R. v. Anderson, 2017 BCSC 2585

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: R. v. Anderson, 2017 BCSC 2585 Date: 20171103 Docket: 26322-2 Registry: Vancouver Regina v. Debbie Arlene Anderson Corrected Reasons: Paragraph 221 of the Reasons was corrected on March 16, 2021. These Reasons were edited for publication purposes on March 2, 2021. Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice N. Brown Oral Reasons for Judgment Counsel for the Crown: S. Manery K. DeJong The Accused, self-represented: D.A. Anderson Place and Dates of Trial/Hearing: Chilliwack, B.C.

April 24 - 28, 2017 May 1 – 3; 8 - 11, 2017 July 4 - 6, 2017 Place and Date of Judgment: Chilliwack, B.C. November 3, 2017 [ 1 ] THE COURT: I note for the record that the accused, Ms.

Debbie Arlene Anderson, is before the court, the same person that has been before the court since I think my first involvement in this case was 2014, so that is noted for the record. [ 2 ] Debbie Arlene Anderson of the City of Chilliwack, in the Province of British Columbia, has pleaded not guilty to the following charges on Indictment 26322-2, Vancouver Registry, and briefly they are: Count 1: Making false or deceptive statements on her 2005 and 2006 T1 Income Tax Returns contrary to s. 239(1) (

a) of the Income Tax Act . Count 2: Tax evasion in relation to her 2005-2007 income contrary to s. 239(1) (

d) of the Income Tax Act ; more particularly that “between December 31, 2004 and June 16, 2008, [she] did wilfully evade or attempt to evade compliance with the Income Tax Act or payment of taxes imposed by the said Act , by failing to report her taxable income in the amount of $165,731.44 for the 2005, 2006 and 2007 taxation years, and did thereby evade the payment of taxes in the amount of $22,689.90, committing an offence contrary to s. 239(1)(

d) of the said Act .” Count 3: GST evasion in relation to 2005 to 2007 tax years, contrary to s. 327(1)(

c) of the Income Tax Act ; more particularly that, “between December 31, 2004 and April 1, 2008, [she] did wilfully evade or attempt to evade compliance with the Excise Tax Act or payment or remittance of the Goods and Services Tax, by failing to collect or remit Goods and Services Tax of $12,336.81 on goods and services sold, and did thereby commit an offence contrary to paragraph 327(1)(

c) of the said Act." Count 4: Counselling fraud, more particularly, "at or near the City of Chilliwack, Province of British Columbia and elsewhere, between December 31, 2001 and August 26, 2010 did counsel various persons to commit the indictable offence of fraud in excess of five thousand dollars, contrary to

section 380 of the Criminal Code , and did thereby commit an offence contrary to

section 464 (

a) of the Criminal Code .” [ 3 ] This has been a very lengthy proceeding. After a four-day preliminary inquiry in which Ms. Anderson represented herself, she was ordered to stand trial, later ordered by Justice Holmes to take place in Chilliwack. The trial was set for hearing for six weeks, commencing November 17, 2014. The trial was preceded by a disclosure application and a Vukelich hearing, which occurred between February 28, 2014 and August 20, 2014, prolonged due to Ms. Anderson's March 17, 2014 car accident. The citation for that ruling is 2014 BCSC 1720 .

[ 4 ] In R. v. Anderson , 2014 BCSC 2002 , I adjourned the November 2014 trial that had been set for six weeks. When adjourned, Ms. Anderson advised the court she intended to bring a Rowbotham application. That never occurred. The trial was rescheduled December 1 for a four-week jury trial, commencing November 16, 2015, pretrial June 2, 2015, and a jury selection November 2, 2015. [ 5 ] I conducted a further voir dire that governed this case and two other cases. I will not go into those particulars at this stage.

The citation is: 2016 BCSC 1043 . [ 6 ] On September 7, 2014, a deadline for filing of any Charter notice by Ms. Anderson was set for September 23, 2014. [ 7 ] On October 3, 2014, Justice Verhoeven confirmed Ms. Anderson's re-election to trial by judge alone and vacated the October 3, 2016, jury selection. Ms. Anderson represented herself at the trial of this matter. [ 8 ] In opening, Crown submitted the prosecution would show Ms. Anderson entered into contracts with Paradigm to act as an educator with Paradigm students and that from her related activities she generated profits.

The Crown's position was that the profits Ms. Anderson earned as an educator through her services and the selling of Paradigm merchandise were taxable income. Crown also proposed to present evidence about an individual called Russell Porisky, whose name runs through Paradigm documents. [ 9 ] The facts the Crown adduced in this case to prove the essential elements of the indictment were relatively straightforward.

The basic premise of the Crown's case, as intimated in counsel's opening statement, is that payment of taxes is not an option and that a person cannot privately contract out of paying taxes payable pursuant to the applicable statutes. [ 10 ] Much of the facts presented intertwined with an organization called Paradigm Education Group, which I will refer to as "Paradigm". Much of the documentary evidence emanated from that organization. Crown stressed that Ms. Anderson was not on trial for her beliefs or for Mr.

Porisky's beliefs, rather because she acted on some of Paradigm's theories, which in turn resulted in the indictments in Counts 1, 2, 3, and 4. [ 11 ] In her opening statement, Crown counsel told the court she expected the evidence to show that Ms. Anderson had contracts with Paradigm to provide services as an educator, and in that capacity promoted and sold its documents and services, and from these activities generated profit from her activities after deduction of reasonable expenses.

The Crown's position was that the defendant's profits are taxable income and that GST was payable on the products and services she sold as a Paradigm educator. [ 12 ] As for Count 4, counselling fraud, Crown's position was that in Ms. Anderson's educating of students, her promoting of Paradigm theories, and in her encouragement of their adoption, she counselled her students to commit fraud. To that end, Crown advised it would be asking the court to find as a fact that Ms. Anderson knew the law and that Paradigm's teachings were wrong in law.

In short, Crown stressed that Count 4 related not to the act of sharing beliefs but to counselling others to act on them, the Crown's position being that Ms. Anderson counselled others to commit fraud, and assisted and counselled them to act on Paradigm's theories, effectively, in the result, counselling tax evasion. [ 13 ] Related to Count 4, the court heard from two lay witnesses, Angela Redman and Brad Kelsey.

They were at a material time employed by a company called Ridgemoore, through whom they were introduced to Paradigm. [ 14 ] Crown submitted that considering all of the evidence Crown submitted, the court should be able to find Ms. Anderson knew what the law was, knew that what she was counselling was wrong in the law, and that in this case mistake of the law in any case is incapable of being proffered as a defence. [ 15 ] I note that some facts related to Count 4 also relate to other counts. [ 16 ] Thousands of digital pages of documents were entered as exhibits at trial.

Of course, not all were equally relevant or had to be highlighted. Ms. Anderson did not admit the authenticity and continuity of the documents seized from her residence. The Crown had to call numerous CRA officers, several retired since 2010, when they were initially involved in the search and seizure of documents either in the homes of Russell Porisky or Ms. Anderson's residence. [ 17 ] Ms. Anderson cross-examined most of the witnesses on the voir dire . Scheduling of witnesses was particularly challenging for some of the witnesses who initially expected to testify much earlier.

At the conclusion of the voir dire on continuity, I ruled the Crown had proven the authenticity and continuity of the documents and that the documents seized from the defendant's home were in her possession at the material time. [ 18 ] In the pretrial ruling I alluded to earlier [ R. v. Anderson , 2016 BCSC 1043 , dated June 8, 2016], as the trial management judge appointed by the Associate Chief Justice to manage this case and two others, I granted the Crown leave to present scanned copies and photographs of the documents seized or obtained from financial institutions.

The paper documents and a plethora of objects, such as booklets and videos, were marked as exhibits. The electronic scanned version of the documents were downloaded onto USB storage devices, marked as exhibits, with digital copies provided to Ms. Anderson and to the court. The documents were electronically indexed on a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. To review the document, the viewer had only to click on the part of the index in the Excel spreadsheet identifying the exhibit, thereby opening up a PDF electronic copy of the exhibit and its pages. It could then be reviewed, pages turned, etc.

