Income Tax Act charges dismissed in the "public interest"

The examination of prosecutorial discretion, judicial misconduct and the rule of law

In the week following this hearing the Public Prosecution dropped the charges on the remaining Income Tax Act s 238(1) failure to file violation, in the “public interest.”

26418-2 Nelson Registry
Lower Court File No. 26418-1 Nelson Registry
In the Supreme Court of British Columbia
(BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE LYSTER)
Nelson, B.C. January 11 & 13, 2023
REX v. TREVOR RUSSELL HOLSWORTH
PROCEEDINGS IN CHAMBERS

Appeal of the decision of the Provincial Court of BC regarding s 238(1) of the Income Tax Act, the failure to file.

During these hearings held on January 11 and 13th of 2023 there was
a) an application for recusal,
b) for crown to pay for costs of transcripts,
c) an examination of prosecutorial conduct including failing to respond to constitutional questions and the enforcement procedure of the Charter.
d) a flawed (due to lack of my serving the CJC), O’Conner application for disclosure of my personal files held at the Canadian Judicial Council., and
e) the appeal from the decision of the Provincial Court of BC on the retrial of a mistrial declared by the Supreme Court of BC but that decision appealed to BC Court of Appeal

I tried to include the relevant portions on all sides as they do show the differing perspectives. Originally I had the file all on one substack and all in order from the transcript but I have split the transcript into the above sections for easier comprehension but the highlighted sections in order available here. and the official transcripts. (jan 11, 2023) (Appeal - Jan 13, 2023)

I’m not suggesting that I’m always right or anything like that. I’m just a human being sharing his perspective of an abusive experience in our legal system in the legal - political realm.

In the week following this hearing the Public Prosecution dropped the charges on the remaining Income Tax Act s 238(1) failure to file violation, in the “public interest.” I requested further details as to the benefit for the public but was denied more information.

Mon, Jan 23, 2023, 10:16 AM
I write to advise you that this morning at the Nelson registry I directed a stay of proceedings on Nakusp information 26419, which contains the Income Tax Act charges that are set for trial in Nakusp this coming Thursday.
The effect is that the prosecution of the charges on information 26419 has been discontinued. The trial date is canceled, there will be no further court appearances on Nakusp information 26419.

Jan 23, 2023, 10:22 AM
Thank you for your communications. Please provide the reasons for your decision.

Jan 23, 2023, 12:44 PM
The Crown has a continuing obligation to ensure that the charge approval is satisfied, i.e. that there is a reasonable prospect of conviction, and if so, that the prosecution is in the public interest.
In the circumstances of this case, we have determined that the prosecution is no longer in the public interest.

Tue, Feb 7, 2023 at 7:02 PM
I was informed by Isaac Ferby on January 23rd that the charges on 26419 have been dropped, in the public interest. I am curious of course if that was Mr Ferby's discretion given that he is a private contractor or if you were involved in that decision, or someone else.

Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 1:29 PM Cc: Isaac Ferbey
It was a decision of the Public Prosecution Service of Canada to direct a stay of proceedings on Information 26419.

Apr 16, 2023, 9:18 AM
Could you forward the written communication that was sent to Mr Ferby regarding the Public Prosecution of Canada directing a stay of proceedings on Information 26419. For my ongoing legal strategy I need to know more on the specifics regarding how and why the public interest was engaged.

Apr 19, 2023, 3:43 PM
The correspondence between Crown counsel that you request will not be disclosed. ᐧ

Apr 19, 2023, 3:51 PM
Thank you for your response. Can you provide a legal justification for that decision?

Fri, Apr 21, 2023, 12:04 PM
I confirm that the Crown will not disclose communications between Crown counsel regarding the decision to direct the stay of proceedings.   Non-disclosure of these communications, which attract a high level of confidentiality, is necessary to protect the independence of the Crown.  Further, the Crown has no further disclosure obligations in this case because of the stay of proceedings.  

Apr 21, 2023, 4:39 PM
Thank you for the response. It's a weird feeling to have an administration heavy into paperwork just have no formal written confirmation of the stay of proceedings beyond a brief email. I'll see you on the 4th of May remotely. [for the hearing of the decision on appeal]

May 4, 2023, 11:35 AM
I didn't catch the judges decision completely obviously but it appeared that the appeal was denied. Please correct me if I'm wrong. If that is the case then the communication and reasons for the PPSC cancelling 26419 in the public interest is relevant to me and to the public.

No further responses.

These substacks represent the best summaries of my full position. It’s a fair few words so set aside some time. I still have an open appeal to the BC Court of Appeal from the hearing mentioned in this transcript but am awaiting the fulfillment of a court order for court audio, but after a year I doubt they will ever appear, or I could trust their integrity, but I do have publication rights.

It wasnt totally the outcome I was looking for but it retrospect it was about at much as I was going to get at the time.

But then things changed for the worst for me as the mother of my children, abuses the court process to imprison me and I would lose everything I had including the 50/50 shared custody, by her will, in collaboration with two lawyers.

But this, was then, and that is now.

During these hearings held on January 11 and 13th of 2023 there was
a) an application for recusal,
b) for crown to pay for costs of transcripts,
c) an examination of prosecutorial conduct including failing to respond to constitutional questions and the enforcement procedure of the Charter.
d) a flawed (due to lack of my serving the CJC), O’Conner application for disclosure of my personal files held at the Canadian Judicial Council., and
e) the appeal from the decision of the Provincial Court of BC on the retrial of a mistrial declared by the Supreme Court of BC but that decision appealed to BC Court of Appeal

Probably c) and e) contain the most interesting communications and the other ones contain more legal arguments and my interest in examining recusal, independence, transparency and accountability of the judiciary in the Canadian constitutional framework.