RoBINSON, J.:—This is an appeal from a judgment rendered by Judge John O’Meara, on June 10, 1963, which reads as follows :
‘‘In the present case, the defendant was charged with failure to comply with a demand by the Minister, made upon him by registered letter, requiring him to file with the Minister a return of income (Tl, 1961) in virtue of 8. 126 ss. 2 & 6 of the Act and in contravention of the dispositions of 8S. 131 ss. 2 of the Act.
For the reasons given in my judgment in the case of H.M. the Queen ex rel. J. L. Poulin vs Robert Gaulin, No. 4730 (1962), the facts of which case are identical with those of the present case and a copy whereof is hereunto annexed, I find that the complaint in the instant case was wrongly taken and, accordingly, I find the defendant not guilty and I dismiss the complaint.”
The Court has read and considered the rather lengthy judgment that Judge O’Meara rendered in the above-mentioned case of Robert Gaulin, and does not agree with his opinion that because the Act provides for two alternative modes of prosecution for the failure to file an income tax return when called upon to do so, and in one ease the fine is greater than in the other, that is a justification for a potential taxpayer to refuse to file an income tax return when called upon; nor does the Court agree with his opinion that it is only during the course of an investigation that a taxpayer may be called upon to file a return.
These issues have been carefully examined and considered by Mr. Justice Roger Ouimet of this Court, in the case of Attorney- General Canada v. Belanger (1962), 38 Criminal Reports, Canada, page 85, and this Court considers that the refusal by Judge O’Meara to share this opinion, although with great deference, was not justified.
Every resident of Canada, and a potential taxpayer, should co-operate with the country that gives him protection of the law and should be glad that he is given the opportunity to file an income tax return within a reasonable delay when the Government finds that he has failed to do so.
The accused in this case, after his arraignment, not only failed to put in his appearance at the trial before Judge O’Meara but also failed to appear when this appeal was heard, either in person or by counsel. The Court cannot understand his deliberate indifference.
The Court approves the remarks of Judge O’Meara, where he says :
‘ it becomes clear that the evil envisaged by the non-compliance with or by the contravention of the said sections of the Act is one which goes to the very heart of the administration and perception of the revenue of the state, and a failure on the part of any person to comply with such dispositions or such person to contravene the same, may, in the given circumstances, be considered almost as a fraud perpetrated upon the constituted agency of Government to which is entrusted the administration and enforcement of the Act.”’
The evidence produced proves the charge that was laid against the defendant-respondent, and for the reasons given by Mr. Justice Roger Ouimet in the above-mentioned Belanger case, and the jurisprudence therein cited:
I Maintain the present appeal and reverse the judgment of the Court of first instance which dismissed the charge against the respondent.
I now proceed to give the judgment that should have been given; and
DECLARE the respondent, Tracy S. Ludington, guilty of the offence charged and CoNDEMN him to the following penalties:
(1) A fine of Two Hundred Dollars ($200) ; and
(2) In default of payment, to one month’s imprisonment ; the whole with costs fixed at $50.