The paper copies were also later marked as exhibits. [ 19 ] During the trial, the Crown highlighted the more material digitally scanned documents on monitors before Ms. Anderson, before me, and before the witness who would be on the witness stand. Crown counsel fully explained the index and how it worked, and assisted Ms. Anderson on those few occasions when she required a little help. I note scanned copies of the prosecution documents were available to Ms. Anderson long before the trial.

It was clear the trial would have been rather unwieldy and much longer than it was without use of electronic review of documents. This also simplified document management for the defendant, Ms. Anderson. [ 20 ] I will discuss briefly Ms. Anderson's self-represented circumstances and her capacity to act on her own behalf on these charges.

[21] Before the trial, Ms. Anderson had some legal representation, including from one supervised articling student who ablyrepresented her on the matter before the court at that time. Ms. Anderson initially elected trial by jury. As noted before, she re-electedtrial by judge alone. I provided her provided with thorough written pretrial instructions from Crown counsel and Crown counselprovided her with a clear synopsis of the Crown's case. [22] On October 17 and 18, 2016, just before the scheduled day for this trial, I heard an application brought by a Mr. G.P.

Bogue, anOntario lawyer, asking that the trial be adjourned to permit an application that this court relinquish its jurisdiction to a Clan Grandmotherof the Métis Nation; see R. v. Anderson, 2016 BCSC 2170. [23] I dismissed the application except that I adjourned the trial long enough to allow counsel time to appeal my dismissal of theapplication. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. [24] In my reasons, I confirmed my earlier rejection of an argument that Ms.

Anderson advanced at an earlier pretrial conference, thatthe charges against her were illegal because she was a victim of human trafficking by the Crown and proposing she would be layingcharges against various agencies, etc., in relation to that offence. I mention this only to note that I rejected that argument, as well assimilar arguments Mr. Bogue made, and which Ms. Anderson mentioned in her submissions related to "criminal equity" and variousalleged breaches by the Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”), that is, of a fiduciary duty. [25] I will not canvass the contents of pretrial rulings.

They stand on their own and can be read online by any interested person. [26] There were no Charter issues at trial and none were argued. [27] Ms. Anderson was fully apprised of and instructed on the precise necessary steps for her to take in order to complete aRowbotham application. As I noted earlier, she declined to make one. Legal Aid rejected her application for legal aid. As she owned ahome, it is unlikely she would have qualified for such an order in that case. She advised the court she had expected Mr. Bogue torepresent her at trial. Mr.

Bogue advised the court at the last trial management conference that he had received an interdiction from theLaw Society of Upper Canada prohibiting his representation of Ms. Anderson. The trial proceeded and continued with Ms. Andersonrepresenting herself. [28] Considering Ms.

Anderson's apparent intelligence and articulate speech, the full document disclosure made by the Crown, theclear updated synopses it provided, as well, the limited number of applicable statutory provisions, cases and legal principles, theessential elements of the offences, the written pretrial guidance she received from the court, the fact she represented herself at the pretrialconference and on some pretrial matters, and also considering the explanations the court and Crown counsel provided her during thetrial, I found, as I had previously, that Ms.

Anderson was capable of representing herself if necessary. [29] During the trial, Ms. Anderson complained on occasion of migraine headaches that she attributed to her earlier accident. One daywhen she did not look well and advised the court she wished to obtain medications, I adjourned the trial for the day to allow her to do so.Other such accommodations were made at other times, for example to allow her to complete documents she was working on. When shecross-examined witnesses and addressed issues during the trial she was articulate and had little difficulty expressing her position.

Shesubmitted a long written outline of her closing submissions, exceeding 300 paragraphs, and with no apparent difficulty spoke to them atlength. She elected to testify at trial and did not appear to have any impediments to her giving of her evidence. [30] Except for the testimony of the two civilian witnesses the Crown called, most of the Crown's evidence was in the form ofdocuments to which Ms. Anderson had a personal connection.

Many bore her signature, apparently emanating from her or addressed toher or written on by her; in other words, basic documents with which she was familiar. [31] The documents consisted of the following: • Ms. Anderson's income and benefit returns for six taxation years; and • T1 Income Tax Assessments. [32] I turn now to financial records; financial statements from Vancouver City Savings, HSBC and CIBC. [33] The foregoing were attached to affidavits by bank officials and admissible pursuant to s. 29 and 30 of the Canada Evidence Act, R.S.C. 1985, c.

C-5 [CEA], s. 244 of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.) [ITA], and s. 355 of the Excise Tax Act, R.S.C.1985, c. E-15 [ETA]. [34] Computerized financial records, in light of R. v. McMullen, [1978] O.J. No. 926 (Ont. S.C.); and R. v. Bell and Bruce, (1982), (ON CA), 35 O.R. (2d) 164 (Ont. C.A.). [35] Microfilm was also admitted into evidence pursuant to s. 31 and ss. 31(2)(

e) of the CEA, given that an affidavit satisfying therequirements for admissibility of microfilm had been completed at the time and on the spot of seizure. [36] Continuing still with the documents, Exhibit 10 consisted of coloured scanned copies of various materials lawfully seizedDecember 3, 2008, during a search of the residence of Russell Porisky and Elaine Gould, at [redacted] Creekside Drive, Chilliwack. [37] Exhibits 7, 8, 12, 13, 14 and 15 consisted of material seized during the lawfully conducted search of Ms.

Anderson's residence at[redacted] Creekside Drive, Chilliwack, B.C. [38] Exhibits 1, 3, 4, and 16 contained information in the possession of the CRA tendered by affidavit, referred to during the hearingas CRA records. [39] Exhibits 17 and 18, consisted of financial records of Vancouver City Savings tendered by affidavit.

[ 40 ] Exhibits 19, 20 and 21, consisted of financial records of HSBC tendered by affidavit. Ms. Anderson provided some additional documents. [ 41 ] To assist in reviewing the documentary evidence, the Crown provided an addendum to accompany its submissions. These were designated as

Schedule A through E, in the Crown's closing submissions.

Schedule A contained excerpted quotes from the Paradigm book entitled The Canadian Illusion, a five book series. They will be attached as an exhibit to these reasons.

Schedule B provided a detailed overview of the financial records tendered at trial.

Schedule C contained a

summary of the CRA's calculation of total revenue and GST calculations for Ms. Anderson, as set out in educator compensation invoices, which I will explain later.

Schedule D contains a

summary of the Crown's calculation of Ms. Anderson's additional revenue based on identifiable bank deposits.

Schedule E contains a calculation of Ms. Anderson's expenses and income tax credits.

Schedule B provides a

summary of Ms. Anderson's net income and GST that would be collectible based on that income. [ 42 ] The wide assortment of documents, exhibits and objects seized from Ms. Anderson's residence and hard drives included numerous booklets, including "Contract for Hire" and "Private Contract"; court judgments; various Paradigm-related study manuals; various correspondences with the CRA; various receipts; various documents relating to banking and bills; a DVD entitled "The Mini Intro to Income Tax: No Longer as Certain as Death"; various receipts, business cards; copies of Ms.

Anderson's 2005 T1 and 2006 T1; various Paradigm materials, Paradigm booklets, and intermediate course study group materials; HSBC and Vancity Bank statements and cheques; documents that had within them Paradigm educator compensation invoices and product invoices; various receipts; an educator contract signed by two persons in 2009; various bank records; a Vancity Bank statement; private contracts dated March 4, 2009, between Ms. Anderson and others; a booklet entitled " Paradigm's: Analysis of the Honourable Judge Myers' Reasons for Judgment in R. v.

Spydel "; a booklet entitled "The Tax Game", with handwriting on it, "Property of Debbie Anderson," with some yellow highlighting. Also exhibited were printouts of emails and attachments to them, etc. [ 43 ] CRA officers conducting a search of Ms. Anderson's home took photographs of the interior of her residence, with the purpose of producing circumstantial evidence the residence belonged to Ms. Anderson. [ 44 ] The foregoing constitutes a brief partial outline of the large number of relevant documents seized from Ms.

Anderson's home, marked for identification and properly entered into evidence, and marked as exhibits at trial. [ 45 ] As I mentioned, all the documents scanned were downloaded onto USB drives provided to Ms. Anderson and to the court. The documents and the USB drives were marked as Exhibit U for identification, accompanied by a printed index of the scanned documents, the originals of which were marked as exhibits and admissible as documents at trial. [ 46 ] Before I turn to the essential elements of identification and jurisdiction, I will first distil the essence of Ms.

