Her Majesty the Queen - v. -, 2012 SKPC 29

IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF SASKATCHEWAN Citation: 2012 SKPC 029 Date: February 27, 2012 Information: 38576637 Location: Estevan _____________________________________________________________________________ Between: Her Majesty the Queen - and - Norman Luke Desautels (aka Normand Luke Desautels) and Dorothy-Anne Denise Desautels Appearing: Christine Haynes and Glennys McVeigh For the Crown Self-Represented For the Accused JUDGMENT K. BAZIN , J [ 1 ] The defendants are charged with a number of offences under the Income Tax Act and the Excise Tax Act .

The defendants are best described as individuals that adhere to the tax protestor ideology wherein they take the position, chiefly that the Income Tax Act was not properly legislated and as such is of no binding effect upon them. DECEPTIVE STATEMENTS/EVADING - INCOME TAX ACT

Norman Desautels: Count 1 - 2004 taxation year - s. 239(1)(

a) of the Income Tax Act Count 2 - 2005 taxation year - s. 239(1)(

a) of the Income Tax Act Count 3 - 2004-2008 taxation years (inclusive) - s. 239(1)(

d) of the Income Tax Act Dorothy Desautels: Count 11 - 2004 taxation year - s. 239(1)(

a) of the Income Tax Act Count 12 - 2005 taxation year - s. 239(1)(

a) of the Income Tax Act Count 13 - 2004-2008 taxation years (inclusive) - s. 239(1)(

d) of the Income Tax Act [2] Section 239(1)(

a) and (

d) read as follows: 239.

(1) Every person who has (

a) made, or participated in, assented to or acquiesced in the making of, false or deceptive statements in a return, certificate, statement oranswer filed or made as required by or under this Act or a regulation, . . . (

d) wilfully, in any manner, evaded or attempted to evade compliance with this Act or payment of taxes imposed by this Act, or . . . [3] Under s. 239 of the Income Tax Act, these are criminal offences requiring proof of actus reus and mens rea. The law in thisarea is set out in R. v. Klundert (2004), (ON CA), 187 C.C.C. (3d) 417 (Ont. C.A.); leave to appeal to Supreme Courtof Canada refused, [2004] S.C.C.A. 463 (Q.L.) [4] The law is summarised in the Crown’s brief as follows: In R. v. Klundert (2004), (ON CA), 187 CCC (3d) 417, (Ont. C.A.) para. 47; (2004), 187 CCC (3d) 417 (Ont.

C.A.);leave to appeal to SCC refused [2004] SCCA No. 463 (QL), Dorothy J. of the Ontario Court of Appeal describes these as the actions of atax evader: - did something or engaged in a course of conduct that avoided or attempted to avoid the payment of tax imposed by the Act; - knew there was tax imposed by the Act; and - engaged in the conduct for the purpose of avoiding or attempting to avoid payment of tax imposed by the Act or knowing that avoidingpayment of tax imposed by the Act was a virtual certain consequence of his actions. Offences under

section 239 of the Income Tax Act are criminal offences requiring proof of full mens rea (R. v. Paveley, (SK CA), [1979] 30 CCC (2d) 483 (Sask. C.A.); Knox Contracting Limited v. Canada (1992), 2 SCR 338 (SCC)). To prove the mens rea element, the Crown must prove by direct evidence or proof may be inferred by indirect evidence that the accusedhad the requisite mental state as a subjective reality given the objective nature of his or her actions and circumstances.

This requiressome comparison with what a reasonable person in the circumstances of the accused would believe or intend given the accused’sbehaviour (R. v. Theroux, (SCC), [1993] S.C.J. No. 42 (SCC) at para. 205; R. v. Klundert, supra, para 47; R. v.Paveley, supra at p. 494). The gist of tax evasion is the intentional commission of a fraud upon the public purse. Wilful blindness has been found “to be the equivalent of a determination of knowledge and intent” (R. v. Amell, 2010 SKPC 107 at para. 168; currently under reserve for Appeal decision).

