R. v. Martin

R. v. Martin

The accused did not demonstrate sufficient diligence or persuasive evidence to compel further disclosure; the material sought was largely already provided or not shown to be constitutionally required, so the disclosure application was denied; leave to file the Kimery affidavit was unnecessary and denied; the CRA investigator shall not be seated at the counsel table and must be treated as a witness for purposes of testimony and exclusion orders.

Citation
2012 NSPC 115
Parties
Prosecution: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Darren Martin; Amicus Curiae: Stephen Robertson
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
31 December 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Tax Offences / Pre Trial Interlocutory Application (disclosure and Leave to File Affidavit)
Outcome
Application for further disclosure denied; application for leave to file Kimery affidavit denied; CRA investigator prohibited from sitting at counsel table pending testimony or witness-exclusion order
Legal Topics
Disclosure, Charter S.7 Full Answer and Defence, Search and Seizure (audit V. Investigation), Court Procedure Counsel Table/witness Exclusion, OPCA Litigant Management
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Tax Law Evidence and Procedure Disclosure Charter S.7 Full Answer and Defence Search and Seizure (audit V. Investigation) Court Procedure Counsel Table/witness Exclusion +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Prosecution

Darren Martin

Accused

Stephen Robertson

Amicus Curiae

Procedural Posture

Criminal Tax Offences / Pre Trial Interlocutory Application (disclosure and Leave to File Affidavit)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Crown must produce further disclosure regarding when a CRA audit became an investigation
  2. 2 Whether the accused exercised due diligence in pursuing disclosure
  3. 3 Whether leave should be granted to file an affidavit from Kimery

Ratio Decidendi

The accused did not demonstrate sufficient diligence or persuasive evidence to compel further disclosure; the material sought was largely already provided or not shown to be constitutionally required, so the disclosure application was denied; leave to file the Kimery affidavit was unnecessary and denied; the CRA investigator shall not be seated at the counsel table and must be treated as a witness for purposes of testimony and exclusion orders.

Court Disposition

Application for further disclosure denied; application for leave to file Kimery affidavit denied; CRA investigator prohibited from sitting at counsel table pending testimony or witness-exclusion order

Orders

  • Application for further disclosure dismissed
  • Application for leave to file Kimery affidavit refused as unnecessary