I turned up some more information on Norman and Dorothy-Anne Desautels, the defendants of the case quoted by Burnaby49 above (
R v Desautels, 2012 SKPC 29:
http://canlii.ca/t/fqmft).
They received significant penalties for their tax evasion convictions (
http://www.knowledgebureau.com/newTools ... ews&ID=845). Norman received a one year jail sentence and was fined $105,922. Dorothy-Anne received a six month jail term and was fined $99,548. They also are required to pay their outstanding tax.
The local newspaper has a couple interesting reports.
The trial appears to have been 'colourful' (
http://www.estevanmercury.ca/article/20 ... is-illegal), as the Desautels put on a bit of a show. Here are some excerpts:
McVeigh said disclosure was first given to the Desautels on July 14. The accused returned the disclosure the following day. Dorothy said what was given to them was a "box of garbage."
...
Norman told the judge, "I did not consent to a trial. I don't know why we're here. I don't understand." Chief federal prosecutor Christine Haynes, addressed the issue of consenting to the trial, noting that not guilty pleas were entered for both of the accused, which is the court's prerogative when the accused refuse to enter pleas.
...
"How can they be admitted when there's no contract? The act doesn't exist," said Dorothy.
Bazin said they are free to make the argument that the affidavits are not permitted without witnesses at the end of the trial but not right now.
"Is it not your duty to follow the law?" Norman asked the judge.
"We're following the evidentiary process now," Bazin responded.
"You are aiding the Crown in perpetrating a fraud against the estate," Norman said, then calling on Bazin to accuse himself and dismiss the case.
After Bazin deemed the affidavits permissible, the Desautels became a little upset by the way the trial was moving forward.
"You're not taking notice of my administration of process," Norman told Bazin, referring to a document he submitted to the court.
Bazin said they would have their chance to submit evidence, but the Crown gets to present their evidence first.
"My evidence is already in," Norman said, again referring to the document. "We did our judicial process. You've obviously ignored it."
As Dorothy began packing her bag, she asked Bazin, "Can I see your oath? Show me your oath in this courtroom."
She then put on her coat and left.
"I make a motion that this case be dismissed," said Norman, packing things from the desk.
"Are you staying or leaving?" Bazin asked him.
"No, this is it. It's obvious it doesn't make any difference whether I'm here or not."
Bazin suggested the prosecutors would proceed ex parte if he chose to follow his wife out the door. Norman asked for a 10-minute recess. The Desautels returned shortly after court reconvened.
The Crown began its case by calling Phyllis Kingston, who works for the non-filing and non-registered unit of the Canadian Revenue Agency in Regina.
...
Norman asked her, "Was I performing a specific function of government?"
Kingston said she had no knowledge of that. He then asked if there were any payroll records. Kingston said she had payer information but no payroll records.
Norman then requested Bazin strike Kingston's claims from the record on the basis of prejudice. Bazin denied the motion. When the Desautels protested Bazin said, "I've made my ruling."
"On whose authority?" asked Dorothy.
...
The Desautels brought Douglas Nagel, who wished to speak for himself, but Bazin didn't allow the request. Nagel was found guilty of similar charges in Regina and called the proceedings against the Desautels a "travesty."
You might think that the couple would have smartened up by the time their sentencing came around, but no (
http://www.estevanmercury.ca/article/20 ... -jail-time). For starts, they did not show up for their sentencing hearing on April 26, 2012, and for their trouble were arrested and detained until the second May 12, 2012 hearing.
The judge was not impressed by their conduct:
In his decision, Bazin equated the Desautels’ actions to a “long-term fraud.”
“The GST conviction for Norman Desautels and the conviction for the child-tax benefit is nothing short of deliberate theft,” said Bazin. “The Desautels’ actions speak louder than their words. They did what they did for money.”
An aggravating factor to these offences is the time frame, as the Desautels failed to complete tax returns from 2004 to 2008.
Bazin said the Desautels’ actions are further aggravating because they continued to benefit from a tax system that they stopped paying into, noting that they accepted a child-tax credit and Norman charged companies GST through his business.
“He simply charges them the GST and does not remit the money to Revenue Canada. Such an act shows that despite what he professes, that his reason for not following the Excise Tax Act is based on it not being legal and his profession that there is only one law, being God’s law, actually tells us that, at the end of the day, he did it for the money,” said Bazin.
“The evasion of tax, the receipt of child tax and GST is done out of personal desire and greed. They simply carry on their lives, which includes trips and holidays.”
Neither offender cooperated with a post-conviction evaluation of their character (a "pre-sentence report") so the judge had no basis to identify any mitigating factors that might have reduced the sentence. No doubt that was to avoid 'contracting' with the court.
And defiant to the end:
Bazin asked the Desautels if they had any questions, but cut them off when it was clear they had other statements to make.
They both then asked the judge, “Do you hold us against our will?” a question Bazin ignored.
The Desautels are reported to be facing a separate failure to appear trial scheduled for July 26, 2012. I have not identified any report on the result of that action.
SMS Möwe