[ 5 ] As to counts 1, 2 and 3 for Norman Desautels, it is alleged that the income tax returns filed in 2004 to 2008 do not show all of his income earned. The evidence indicates the following:

a) Tax year 2004 - $ 72,465.61 of unreported income

b) Tax year 2005 - $ 89,796.11 of unreported income

c) Tax year 2006 - $ 128,752.05 of unreported income

d) Tax year 2007 - $ 133,932.69 of unreported income

e) Tax year 2008 - $ 69,724.91 of unreported income Total $ 494,671.37 of unreported income [ 6 ] The additional income received by Norman Desautels comes from his farming and business operations, the business being mainly oil well maintenance to third parties involved in the oil industry. [ 7 ] The defendants did not object to the evidence entered, from a factual basis, being that they did not argue that they did not receive the income as outlined in the documentary and oral evidence. [ 8 ] Put forward by the Crown was documentary evidence as to what the allowable expenses would be based on the records obtained from the defendants, which related to their farm and business expenses.

The unreported income is the amount after allowable expenses are deducted. [ 9 ] Again the defendants did not dispute the math and in argument did not dispute the calculation as to unreported income, other than they argued that if there was one error in the mathematical calculations then the Court cannot rely on any of the mathematical calculations put forward by the Crown. [ 10 ] On this point, the defendants argue that the Court during the testimony of the Crown witness Mark Wood, a chief investigator, had numerous inquiries as to the calculations. There was a point where it looked like Mr.

Wood had a mathematical error, as it related to the calculations as to the GST credits. However, Mr. Wood after having the opportunity to review his records confirmed that his calculations set out in the exhibits and the summaries were correct, in his opinion. [ 11 ] Mr. Wood testified that in his preparation of expenses he was in contact with Norman Desautels as to ensuring all expenses were included. [ 12 ] In short, the defendants did not take issue with the calculations of the income and expenses as it relates to determining their taxable income.

They did not draw any errors, mathematical or otherwise, to the Court’s attention. [ 13 ] As such I find that as to Norman Desautels, he had net business, farming and personal income that he failed to report on his tax returns as set out in paragraph 4. [ 14 ] The actus reus is made out as it relates to counts 1, 2 and 3 in that Norman Desautels received income not reported in his tax returns for 2004 and 2005, and did not file income tax returns for 2006, 2007 and 2008, when he was in receipt of income and income tax was owed.

I find that Norman Desautels did not file tax returns for the tax years 2006, 2007 and 2008, when he was in receipt of income and income tax was owed.

[ 15 ] As to Dorothy Desautels, her charges under counts 11, 12 and 13 arise from her failing to report the income of Norman Desautels on her income tax returns for the tax years 2004 and 2005 and not filing income tax returns at all for 2006, 2007 and 2008. [ 16 ] The actus reus is made out as to both defendants, by the evidence establishing the amounts earned but not reported by Norman Desautels. INTENT/ MENS REA -

SECTION 239 INCOME TAX ACT [ 17 ] Referring back to R. v.

Klundert , did the defendants do something or engage in a course of conduct that avoided or attempted to avoid the payment of tax imposed by the Act , knew there was tax imposed by the Act and engage in the conduct for the purpose of avoiding or attempting to avoid payment of tax imposed by the Act or knowing that avoiding payment of tax imposed by the Act was a virtual certain consequence of their actions? [ 18 ] The defendants had always filed income tax returns and had in previous years prior to 2003, used a professional tax preparer Sunrise Tax Accounting Services.

The defendants reported business, farming and employment earnings. Norman Desautels had reported 60 percent of their business and farm income and Dorothy Desautels had reported 40 percent. They were using a legitimate income splitting tax planning procedure. [ 19 ] In 2003 the defendants stopped reporting business and farming income but reported T4 employment income. [ 20 ] The defendants still have farm and business income, as set out in the evidence and both were aware of this fact.