Anderson's position, as she outlined it in her

Summary Overview of Accused's Submissions . I discuss the foundation of her defence later in more detail in these reasons. [ 47 ] Ms. Anderson argued in that document: 1. That the Crown had failed to prove the actus reus and mens rea for all four counts; 2. That the Crown had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that "her private money" was received as income from an office, an officer, or any other class of person in the federal jurisdiction and therefore taxable. 3.

The Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the documentary evidence relied on shows her money was not public money belonging to Her Majesty the Queen. 4. The Crown failed to prove the principles expressed in Paradigm's Contract for Hire were not sound; therefore she counselled no fraud. 5. The Crown failed to prove Her Majesty the Queen holds a superior claim to her labour and the fruits of it, when she declines to hold an office - she referring to Ms. Anderson - in the federal jurisdiction. 6.

The Crown failed to prove Canada is not bound to respect her inherent right to enjoy and utilize freely her natural wealth and resources, not to be held in servitude, etc. 7. The Crown failed to prove the Minister has the legislative authority to override her intent, Ms. Anderson's intent, and deem all seized and unseized books, documents and records, including financial records, whether printed or in electronic form, to be public property belonging to Her Majesty the Queen. ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF IDENTITY AND JURISDICTION [ 48 ] The Crown has proved beyond a reasonable doubt Ms.

Anderson is one and the same, the person named in the indictments and who appeared in court. The Crown pointed to the following indicia of that:

a) She was identified by the lay witness, Angela Redman, at a presentation Ms. Anderson gave at Redman's place of employment;

b) She was identified by Cheryl Irving, who met Ms. Anderson during the search of her home;

c) Items with Ms. Anderson's name were seized from where Ms. Anderson confirmed was her residence;

d) Tough Love, a Paradigm video featuring Ms. Anderson speaking to an audience, was found in a shed attached to her residence;

e) A folder with a label stating "Taxpayer Records" that held a social insurance number card and was also in her name; photocopies of her T1 income tax and benefit returns and notices of assessment;

f) A photocopy of Ms. Anderson's B.C. driver's licence;

g) An accordion folder on the laundry room floor in Ms. Anderson's name containing within it HBC cancelled cheques and bank statements. [ 49 ] Ms. Anderson testified that since 2002 she had lived in Chilliwack, further evidence of jurisdiction. July 29, 2005, Ms. Anderson took possession of a house she had purchased in Chilliwack, B.C., at [redacted] Creekside Drive. She was present when the CRA conducted their search on August 25, 2010. [ 50 ] I find the accused Ms. Anderson's identity and the court's jurisdiction, time and place both proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Count 4 [ 51 ] I will start with Count 4, the counselling fraud charge, because some of the issues and findings on that count may be relevant and applicable to the other counts. [ 52 ] In R. v. Millar , 2016 BCSC 2039 [ Millar ], Justice Gray commented on the elements of counselling that commission a fraud, contrary to s. 464 (

a) and (

b) of the Criminal Code . The elements of both fraud and of counselling have to be considered. [ 53 ] Fraud per se is dealt with in s. 380 of the Criminal Code . That

section provides in part that: 380(1) Every one who, by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, ... defrauds the public or any person, whether ascertained or not, of any ... money ..., (

a) is guilty of an indictable offence ... where the subject-matter of the offence ... exceeds five thousand dollars; [ 54 ] As for the elements of fraud, they are as follows:

a) that another person, in this case the government, was at risk of being deprived of something of value. In this case, the allegation is that the thing of value is money in the form of income taxes;

b) that the person who committed fraud or counselled to commit fraud caused the risk of deprivation by deceit, falsehood, or other fraudulent means;

c) that the person who caused the risk of deprivation intended to do so; and

d) that the value of what the government was put at risk of being deprived of was in excess of $5,000. [ 55 ] The elements of counselling must also be considered. In this case, the elements of counselling to be proved are as follows:

a) Ms. Anderson counselled others to deprive the government of money in the form of income taxes;

b) she counselled others to do so, meaning to deprive the government of income tax by using deceit, falsehood, or other fraudulent means;

c) she either intended that others would commit the offence of fraud or knowingly counselled the commission of that offence, while aware of the unjustified risk that those counselled were likely to commit the offence as a result of her counselling; and

d) as the offence is a criminal one, both mens rea and actus reus have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. [ 56 ] The Supreme Court of Canada summarized the elements of the offence in R. v. Hamilton , 2005 SCC 47 [ Hamilton ]. At para. 29, Chief Justice McLachlin writing for the court stated: [29] In short, the actus reus for counselling is the deliberate encouragement or active inducement of the commission of a criminal offence .

And the mens rea consists in nothing less than an accompanying intent or conscious disregard of the substantial and unjustified risk inherent in the counselling : that is, it must be shown that the accused either intended that the offence counselled be committed, or knowingly counselled the commission of the offence while aware of the unjustified risk that the offence counselled was in fact likely to be committed as a result of the accused’s conduct. [Emphasis in original.] [ 57 ] Section 22(3) of the Criminal Code gives some further definition to the word counselled.

It states: For the purposes of this Act , counsel includes procure, solicit or incite. [Emphasis in original.] [ 58 ] In Hamilton , Chief Justice McLachlin helpfully discussed the counselling elements at paras. 13 to 23.

[59] The Crown had contended recklessness satisfied the fault requirement of counselling. At para. 14, the Chief Justice noted that: [14] At common law, counselling or procuring a felony was a substantive offence, whether or not the felony was subsequentlycommitted: R. v. Brousseau (1917), (SCC), 56 S.C.R. 22. [60] The Chief Justice further noted at para. 14, the codification found in s. 464(

a) of the Criminal Code, which provides: (

a) every one who counsels another person to commit an indictable offence is, if the offence is not committed, guilty of an indictableoffence and liable to the same punishment to which a person who attempts to commit that offence is liable. [61] The Chief Justice also noted at para. 15 that: [15] The actus reus for counselling will be established where the materials or statements made or transmitted by the accused activelyinduce or advocate – and do not merely describe – the commission of an offence: R. v. Sharpe, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 45, [2001] S.C.J.

No. 3,2001 SCC 2, McLachlin C.J., at para. 57. [Emphasis in original.] [62] At para. 16, the Chief Justice discussed the mens rea or fault requirement for counselling. At paras. 21 – 23, she explained: [21] Our concern here is with the imposition of criminal liability on those who counsel others to commit crimes.

In this context,“counsel” includes “procure, solicit or incite”: see s. 22(3) of the Criminal Code. [22] In their relevant senses, the Canadian Oxford Dictionary (2nd ed. 2004) defines “counsel” as “advise” or “recommend (a courseof action)”; “procure”, as “bring about”; “solicit”, as “ask repeatedly or earnestly for or seek or invite”, or “make a request or petition to(a person)”; and “incite” as “urge”. “Procure” has been held judicially to include “instigate” and “persuade”: R. v. Gonzague (1983), (ON CA), 4 C.C.C. (3rd) 505 (Ont.

C.A.). [23] Those who encourage the commission of crimes in any of these ways are criminally responsible for their conduct by way of“secondary liability”. [63] After discussing the meaning and rational of secondary liability, as set out in the report of the Law Reform Commission ofCanada, the Chief Justice concluded (at para. 26) that: [26] ... Parliament has imposed criminal responsibility on those who counsel, procure, solicit or incite others to commit crimes,whether or not the crimes are in fact committed. [64] See also: R. v.

Millar, at paras. 86 to 88. [65] It is well established that it is not necessary that the person counselled be in fact persuaded: R. v. Walia (No. 1) (1979), (BC CA), 9 C.R. (3d) 293 (B.C.C.A.) [Walia]; and R. v. Glubisz (1979), (BC CA), 47 C.C.C. (2d) 232(B.C.C.A.). [66] The focus on a prosecution for counselling is on the counsellor's conduct and state of mind, not that of the person counselled(cited in R. v.

