2022 QCCQ 5169, 2022 QCCQ 5169

Agence du revenu du Québec c. Shanks 2022 QCCQ 5169 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL TOWN OF MONTREAL Criminal and Penal Division No: 500-61-506653-204 505-61-186112-207 DATE: June 1, 2022. ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE CLAUDE LEBLOND ______________________________________________________________________ AGENCE DU REVENU DU QUÉBEC Prosecution v.

JAMES DOUGLAS SHANKS Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The accused has been found guilty in two files of Tobacco Tax Act related offenses. [ 2 ] Two events took place. The first occurred on October 30, 2018 and involves all the defendants (505-61-186112-207). For that event, they are accused in one count of transporting raw tobacco in Quebec without having a permit to do so.

In another count they are accused of transporting raw tobacco in Quebec without having drawn up a manifest or way bill in accordance with the requirements prescribed by regulation and not having kept a copy of the said manifest or way bill in the vehicle used for transportation. [ 3 ] Except for Mr. Shanks, the other defendants have already received their sentences in that file. [ 4 ] The second event took place on November 3, 2018 and involves only James Douglas Shanks (500-61-506653-204). He is accused in one count of transporting raw tobacco in Quebec without having a permit to do so.

In another count he is accused of transporting raw tobacco in Quebec without having drawn up a manifest or way bill in accordance with the requirements prescribed by regulation and not having kept a copy of the said manifest or way bill in the vehicle used for transportation. Requests by the parties [ 5 ] The attorney for l’Agence du Revenu du Québec (the prosecution) is requesting the maximum fine on the first count in each file that is 1 million dollars. The prosecution is also requesting a term of imprisonment of 15 months. On the second count in each file a fine of 6000$ is requested.

A notice for greater sentence than the minimum fine has been given to the defendant on count 1 of each file according to sections 146 and 148 (3) of the Code of penal procedure. The same notice also mentioned the request of a jail sentence for the same counts. The statements of offence provide that a suspension of the driving permit will be requested. [ 6 ] For the defense, a total fine, cost and contribution under a 100 thousand dollars fine would be sufficient.

The October 3rd , 2018 event. [ 7 ] The total quantity of the “raw tobacco” that was seized on October 30 th , 2018 was approximately 13 540 Kg (44 bales of raw tobacco). [ 8 ] During the testimony of Mr. Brent Manary, representative of Sprucepoint Farms, it was explained to the Court that his farm was to perform three loads/transportations of Tobacco, in the month of September, October, and November. [ 9 ] Mr.

Brent Manary also explained to the Court, with regards to the above-mentioned transportations, that he helped James Shanks find the driver and companies that could aid in the transportation of the “raw tobacco”. [ 10 ] Upon examining the document entitled “Export Declaration”, Mr. Brent Manary confirmed to the Court that both R & R Global and A.T.F. Logistics Ltd. are companies of James Shanks.

[ 11 ] Mr. Brent Manary also stated that Sprucepoint Farms was not responsible for the transportation of “raw tobacco” but rather A.T.F. Logistics Ltd. was responsible for the transportation and that more specifically, James Shanks. [ 12 ] Additionally, Mr. Brent Manary also confirmed to the Court that all the information found on the above-mentioned documents entitled “Export Declaration” was provided to him by James Shanks. [ 13 ] Mr. Brent Manary also stated that James Shanks was the only person to contact him regarding the transportation of “raw tobacco” for both R & R Global and A.T.F.

Logistics Ltd. [ 14 ] The liability for each defendants, in the file 505-61-506653-204, is as follows : • James Douglas Shanks as the organizer .

He admitted having organized every aspect of the operation. • Willard Richardson as the driver in the October 31, 2018 event. • Derek Denis as president of Transport Crazy Horse inc. • Todd Mack Manary as president of 1047535 Ontario Limited and driver of the truck in the province of Quebec until Transport Crazy Horse took over the container in the October 31, 2018 event. • Transport Crazy Horse inc. as the transporter in the October 31, 2018 event. • 1047531 Ontario Limited (Encore Transportation Service) as the transporter in the same event.

As to November 3, 2018 event [ 15 ] The total quantity of the “raw tobacco” that was seized on November 3 rd , 2018 was approximately 14 710 Kg (44 bales of raw tobacco). [ 16 ] Among the documents seized from Mohamed Hussein Elnakhala (the driver) on or about November 3 rd , 2018, the document entitled “Export Declaration” states that the “Customs Service Provider” (point 26) was A.T.F.