This income continued to be earned over the period 2004 to 2008, the period that forms the basis of the charges. [ 21 ] The defendants personally deposit income from farm and business operations. From the documentation obtained in the defendants’ possession pursuant to the search warrants various T3s, T4s and T5s which respectively advise that they were to be used for tax filing. [ 22 ] The defendants also had a history of noncompliance with income tax assessment prior to 2003, dating back to 1993. This involved collection efforts by Revenue Canada which included phone and personal contact with the defendants.

It also involved formal processes of enforcement by third party demands, garnishment and registration against land. [ 23 ] Documents obtained from the defendants’ residence, of which was the majority of the documentary evidence, indicates knowledge of enforcement proceedings, as well as the need to file tax returns.

There is voluminous documentation entered as evidence that shows the defendants had tax packages for the years they did not file, and as well income and expense information. [ 24 ] The defendants also had taken active steps to defeat or interfere with the enforcement of tax arrears, advising garnishee parties that the government’s processes were illegal. [ 25 ] The defendants made and forwarded “promissory notes” to the Canada Revenue Agency for payment of arrears, which the Canada Revenue Agency did not accept as payment. [ 26 ] From the evidence, the defendants had filed income tax returns for many years, and knew well what was required of them to declare income that they received for the years 2004 and 2005, and knew they had to file for 2006, 2007 and 2008.

The defendant Norman Desautels did not disclose all his income, and the defendant Dorothy Desautels did not disclose all her income, and does not report her husband’s Norman Desautels’ income on her returns for 2004 and 2005, and no reporting for 2006, 2007 and 2008. As stated

earlier, the defendants do not argue that the income was not received and/or there was some error in the calculation of taxable income, particularly relating to the farm and business income. The defendants argue legal objections as to the requirement to pay tax which will be covered later in this decision.

The Desautels did not take issue with the evidence outlining the income and expenses as to the farming and business income. [ 27 ] While the burden to prove the offence beyond a reasonable doubt rests solely with the Crown, the defendants do not suggest that they did not know of the income received and the defendant Dorothy Desautels does not suggest she is unaware of the income received by Norman Desautels.

From the documentation filed from the home of the defendants, as well as the evidence of the Crown witnesses as to steps taken by the defendants to defeat or interfere with the collection of taxes, I infer from the evidence and find that the defendants had full knowledge of their income and their requirement to report it pursuant to the Income Tax Act . CHILD TAX CREDIT Norman Desautels: Count 4 - 2004 taxation year - s. 239(1.1)(

a) of the Income Tax Act Count 5 - 2005 taxation year - s. 239(1.1)(

a) of the Income Tax Act Count 6 - for the period of July 1, 2004 to June 30, 2007 - s. 239(1.1)(

e) of the Income Tax Act Dorothy Desautels: Count 14 - 2004 taxation year - s. 239(1.1)(

a) of the Income Tax Act Count 15 - 2005 taxation year - s. 239(1.1)(

a) of the Income Tax Act Count 16 - for the period July 1, 2004 to June 30, 2007 - s. 239(1.1)(

e) of the Income Tax Act [ 28 ] Section 239(1.1)(

a) and (

e) read as follows: 239(1.1) Every person who obtains or claims a refund or credit under this Act to which the person or any other person is not entitled or obtains or claims a refund or credit under this Act in an amount that is greater than the amount to which the person or other person is entitled (

a) by making, or participating in, assenting to or acquiescing in the making of, a false or deceptive statement in a return, certificate, statement or answer filed or made under this Act or a regulation, . . . (

e) wilfully in any manner, or . . . [ 29 ] The charges related to the tax credit are a result of the allegations previously discussed as to the full reporting of income of Norman Desautels. The child tax credit system is tied to a family’s income, as it is designed to assist those with lower family income and those in greatest need for assistance.

The allegations of non-reporting of income by the defendants, particularly the defendant Norman Desautels, and the non-reporting of Norman Desautels’ income on Dorothy Desautels’ return triggers the child tax credits and payments. [ 30 ] The evidence is that the defendants did not report all their family income for 2004 and 2005 and did not file tax returns for 2006, 2007 and 2008. The tax credit charges also include improper financial information for the 2003 tax year triggering payments in 2004.