Hamilton, 2005 SCC 47, at para. 74). [67] The offence is made out once the communication is made by the accused with the requisite intent and inducement: R. v.Markovitch and Dashney, 2005 BCSC 1513, citing Walia (at para. 12). [68] Based on the contents of Paradigm literature seized by CRA agents, in particular "The Canadian Illusion" five book series, whichMs. Anderson confirmed in cross-examination would give a reader the most thorough sense of what the Paradigm Education Group wasteaching, Crown counsel reasonably summarized, in my view, the Paradigm Theory, as follows:

a) A taxpayer is an artificial person.

b) If an individual takes care that they do not establish himself as an artificial person, they do not have to pay taxes, becausenatural persons are not taxable under the ITA.

c) This is because the Income Tax Act does not explicitly say it operates notwithstanding the Canadian Bill of Rights and theCanadian Bill of Rights protects a person's right to property. If an individual does not structure their affairs to maintain their status as anatural person working for their own benefit, not for profit, they become the legal representative of the federally-created artificial personknown as a taxpayer, and it is only the artificial taxpayer who may pay income taxes.

d) A person may structure their affairs under Paradigm's "Forgotten Option", through which an individual takes steps to avoidworking with the status of an artificial person. An important part of the Forgotten Option is to work under a Contract for Hire, which canbe purchased from Paradigm.

e) The distinction is one of choice or intent. Person A states they are taking the job in their capacity as a natural person acting fortheir own benefit and without intent to profit; Person B does not. According to the Paradigm Theory, what is paid to Person A is notincome and is not taxable. It is the opposite for Person B.

f) The upshot of the Paradigm Theory is that a natural person running a business can value their labour at whatever they wish.Profit (that is revenue less expenses) is first considered without the deduction of the person's own labour; when the value of the labour isfactored in, profit is reduced to zero. There is no net income or profit to report and no taxes payable. Money earned by a natural person isnot income and therefore not subject to tax.

g) If an individual educates himself in the Paradigm Theory then, even if the theory is wrong, they cannot be found guilty of tax evasion because they will not have the requisite mens rea . [ 69 ] As noted earlier, the Canada Revenue Agency officers seized many documents from Ms. Anderson's residence, and what they collectively have in common is encouraging adoption of theories conceived by Paradigm as summarized. The documents (as noted in the Excel Index, entered as Exhibit 12) included:

a) Canadian Rights and Freedoms Foundation's Book 2, The Canadian Illusion , The Canadian Illusion: Advanced Course Study, copyright 2007. Paradigm Presenter Course Booklet, containing personal study notes and handwriting.

b) A Canadian Rights and Freedoms Foundation's Intermediate Course Study Teacher's Manual, flagged with flags and yellow highlighting.

c) Canadian Rights and Freedoms Foundation's Book 2, The Canadian Illusion , highlighted in yellow, which did not show up in the scanned version.

d) A photocopy of a booklet, The Canadian Illusion: Advanced Course Study Group Teacher's Manual .

e) A DVD entitled The Mini Intro Income Tax: No Longer as Certain as Death on DVD.

f) A pamphlet, Introduction To Your Human Rights , and

g) a DVD entitled The Mini Intro. [ 70 ] The contents of the works do not focus exclusively on income tax matters. Some concerns, such as those stated in the works about debasement of culture in the media through depicted violence, a constant barrage of sex, would likely be shared by many Canadians, and human rights and concerns about upholding them is also discussed at times; but in the end the discussion always devolves to the question of income tax. Conspiracies are alluded to, taxation characterized as an illusion created by a few greedy men with sinister motives.

The contents speak in language that is strongly divisive, "us" and "them." [ 71 ] At para. 22 of the document Advanced Course Study Manual , we see this at 49.14 [as read in]: An income tax system is part of a silent weapon system that operates upon data contained in tax forms obtained from a docile public by legal force. The number of tax forms submitted is a useful indicator of public consent, which is what is needed by those who created these income tax systems to achieve a primary victory.

The federal tax system is constitutional because income tax is a federal income tax, making it an indirect tax applied only to federal created official persons known as officers. [ 72 ] The Paradigm publication Introduction to Your Human Rights , line 128 in the index, Folder 201, Exhibit 12, wastes little space in getting to the substance of the matter, posing several "what if" questions including: 1. What if I wasn't born a slave, but used my free will to enslave myself because of the fear and deception they promote? 2.

What if I can work for my own benefit, keeping all my earnings and they can't force me to work for the benefit of their taxpayer entity, which they, greedy men, created and control? 3. The illusion created by a few greedy men has you believing it is mandatory for all. [ 73 ] Such statements and more are spread throughout the materials and tend to legitimize tax evasion. The constant operative message embedded in the publications is the counsel to adopt the Paradigm Theory and so legally not have to pay income tax.

This is very risky and incorrect counsel. [ 74 ] From the documents in evidence assembled from the searches of both the Porisky and Anderson locations, and secondarily by bank records, one can clearly see that Paradigm Education Group was hierarchically organized. Its main purpose, to convey Paradigm theories to individuals who became interested in them. They applied to become students and so receive instruction from persons trained in Paradigm theories, or as in Ms. Anderson's case, somewhat modified versions of those theories. Those persons, Ms. Anderson included, are educators, as Ms.

Anderson was at all material times. The documents show, and it was not contested, that educators such as Ms. Anderson both advised and encouraged students to restructure their income-earning activities in a way that would avert their obligation to pay taxes. [ 75 ] Educators formalized their relationship with students in a Contract for Hire, a copyrighted Paradigm template. Basic individual contracts cost students $50 to $150, depending on the type of contract. Some contracts involved the offering of more educational services with higher fees than for others.

Some contracts included services for businesses and companies that included advising them on how to rearrange their business, particularly their employment practices, so that, for example, they would not have to contribute to employment insurance (“EI”), Canada Pension Plan (“CPP”) and other deductions. In the result, the company saving money.

In exchange for Paradigm individual support services, companies theoretically stood to earn greater profits, even after paying Paradigm for their services. [ 76 ] Savings that students, businesses in particular, could achieve by adopting Paradigm Theory and organizational methods of their business and/or financial affairs were distilled in a laminated table produced by Paradigm for use by educators.

The laminated spreadsheets clearly showed savings businesses could anticipate if they followed Paradigm's advice. [ 77 ] For example, A-9BSB06-166, one of several such spreadsheets seized by a CRA officer, touted that a company with annual wages of $30,000 and who paid Paradigm $24,000 over a two-year period would save $8,561 annually, if they followed Paradigm's advice. Ms. Anderson provided such educational services. The laminated individual support estimator covered businesses with annual wages ranging from $6,000 to $60,000.

[ 78 ] Students could pay their educator directly; alternatively, the student's employer on the student's behalf, would assume responsibility for transferring a fixed regular amount of the student's earnings to Paradigm and to the educator. [ 79 ] The following excerpt from an educator/student contract gives a sample of the payment options as follows [as read in]: I would also add that in sharing any communication with you as a private individual I am not acting in any associate capacity nor any other capacity, which means as a natural person I am not acting in the capacity as a trustee, executor, administrator or personal or other legal representative and I do not consent to do anything for the purposes of a trust.

There are two options available to assist you under this contract and payment, any communications and/or services I provide and either option forms part of this contract. The first option is on an hourly basis of $150 per hour, and the other option is seven percent of amounts received by you for your private activities paid monthly for ongoing continuous support of your privately-structured working relationship and the services that you provide.

The payment arrangement you choose to suit your needs is usually dictated by the nature of your concerns, such as the various rights you want to implement, whether you have only one concern or area of help you are requesting, or if you want to enter into more of a structured, continuous support that can be more encompassing, to help you develop a solid point of knowledge on a broader scale of information.

If you choose to have no continuous support contract in place with me and choose an hourly rate instead, the cost for you to attend any meeting that I hold specifically for those individuals I have restructured and are on a continuous contract is $60 each meeting. Your attendance at those meetings is an agreement under the terms expressed herein, that if you act on any information it is done by your own volition and held in confidence. [ 80 ] Ms. Anderson did not just teach and distribute Paradigm literature. It is not in dispute she played a multifaceted role as an educator.

Some students agreed to two-year support contracts. For students with two-year contracts, Ms. Anderson guided them on how to implement their Contract for Hire, supported them in dealing with conflict in their workplace, or with the Canada Revenue Agency, or in court. Examples of her providing this kind of employment and support were clearly in evidence. Contracts for Hire were created by Paradigm for students to use as they sought to restructure their activities and lives as "natural persons." [ 81 ] As I mentioned earlier, the company that employed Ms. Redman and Mr. Kelsey, Ridgemoore, and where Ms.

