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

WEBINAR: Intro to Equity: Unspoken Fountain of Justice in Plain View

private member’s webinar September 17, 2015

sign in as Free Member to access webinar (not a Free Member? GO HERE)


  1. 0-3:15 INTRO context of and
  2. 3:15 – Intention behind and
  3. 3:45 – FAQs
  4. 9:56 – style of cause overview FAQ
  5. 16:16 – Equity
  6. 18:47 – How I Got Here + What is your motivation?
  7. 24:00 – Equity and Law
  8. 35:00 – Equity vs the Law
  9. 44:00 – private VPN special – privacy as a concept
  10. 48:16 – Q+A
  11. 57:50 – where to find things on
  12. 59:15 – Missouri – 7 min Googling to show Equity exists in Missouri – search your own jurisdiction for your questions.
  13. 1:04:58 – Office of Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada
  14. 1:8:30 – Oaths of office and California Page story
  15. 1:14:43 – Public Guardian and Public Trustee
  16. 1:16:30 – Q + A
  17. END – 1:55:08

Feedback by live webinar participants:

Please give your impressions/feedback about the Equity Intro webinar. Thank you.

  • I think it was very informative.  Thank you
  • Good Share! Thanks
  • enjoyable
  • Very good session and thank you!
  • I think Equity is an extremely important aspect to our rights that more need to innerstand.
  • I’ve been reading Gibsons book and talking to people all over the world who are sure this is where our remedy is to be found.  
  • Being was knowledgeable of the subject I was able to follow along some what.
  • Looking forward to a link so I can view/HEAR this Webinar at a latter date
  • Excellent info as always. Thanks for all your efforts and sharing of your finds. It’s much appreciated!
  • Very good
  • excellent
  • The information was fantastic and the user interface was great
  • Definitely eye opening.  This is yet another important piece of the puzzle.
  • Excellent information!  Looking forward to diving into the Gibson book.  Thanks jd.
  • Fabulous, Thank-you very much, The research never ends … I’ll be in touch shortly
  • Mostly good except few breakups in Audio…
  • Thank you jd for the well presented webinar
  • always the best presentations by jd
  • Lost sound, the slides were not always showing, otherwise good
  • Great info!  Thanks!
  • amazing….have only been on pp and wrongdoer for 7 or so days and have really been grinding and this dovetails beautifully. Thank you!
  • good stuff very informative and straight to the point, equity rule.
  • Very informative-love the fact that he spoke on things that inspire more homework!!!  
  • great job! Well done.
  • Wonderful !  Thanks and you are on the right path!  Health & Love
  • Interesting thanks
  • Outstanding.   Just what I’ve been looking for.
  • Thanks~!  Well presented.  I’m glad to have connected.
  • like usual, very well presented and filled with lots of valuable information to give people real tools for getting ahead in the game.
  • Was disconnected due to ISP failure 🙁 Info was great while I was there! Hope to catch the whole show!” WHAT’S NEXT?
  • I thought he was terrific – a few connectivity problems but all in all, excellent presentation and knowledge of equity. Also addressing the issues was good

CLICK link below to view Post and Video – must be Free Member and signed in to watch


***** FREE MEMBER LEVEL ONLY CONTENT! You can sign up as Free Member to get access! ***** 2nd Intro Webinar Replay Online

suewrongdoers-logoNow online is the replay of the second Intro Webinar to the website.

Check it out on their pre-launch page

The final Intro Webinar is next Saturday Sept. 27th, 2014 – enrol on to participate and receive email updates, go there to watch the replay and for more info. Tell your friends.