Dr. Leo Fung - The Poriskyite Who Wasn't There
Posted: Tue Mar 03, 2015 9:44 pm
Dr. Fung is currently heading for trial In Vancouver for tax evasion. Another foot soldier in the army of Poriskyites the crown has been forced to deal with. He has had one prior hearing which made it to Canlii.
R. v. Fung, 2011 BCPC 326
At least it appears to be him. He denied at the hearing that he was actually at the hearing and he should know best if he was there or not. This was an application by the Crown to continue to retain documents seized under a search warrant. Dr. Fung was unfortunately unable to attend to argue against continuing the seizure so he sent himself in his place to represent him.
Two lessons from this hearing (reproduced in its entirety below);
1 - The court has no obligation to respond to OPCA arguments that do not relate to a proceeding: para 4.
2 - An OPCA litigant who denies his identity has no basis on which he can participate in a hearing.
R. v. Fung, 2011 BCPC 326
At least it appears to be him. He denied at the hearing that he was actually at the hearing and he should know best if he was there or not. This was an application by the Crown to continue to retain documents seized under a search warrant. Dr. Fung was unfortunately unable to attend to argue against continuing the seizure so he sent himself in his place to represent him.
Two lessons from this hearing (reproduced in its entirety below);
1 - The court has no obligation to respond to OPCA arguments that do not relate to a proceeding: para 4.
2 - An OPCA litigant who denies his identity has no basis on which he can participate in a hearing.
[1] THE COURT: I am dealing here with an application. Notice was given to Leo Fung, who is a taxpayer according to the documents, and that is the only person whom I want to talk to.
[2] LEO FUNG (probably): But there - -
[3] THE COURT: Leo Fung - - let me finish. Leo Fung has filed an affidavit saying he will consent to the order if the investigator proves and establishes a variety of issues that are completely unrelated. The question I have to decide is, "Do I detain these materials that were seized for a further period of time?"
[4] So the affidavit of Leo Fung can go into the court file, but I rule it irrelevant to this application. At this point in time, the only material I have in front of me is the application by the Crown and the affidavit of the investigator, Ms. Tsang.
[5] No one is stepping forward as the taxpayer to deal with this application - - the person who has been given notice.
[6] Accordingly, I am of the view that the materials from the Crown are in order. The affidavit establishes that a further period of detention is appropriate and necessary to continue the investigation, and I am going to grant the order sought by the Crown.
[7] I will give everyone in the courtroom the opportunity, in the form of everyone who is a party to this action, i.e. Leo Fung, the taxpayer, because that is the only person whom I am interested in, one last opportunity to make submissions on the application, but not submissions on his legal status as a person versus a taxpayer.
[8] If Leo Fung the taxpayer is in the courtroom, he can make submissions.
[9] LEO FUNG: I'm not here to repute the taxpayer's material, I'm here just to claim my status as a private person.
[10] THE COURT: I am not here - - I am not here, again - -
[11] LEO FUNG: So that the private property - -
[12] THE COURT: Again, I am not here to deal with that issue. I am only here to deal with the taxpayer and his relationship with - -
[13] LEO FUNG: What - -
[14] THE COURT: - - the taxation - -
[15] LEO FUNG: What venue
-
[16] THE COURT: - - office.
[17] LEO FUNG: What venue would be the appropriate venue?
[18] THE COURT: I have no idea. Go speak to a lawyer, sir. It is not my job to give you legal advice.
[19] LEO FUNG: Yes, I understand that.
[20] THE COURT: Okay, so - -
[21] LEO FUNG: A venue
-
[22] THE COURT: - - I don't know, but - -
[23] LEO FUNG: -- it's unfair to --
[24] THE COURT: - - it is certainly not this venue because it is of no interest of me. The only person that I want to talk to is the taxpayer.
[25] LEO FUNG: Well - -
[26] THE COURT: The order is granted. November 10th, that is the correct date.
[27] Do you need me to sign one or more of these documents?
[28] MR. MENELEY: Your Honour, I have two available, and if Mr. Fung provides me with a third I have three.
[29] THE COURT: One, two. There you go.
[30] MR. MENELEY: Thank you, Your Honour.
[31] THE COURT: All right, Dr. Fung, if you want to sort out what your legal status is, I suggest you go speak to a lawyer for some advice as to where to go to obtain some determination on that. In the meantime, I expect that anyone who deals with this file will be dealing only with the taxpayer. If you do not want to be the taxpayer, you might have a problem.
[32] All right.
[33] MR. MENELEY: Thank you, Your Honour.
[34] THE COURT: Thank you.
[35] This goes back in the file, as well.
[36] THE CLERK: Yes, Your Honour.