Anderson had made presentations to its employees, had retained Paradigm. Its employees were expected to become Paradigm students and participate in the Paradigm program, which the company wanted to set up. [ 82 ] Indeed, in Exhibit 15, lines 244 and 255 under line 42 of the index, printouts of emails and attachments, can be seen a "probation notice" to Ridgemoore; and at index line 244, an email from Ms. Anderson to the boss at Ridgemoore, Mr. Eldridge.

The email sets out Paradigm-based employment policies that included among other things the following, for example, Hiring Practice [as read in]: All workmen/women will contract with Ridgemoore Woodcrafters in their capacity as natural persons as defined in Barron's Canadian Law Dictionary, 4th Edition , and will perform services under a private employment contract, also known as a Contract for Hire, for their own benefit as opposed to working in their capacity as a legal representative for the benefit of a statutory created entity known as the officer.

Most people are not aware that there is a difference or that they have a choice on how they choose to work. [ 83 ] Under the next heading, "What's the Bottom Line?": If hired you will work under a verbal Contract for Hire and can be compensated at the rate of $9 per hour during the probation period of two weeks. Upon the acceptance of the written Contract for Hire, your compensation will be increased to $10.50 per hour.

Your first Paradigm support program payment equal to seven percent or seven cents on the dollar will be calculated from the date Ridgemoore Woodcrafters accepts your Contract for Hire and increases your hourly compensation rate to $10.50. The accumulated amount of the seven percent of your gross income over a 24-month period is the cost for restructuring your private employment relationship with Ridgemoore Woodcrafters.

Rather than charging a large up-front fee, your support program is structured so that the seven percent is paid from the money that would be deducted at source from your earnings and remitted to the tax man if you were working in the capacity as a legal representative of an officer for the benefit of the taxpayer. [ 84 ] The last paragraph in that excerpt: The 24-month period gives an individual plenty of time to study and gain a more in-depth understanding of their human rights and fundamental freedoms which are the essential components needed in order to work in the capacity as a natural person for your own benefit.

Students are encouraged to participate in the ongoing study classes that are scheduled every spring and fall. [ 85 ] The following incidental information was also included: What is a Contract for Hire and why do I have to pay the $200 for it?

Shouldn't the employer pay that? [ 86 ] The answer was: A Contract for Hire is Paradigm's trademark name for a private employment agreement that has been created by Russ Porisky, the founder of Paradigm Education Group. [ 87 ] I will not recount all of the bulletin contents, which I found instructive and misleading, creating a more than subtle pressure on low-wage employees to conform to keep their job. [ 88 ] It is not in issue that the December 12, 2005 email from Ms. Anderson to Mr. Bob Eldridge, who was in charge of Ridgemoore,

related to her assisting Mr. Eldridge in the restructuring of Ridgemoore's workplace based on Paradigm Theory. [ 89 ] The Crown acknowledged the education contracts Mr. Kelsey and Ms. Redman signed postdated the aforesaid email to Mr. Eldridge. I do not see this detracting, however, from the fact that the hiring policy set out in the email, consisted with the understanding Mr. Kelsey and Ms. Redman had of their expected participation in a Paradigm structure and learning of the theory, as part of their employment at Ridgemoore. [ 90 ] Ms.

Anderson confirmed her role generally included distributing Paradigm branded material, teaching students in classes, and guiding them through the process of Paradigm's restructuring. To this end, she used the just-touched-on copyrighted "Contract for Hire" as a central step in the process. She told students they could choose to work under Paradigm's structure to avoid Income Tax Act obligations by not becoming an artificial officer. I note the shift from natural person. [ 91 ] I will discuss later the Tough Love video in which Ms.

Anderson featured and in which those just mentioned points were stressed. [ 92 ] I perused most of the electronic copies of the seized documents and found that review instructive as it raised the view of Ms. Anderson's activities above the details of some documents to a more broadly encompassing view of what was happening. [ 93 ] Besides agreements with individual students, a blank template for a Contract For Hire, Private (Free Agent) was found in Ms. Anderson's possession. The agreement has up to six pages to complete. After a review of it, one can see Ms.

Anderson's submissions at trial reflected in the officer and officer theory, as it relates to an obligation to pay income tax. I will be addressing that theory later in these reasons. [ 94 ] Looking again at the educator ‘Contract for Hire,’ it provided: This continuous contract is based on seven percent of amounts received by you for your private activities paid monthly to me for ongoing continuous support.

With a continuous contract it can be more encompassing to help you develop a solid point of knowledge and a broader scale of information, as it allows you to participate in any meetings that I may have with no additional cost to you. Ongoing support is restricted to restructuring of your current work structure and the services you provide and to help you more fully understand the process to implement your rights effectively.

In situations where further help is required that falls outside of your structure, it may be necessary for me to ask for an hourly rate in advance, ranging from an estimate of an amount of time required or amounts for travel, lodging, telephone calls, faxes, photocopying, etc. [ 95 ] Examples where Ms. Anderson has admittedly assisted a student in their implementation of Paradigm theories can be found in the services she provided to [A.C.], one of her students. Documents related to those services are in Exhibit 13, folder 24. Significant correspondence flowed back and forth between [A.C.] and the CRA.

He was reassessed approximately $630,000. Other educational and support services were provided to several other students. [ 96 ] Another matter, [A.G.], entailed the drafting of quite a detailed letter to the Minister on the natural person theory. Ms. Anderson was involved in the writing of that document, and a document called Brad Kelsey. Mr. Kelsey is a 32-year-old member of the RCMP, with whom he has been for three years at the time of the trial, previously had served with the Canadian Armed Forces. I mentioned him earlier, when discussing Paradigm, and Ms. Anderson's involvement with Ridgemoore. Mr.

Kelsey was hired by Ridgemoore to act as a woodcrafter. [ 97 ] Mr. Kelsey estimated it was in about 2000 or 2005 that he started to work at Ridgemoore Woodcrafters. In direct, he testified that he had started work. One day, during the lunch break, he was taken into what he was told was a "knowledge workshop" if you could call it that, he stated, in his testimony.

He recalled it was based on the Paradigm Education Group, which was teaching employees at Ridgemoore about how the Government of Canada was illegally charging them income tax, and that they were not allowed to charge income tax because they were a natural person. He testified that he felt that what he was being taught was tax evasion, not a place for him to be, he thought, considering he wanted to become a member of the RCMP.

Feeling, following that, it would not be lawful, he told his boss the next day that he was going to quit. [ 98 ] Asked in direct what he recalls about the setting, he recalled there were a significant number of employees present sitting at desks, watching a lady deliver a presentation of what he understood to be not paying income tax, and how the government was illegally taxing them income tax and other various forms of tax. He recalled every employee that worked there was present. He sensed they appeared to be buying into what they were hearing.

He recalled the woman telling them they would not have to pay income tax so long as they paid a specific amount of money to have them continue to teach them about it. He understood they would be attending sessions about once a week, or once a month, routinely on their lunch break. He recalled most of the audience were male, in their twenties and thirties. [ 99 ] He was supposed to be paid $10 hourly but when he quit, he was told by the employer that the difference between what he was paid for the presentation and what he owed for work was minimal. He was not paid anything.

He did not follow up, explaining he just wanted to get out of there, as he put it. On cross-examination he estimated he would have been entitled to have earned about $70 for his work, had he worked at that particular time. [ 100 ] He was shown a document headed Paradigm Education Group, with his name and address appearing on it. It had a line for the name of the educator, Debbie Anderson. He recalled that was the person who ran the presentation but could no longer say that the Ms. Anderson he saw in court was one and the same person, given the lapse of time since then.

He could not recall if he was required to pay something up front to Ms. Anderson but did recall it would be coming off his cheque and that he would have to pay seven percent of his salary for the instruction. [ 101 ] He also recalled a video being presented by a male. He recalled the person talking about natural person theory, and something about the significance of the government spelling people's names in all capitals. He recalled the presentation proceeded very quickly and

how it felt like it was being shoved down people's throats; “like drinking from a hose”, was how I recall he expressed it in his own words how he felt about it. [ 102 ] In cross-examination, he recalled someone from the CRA approaching him out of the blue but did not remember the conversation. He testified that while he could not recall the exact words, the message he took in, within the 30 to 60 minutes he was present, was that the government was illegally charging income tax. He did recall, as well, it being said that income tax was in violation of the Constitution and the Magna Carta . Mr.