Logistics LTD and that their address was 137A Bodkin road, Oneida of Thames, Ontario, N0L 2G0, as it appears in P-9. [ 17 ] The above-mentioned document also states, in point 6 and 7 that the “Name of the exporting carrier” was Flatliner Transport and the “Transportation document number” was SP-18-012, as it appears in P-9. [ 18 ] Furthermore, again referring to the above-mentioned document, in point 4 the “Ultimate consignee information” states the company name of R & R Global, as it appears in P-9. [ 19 ] During the testimony of Mr.

Brent Manary, representative of Sprucepoint Farms, it was explained to the Court that his farm was to perform three distinct transportations of Tobacco, in the month of September, October, and November. [ 20 ] Mr. Brent Manary also explained to the Court, with regards to the above-mentioned transportations, that he helped James Shanks find the driver and companies that could aid in the transportation of the “raw tobacco”. [ 21 ] Upon examining the document entitled “Export Declaration”, Mr. Brent Manary confirmed to the Court that both R & R Global and A.T.F.

Logistics Ltd. are companies of James Shanks. [ 22 ] Mr. Brent Manary also stated that Sprucepoint Farms was not responsible for the transportation of “raw tobacco” but rather A.T.F. Logistics Ltd. was responsible for the transportation and that more specifically, James Shanks, as it appears in the Court record. [ 23 ] Additionally, Mr. Brent Manary also confirmed to the Court that all the information found on the above-mentioned documents entitled “Export Declaration” was provided to him by

James Shanks, as it appears in the Court record. [ 24 ] Mr. Brent Manary also stated that James Shanks was the only person to contact him regarding the transportation of “raw tobacco” for both R & R Global and A.T.F. Logistics Ltd., as it appears in the Court record. [ 25 ] In this event, the defendant James Douglas Shanks was also the organizer of the operation. Legal principles [ 26 ] My colleague Duperron Roy in L’Agence du Revenu du Québec c. Moisan [1] exposed the applicable legal principles : [14] L’

article 718 du Code criminel prévoit que le prononcé de la peine a pour objectif de protéger la société et de contribuer au respect de la loi et au maintien d’une société juste, paisible et sûre, par l’imposition d’une sanction visant à dénoncer le comportement illégal et le tort causé aux victimes et à la société, à dissuader le délinquant et quiconque de commettre des infractions, à l’isoler au besoin et à conscientiser celui-ci des torts qu’il a causés, tout en favorisant une réinsertion sociale. [15] Les infractions en matière de tabac, qu’elles soient à l’encontre de la loi provinciale [4] ou fédérale [5] , sont considérées comme des crimes économiques visant à éluder la perception de taxes redevables au gouvernement.

La jurisprudence élaborée sous les deux lois trouve application. [16] Depuis 2015, le Code criminel [6] prévoit une infraction en lien avec le transport de produits de tabac. Cette jurisprudence est également applicable au présent dossier. [17] La Cour d’appel du Québec [7] rendant jugement en matière de la Loi de 2001 sur l’accise rappelle certains enseignements de la Cour suprême [8] : - Ces infractions doivent être sanctionnées par des mesures économiques plutôt que par une mesure d’emprisonnement.

Le régime est érigé pour toucher les intérêts financiers du contrevenant; - La capacité de payer du contrevenant est écartée au profit des dispositions de la loi spécifique qui fixe des limites, minimale et maximale, à l’amende. L’absence de capacité de payer ne justifie pas l’imposition de l’emprisonnement.

Il faut plutôt accorder un délai; - Par exemple, c’est lorsque la peine d’amende ne reflète pas la dissuasion générale eu égards aux circonstances, que le Tribunal doit envisager une peine d’emprisonnement. [18] Le Tribunal doit donc tenir compte de tous les facteurs pertinents y compris la gravité objective des infractions, les facteurs aggravants et atténuants, la parité, l’harmonisation, la dissuasion et la dénonciation. [19] La peine doit être proportionnelle à la gravité de l’infraction et au degré de responsabilité du défendeur. Ce principe est primordial. [ 27 ]

Section 14.2 of The Tobacco Tax Act provides for a fine between 6000$ and 1 000 000$ for the offense of transporting raw tobacco in Quebec without a permit.