Dorothy Desautels received child tax benefits, as a result of not reporting income of Norman Desautels, and herself not reporting full family income. [ 31 ] From the documentation filed, and further both Norman Desautels and Dorothy Desautels knew that by not reporting income,

they would receive the child tax benefits. Dorothy Desautels had previously registered in the system to receive child tax benefits, and would be well aware that the benefits were determined by the overall declared family income. [ 32 ] The documentary evidence establishes the family income of the defendants and that the defendants were ineligible for child tax benefits.

As a result, they received the following funds when they were ineligible to receive funds: a) 2004 (based on 2003 family income) $2,719.00 b) 2005 (based on 2004 family income) $2,950.00 c) 2006 (based on 2005 family income) $3,200.00 Total $8,869.00 [ 33 ] The actus reus of the offence is made out by the defendants not disclosing the family income and receiving the child tax benefits. [ 34 ] The mens rea of the offence has been made out in that Dorothy Desautels knew as to the working of the program, from the documentation filed and from the fact that she had registered for benefits under the program on January 30, 1996.

Canada Child Tax Benefit Notices and Notices of Assessment found at the Desautels’ residence indicate that the payment is for assistance to eligible families to help them in the cost of raising children. It refers to the benefits being for low income families with children. In addition the defendants would have known that by not reporting fully their income, and/or not filing tax returns, that this would place them in the lower range of income and thus continue to receive the Canada Child Tax Benefits.

Further that the defendants knew that by not reporting their full income or Dorothy Desautels not reporting the full income of Norman Desautels this would have them receive Canada Child Tax Benefits, without being eligible. GST/ EXCISE TAX ACT [ 35 ] Norman Desautels is charged under the Excise Tax Act as follows: Count 7 - 2005 taxation year - s. 327(1)(

a) of the Excise Tax Act Count 8 - 2006 taxation year - s. 327(1)(

a) of the Excise Tax Act Count 9 - 2007 taxation year - s. 327(1)(

a) of the Excise Tax Act Count 10 - period of December 31, 2004 to June 16, 2009, failing to remit GST for annual returns 2005 to 2008 inclusive - s. 327(1)(

c) of the Excise Tax Act [ 36 ] Section 327(1)(

a) and (

c) read as follows: 327.

(1) Every person who has (

a) made, or participated in, assented to or acquiesced in the making of, false or deceptive statements in a return, application, certificate, statement, document or answer filed or made as required by or under this Part or the regulations made under this Part, . . . (

c) wilfully, in any manner, evaded or attempted to evade compliance with this Part or payment or remittance of tax or net tax imposed under this Part, [ 37 ] The last voluntary filing of Goods and Services Tax (GST) by Norman Desautels was October 28, 2003 for the 2002 year.

Mr. Desautels had been a GST registrant since January 1, 1991. [38] The evidence of his previous filings and documents obtained from his home show that he had charged GST to third partiesparticularly mainly from oil companies that he was providing services to. He collected the GST but did not submit the GST nor initiallyfile his GST returns for the years 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006.

Eventually the Canada Revenue Agency made GST assessments based onNorman Desautels’ past filings and as these assessments were not paid, the Canada Revenue Agency enforced by way of garnisheenotifications. [39] As a result of the enforcement, Norman Desautels filed a Notice of Objection October 29, 2007. This is resolved by NormanDesautels filing his past GST statements.

It is some of these statements that form the basis of the charges in that the statements do notreflect accurately the GST collected by Norman Desautels and the net amount to be remitted to the Canada Revenue Agency. [40] The evidence and calculations as submitted by the Crown show that a net amount was payable to the Crown for the periodDecember 31, 2004 to June 16, 2009 in the amount of $6,373.67. [41] The actus reus of the offence is made out by the documentary evidence indicating that Norman Desautels collected GST andthe net unreported GST totals the $6,373.67.