Kelsey confirmed in cross-examination that what he heard was, in his opinion, tax evasion. [ 103 ] I note Mr. Kelsey's stated impression that tax evasion was being proposed is not proof that it was, and I give it no weight in my verdict that I arrive at today. That was just his opinion. It is not evidence that in fact it was tax evasion that was being counselled. That will require a view to the evidence as a whole. [ 104 ] When asked why he signed the Contract for Hire with Ms. Anderson, he stated it was his understanding it was a requirement of his employment. [ 105 ] I found Mr.

Kelsey a straightforward, intelligent witness and I accept his testimony insofar as it relates to his observations, not the just-mentioned opinion. [ 106 ] Ms. Angela Redman also testified on her experience as a student of Ms. Anderson. She was employed full-time when she testified. When she first met Ms. Anderson, Ms. Redman was employed at Ridgemoore, milling garden trellises and hot tub steps, etc. She was introduced to Paradigm through Ridgemoore. When she first started to work at Ridgemoore, she was handed a contract related to Paradigm; and after that, met Ms.

Anderson a few times at the jobsite and also through a conference call. She recalled a meeting as well at the Evergreen Hall, in Chilliwack. Others were present there she recalled, who she did not know, although she knew one or two others from Ridgemoore. She recalled the purpose of the meeting was to introduce them to Paradigm, the same as before, except in greater depth. [ 107 ] Asked what Paradigm was about, she recalled being told about being separated into two types of people.

She recalled watching a man in a video and his writing on a whiteboard, explaining how we were separated from our natural person and his distinguishing between a capitalized name and an uncapitalized name. One person was a natural person, who could choose to pay taxes or not. She recalled the artificial person, the capitalized person, had to pay taxes. She did not attend all the meetings. She identified the Contract for Hire that she signed, marked as part of Exhibit 10. She was expected to pay Paradigm seven percent of all the compensation she received at Ridgemoore.

When she signed the contract, she was not aware that provision was in it. She stated she did not pay income tax when she worked at Ridgemoore. She could not recall in cross-examination how many people attended. She recognized Ms. Anderson in the hallway of the courthouse. She stated in cross-examination that no one had told her not to pay taxes but she did recall Ms. Anderson stating that a natural person does not have to pay income tax. [ 108 ] Ms. Redman was a straightforward, credible witness. [ 109 ] The testimony of Ms. Redman and Mr. Kelsey is relevant to what Ms.

Anderson was saying or communicating during their involvement with Paradigm. [ 110 ] I will turn now to consider some further excerpts from Paradigm literature. It is relevant to Count 4, as Ms. Anderson utilized the materials in her educator activities. [ 111 ] As part of closing submissions, Crown counsel provided the court with numerous instructive excerpts from the five books of The Canadian Illusion: It's All About You . [ 112 ] I am just going to stand down for the morning recess. (PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED FOR MORNING RECESS) (PROCEEDINGS RECONVENED) [ 113 ] THE COURT: All right.

Thank you. [ 114 ] I will turn now to consider some further excerpts from Paradigm literature. It is relevant to Count 4, as Ms. Anderson utilized the materials in her educator activities. As part of her closing submissions, Crown counsel provided the court with numerous instructive excerpts from the five books of The Canadian Illusion: It's All About You . [ 115 ] As these are oral reasons, I find it most sensible to mark the exhibits as “Schedule A” to these reasons. The original

Schedule was marked as an exhibit during the trial submissions and the electronic line number reference and exhibit numbers are set out in the Schedule. I perused the publications electronically, as well as reading those excerpts. In my view, the excerpts captured the core of Paradigm thinking, and are attached for reference as

Schedule A to the end of these reasons. [ 116 ] I have already noted the statement in a Paradigm information brochure that "...the illusion that was created by a few greedy men that has you believing that income tax is mandatory for all." [ 117 ] The Canadian Rights and Freedoms Foundation Education Program is described as "an important step for those who want to empower themselves with knowledge and the options they have to release the shackles of taxes." This consists with numerous other statements set out in the excerpts, such as, "income taxes, the shackle that holds the chains of slavery together", "income tax cannot be, and therefore is not, anything more than an internal federal excise payment which is only mandatory for those who choose to work for the benefit of and as a legal representative of a federally-created legal artificial person known as a taxpayer." [ 118 ] I found the Paradigm literature shot through with statements and metaphors that effectively exhorted the reader to adopt and implement what numerous courts in Canada have firmly rejected as illegal avoidance of tax obligations.

[ 119 ] Justice Myers formed a similar impression: R. v. Porisky & Gould , 2012 BCSC 67 , at para. 115 . [ 120 ] Ms. Anderson stated in her direct testimony and confirmed in cross-examination that she taught Paradigm Theory to her students. [ 121 ] As I said earlier, reasonable people might agree with some of the discourses in the Paradigm literature. It is also laced with considerable amounts of what could be fairly characterized as conspiracy theories and polemics about the CRA and its motivations and alleged manipulations of the system.

Complaints about the tax system and levels of taxation are common topics of conversation. No law prevents arguing against them and how the tax system is administered. I am not weighing any of that against Ms. Anderson. It falls well within the ambit of free speech. [ 122 ] What is relevant for this case, however, relates to unsound assertions prominent in the materials that portray the tax system as illegitimate, the imposition of taxes illegal, and a contravention of human rights.

Read in the context of the promulgations of Paradigm's Theory as a legally correct way to be free of the obligation to pay taxes, an interested person could be misled to personally believe the government has no legitimate right to impose taxes, and that Paradigm can show them the way to defeat a corrupted system. [ 123 ] Ms. Anderson's demeanour and the statements she made as the presenter in the video Tough Love, played in full during the trial as part of the Crown's case, was instructive. [ 124 ] Crown counsel noted that the following subjects that Ms.

Anderson discussed and some of the statements she made during her presentation to the members of the audience, were intended for fellow or aspiring educators. The video was marked as Exhibit 12, Folder 20, indexed at line 122 of the electronic index. Crown observations on “Tough Love” [ 125 ] The following briefly summarizes the Crown's submissions on Tough Love :

a) How Ms. Anderson managed her students.

b) Purchases she required of students and her requirement they watch an instructional video before she would be willing to meet further with them.

c) How she went about promoting the benefits of following the Paradigm Theory, the "Forgotten Option," to any interested party; one of those being the saving of between $259 and $74,970 yearly, proportionate of course to the individual's incomes. [ 126 ] I also noted myself the statement to the audience that the information she provided to students was "enough rope to hang themselves”. [ 127 ] Ms. Anderson described promoting to any interested party that one of the benefits of the Paradigm Theory, or the "Forgotten Option," was the two years’ estimated savings of $259 to $74,971.

These figures correspond to figures contained in laminated Paradigm support estimator tables, and present the difference between paying statutory income tax rates and the payments Paradigm charged its clients. [ 128 ] When cross-examined on her use of the laminated estimator tables to encourage someone hesitant about joining Paradigm, Ms. Anderson demurred at first that it was "not about the money savings", rather about getting educated and the purpose of the estimator was to show them the money they could save if they learned to keep their private property.

She added that not everyone could do it, depending on whether they were pensionable, "just like Mr. Kennedy," referring to a student. She said, "Mr. Kennedy couldn't claim that as private property if he is pensionable and in insurable employment." [ 129 ] Ms. Anderson did agree, however, as she had stated during her Tough Love presentation, that the suggestion she made to people who were able to restructure their affairs was that they could save money or keep their private money.

She also agreed that it was her intention that whomever she could assist in restructuring would follow the program, if they were able to do so. [ 130 ] The Crown submitted Ms. Anderson's reference to the Kennedy case ( R. v. Kennedy , 2004 BCCA 638 [ Kennedy ], dated December 13, 2004) showed she was aware of the court's decision in that case. That decision was adverse to Paradigm Theory. Judicial observations re Tough Love [ 131 ] Viewing the Tough Love video, I noted the following, taken not from a transcript but from notes I kept while trying to follow Ms. Anderson's at times discursive presentation.

