R. v. Martin, 2013 NSPC 34

PROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Martin , 2013 NSPC 34 Date: 20130522 Docket: 2276770-2276795 Registry: Pictou Between: Her Majesty the Queen v. Darren Martin DECISION REGARDING ORDERLY CONDUCT OF TRIAL Judge: The Honourable Judge Del W.

Atwood, in Chambers Written decision: 22 May 2013, in Pictou, Nova Scotia Charges: 4x sub- s. 239(1) Income Tax Act (Canada) ; 22 x sub- s.237(1) Excise Tax Act (Canada) Counsel: Constantin Draghici-Vasilescu, for the Public Prosecution Service of Canada Darren Martin, on his own behalf Stephen Robertson, Nova Scotia Legal Aid, amicus curiae By the Court : Synopsis [ 1 ] Darren Martin stands charged of four violations under para. 239(1) of the Income Tax Act (Canada) , and twenty-two violations under para. 327(1) of the Excise Tax Act . Trial dates are fixed presently for 17-21 June 2013.

This is the third block of trial time to have been assigned to this matter. [ 2 ] The trial of these charges was scheduled initially to have commenced on 20 March 2012; an adjournment was ordered by the Court of its own motion upon the appointment of an amicus curiae . On the adjourned date of 23 October 2012, Mr. Martin presented to the Court, with the leave of the Court, an application for further disclosure. The Court adjourned the case, again, of its own motion, until

29 November 2012; this was to permit the filing of briefs by the Crown and the amicus , to allow the parties time to present oral argument, and to set new trial dates. As noted above, those dates are now fixed, and, as far as I am concerned, are pretty much cast in stone. Irregular Document received by the Court 16 May 2013 [ 3 ] The Court has dealt in the past with a number of applications brought by Mr. Martin, mostly related to forensic disclosure. [1] In pursuing these applications, Mr.

Martin has filed with the Court an array of pleadings; initially, these were voluminous, and dealt with issues not triable in this Court. It resulted in the Court making an order imposing conditions on the filing of further applications by Mr. Martin, and, by and large, Mr. Martin has complied with what the Court ordered. [ 4 ] On 16 May 2013, the Court received by facsimile transmission a letter, authored apparently by one Colin Adam Fletcher. A copy of this document is annexed to this decision as an Appendix. In the letter, Mr. Fletcher purports to indemnify Mr.

Martin in the amount of three hundred million dollars and seeks to have Mr. Martin discharged absolutely of all of the charges arrayed against him. This letter is of no legal force or effect, at least insofar as proceedings in this Court are concerned. [ 5 ] There is an illegible signature at the bottom of the letter – perhaps Mr. Fletcher ’ s – inscribed by someone self-designated as a “ duly authorized representative ” . [ 6 ] While it is not clear whether Mr.

Martin has had anything to do with the filing of this letter, its transmission to the Court causes considerable concern: first of all, it appears to designate Mr. Fletcher as a “duly authorized representative”. Secondly, I observe and recall that Mr. Martin was represented at one of his appearances before me by one “ Patrick ” , who also went by the name “ Ellis ” ; this individual proceeded to advise me that he recognized the King James Bible as the only source of law and engaged in an excursion of polemic that failed to focus on issues pertinent to the trial of Mr. Martin’s case.

I found ultimately that this individual would not be permitted to act as agent for Mr. Martin. [2] [ 7 ] Given the contents of Mr. Fletcher ’ s letter, and given the uncertainty regarding his status in representing Mr. Martin, the Court orders that, if Mr. Martin is to be represented at trial by an individual who is not a member of the bar, qualified under the Legal Profession Act to practise law in the Province of Nova Scotia, Mr.

Martin must advise the Court, in writing, not later than 4:00 p.m. on 7 June 2013 of the full name and proper mailing or civic address of that individual; any such written notification must be accompanied by a photocopy of a government-issued photographic ID of that individual, along with a signed and dated promise given by that individual to abide by rulings of the Court made regarding the conduct of Mr. Martin ’ s trial. [ 8 ] Given that Mr.

Martin has stated clearly his intention to raise at trial one or more Charter issues regarding the legality of a seizure by the state of material from his home and business, and given that I am well satisfied that Mr. Martin has adequately notified the prosecution of his intent to seek Charter relief, sufficient to satisfy the requirements of R. v.

Kutynec , [3] I intend to start the trial as an admissibility voir dire, and by “ voir dire ” I mean a hearing conducted within the trial intended to sort out whether controversial evidence should be received by the Court for the purposes of reaching a verdict; accordingly evidence received or tendered during the voir dire would be admitted conditionally, for the limited purpose of determining its ultimate admissibility at trial. At the outset of the voir dire , I intend to invite the prosecutor to make a brief opening statement, summarizing the nature of the evidence the prosecution proposes calling, so that Mr.

Martin and I might have a better understanding of what is to be presented in Court. Following the prosecution ’ s opening statement, I intend to invite Mr. Martin to make a brief and pertinent opening statement outlining the Charter violations he is alleging took place. I shall invite an opening statement from the amicus as well. The Court would then proceed with hearing the evidence for the prosecution on the voir dire , followed by evidence for Mr.

Martin on the voir dire . [ 9 ] I am satisfied that these orders are necessary to govern the proper conduct of the trial of this case, and fall well within the scope of the Court’s jurisdiction to govern its own process. [ 10 ] ORDERS ACCORDINGLY.

J.P.C. APPENDIX [1] 2012 NSPC 73 , 2012 NSPC 76 , 2012 NSPC 92 , 2012 NSPC 115 , 2013 NSPC 21 . [2] 2012 NSPC 73 at para. 6 .

[3] (ON CA), 7 O.R. (3d) 277 (C.A.).