The evidence also shows that for the year ending December 31, 2005, the net GST payablewas $564.12. For the year ending December 31, 2006, the net GST payable was $1,874.99. For the year ending December 31, 2007,the net GST payable was the amount of $1,025.33, and for the year ending 2008 the amount was $2,909.23. [42] As to the mens rea, the document record shows that Norman Desautels stopped filing GST returns since his 2002 return filedOctober 20, 2003. He had filed GST returns previously since becoming registered January 1, 1991.

The evidence shows that NormanDesautels is fully aware of how the GST system worked, and he collected and retained for his own use the GST firstly, by not submittingit annually with his returns, and secondly by under reporting GST payable to Revenue Canada once he eventually filed the GST returns. [43] From the evidence I infer that Norman Desautels was fully aware of his obligations to accurately file GST returns, and wasdeliberately not filing GST returns and not fulfilling his obligation to file accurately GST returns.

Unlike the Income Tax Act, when weare dealing with GST Norman Desautels is a trustee for the Canada Revenue Agency as he receives funds from third parties, to which heis to forward to Canada Revenue Agency. Norman Desautels had previously for many years filed the GST returns and would be fullyaware of his obligations under the GST system. DEFENCE ARGUMENTS [44] As set out herein, the defendants did not dispute the mathematical calculations as to unreported income, receiving of child taxcredits and unpaid GST. The defendants’ arguments are those that the courts have seen before in relation to tax protesting.

Thedefendants raise a number of arguments which are generally summarised as the Court’s lack of jurisdiction, and the nonexistence of theIncome Tax Act and the Excise Tax Act, thus resulting in there being no legislative authority that the defendants are required to payincome tax and/or GST. CHALLENGE OF JURISDICTION [45] The defendants argued that the Provincial Court of Saskatchewan does not have the jurisdiction to hear the charges. Thismatter has been ruled on and found to be without merit in that the Provincial Court of Saskatchewan has jurisdiction to hear anddetermine charges for

summary conviction offences arising in Saskatchewan pursuant to the Excise Tax Act. The same argument wouldapply to the Income Tax Act charges. See: R. v. Nagel, 2008 SKPC 117 and R. v. Voss (2011), 2001 SKQB 469 , 211 Sask. R.270 (Baynton J.). VALIDITY OF INCOME TAX ACT AND EXCISE TAX ACT

[46] The issue as to the validity of the Income Tax Act and Excise Tax Act has been resolved by the Courts. This has been resolvedby the Courts including R. v. Krischuk, 2000 BCPC 470, confirming that the laws of the country are contained in the 1985 revisedstatutes of Canada as amended from time to time. As in Krischuk, I find nothing that shows that the Income Tax Act and the Excise TaxAct are in any way invalid or null and void.

LACK OF DISCLOSURE [47] The Desautels made an application during the proceedings that all the documentation entered by the Crown was notadmissible as the defendants were denied due process of the law. The defendants relied on R. v. Stichcombe (1991), (SCC), 8 C.R. (4th) 277, 68 C.C.C. (3d) 1 (S.C.C.) as to disclosure. The evidence was that the defendants had in fact been given fulldisclosure of all the documentation that the Crown had, and particularly all the documentation the Crown submitted as evidence.

Thedefendants’ complaint arises from their service upon the Crown, of a document entitled “Notice and Demand for Disclosure”. In it therewas a request for 14 items. The defendants argue that in the notice they had given a due date of November 14, 2011.

As they allege thatall the requested disclosure items were not received by November 14, 2011, then that is the end of the matter, and the Crown is notallowed to use any documentation disclosed after that date, or any documentation that is not provided in response to the notice, eventhough it may have been provided earlier. [48] The defendants made a preliminary motion to exclude all the documentation prior to the commencement of the trial, and Iruled that the documentation would not be excluded for lack of disclosure, as it was clear that disclosure had been made as far as all thedocumentation required to be disclosed and particularly documentation filed as exhibits.

In fact the Desautels did not dispute that somedisclosure had been made, but they took the position as it was not disclosed prior to November 14, 2011, it was not acceptable. Fromargument in relation to the disclosure prior to the trial it is clear that the documentation was disclosed prior to the notice. The Desautelswould either send all the documentation back to the Crown or when delivered, would not retain possession of the documentation.

