r v. KARINE DION, 2021 QCCQ 3441

Agence du revenu du Québec c. Dion 2021 QCCQ 3441 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL TOWN OF MONTREAL Criminal and Penal Division No: 500-61-515639-202 DATE: May 3 rd , 2021 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDING JUSTICE OF THE PEACE FANNIE TURCOT ______________________________________________________________________ L’AGENCE DU REVENU DU QUÉBEC Prosecutor v. KARINE DION Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Ms.

Dion received a formal demand from Revenu Québec dated November 5, 2019, requiring the production of her tax return for the year of 2018. She did not do so and as a result, she received a statement of offence. [ 2 ] Ms. Dion denies having received this letter and explains that at that time she was unable to file her tax return, in particular because of her sister’s death. She also claims to have received contrary instructions from the representatives of Revenu Québec. [ 3 ] Only one issue is in dispute: 1.

Is the defence of officially induced error admissible? [ 4 ] The Court decides that it is admissible and consequently orders a stay of the proceedings. ANALYSIS [ 5 ] The defence of officially induced error was initially recognized in R v Jorgensen [1] as an “excuse”, it “exists as an exception to the rule that ignorance of the law does not constitute an excuse”. [ 6 ] Six criteria must be established by the accused for the excuse of officially induced error to be applicable. In Lévis (City) v.

Tétreault [2] , these criteria were accepted as constituting the elements of what was described as the “defence” of officially induced error. They were set out in the following manner: 1. That an error of law or of mixed law and fact was made; 2. That the person who committed the act considered the legal consequences of his or her actions; 3. That the advice obtained came from an appropriate official; 4. That the advice was reasonable; 5. That the advice was erroneous; and ; 6.

That the person relied on the advice in committing the act. [ 7 ] The burden is on the accused to establish all of these elements on a balance of probabilities. If established, the accused is “entitled to a stay of proceedings rather than an acquittal”. [ 8 ] The version of Ms. Dion is credible and convincing. She has a good recollection of the events and the Court sees no reason to reject her testimony.

It is corroborated with documents and records of phone conversations with representatives of Revenu Québec. [ 9 ] She explains that she did not file her tax return for the year in question because of her sister’s death and she had to take care of the children. She files the notice showing that her sister died on February 15, 2019.

[ 10 ] She does not recollect the Formal demand letter dated November 5, 2019. She adds that during that time, her house was undergoing major construction works as the result of a float in August of 2019 for which the City of Montreal was responsible. [ 11 ] She then received another letter in January 2020 and called the customer service. She was told by a representative of Revenu Québec that if she does not file her tax return, they will do it based on an estimation of her past revenues.

If she does not owe any money and she is entitled to a return, there will be no penalties whatsoever. [ 12 ] Although she was told to dismiss the letter, she received the statement of offence charging her with the offence in this file. [ 13 ] As corroborating evidence, she filed two records of phone conversations with representatives of Revenu Québec.

In those conversations, after having identified her properly with her personal information and after having explained her situation, Revenu Québec’s representatives confirm the following: • The letter dated November 5, 2009, is in her file; • They are not aware of the statement of offence that was sent to her; • They aren’t aware of the Agence du Revenu and advised her that all communications originates from Revenu Québec. • She does not have a file with the collection department of Revenu Québec; • She filed her 2018 taxes and was entitled to a refund; • There is no penalty when you are entitled to a refund; • In the event that you do not file your tax return, Revenu Québec will make an estimate of your past revenues.

There aren’t any consequences if you are entitled to a refund; • In Ms. Dion’s file, there is no penalty because she filed her tax return and was entitled to a reimbursement; • There is absolutely no problem in her file. Her balance is zero; • “Everything is fine.” [ 14 ] She also files evidence to show that in the past, she was always entitled to refunds. Application of the criteria to this case: [ 15 ] An error of law or of mixed law and fact was made as Ms.

Dion did not answer the second letter and she considered the legal consequences of her actions as she called the customer service of Revenu Québec. [ 16 ] She received the advice to throw the letter and that her file was in order. Moreover, she was told that there would be no consequences not to file because she was entitled to a refund. [ 17 ] This advice came from a customer service representative at Revenu Québec.

When an individual communicates with the customer service of Revenu Québec, it is reasonable for that person to assume that this representative is allowed to give information on behalf of Revenu Québec and that it can be relied on. [ 18 ] The questions asked by Ms. Dion to the representative were very specific to her file and were not merely general requests for information. [ 19 ] The advice was reasonable but erroneous. Ms.

Dion testified that she acted in good faith and relied on the advice given to her by the representative of Revenu Québec. [ 20 ] All of the criteria are met. [ 21 ] As a result, the defence of officially induced error is applicable and the Court orders a stay of the proceedings accordingly. [ 22 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 23 ] ORDERS a judicial stay of proceedings. __________________________________ FANNIE TURCOT Presiding Justice of the Peace Me Claudia Vigneault For the Prosecutor Karine Dion

Personally Dates of hearing: December 12, 2020, and March 8, 2021