R v Eddy, 2015 ABQB 744

Court of Queen ’ s Bench of Alberta Citation: R v Eddy, 2015 ABQB 744 Date: 20151124 Docket: 120435839Q1 Registry: Edmonton Between: Her Majesty the Queen Crown - and - Denise Marie Eddy Accused Restriction on Publication Trial information in Absence of Jury – See the Criminal Code , section 648(1). Permission having been given to the jurors to separate, information concerning this portion of the trial must not be published, broadcast, or transmitted in any manner. NOTE: This decision is available from the court file, and it may be published after the jury retires to consider its verdict.

Editorial Notice: The restriction on publication expired February 4, 2016. Corrected judgment: A corrigendum was issued on December 3, 2015; the corrections have been made to the text and the corrigendum is appended to this judgment. _______________________________________________________ Reasons for Decision of the Associate Chief Justice J.D. Rooke _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Denise Marie Eddy [“Ms. Eddy”] is charged on an information, sworn February 27, 2015, which lists eight tax-related

criminal offences: 1. four counts of making false or deceptive statements in her T1 Individual Tax Returns, for the taxation years 2005-2008: Income Tax Act , RSC 1985, c 1 (5th Supp), s 239(1)(a); 2. engaging in tax evasion for the period of December 31, 2004 to January 1, 2009 by understating her taxable income for the 2005- 2008 taxation years: Income Tax Act , s 239(1)(d); 3. wilfully evading payment of taxes for the period of December 31, 2004 to January 1, 2009 by failing to collect or remit goods and services tax returns for taxation years 2006-2008: Excise Tax Act , RSC 1985, c E-15, s 327(1)(c); 4. between July 10, 2003 and October 13, 2010 counselled various persons to commit the indictable offence of fraud in excess of $5,000.00: Criminal Code , RSC 1985, c C-46, ss 380, 464(a); and 5. between July 10, 2003 and October 13, 2010 counselled various persons to commit the indictable offence of fraud in excess of $5,000.00, who then committed fraud, making Eddy a party to those offences: Criminal Code , s 22. [ 2 ] Ms.

Eddy is alleged to have participated in promoting a tax-evasion scheme created by a British Columbia resident named Russell Anthony Porisky, who is the subject of ongoing criminal proceedings: R v Porisky , 2014 BCCA 146 , 354 BCAC 86. Porisky and his subordinate instructors were part of the Paradigm Education Group. [ 3 ] Ms. Eddy is scheduled to have a judge and jury trial commencing on February 22, 2016.

She is self-represented, and has been self-represented throughout this proceeding to date. [ 4 ] Following a September 22, 2015 application by the Crown and the recommendation of the pre-trial conference justice I appointed myself case management justice for this proceeding, per Criminal Code , s 551.1. [ 5 ] Ms. Eddy on October 19, 2015 filed a Notice seeking various Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ,

Part 1, Constitution Act, 1982 , being

Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11 [the “ Charter ”] remedies. This was accompanied by a document that purported to be an “Affidavit”. That document was some 1,277 paragraphs and 866 pages, with 112 exhibits (an additional 959 pages), for a total of 1,835 pages. [ 6 ] On November 3, 2015 I conducted an oral hearing on scheduling of certain voir dire applications in the criminal case management of this case. At that time I denied acceptance of the “Affidavit”, which I merely accepted as, and changed the designation of the document to, “Argument”.

The basis for the denial was that the document was replete with irrelevant material, opinions, arguments, hearsay and other matters inconsistent with a proper affidavit at law. I explained these defects in detail to Ms. Eddy at the November 3, 2015 hearing, identified specific examples from the October 19, 2015 “Affidavit”, and provided her with an excerpt from Stevenson & Côté, Alberta Civil Procedure Handbook 2016 (Edmonton: Juriliber Limited, 2015) that illustrated the legally correct content of an affidavit. [ 7 ] I also provided Ms.

