It was an average winter morning in southern Saskatchewan on January 30, 2003, that allowed a farmer and a servant of the people – federal crown prosecutor Horst Dahlem – to meet at the courthouse.  The farmer was appealing his conviction of an offence under the Customs Act “for failing to report in writing prior to exporting wheat and/or barley”.

The alleged offence took place early in 1996 and has been before the courts for over 5 years.  The farmer had been doing his homework, hiring lawyers and researching the laws and procedures of the Canadian Judicial System.  Shortly after court was in session, this farmer requested permission from the court to enter NEW EVIDENCE that had not been available at trial.  The Queens’ Bench judge was curious as was the federal crown prosecutor, allowing copies to be filed with the court and serving the crown.

The crown’s attitude suddenly changed upon viewing the document.  This document, obtained through the Access to Information, was evidence that the Customs Investigator Paul Vienneau, informant to the charge, was aware prior to trial that “S. 3, (failure to report in writing) actions were added as an afterthought.”  “Warning letters by Customs had not specifically referred to a requirement to report in writing.”  “The difficulty with the s.3 charge is that exactly what constitutes a report in writing has never been gazetted or specified.”

In short, the NEW EVIDENCE shows clearly that the crown’s expert witness, Customs Investigator Paul Vienneau, had no idea how to report in writing himself at the time the farmer committed the alleged offence.  This same investigator, at taxpayer’s expense, stated he had relied on a customs memorandum dated Nov. 1, 1994 at trial.  This NEW EVIDENCE would also prove that this memorandum could not have been available to Customs until mid 1997.  The federal crown’s Book of Authorities filed with the courts in 1996 and 1997 made no reference to this memorandum dated Nov. 1, 1994.

The government’s lawyer is furious with the farmer’s NEW EVIDENCE and demands that proper procedures be followed to enter this NEW EVIDENCE on appeal.  The crown prosecutor tells the court that this document is probably privileged information, and would fall under section 23 of the Access to Information Act “Solicitor-Client Privilege”.

If the people of this country allow the federal crown to be successful in this hearing, precedence will be set for civil servants to withhold disclosure and evidence from the defendants at trial and would allow the convictions of over 100 farmers to be upheld by the government’s courts.

Again, I plead to the people of Canada for Justice and the need to regain control of our courts so as the laws of our land and the rights of Canadians are upheld.

~Andrew M. McMechan