R. v. Steeves, 2023 BCSC 1269

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: R. v. Steeves, 2023 BCSC 1269 Date: 20230724 Docket: 23966 and 23970 Registry: Salmon Arm Rex v. James Leslie Gerard Steeves Before: The Honourable Justice Hori Reasons for Judgment Counsel for Crown: C.B. Tait The Accused, appearing on his own behalf: J.L.G. Steeves Place and Date of Hearing: Salmon Arm, B.C. July 18, 2023 Place and Date of Judgment: Salmon Arm, B.C. July 24, 2023 Introduction [ 1 ] James Leslie Gerard Steeves faces a series of charges in the Provincial Court. The charges are:

a) Five counts of failing to file personal tax returns;

b) As a director of 0953393 BC Ltd. (the “Company”), five counts of failing to file tax returns for that Company; and

c) Charges relating to his failure to appear for trial in the Provincial Court. [ 2 ] The Provincial Court commenced the trial on these charges but did not have sufficient time to complete it. Therefore, the court adjourned the trial to be continued at a later date. Nature of Mr. Steeves Application [ 3 ] On March 29, 2023, Mr. Steeves filed an application in this court related to the Provincial Court matters. Mr. Steeves application seeks the following orders: 1. An Order for a Stay of Proceedings for the mentioned case. 2. An Order for a Writ of Mandamus against the Respondent to produce their authority to (

a) Compel a non-resident living man, into involuntary servitude; (

b) Compel the applicant to be surety for the Steeves, James Leslie Gerard; an organization organized by Her Majesty in Right of British Columbia; [(c)] A restraining order granted against the respondent in the absence of the production of their authority within thirty (30) days. Application by the Crown [ 4 ] The application before me in this hearing was the Crown’s application for an order dismissing Mr. Steeves application. Stay or Proceedings [ 5 ] The stay of proceedings sought by Mr. Steeves is a stay of all matters before the Provincial Court. This application has no merit. [ 6 ] First, Mr.

Steeves made the same application to the Provincial Court. I am advised by Crown counsel without contest by Mr.

Steeves, that the Provincial Court denied Mr. Steeves application for a stay or proceedings. [ 7 ] Therefore, the question of a stay of proceedings has already been decided by the Provincial Court. The proper procedure, if Mr. Steeves is not satisfied with that result, is to appeal the Provincial Court order. [ 8 ] Secondly, Mr. Steeves relies on s. 24 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (“ Charter ”), as the basis for his stay of proceedings. In these circumstances, a stay or proceeding requires a finding that the conduct of the state has compromised the accused person’s right to a fair trial: R. v.

Sasano , 2022 BCSC 712 at paras. 26-28 . There is nothing in the evidence before me that even comes close to a circumstance where Mr. Steeves’ right to a fair trial has been compromised. [ 9 ] Mr. Steeves relies on arguments and submissions that I am sure he will make at his Provincial Court trial. There is nothing in the evidence before me to establish that the Crown has taken any steps to prevent Mr.

Steeves from making those arguments. [ 10 ] I will deal with the nature of the arguments made before me later in these reasons. [ 11 ] There is also no evidence that the Crown has failed to disclose relevant factual information to Mr. Steeves that would compromise his ability to make full answer and defence. Mandamus [ 12 ] The prerogative remedy of mandamus is an order from a superior court to an inferior tribunal or public body requiring it to exercise its jurisdiction: R. v. M.P.S ., 2013 BCSC 525 . [ 13 ] In Norgard v. Carley , 2008 BCSC 1236 , this court set out four prerequisites for mandamus as follows:

a) There must be a clear legal duty owed by the inferior tribunal or public body;

b) The performance of the duty must be due;

c) An order of mandamus lies only to compel the decision maker to make a decision but cannot compel the content of the decision; and

d) The person of whom the duty lies, must have refused to perform it. [ 14 ] Mr. Steeves’ application for mandamus fails on the first factor mentioned above. There is no duty upon the Crown to provide the authorities of the kind sought by Mr. Steeves. The information sought in Mr. Steeves’ application is nonsensical and not relevant to the charges before the Provincial Court. [ 15 ] Accordingly, Mr. Steeves’ application for an order of mandamus is dismissed. Pseudo-Legal Arguments [ 16 ] The issues raised by Mr. Steeves’ application are clearly pseudo-legal arguments of the kind referred to in R. v.

Trifunski , 2022 BCSC 609 , and in R. v. August-Sjodin, 2020 BCSC 826 . [ 17 ] Mr. Steeves tries to clothe the arguments in this case with a sense of legitimacy or reference to a wound-up trust and an existing family trust. However, there is no evidence that these trusts have any connection to the charges before the Provincial Court. Mr. Steeves submits that the Company is owned by the family trust.

However, I fail to see how that fact, if accurate, is relevant to the obligation to a British Columbia company to file tax returns. [ 18 ] As suggested in many previous cases, including Trifunski and August-Sjodin , it is appropriate to summarily dismiss these pseudo-legal arguments and I do so in this case. Conclusion [ 19 ] Based on the foregoing, the application that Mr. Steeves filed March 29, 2023, is dismissed. “D.K. Hori J.” HORI J.