It wasstated in argument and not disputed by the Desautels that the documentation was brought to the case management conference onSeptember 29, 2011, but the Desautels simply left the documentation at the courthouse. The documentation had been previouslydisclosed prior to November 14, 2011, but for whatever reason the defendants were not happy with the answers, or lack of answers onsome of the requested information.

The position taken by the Desautels also continued for the majority of the trial where the Crown hadagain brought all the disclosure documentation for the Desautels to take if they wished, but they would simply leave it in the courtroom.

Eventually near the later part of the trial, the Desautels took the documentation. [49] In conclusion of the Desautels’ application for disclosure I ruled that all relevant disclosure had been provided by the Crown. [50] In argument relating to the disclosure application by the defendants, the defendants acknowledged that they had receiveddisclosure prior to the case management hearing set on September 29, 2011 and had indicated they were ready to proceed to trial at thecase management conference. [51] The notice to disclose is dated November 4, 2011 and was subsequent to the case management conference.

The defendantsgave the Crown 10 days to comply with the notice to disclose. I had ruled on the notice to disclose that items 1 to 11 and 14 do not haveto be disclosed and in fact were not legitimate items for disclosure. As for items 12 and 13, I am satisfied that all relevant matters hadbeen disclosed. (See Appendix A.) DEFENDANTS’ PERFORMING NO FUNCTION OF GOVERNMENT [52] The defendants argued that they could only be taxed if they were agents of the Federal Government or performed a specificfunction of the Federal Government.

They allege that since there was no production of payroll stubs indicating they were doing afunction of the Federal Government, they could not be taxed. They argued that compensation for labour was not taxable. Thedefendants provided no authority to support this proposition and I find that it has no merit.

CONSTITUTION ACT, 1867 DISTRIBUTION OF POWERS [53] Under this heading the defendants argue that the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Nova Scotia (A.G.) v. Canada (A.G.) (SCC), 1951 S.C.R. 31, referred to as the Lord Nelson case, states that federal income tax is unconstitutional. Thedefendants misinterpret the Lord Nelson case in that the case is an authority on the question of interdelegation of legislative powersbetween the two levels of government.

The Federal Government is allowed to impose taxation for its sphere of legislative power and theprovinces are allowed to tax for their sphere of legislative powers. The case of J.E. Caron v. The King, [1924] 1 D.T. Cases 49 [1924]Appeal cases 999 Privy Council, determined that the Federal Government has the constitutional power to impose an income tax. MISCELLANEOUS ARGUMENTS [54] The defendants also report a number of miscellaneous arguments relating to the Royal Bank being a trustee due to agarnishee, res judicata, slavery, and the need to produce an injured or damaged party by their actions.

They also referred to the use ofNLPs (which I understood to be neuro-linguistic programming), which they argued are mind thought altering pretences which put themat a disadvantage. The Desautels also argue that they were acting as executors for their own estates, and the government cannot bindtheir estates. They did appear personally at the trial and filed their birth certificates as exhibits, so there is no doubt that the defendantswere personally present in the Court being the personal defendants as set out in the Information.

All of these claims were without meritand there is no need to further comment on them. CONCLUSION [55] On all counts, I find that the defendants knew that there was tax imposed by the Income Tax Act and the Excise Tax Act. They had years of prior tax assessment and payments and for all intents and purposes their sources of income being T4s, farm andbusiness income had not changed. [56] For whatever reason, the defendants fall into what I refer to as the tax protestor ideology, and begin to conduct themselves in amanner focused on not following the Income Tax Act and/or Excise Tax Act.

Their conduct indicates that a lot of time and energy isspent on dealing with tax issues, particularly dealing with Revenue Canada Agency in relation to the agency’s enforcement of incometax, GST and child tax credit issues. The defendants’ representations indicate they are very knowledgeable about the Income Tax Actand Excise Tax Act. They take the position it does not apply to them. [57] As stated throughout, the defendants do not dispute the facts that form the basis of the charges.