The gravity of the offense [ 28 ] The prosecution has filed a study called «2021-2022 Consultations pré-budgétaires, Ministère des Finances, Gouvernement du Québec» and another one called «L’incidence de la Covid-19 sur le tabac de contrebande et les recettes fiscales provinciales au Canada». [ 29 ] In Moisan, judge Duperron Roy summarized those two studies : [23] La poursuivante a fait une preuve spécifique portant sur le fléau que constitue la contrebande de tabac. Elle a produit un rapport de 2021-22 de la Coalition nationale contre le tabac de contrebande (CNCTC) :

- Fondée en 2010 par des associations commerciales et des partenaires de la société civile, la CNCTC est la seule organisation non-gouvernementale canadienne qui se concentre sur l’étude du phénomène des produits illicites du tabac; - Le tabac de contrebande représente en moyenne jusqu’à un tiers du tabac en circulation sur le marché. Plus de 20% des produits de tabac consommés chaque année proviennent de sources illégales. Au Québec, en 2020, on estimait la consommation illégale des produits du tabac entre 10% et 15%.

À l’échelle du pays, le marché du tabac de contrebande s’élèverait à 14%; - Les contrebandiers canadiens de tabac ont développé au fil des années un solide réseau de distribution en sus d’une chaîne de fabrication de taille industrielle. On dénombre actuellement 50 usines clandestines de tabac illégales au Québec et en Ontario. Celles-ci sont en mesure de produire chacune 10 000 cigarettes à la minute. Près de 300 points de vente fixes illégaux, les fameux « smoke shacks », sont également dénombrés à ce jour à travers le pays; - Le commerce de contrebande de tabac est extrêmement rentable.

Un gang de taille moyenne dégage à lui seul une marge de profit pouvant atteindre 100 millions de dollars. Pour leur plus grande part, ces bénéfices contribuent au financement d’activités relatives à la grande criminalité (vente d’armes, trafic de drogues et d’êtres humains, financement du terrorisme, etc.); - Les pertes de recettes fiscales du tabac pour le gouvernement fédéral et les provinces s’élèvent à 2.1 milliards de dollars annuellement dont 125 à 150 millions au Québec.

Ce sont autant de financements perdus pour des programmes sociaux ou d’intérêt public; - Tristement, 93% du tabac de contrebande provient du territoire national. Les régions du Québec, de l’Ontario et du Nouveau Bunswick en sont les principales victimes. Épicentre de la contrebande de tabac, la région de Cornwall-Valleyfield en souffre principalement. Cette situation s’explique en raison de sa géographie particulière ainsi que de la présence des réserves d’Akweasne, de Kahnawake et de Six Nations, à cheval sur la frontière canado-américaine; -

Malgré certains efforts menés les années passées, le gouvernement du Nouveau-Brunswick a récemment témoigné d’un net recul de ses positions dans la lutte contre la contrebande de tabac. Actuellement, environ 22% des cigarettes au Nouveau-Brunswick sont illégales.

Chaque année, la province du Nouveau-Brunswick perd 13 millions de recettes fiscales au profit de la contrebande. [24] La poursuivante dépose également le rapport du Conseil canadien de l’industrie des dépanneurs, L’incidence de la Covid-19 sur le tabac de contrebande et les recettes fiscales principales au Canada : de mars à août 2020 , Étude menée par Ernst & Young LLP.

En voici les principaux énoncés : - En entraînant la fermeture temporaire des activités de fabrication et de vente de tabac des Premières nations en Ontario et au Québec, la Covid-19 a révélé l’étendue du marché des cigarettes illégales au Canada(…) On observe une hausse progressive mais soutenue des ventes légales de cigarettes dans plusieurs ensembles de données, suivie d’une baisse jusqu’à des niveaux de référence normaux immédiatement après la réouverture des usines de cigarettes et des « cabanes à tabac » dans les réserves; - Cela signifie que les recettes associées aux taxes provinciales sur le tabac ont augmenté de près de 32 millions de dollars au total au cours du seul mois de juin à la suite de l’arrêt de la fabrication et de la vente de tabac illégal dans les réserves en raison de la Covid-19; - Sur une base nationale, le volume des ventes mensuelles pour l’ensemble des commerces de notre échantillon a augmenté de 23,8% en juin d’une année à l’autre; - La possibilité d’acheter du tabac de contrebande par des personnes mineures contrecarre les efforts gouvernementaux de lutte contre la consommation du tabac chez les personnes mineures. [ 30 ] Danny Dufour testified as an expert in the field of tobacco contraband.

