CRA slammed for ‘reprehensible and malicious’ prosecution of B.C. couple Canada Revenue Agency must pay nearly $1.7 million for suppressing evidence in tax evasion case

CRA slammed for ‘reprehensible and malicious’ prosecution of B.C. couple
Canada Revenue Agency must pay nearly $1.7 million for suppressing evidence in tax evasion case

A B.C. Supreme Court judge has slammed the Canada Revenue Agency for suppressing and misstating evidence in its zeal to prosecute a Vancouver Island couple for tax evasion.

Citation: Samaroo v. Canada Revenue Agency, 2018 BCSC 324

Date: 20180302 Docket: 12-1154 Registry: Victoria


[11] The defendants’ case consisted of evidence from three witnesses: Mr. Kendal, Janna Hyman, senior counsel with the PPSC, and Mr. Brian Jones.

[NOTE: the prosecutor Janna Hyman was one of the prosecutors doing Paradigm cases in 2010]

Position of the Plaintiffs

[91] As briefly mentioned, the plaintiffs submit that Mr. Brian Jones and Mr. Kendal intentionally and wrongfully violated two fundamental tenets of the criminal justice system: that a person is not to be charged with a crime unless there is a lawful basis to do so and that a prosecution will be conducted lawfully and fairly. They assert that the power of the State to prosecute an individual for a criminal offence is not to be engaged unless an independent, impartial, quasi-judicial minister of justice, a Crown prosecutor, objectively determines there is sufficient evidence to support a conviction. They note that while this is a minimum standard, the PPSC has a slightly higher standard of a “reasonable prospect of conviction” and that British Columbia has an even higher standard of “a substantial likelihood of conviction”. In addition, both the PPSC and British Columbia require that the prosecution be in the public interest.

[92] The plaintiffs submit that Mr. Brian Jones failed in his duty as a prosecutor by not bringing an independent mind to the charge approval and sentence sought, and simply did the bidding of the CRA. They also say he did so while in a conflict of interest, given his financial motivation to obtain a conviction based on his contracted employment as an ad hoc PPSC prosecutor.

[93] Finally, the plaintiffs allege that the CRA has an interest in the outcome of tax prosecutions such as these in part to encourage voluntary compliance by the restaurant sector of the economy. Mr. Kendal, they say, on behalf of the CRA, suppressed exculpatory evidence and was fuelled by a desire to secure a conviction despite the evidence.

[94] Therefore, the plaintiffs say that both Mr. Brian Jones and Mr. Kendal are guilty of malicious prosecution as set out in Miazga v. Kvello Estate, 2009 SCC 51 at para. 3, because they initiated a prosecution against the plaintiffs that ultimately terminated in the plaintiffs’ favour, and they did so without reasonable and probable grounds and with malice.



[324]     The CRA is tasked with the enforcement of the Canadian tax laws. It is expected to act in good faith and deal with the citizens of Canada fairly and objectively. Its employees are expected to do the same. It has available to it the powers of the State and can, as was the case here, bring criminal charges against individuals and companies.

[325]     The CRA is vicariously liable for the conduct of Mr. Kendal and its employees. Its conduct in this case was high-handed, reprehensible and malicious. The behaviour of Mr. Kendal respecting the supressing and misstating of evidence deserves rebuke. It offends this Court’s sense of decency and was a marked departure from conduct expected of an individual in Mr. Kendal’s position and an agency such as the CRA.

[326]     The conduct was highly blameworthy as it engaged core values in our society and the checks and balances that exist when invoking the power of the State against the individual. As noted earlier the charges should never have proceeded given it was clear prior to charge approval that additional evidence was required to meet the charge approval standard. Mr. Kendal knew that the necessary evidence was not available from Ms. Ferens. The conduct of Mr. Kendal was reprehensible. Evidence was concealed. Inculpatory evidence was created.