They also do not allege thatthey did not knowingly, and purposely not report income, nor report GST, nor receive the child tax credits. Their defence is based on insummary, the inability of the Federal Government to tax them, and for that matter to regulate them in any fashion. [58] I find that the defendants knowingly engaged in a course of conduct that avoided or attempted to avoid the payment of taxunder the Income Tax Act, and knew that these actions allowed them to receive child tax credits that they were not entitled to.

As toNorman Desautels’ relation to the GST charges, he knowingly engaged in conduct that avoided or attempted to avoid the remittance oftrust money, having collected same, to the Revenue Canada Agency as per the Excise Tax Act. [59] A reasonable person, faced with the same circumstances as the defendants were faced, would know that they were notfulfilling the requirements of the Income Tax Act and Excise Tax Act and that from their conduct they were deliberately attempting tocommit a fraud. [60] As such the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt all the offences set out. [61] The Crown had indicated that they wished to address the possibility of staying particular charges depending on the Court’sfinal decision.

The Court also indicated that it would hear from the parties on the Kienapple principle (R. v. Kienapple, (SCC), [1975] 1 S.C.R. 729, 15 CCC (2d) 524) being the principle of res judicata expressing the theory precluding multiple convictions

for the same delict, although the matter is a basis of two separate offences. [ 62 ] Sentencing will be spoken to after hearing the parties in relation to the possibility of the Crown staying particular charges and/or a review in the decision in relation to the Kienapple principle. [ 63 ] Dated at the City of Estevan, in the Province of Saskatchewan this 27 th day of February, 2012. K. Bazin, J APPENDIX A NOTICE that DISCLOSURE must include, but is not limited to the following: 1. The Crown shall produce a Certified Copy of the Income Tax Act, with bona fide proof that the Act received Royal Assent. 2.

That the Crown, in accordance with Sec. 32 Constitution Act, 1982 clarify that the Income Tax Act of CANADA applies only to officers performing a function of government. 3. That the Crown discloses the alleged date that the Occupant became a public servant of the federal government. 4. That the Crown discloses the specific function of government that the Occupant / Beneficiary were alleged to be performing for a claim to be filed against the Occupant. 5. That the Crown discloses the specific payroll records indicating the names on the records to clarify that the Occupant performed any function of government. 6.

That the Crown produces the written delegated authority to administrate in the NORMAN LUKE JOSEPH DESAUTELS, Estate. 7. Is it not true that the Occupant is the Sole Heir and Sole Contributing Beneficiary of the NORMAN LUKE JOSEPH DESAUTELS, Estate? 8. That the Crown produces certification of any other principal that have the primary investment in the Estate. 9. Is the Crown representing on behalf of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth of the House of Windsor, or is the Crown representing on behalf of the CROWN CORPORATION IN RIGHT OF LONDON?

10. That the Crown produce the witnesses to any injured / damaged party that will swear a “Claim Standing in Fact”, that a party or parties have been damaged pertaining to criminal injury, or damage caused by the Occupant. 11. That the Crown discloses the detailed accounting of all injured parties. 12.

That the Crown produce the McNeil report on each and every officer involved in this action/ matter including but not limited to: all agents/assigns of the office Minister of Justice/Attorney General, all agents/assigns of Canada Revenue Agency, all agents/assigns of the RCMP Carnduff Detachments, all agents/assigns of the RCMP Carlyle detachments, all agents/assigns of the RCMP Estevan detachments. 13.

That the Crown produce all statements/documentation of: all minutes of meetings, list of attendees, list of whoever touched by private belongings, any incoming or outgoing e-mails, all formal and informal notes, all interoffice communications - memos, all incoming or outgoing phone calls, all incoming or outgoing text messages, all voice mails, all computer notes that mention or refer to, in any context to the beneficiaries of the trust, nunc pro tunc November 13 th , 2008. 14.

The Crown shall provide copies of any/all documents from the Office of Minister of Justice/Attorney General clearly giving authorization for the Crown Prosecutors Office to proceed with this matter.