She appeared to have been asked by Mr. Porisky to address the audience. She was a quite senior educator and had been one for three years when she gave her address. She spoke very confidently and articulately, with a rapid discursive pace, similar to what one sees in Mr. Porisky's video presentation.

She enjoyed making the presentation, breaking off often to make humorous asides about some of her experiences as an educator. [ 132 ] I was left with an overall impression of a quite senior person in the organization, who was giving instructions and encouragement to less experienced educators on how to improve their sales and profitability. She answered some questions from audience members. She had command of her subject and seemed to be instructing those present. She focused on using Paradigm tools, which she considered key, as she stated. She treated her work as a profession.

She stated the main purpose was to instruct students on human rights but much if not most of the presentation focused on efficiencies for educators, not letting students take advantage and being tough on compensation, etc. She told students they had to watch the video like everyone else and if they did not watch they had no appointment with her. [ 133 ] Ms. Anderson noted friends were the worst students, because they did not return materials. She counselled against giving anything away, "Otherwise time and money is lost." "Students are energy vampires" and suck up her time.

The next point was, "Big money players think they can buy you." She counselled "watching those guys" who make demands of educators because they pay more

compensation, suggesting adoption by them of a “so-what attitude”. She urged no compensation ceilings and "to not budge on the formulated percentages payable". She said, "You have to believe in your own confidence" and spoke of reminding a millionaire how much they make and how much they could save by just paying seven percent. She remarked, "This is a business I have." [ 134 ] Students and presumably business owner students have to read back to her the contract for hiring her before she will engage with them. She discussed her services for someone whose case went to court and her going to court.

She spoke of the person initiating a letter and her fixing it, further noting that if they have to respond to the CRA, she helps them. She said she provided services and education. [ 135 ] She found it hard to collect overdue support payments, presumably referring to contracts where she provided extended support to the students. She noted Paradigm is not a cheap labour pool. She said, "Don't let it get too far behind", presumably referring to fees being overdue too long, "or you cannot recover." Instead of restructuring a student's affairs, she spread it over 24 months. [ 136 ] Ms.

Anderson mentioned a student, I assumed it was, stating to her that, "You guys must make pretty good money," and her responding, "Yes, but there are a lot of expenses." She cared more about teaching human rights than saving taxes. She said, "We, as educators, have to use what Russ has laid out for us. We are the core future mentors. (A mentor is a level higher.) We are blessed to be in this position she said. I love what I do. Russ is our leader. I paid $650 for materials", she said. Actually, the figure for the purchase according to the documents was much higher than that. She mentioned selling $1,200.

My note is not clear on this point but she was likely referring to books, given the context; and, on the subject of marketing, she said, "We are getting an opportunity to make money. We are laughing. We have something great to offer." Detectible was a current of cynicism towards students. [ 137 ] The foregoing is relevant to Ms. Anderson's state of mind regarding her activities and to the nature of those activities. Ms. Anderson’s knowledge of the law [ 138 ] I will now turn to Ms.

Anderson's knowledge of the state of the law which she taught students, when she was teaching them Paradigm teachings. [ 139 ] It was quite clear from the evidence that at all material times Ms. Anderson was in possession of case law, some of which she had noted up, showing the courts had consistently rejected Paradigm and like-minded theories. She also possessed CRA taxation guides, some referred to earlier in these reasons. Together, these provided a sound basis on which to know a person's Income Tax Act and Excise Tax Act obligations. [ 140 ] The Crown submitted, aptly, in my view, that Ms.

Anderson persisted in teaching legally incorrect theories anyway and that this was relevant to the mens rea element of Count 4. [ 141 ] The decided cases rejecting Paradigm Theory found in Ms. Anderson's possession, some notated, included Kennedy, mentioned earlier, and R. v. Turnnir , 2006 BCPC 460 [ Turnnir ]. In that case, Mr. Turnnir , a student of Ms.

Anderson's since September 2005, was charged with three counts of making a false or deceptive statement in his individual T1 tax returns, Counts 1, 2 and 3; one count of evading the payment of income tax, Count 4; and two counts of wilfully claiming a refund or credit to which he was not entitled, Counts 5 and 6. He had testified at the time of filing his tax returns he believed he was receiving compensation under a Contract for Hire as a natural person and that as such he was not subject to pay tax on those funds under the Income Tax Act . At para. 5, Wingham P.C.J. noted that the counsel for Mr.

Turnnir had submitted that the evidence of Mr. Turnnir should raise a reasonable doubt on whether he possessed the necessary mens rea for the offences charged. He acknowledged Mr. Turnnir was wrong in his belief that the Income Tax Act did not apply to him as a natural person receiving compensation under a Contract for Hire. He submitted the evidence showed Mr. Turnnir was mistaken in his mind as to the applicability of the Income Tax Act to him. [ 142 ] Counsel had also submitted that Mr.

Turnnir's mistake was either a mistake of fact or a mistake of law, and in either case the mistake operated as a defence to the charges, as it would negate the mens rea required for the accused to be found guilty. The judge concluded the defence of mistake did not arise. [ 143 ] Another case in Ms. Anderson’s possession was Canada (Minister of National Revenue - M.N.R.). v. Stanchfield, [2009] F.C.J. No. 61, 2009 FC 72 . In it, Mr. Stanchfield was found in contempt of court for failing to comply with a Federal Court order to deliver certain documents. Mr.

Stanchfield advanced a Paradigmatic natural theory in his submissions. Justice de Montigny, noting Kennedy and other decisions, characterized the distinction between a natural person and the legal representative of the taxpayer as a distinction which is meaningless and without a difference. [ 144 ] Ms. Anderson also gave instruction and/or Paradigm study information to two other individuals, [C.T.] and [J.L.], a realtor, but the nature and extent of her involvement with the latter was not clear. [ 145 ] Noteworthy is the document found in Ms.

Anderson's possession, Exhibit 14, a booklet noted up with red flags and yellow highlighting titled Paradigm's Analysis of the Honourable Justice Myers' Reasons For Judgment in the R. v. Sydel case . The wide- ranging commentary criticized the judgment [ R. v. Sydel , 2006 BCPC 346 ], which is not a problem in and of itself, including its application of stare decisis .

Most noteworthy here is that the commentary clearly acknowledged that "... an in-depth analysis of those arguments has already been undertaken by the superior courts in this province and by influential superior courts in the provinces of Alberta and Ontario." The decisions are then listed. It can only be reasonably concluded, indeed it is compelling that Ms. Anderson was aware of the decisions, the contents of them, and what the state of the law was in Canada at the time. [ 146 ] On cross-examination, Ms.

Anderson testified that, "After the Sydel decision we started to realize that Russ's phrase 'a natural person working in their own capacity for their own benefit', needed to be more specific." Because of the rulings, she said, she felt there was something more that had to be addressed, "There was a reason why they were not hearing what we were saying." [ 147 ] I will read a short portion of Ms. Anderson's testimony on this subject: Q You were aware that the courts were rejecting the theory that as a natural person working in their own capacity under a private

contract for their own benefit, that the statement had been rejected by the courts and that was rejected in the decision? A I was aware that, yes, they were not accepted by the court, that particular phrase was not considered a defence. [ 148 ] The Crown submitted Ms. Anderson was fully aware that the key ingredient of the theory "working in your own private capacity" had been rejected but kept on searching for another way, as she had testified, to find a solution, characterizing Ms.

Anderson's mindset as a constant repositioning to bypass what was clearly stated law. (PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED) (PROCEEDINGS RECONVENED) [ 149 ] Ms. Anderson submitted her evidence showed the Crown had not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that she committed fraud or counselled others to commit fraud because:

a) On the fraud aspect, she maintained her Contract for Hire is a self-assessment, the type of money her private property and not Canada's "public money" within the meaning of s. 2 of the Financial Administration Act .

b) She did not consent to converting her private property into Canada's "public money" within the meaning of s. 2 of the Financial Administration Act without her consent.

c) Seeking to turn the table on the Crown, Ms. Anderson stated, "It is a Criminal Code offence in Canada for anyone who converts my private property into Canada's public money within the meaning of s. 2 of the FAA ", without her consent.

d) She said her books and records are further evidence that her type of money is her private property and are not evidence of Canada's "public money" within the meaning of s. 2 of the Financial Administration Act .

e) She said Canada cannot be deprived of something that was never justly acquired and rightfully belonged to her in the first place. Therefore, she submitted, her case at bar is missing the essential element of fraud.

f) She said her motive was learning about human rights, including property rights. [ 150 ] I note the Financial Administration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-11, has no bearing on this case and these contentions do not lead to a line of defence responsive to the charges. [ 151 ] The documents, books and items seized from Ms. Anderson's home have nothing to do with s. 2 the Financial Administration Act , or any other section. They were obtained by officers of the CRA pursuant to a valid search warrant.

