know why he bothered but then I thought the same about his conduct at his trial and his conviction appeal. Well, as T.S. Elliot wrote in The Hollow Men (1925)

This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.