R. v. Elless et al.

R. v. Elless et al.

Registering convictions for both making false GST claims and for obtaining or attempting to obtain GST refunds would offend the rule against multiple convictions because the false claim-making was an integral part of the obtaining/attempt counts; therefore convictions were registered only on counts under...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2007 BCSC 962
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Janice Sindy Elless; Accused (corporate): Sintech Red Cedar Inspection Ltd.; Accused (corporate): 485287 B.C. Ltd.
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 June 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal (excise Tax Act) / Sentencing (post Conviction)
Outcome
Convictions registered on counts under s.327(1)(d) of the Excise Tax Act (even-numbered counts 2–128); defendants sentenced following sentencing hearing
Legal Topics
Fraud, GST Refunds, Excise Tax Act S.327(1)(d), Multiple Convictions, Sentencing
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Tax Law Corporate Law Fraud GST Refunds Excise Tax Act S.327(1)(d) Multiple Convictions Sentencing

Source-derived case record

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Janice Sindy Elless

Accused

Sintech Red Cedar Inspection Ltd.

Accused (corporate)

485287 B.C. Ltd.

Accused (corporate)

Procedural Posture

Criminal (excise Tax Act) / Sentencing (post Conviction)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether registering convictions for both making false GST claims and obtaining/attempting to obtain GST refunds offends the rule against multiple convictions
  2. 2 Appropriate sentence and fines under s.327(1)(d) of the Excise Tax Act
  3. 3 Whether a conditional sentence is appropriate

Ratio Decidendi

Registering convictions for both making false GST claims and for obtaining or attempting to obtain GST refunds would offend the rule against multiple convictions because the false claim-making was an integral part of the obtaining/attempt counts; therefore convictions were registered only on counts under s.327(1)(d). Given significant aggravating factors (breach of trust, planned and sophisticated scheme, prolonged duration, large amounts, little prospect of recovery) the appropriate sentence for the accused was four years' imprisonment and fines equal to the refund amounts, with specified payment deadlines and joint and several liability; default due to wilful non-payment attracts six...

Court Disposition

Convictions registered on counts under s.327(1)(d) of the Excise Tax Act (even-numbered counts 2–128); defendants sentenced following sentencing hearing

Orders

  • Janice Sindy Elless sentenced to four years' imprisonment.
  • Janice Sindy Elless fined $1,248,709.33 (100% of refunds sought) payable by June 30, 2015.