[327]     Here the CRA employees looked forward with unprofessional glee to the plaintiffs’ anticipated conviction and sentencing and their resulting ruination. It is appalling that the incarceration of the plaintiffs would be joked about. While I appreciate people may joke about serious matters the comments of Mr. Alan Jones went far beyond that in the context of this case.

[328]     In addition, the CRA’s advertising of its successes indicates a deeply troubling approach to its duties. No doubt the average citizen would find it objectionable if a police force advertised, on a government website, how many people they incarcerated each year.

[329]     In the circumstances of this case I do not accept the submission of the defence that a finding of malicious prosecution itself will have the effect of deterrence, denunciation and repudiation. A monetary award must in my view be made to bring home the seriousness of the defendant CRA and Mr. Kendal’s conduct.

[330]     I view the circumstances of this case as significantly more aggravating than those in Arsenovski, in that a government agency maliciously used the criminal justice system to pursue the plaintiffs, and its wrongful conduct continued into the criminal trial itself. The CRA was seeking substantial terms of imprisonment and significant penalties. The manner in which the prosecution was initiated and carried out was egregious. It must be denounced. It affected the reputations of the plaintiffs, their professional lives and their family lives. It involved the concealment of exculpatory evidence. It involved the power imbalance of the State over the individual. It violated fundamental rights and was highly reprehensible. A prosecution was initiated and pursued when Mr. Kendal knew he lacked necessary evidence, the need for which had been specifically noted by Ms. McLean.

[331]     The CRA and Mr. Kendal do not acknowledge their wrongdoing or their violation of professional standards. They expressed no apology and were without remorse. Given the opportunity they would pursue the plaintiffs again on the same basis. An award of punitive damages, while governed by the principle of proportionality, must punish the defendants.

[332]     The plaintiffs seek an award that will recognize the power imbalance between the plaintiffs and the CRA and will not amount to an award that would have the effect of licensing or condoning and thereby encouraging the behaviour of the CRA. They submit the evidence shows systemic problems where the type of behaviour evidenced is accepted and even encouraged.

[333]     No amount of punitive damages will cause the CRA financial hardship. At the same time the award must address the purpose of punitive damages and bring home to the CRA and its employees that conduct such as has occurred here is not acceptable.

[334]     I am mindful of the amounts I have awarded for aggravated damages. I award punitive damages to the plaintiffs in the aggregate of $750,000 against the defendant CRA.

DOWNLOAD the Decision: PDF CRA-slammed-2018 BCSC 324 Samaroo v. Canada Revenue Agency

US Supreme Court Rules Government Officers Liable

gavel+moneyIn what I would call a confirmation of the law, not a NEW ruling, the US Supreme Court One lays down the law for all to see, and USE if you choose.

One of the BIG legal fantasies promoted by governments and officials is the idea of officials’ having ‘immunity’ from prosecution and no liability… so they are not held liable for their corrupt and illegal actions.

Don’t buy the LIE.

Judges are liable, cops are liable, corporate officers are liable, ANY official is liable… when:

1. if they perform any actions while in office, not defined by their office, or

2. actions that are defined by their office but are done in BAD faith or

3. the actions taken are illegal by nature.

Any actions that they take NOT defined by their office or illegal by their nature are considered to have been done outside of their office therefore done in their private capacity and therefore they are fully liable, in their private capacity, without any protections of their office.

Unfortunately this lie of ‘immunity’ is also repeated unknowingly by people, again and again, who have a real case against government officials and therefore do not pursue very valid claims.

A recent US Supreme Court decision clarified and confirmed that the government and their agents can be held liable and accountable for wrongdoing carried out by officials in its employment while on the job. Continue reading US Supreme Court Rules Government Officers Liable

Judges’ Requirement to Assist Unrepresented People

Check out this article on the Supreme Court of Canada re confirming what the Canadian Judicial Council went to the trouble of researching and reporting on… the need and obligation to assist unrepresented people, by judges and court staff.

Your rights and your right to justice require them to assist you in court process otherwise the process is void.