He gave supplementary information to the two studies already mentioned. [ 31 ] He explained the importation, from Ontario, of raw tobacco in Quebec. Thereafter, the tobacco is brought, by organized crime, to illicit factories or storing sites located on Kahnawake and Six Nations of Grand River reserves. [ 32 ] Since 2008, those factories have multiplied on those reserves. In Kahnawake only, there exist 40 storing sites of which 20 have the capacity to produce cigarettes. [ 33 ] These days, raw tobacco is more transported than cigarettes in order to reduce the loss in case of seizure. [ 34 ] Mr.

Dufour explained that from 2009 to 2017 the tobacco contraband rate in Quebec passed from 30% to 12%. [ 35 ] At a rate of 12%, in 2017, the loss of income for the Quebec provincial tax was 139,5

million and for the excise tax 114 million. For Canada the loss is 1,8 billion while the contraband rate is 42%. [ 36 ] Mr. Dufour also explained the issue of security with contraband cigarettes. The paper used to fabricate those cigarettes, not being the standard one which is 4 to 5 times more expensive, doesn’t permit the cigarette to fully extinguish when unused. Between 1995 and 1999, in Canada, over 14 000 fires ignited due to tobacco products. [ 37 ] Another issue with tobacco contraband is the vulnerability of the customers. Poor people and youngsters have a tendency to resort to contraband cigarettes.

An analysis of cigarettes butts in 75 high schools’ surroundings in Quebec in 2009, showed a rate of 45% of illegal cigarettes used. [ 38 ] The presence of organised crime in the tobacco contraband is acknowledged by the Quebec government, the Mohawk Band Council of Kahwanake and Kahnatake and the RCMP. [ 39 ] Finally, Mr. Dufour calculated the loss of tax income in both event should the tobacco had been used to fabricate cigarettes. In the October 3, 2018 event, the equivalent in cigarettes for the tobacco seized is 13 540 000 with a total loss of tax income of 3 813 965$.

In the November 1, 2018 event, the equivalent in cigarettes for the tobacco seized is 14 710 000 with a total loss of tax income of 4 143 533$. The personal situation of the defendant [ 40 ] A Gladue Report has been filed. From that report we learn the following : The defendant is 66 years old No criminal record but the defendant admits a suspended sentence for shrimps stealing. The report is mute as to when this occurred. He has 4 children and 5 grandchildren. He has no contact with them because they think their father is foolish for pushing Indian laws.

According to him, his current job is teaching the laws of the Creator the 10 Commandments. His father was a Scottish man from St-Johns New-Brunswick. His grandmother on his mother’s side was in an orphanage as a child. Her biological parents were Chippewa. He has not seen his relatives over 40 years. It was 1994 when he found from his wife at the time that he was native. He knew nothing about Indians before. He feels at home in Khanawake. As far as racism and discrimination go, the defendant say that «white people» called him down because he is native and native people call him down because he looks «white».

He is divorced. He is renting a room at a boarding house. He disclosed that he has not held a job in the «white world» for over 20 years. «James said financially things are not good. When asked what his source of income is he replied «it’s none of their business». He has no spouse and his financial obligations are paying rent, internet, phone and food. He says that he is battling land claims and is still battling land reclamation. He prays a lot. He shared that he is depressed and he has let himself go. He said «my spirit is always laughing and jovial. I am now a cynic which is not me».

Regarding cultural activities he has participated in different indigenous ceremonies. As to his attitude and understanding regarding the offence, the defendant said to the Gladue report writer that he was not transporting anything in Quebec because he was a client waiting for the product. He added that instead to escort the load to the port, the SQ hijacked them. As to remorse he says «to have remorse you have to have done something wrong, we are not

criminals». He feels as an indigenous person he has the «right» to sell tobacco products as this is an inherentright to produce, farm, sell and transport it. For the report writer, Mr. Shanks was not open to discussion and was adamant about his rights asan indigenous person. The writer recommends that «Mr. Shanks follow all sentences orrecommendations made by this court, as all of our suggestions have been dismissed and rejectedby the client».

