COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
CITATION: R. v. McDonough, 2014 ONCA 197
DATE: 20140314
DOCKET: C55765
Sharpe, Gillese and Rouleau JJ.A.
BETWEEN
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
and
Douglas McDonough
Appellant
Douglas McDonough, in person
Marie Comiskey, for the respondent
Heard and released orally: March10, 2014
On appeal from the order of Justice Gisele M. Miller, dated June 22, 2012 dismissing a summary conviction appeal from conviction entered on October 31, 2011 by Justice S.R. Clark of the Ontario Court of Justice.
ENDORSEMENT
[1] The appellant was convicted of one count of making false or deceptive statements and one count of evading or attempting to evade compliance with report of goods provisions contrary to the Customs Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (2nd Supp.), s. 160. The charges arose from the importation of an exotic car that was illegal to import into Canada because of safety standards. The appellant arranged for the importation by describing the components of a single car as parts and dividing the shipment into two stages.
[2] The appellant raises a number of grounds of appeal, all of which relate to the provisions of the Customs Act relating to the procedures to be followed with respect to classification and appraisal of goods imported and determination of applicable tariffs. He argues first, that the administrative process under the Customs Act must be exhausted before criminal charges are laid and second, he relies a number of sections of the Customs Act, in particular, ss. 20(1), 48(1) and 58(2), which deal specifically with classification, levy of duties and appraisal of transaction value. He alleges that as those provisions were not invoked, the charges were not validly brought.
[3] The appellant’s arguments were thoroughly considered and rejected by both the trial judge and the summary conviction appeal judge.
[4] In our view, there is no basis in law for the proposition that the administrative provisions under the Customs Act must be followed or concluded before any criminal charges for deceptive conduct can be brought. The provisions of the Customs Act dealing with classification, levy of duties and appraisal of transaction value simply do not relate to the essence of the charges on which the appellant was convicted, namely, making false statements and committing evasion under the Customs Act.
[5] The trial judge found that the appellant had taken elaborate steps to organize separate shipments in order to deceive customs officials as to what was being imported and that he made false statements to customs officials that parts in the second shipment were meant for his own vehicle. There was ample evidence to support those findings.
[6] In our view, there is no merit to the application for leave to appeal which we dismiss.
“Robert J. Sharpe J.A.”
“E.E. Gillese J.A.”
“Paul Rouleau J.A.”