Eddy with a table that outlined Charter issues that I had distilled from the former “Affidavit” and now “Argument”. I identified 26 distinct issues, that related to a variety of alleged Charter breaches and other issues. [ 8 ] Though I rejected the October 17, 2015 document as an affidavit, I permitted the Accused to file a proper legal affidavit on facts specifically relevant to the issues at hand on the voir dires , but only on my leave, so as to ensure any new purported affidavit was valid in law. I warned Ms. Eddy to not re-argue matters relating to the trial of Russell Anthony Porisky.

I also stressed that Ms. Eddy should not return to disclosure issues that had been previously addressed in an earlier decision of this Court by Acton J, reported as R v Eddy , 2014 ABQB 164 , 583 AR 217. [ 9 ] I made it clear to the Accused that any time taken for this process would be “charged to her”, relevant to her arguments for delay in the case.

I also scheduled the oral hearings on the voir dires to commence on December 14, 2015. [ 10 ] On November 16, 2015, the Accused provided another document entitled an “Affidavit” which is 1,937 paragraphs over 451 pages, for which she sought leave, referencing the same exhibits and exhibit numbers (para 8) as in the “Argument”. [ 11 ] This was accompanied by a table of the discrete Charter issues that Ms. Eddy had identified.

There are 120 issues in total. [ 12 ] I sought input from the Crown, who in a letter dated November 18, 2015 (both to be marked for identification at the next oral hearing), argued that leave to file the November 16, 2015 “Affidavit” should be denied. [ 13 ] I agree. For the reasons that now appear below (so not as to delay the matter further), and for any supplementary reasons I may decide to provide later, leave to file the November 16, 2015 “Affidavit” is denied.

Those reasons, primarily referencing only the first few pages, but continuing throughout the document, and some examples, include that the Accused: a. only swears as to “personal knowledge” (para 1), when it is clear in many paragraphs that she does not have and cannot have “personal knowledge”, but that any knowledge she has must be based on information and belief, but she does not say so, nor does she provide the basis for any such information and belief (e.g. para 14); b. provides much of the material pertains to “the investigation of the CRA in regards to Paradigm Education Group (Paradigm)” (para 5(a)), and Russell Porisky (e.g. paras 14 and 22 ), and both (paras 83, 107 and 108), as opposed to “the investigation CRA did in regards to me” (para 5(b)), and, while the Accused may have been associated with the Paradigm Education Group, there are no facts set-out that explain how the former two are legally relevant to the later and the Crown’s prosecution of her for the crimes alleged; c. similar to b., fails to provide facts that explain how certain alleged facts are relevant to the prosecution applicable to her (e.g. paras

15 and 17); d. provides material that is clearly argument (e.g. paras 52, 66, 68, 70 and 87), including reference to quotations from cases (e.g. paras1071-1072); and e. expressed opinions (e.g. paras 33, 90 and 108). [14] The November 16, 2015 “Affidavit” also include items that I indicated at the November 3, 2015 hearing were irrelevant. Forexample, Acton J in her decision: a. rejected Ms.

Eddy’s complaints concerning electronic disclosure (paras 153-155, 168-175) b. concluded that the Crown had met its disclosure obligations in relation to material located in Binder 11 (paras 177-180), and c. rejected demands for disclosure of documents related to investigators, including Myles Allan, Richard Harris, Wade Hartley, TonyBrunke (para 30) and investigations into Porisky and the Paradigm Education Group (paras 31-33). I had warned Ms. Eddy not to return to disclosure issues that had previously been decided. [15] The third example is particularly illustrative of the defects in both Ms.

Eddy’s “Affidavits”. She fills her “Affidavits” withwhat can only be characterized as argument, rather than statements of fact, and further does so despite having unsuccessfully argued theexact same issues before. For example, at paras 1538-1546 of the November 16, 2015 “Affidavit” Ms.