The aggravating circumstances • After being arrested in the first event he reoffended shortly after. • The amount of tobacco involved is very important and so are the taxes eluded. • In both event the defendant was the organizer • The defendant planned to do the same for 5 years • His total absence of respect for what he calls «white laws» contributes to a high risk ofrecidivism. The attenuating circumstances [41] The absence of a criminal record. [42] Since the second seizure, he did not have any trouble with the law. The aboriginal circumstance [43] The defendant appears to genuinely assume being an indigenous.

Even if he only learnedin 1994 about it, he since strives to integrate the cultural aspect of it. [44]

Section 718.2

e) of the Cr.c. provides that in the process of sentencing. The judge shalltake into consideration all available sanctions with particular attention to the circumstances ofAboriginal offenders. The Supreme court of Canada in Ipeelee, 2012 SCC 13 , 2012 1S.C.R. 433 wrote : [81] First, some cases erroneously suggest that an offender must establish a causallink between background factors and the commission of the current offence before being entitledto have those matters considered by the sentencing judge. […] As the Ontario Court of Appeal states in R. v.

Collins, 2011 ONCA 182, 277 O.A.C. 88, at paras.32-33: There is nothing in the governing authorities that places the burden of persuasionon an Aboriginal accused to establish a causal link between the systemic and background factorsand commission of the offence. . . […] [83] As the Ontario Court of Appeal goes on to note in Collins, itwould be extremely difficult for an Aboriginal offender to ever establish a direct causal linkbetween his circumstances and his offending. The interconnections are simply too complex.

TheAboriginal Justice Inquiry of Manitoba describes the issue, at p. 86: Cultural oppression, social inequality, the loss of self-government and systemicdiscrimination, which are the legacy of the Canadian government’s treatment of Aboriginalpeople, are intertwined and interdependent factors, and in very few cases is it possible to draw asimple and direct correlation between any one of them and the events which lead an individualAboriginal person to commit a crime or to become incarcerated. Furthermore, the operation of s. 718.2(

e) does not logically require such a connection. Systemicand background factors do not operate as an excuse or justification for the criminal conduct.Rather, they provide the necessary context to enable a judge to determine an appropriate sentence.

This is not to say that those factors need not be tied in some way to the particular offender andoffence. Unless the unique circumstances of the particular offender bear on his or her culpabilityfor the offence or indicate which sentencing objectives can and should be actualized, they will notinfluence the ultimate sentence. [45] The Court considers that those factors are tied in some way to the offenses and theoffender in this case. The parity with the co-defendants [46] The defense also insisted on the parity principled.

In Kane 2012 NLCA 53, the Court ofappeal of Newfoundland and Labrador wrote: [30] The particular circumstance of co-accuseds or co-conspirators engages the sentencingprinciple of parity specified in

section 718.2(

b) of the Criminal Code in a special way. Sentencesbased on joint submissions have relevance particularly in this context because an unjustifieddisparity among sentences imposed on co-conspirators may not only be viewed by the offendersand others as unjust, but such disparity may also tend to bring the administration of justice intodisrepute. This is not to say that differences in circumstances of the offenders and their roles in theconspiracy should not be taken into account and may result in disparate sentences.

However, thesentences imposed on co-conspirators, including sentences imposed as a result of jointsubmissions, should be taken into account. [47] The co-defendants have been sentenced to a fine further to joint submissions except forTodd McManary. Those fines ranged from around 45 000$ plus cost and contribution for WillieRichardson who was the truck driver in the first event to 1 million for Todd McManary aspresident of 1047535 Ontario Limited and driver of the truck in the province of Quebec untilTransport Crazy Horse took over the container in the October 31, 2018 event. Mr.

McManarynever attended court during the sentencing process. Instead he sent letters through the courtprocess showing contempt and conveying conspiracy theories. [48] Transport Crazy Horse was fined a total of 991 000$. [49] Contrarily to Mr. Shanks who reoffended three days after the first event, the co-defendants were involved in only one event. [50] In addition to that, Mr. Shanks had the highest role in the first event as in the second one. The mistake of law [51] The defense put forth an argument as to a mistake of law conveyed by the defendant. [52] In R. v.

Suter 2018 SCC 34 , [2018] 2 S.C.R. 496 Justice Moldaver for themajority wrote: [63] A person’s knowledge of the illegality of his or her actions may be a relevantfactor to consider at sentencing. However, as with all factors considered at sentencing, thesignificance (and potential mitigating effect) of this knowledge will vary depending on thecircumstances. [64] A mistake of law is a legal concept with rigorous requirements.

