R. v. Martin

R. v. Martin

The motion to dismiss was denied because the accused's challenges to the validity or applicability of law, jurisdiction, identification and alleged Charter breaches do not provide a legal basis for dismissal on a pre-trial motion and must be decided at trial based on evidence; statutory provisions and case law establish Crown authority to prosecute and the court's power to appoint an amicus curiae.

Citation
2012 NSPC 73
Parties
Crown/prosecution: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Darren Martin; Amicus Curiae: Stephen Robertson
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 August 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal (summary Conviction; Part XXVII Criminal Code) / Pre Trial — Motion to Dismiss Denied; Trial Scheduled
Outcome
Motion to dismiss denied; proceedings to continue to trial as scheduled
Legal Topics
Income Tax Act Offences, Excise Tax Act Offences, Disclosure, Jurisdiction and Territoriality, Amicus Curiae Appointment, Motion to Dismiss, Search and Seizure (charter), Recusal
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Tax Law Charter Law Procedural Law Income Tax Act Offences Excise Tax Act Offences Disclosure Jurisdiction and Territoriality +4 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 6 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown/prosecution

Darren Martin

Accused

Stephen Robertson

Amicus Curiae

Procedural Posture

Criminal (summary Conviction; Part XXVII Criminal Code) / Pre Trial — Motion to Dismiss Denied; Trial Scheduled

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the charges should be dismissed on the basis that the laws or prosecutions are invalid or inapplicable to the accused
  2. 2 Whether the Court lacked jurisdiction or territorial competence
  3. 3 Whether the Attorney General or Crown has authority to prosecute under the relevant federal tax statutes

Ratio Decidendi

The motion to dismiss was denied because the accused's challenges to the validity or applicability of law, jurisdiction, identification and alleged Charter breaches do not provide a legal basis for dismissal on a pre-trial motion and must be decided at trial based on evidence; statutory provisions and case law establish Crown authority to prosecute and the court's power to appoint an amicus curiae.

Court Disposition

Motion to dismiss denied; proceedings to continue to trial as scheduled

Orders

  • Motion to dismiss denied
  • Not-guilty pleas entered on behalf of the accused pursuant to Criminal Code requirements