Such submissions, relying on irrelevant or misapplied legislation and on unconnected and/or discordant legal bases, fall into the category of pseudo-legal commercial arguments, discussed at length by Rooke A.C.J. in Meads v. Meads , 2012 ABQB 571 [ Meads ]. [ 152 ] Ms.

Anderson advanced what can be seen as a ‘shuffled card’ version of Paradigm legal theory, arguing throughout her submissions that given the terms of the Contract for Hire, that, to be legally obliged to pay tax on her income she had to be an officer of some kind, receiving money through employment, receiving income deemed as belonging to Her Majesty and which is payable to the Receiver General. Since being an officer or not is a cornerstone of Ms. Anderson's defence, this is an appropriate time to address that. [ 153 ] Ms.

Anderson argued, drawing from Paradigm Education Group teachings and materials, that the Income Tax Act does not apply to her income as a Paradigm instructor because she was not working as an officer as defined in the Income Tax Act , the Canada Pension Plan Act and the Revised Statutes of Canada . The essence of this argument, as expressed in Ms.

Anderson's submissions, is that her income as a Paradigm instructor was not taxable under the ITA because she declined to work as an officer within the meaning of s. 248(1) of the Income Tax Act , or to receive rights or privileges as an officer under s. 2(1) of the Canada Pension Plan, and avoided doing so by entering into a carefully-worded Contract for Hire provided by Paradigm. [ 154 ] Ms. Anderson relies on her legal status as something other than an officer under these provisions in relation to a broad number of issues, as well as to sub-issues that are more specific.

The two main broad issues in respect of which she relies on in this defence are: 1. Whether she evaded income taxes under the Income Tax Act , and 2. Whether she made false or deceptive statements on her tax returns. [ 155 ] It also connects to her defence on Count 4. [ 156 ] In relation to both issues, a

summary of her position is expressed most succinctly and clearly in her written submissions, which is that because "income tax is a fee charged for rights or privileges conferred by Her Majesty on officers within the meaning of s. 2(1) of the Canadian Pension [ Plan ] Act , and s. 248(1) of the Income Tax Act ," and because she declined to hold or perform duties for such an office, the fee must be zero, meaning her income would not be taxable. [ 157 ] Ms. Anderson appears to raise this argument, at least in part, as a defence to the actus reus of certain of the offences with which she is charged.

Her position is seemingly that, by her having entered into a Contract for Hire and declining to be an officer under the Income Tax Act and Canadian Pension Plan , she in fact exempted her income as a Paradigm instructor from the application of the ITA, and thus did not evade taxes or make false or deceptive statements on her tax returns. [ 158 ] This is clearly incorrect. Contrary to Ms.

Anderson's submissions, the income tax is not a fee charged for the rights or privileges of officers; rather it is a primary means by which the government raises revenue with which to finance spending and other functions, such as the redistribution of income and the promotion of economic and social policies: Peter W. Hogg, Joanne E. Magee and Jinyan Li, Principles of Canadian Income Tax Law, 5th Edition (Toronto, ON) Thomson Carswell, 2005.

[159] Ms. Anderson cites no legal authority for the proposition that one can exempt one's income by declining to earn money as anofficer under the ITA or CPP, except for a convoluted, incorrect and unreasonable

interpretation of these and other pieces of legislation. [160] Section 248(1) of the ITA and s. 2(1) of the CPP, set out the

definitions of various terms used in the respective statutes forinterpretive purposes. [161] In the ITA, an “officer” is defined in s. 248(1) as a person holding an “office”, which in turn is defined as follows: Office means the position of an individual entitling the individual to a fixed or ascertainable stipend or remuneration and includes ajudicial office, the office of a minister of the Crown, the office of a member of the Senate or House of Commons of Canada, a member ofa legislative assembly or a member of a legislative or executive council and any other office, the incumbent of which is elected bypopular vote or is elected or appointed in a representative capacity and also includes the position of a corporation director. [162] Section 2(1) of the CPP also defines “an officer” as a person holding “an office”, which is defined as meaning: ... the position of an individual entitling him to a fixed or ascertainable stipend or remuneration ...

And then goes on to say the same thing as in s. 248(1): … and includes a judicial office, the office of a minister of the Crown, the office of a lieutenant governor, the office of a member of theSenate or House of Commons, a member of a legislative assembly or a member of a legislative or executive council and any other officethe incumbent of which is elected by popular vote or is elected or appointed in a representative capacity, and also includes the position ofa corporation director. [163] These

definitions are included to facilitate the understanding of various sections of the statutes in which the terms "office" and"officer" are used. None of these sections, however, support Ms. Anderson's position that the income tax is a fee charged in exchange forthe rights or privileges of officers. Rather, income tax liability for Canadian residents is set out in s. 2(1) of the Income Tax Act, whichprovides: 2(1) An income tax shall be paid, as required by this Act, on the taxable income for each taxation year of every person resident inCanada at any time in the year. [164] The money Ms.

Anderson made as a Paradigm instructor was subject to the Income Tax Act, because she was resident in Canadaat the time and because that money was clearly income according to the ordinary meanings of resident and income; see Thomson v.Canada (Minister of National Revenue – M.N.R.), (SCC), [1946] S.C.R. 209; and Curran v. Canada (Minister of NationalRevenue – M.N.R.), (SCC), [1959] S.C.R. 850. [165] Ms.

Anderson's argument that she in fact was able to exempt this income from taxation by declining to earn it as an officer in theContract for Hire has no basis in law, is meritless, and must be dismissed. [166] Also worth noting, although I do not necessarily understand Ms. Anderson to be making this submission, it is her position that sheavoided tax liability by declining to earn income as an officer would also fail to provide her with the basis for a mistake of law defencein respect of the mens rea of the offences under s. 239(1)(

a) and (

d) of the Income Tax Act. [167] Courts in this and other jurisdictions have repeatedly held that, in circumstances such as these, this type of misconstruction is ajurisdictional argument, thus one which is void of merit that leads to a mistake of law which does not afford a defence. This kind ofmistake of law is irrelevant to the fault requirement of the charge of tax evasion: R. v. Klundert, 2008 ONCA 767, para. 20. See also R. v.Millar, 2016 BCSC 2039 at paras. 54, 59; and R. v.

Mori, [2017] ONSC 1551 [Mori]. [168] I find the comments of Justice Ramsay at para. 42 of the appeal decision in Mori to be opposite: [42] …The appellant was not trying to obey the law. He was deciding which laws should be obeyed. He decided that the Income TaxAct did not apply to him on its terms. It only applied to him on his terms. It is contrary to public policy for the courts to entertain this sortof argument. [169] In my view, those comments aptly apply to Ms. Anderson's conduct.

It follows that her reliance on the argument she was notearning money as an officer under the ITA or CPP affords no defence whatsoever to the charges in respect of which she seeks to raise it. [170] I note the same argument was rejected by Miller T.C.J. in the Federal Court decision Russell v. Canada, 2016 TCC 122 .In that case, the respondent had brought a motion pursuant to s. 53(1)(

b) of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure),SOR/90-688a, to strike William Russell's amended notice of appeal because it did not disclose a cause of action, because the pleadingswere vexatious or an abuse of process, and because the appellant could not obtain relief based on the allegations in the amended notice ofappeal. [171] The taxation years at issue in that case were 2010, 2011 and 2012. The appellant was a naturopathic doctor. In 2003, he hadWilliam Russell Naturopathic Incorporated under the laws of the Province of British Columbia.

The corporation carried on the businessof providing healthcare services. The appellant was a shareholder and director of the corporation. He also claimed to be an "individual"of the corporation. In 2010, 2011 and 2012, he had received income from the "Energetic Matrix Church of Consciousness" for hisservices as a facilitator and for his services as a director of fees from the corporation. He reported those amounts on his income taxreturns. In 2005, as an individual "agent" he had signe

[…]