In my view, itoccurs only where a person has an honest but mistaken belief in the legality of his or her actions.Although it is not a defence to a criminal charge (s. 19 of the Criminal Code; R. v. Forster, (SCC), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 339, at p. 346), mistake of law can nevertheless be used as amitigating factor in sentencing (see R. v. Pontes, (SCC), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 44, atpara. 87; R. v. MacDonald, 2014 SCC 3, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 37, at para. 61; Kenny’s Outlines ofCriminal Law (19th ed. 1966), by J. W. Cecil Turner, at pp. 61-62).

This is because offenders whohonestly but mistakenly believe in the lawfulness of their actions are less morally blameworthythan offenders who — in committing the same offence — are unsure about the lawfulness of theiractions, or know that their actions are unlawful. [65] Confusion or uncertainty as to the lawfulness of one’s actions does not, in myview, meet the legal requirements for mistake of law. However, such confusion may still berelevant to the sentencing analysis depending on the facts of the particular case.

Its mitigatingeffect, if any, will necessarily be less than in a situation where there is a true mistake of law. [53] The existence or not of a mistake of law is a disputed fact.

Section 724 Cr.C. providesthat the Court must be satisfied on a balance of probabilities of the existence of the disputed factbefore relying on it in determining the sentence. [54] Mistake of law is an attenuating circumstance. Like remorse, the absence of such amistake is not an aggravating circumstance. [55] In its verdict, the Court had to qualify what the defendants were calling an «in transit

exception». In this context the Court said that such a mistake was a mistake of law and therefore not a defence. [ 56 ] As for Mr. Shanks, he also asserted during the trial that a load transported «in transit» in this province is not covered by the Tobacco Tax Act. [ 57 ] As already mentioned, he said to the Gladue report writer that he feels as an indigenous person he has the «right» to sell tobacco products as this is an inherent right to produce, farm, sell and transport it.

This is a belief in a cultural right outside of the scope of the Tobacco Tax Act. [ 58 ] Therefore the Court is not satisfied on a balance of probabilities that this defendant was acting on a mistake of law as to the Tobacco Tax Act. Conclusion [ 59 ] Taking into consideration all the circumstances and the fines imposed on the other defendants in the first event, the maximum fine shall be imposed on each of the first count in both files.

The minimum fine will be imposed on the second count in both files. [ 60 ] The aggravating circumstances, especially the importance of his role as the organizer in both events, his reoffending three days after the first seizure and the importance of the risk of recidivism considering his unfounded belief that tobacco laws doesn’t apply to indigenous people, bring the Court to the conclusion that a term of imprisonment shall be added to the fines in order to put more emphasis on denunciation and deterrence. [ 61 ] The term of imprisonment suggested by the prosecution appears fit in regard of the case law and reflects the table referred to by my colleague Duperron Roy in Moisan .

However, the prosecution is not ready to take into consideration the aboriginal circumstance because it appears lately in the defendant’s life. For the reasons already mentioned, the Court is satisfied to take that circumstance into consideration. Hence, the Court thinks that a lesser term should be imposed. THEREFORE In file 505-61-186112-207 [ 62 ] On the first count, the Court imposes a fine of 1 000 000$ plus cost and contribution. In addition to the fine the Court imposes a term of imprisonment of 12 months. [ 63 ] On the second count, the Court imposes a fine of 6 000$ plus cost and contribution.

In file 500-61-506653-204 [ 64 ] On the first count, he Court imposes a fine of 1 000 000$ plus cost and contribution.

In addition to the fine the Court imposes a term of imprisonment of 12 months. [ 65 ] On the second count, the Court imposes a fine of 6 000$ plus cost and contribution. [ 66 ] A delay of 24 months is granted to pay these fines, cost and contribution. [ 67 ] The terms of imprisonment will be served concurrently. [ 68 ] Given the substantial amount of the fines imposed and the term of imprisonment, the Court considers that a suspension of the driving permit is not warranted. __________________________________ CLAUDE LEBLOND J.C.Q.

Me Mark Mastromonaco Me Maude Piché Corbeil Attorneys for l’Agence du Revenu du Québec Me Alexandre Bien Aimé Attorney for the defendant Date of hearing: April 11 and 12, 2022.