Eddy: • Para 1538: states “The investigation of Porisky is also relevant to me.” - argument and opinion which is not appropriate for anaffidavit. • Para 1539: quotes from R v Warawa, (AB KB), [1998] 208 AR 81, 56 Alta LR (3d) 67 (Alta QB) - argumentand citing case law which does not belong in an affidavit. • Paras 1540-1541: states in light of R v Warawa all CRA activities involving the Paradigm Education Group and herself areinterlinked; this includes the activities of Hartley - argument and opinion which is not appropriate for an affidavit. • Para 1542: quotes a part of an Information To Obtain a search warrant - permissible. • Para 1543: claims that all the Paradigm Education Group investigations are interlinked - opinion which is not appropriate for anaffidavit as it is not based on personal knowledge. • Para 1544: states that documents relating to third parties should be disclosed - argument which is not appropriate for an affidavit. • Para 1545: quotes R v Warawa and states the CRA has to follow some process - case law and opinion without personal knowledgewhich does not belong in an affidavit. • Para 1546: states Hartley seized a file without a warrant, violated Ms.

Eddy’s Charter, s 8 rights, and quotes from R v Warawa -opinion without personal knowledge, legal argument, quotes from case law, all of which are not appropriate content for an affidavit. [16] Only one paragraph of this set, para 1542, would survive review and be permissible evidence at the impending voir direhearing. But in any case, the entire argument subsumed within this passage was already considered and rejected by Justice Acton in Ms.Eddy’s initial 2014 disclosure application: [54] Insofar as Ms.

Eddy is allegedly implicated in the Paradigm and Porisky matters, she requests the documentation on them as well.She quotes from R v Warawa, suggesting “it would be misleading to take in isolation the acts of some of the actors to the exclusion ofothers” (para 18). However, R v Warawa dealt with a situation where one accused was the subject of a 59 count indictment that arosefrom an investigation of multiple people. Ms.

Eddy’s situation is the converse: she alleges that a single investigation has given rise tocharges against multiple accused persons. [55] Placing this quoted excerpt in context, it becomes clear that the reference to “actors” refers to the conduct of Revenue Canada andits investigators working in tandem.

R v Warawa chiefly addresses a quite discrete and different scenario: how the broad investigativeaudit authority provided CRA officers interacts with the ss 7 & 8 Charter rights of persons potentially subject to criminal sanction duringan income tax investigation turned criminal investigation: see R v Jarvis, 2002 SCC 73, [2002] 3 SCR 757. [56] It would certainly be misleading to consider the evidence and actions of one investigator alone; however, that does not change thefact that what is crucial is how information relates to Ms. Eddy and her alleged misconduct.

I therefore find that this decision does nothelp Ms. Eddy’s claims for disclosure of the Paradigm and Porisky files on the ground that they are relevant to the charges against her. [17] Ms.

Eddy has previously has been cautioned by this Court that her written materials raise the question of whether sheadvances her arguments in good faith (R v Eddy, 2014 ABQB 164 at para 196, 583 AR 217; R v Eddy, 2014 ABQB 234 at para 40, 583AR 254; R v Eddy, 2014 ABQB 391 at paras 37-38, 583 AR 268), and that she cannot re-litigate or collaterally attack court decisions (Rv Eddy, 2014 ABQB 234 at paras 34-39, 583 AR 254; R v Eddy, 2014 ABQB 391 at paras 40, 59, 583 AR 268). [18] The Accused will have one further chance to file proper affidavit evidence by December 4, 2015, provided that I grant leave,failing which her opportunity to provide relevant evidence may be lost. [19] The hearing remains scheduled for December 14, 2015.

Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 24 th day of November, 2015. J.D. Rooke A.C.J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Christopher Samuel - Public Prosecution Service of Canada for the Crown Denise Marie Eddy appearing for herself _______________________________________________________ Corrigendum of the Reasons for Decision of The Associate Chief Justice J.D. Rooke _______________________________________________________ Publication Ban added.