RevCan/CRA Operates In Corrupt Concert With PPSC/DoJ: Disclosure

criminals-gone wildFor those of you in battles with Canada Revenue Agency (previously Department of National Revenue, Revenue Canada, Canada Customs and Revenue Agency) here is an fellow blowing the whistle on the corrupt practices of CRA and the complicit participation of the Public Prosecution Services Canada (PPSC) and Department of Justice (DoJ).


Anyone unfortunate enough to have fought these entities and their minions knows firsthand they fight dirty and with intent to destroy while NOT following the law they claim to be upholding.

Clint A. Kimery has provided a “Whistleblower’s Document” provided to try and expose some of the underhanded, dirty, illegal, immoral tactics being used. If you don’t understand this stuff make sure your advocate/lawyer/agent does or you will be subject to unrestrained abuse.

The subject Gunner Case introduces a new defence perspective to tax evasion cases that exposes the Agency’s affinity to procedural corruption knowingly condoned by the Crown. This form of procedural corruption Continue reading RevCan/CRA Operates In Corrupt Concert With PPSC/DoJ: Disclosure

Marc Boyer: No Person, TPP, Slavery

Interesting case with a history in the courts.

Marc Boyer ( Canada knowingly signed TPP after date slavery law expired

Published on Mar 18, 2016

Marc Boyer ( Canada knowingly signed the TPP on date when slavery law had expired. TPP and NAFTA designed to usher in a Millennium of Misery and restore slavery. One solution to initiate a paradise on Earth is through the Warehouse Receipts Act

PART II – Marc Boyer: No Person & the “Shaking” a frequency holographic shift

Published on Mar 26, 2016

PART II – Marc Boyer: No Person & the “Shaking” a frequency holographic shift
Marc Boyer: Appeal on not having a Person & discusses the “Shaking”, a frequency holographic shift





Karl Lentz and Common Law Claims

common_lawThe main focus of this website has been to investigate and share info on ‘common law’ and ‘private person’ status in common law. I was recently introduced to another fellow sharing his research and actual in court application stories about common law.

Many folks teach theories they have never applied, that’s my first test to see how credible the theory is. Karl Lentz speaks of his many applications and court experience with common law.

My personal journey REALLY hit high gear when I took someone else’s research and applied it BEFORE I fully understood the legal basis or the potential consequences. I suggest people study, understand and get the full story BEFORE they commit to actions that may lead to extended legal hassles and more.

Some theories are great and they do work….sorta…then “they” change tactic and ignore it next time waiting to see if you know what to do next. No next step? You lose.

I cover the “next step” in the course 3- H4J: Your Complaint IS Their Restraint – learn how to make your claim properly to hold them to account and get remedy but it was missing a final piece…

When I came across a video of Karl Lentz in the UK speaking about his research, understanding and application of the common law and making common law claims I liked what I heard and it fit very well with what I had been researching, sharing here and seeing in my court processes first hand.

I’ll be presenting my understanding of what Karl’s process Continue reading Karl Lentz and Common Law Claims

It’s a Start At Least: Police Accountability

know-your-rights-organizatiThese two news stories caught my eye for different reasons. We have had a spate of violent police actions and no-accountability for that violence by police in Canada.

Local police and RCMP regularly get off for their violent crimes, yes violent crimes. Anyone can see the videos of these events and KNOW they are violent crimes under the guise of police authority, police safely. It’s obvious to ANY non-biased observer the officers have over reacted and in most cases police escalate the situation instead of trying to de-escalate a relatively non-threatening one.

I fear for my personal safety now if I ever have contact with police. In Canada you say? Yep. Crazy.

The second story is a police feel good story that puts the public’s expectation of police brutality into context in a really bizarre way.

From tasering people to death (multiple cases), filling people full of lead (recently in Vancouver and Toronto-including a final bullet to the back of the head execution style), using excessive force to detain someone who is peaceful or demonstrators being attacked – this list goes on and on and it’s disgusting.

These violent acts continue because the hierarchy of the police force and the political will Continue reading It’s a Start At Least: Police Accountability