Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan
Citation: R v Blerot, 2015 SKCA 69
 Mr. Blerot worked with Paradigm Education Group, a tax evasion organization that taught people a system whereby they would supposedly not have to pay taxes. He was convicted of five tax-related offences: (a) evading income tax, (b) evading GST, (c) counselling Jerry McCaw to evade his income tax, (d) defrauding Canada Revenue Agency by counselling various persons to evade their taxes, and (e) counselling various persons to evade their taxes. The trial judge imposed a total sentence of three years and seven months of jail time and a fine of $58,139.03.
 Mr. Blerot appealed the convictions and the sentence. We dismissed his appeals after oral argument with a promise of very brief written reasons to memorialize those given in the courtroom. These are those reasons.
 Mr. Blerot’s argument with respect to his convictions is based on the contention that there is a difference between a “natural person” and a “legal person”. He submits it was the legal person, not him the natural person, who committed the offences in issue here. He says that he, the natural person, never worked for or represented the legal person and hence can have no criminal liability. Accordingly, he takes the position that the convictions should not have been entered.
 These arguments cannot succeed. The law does not recognize the distinction between “legal persons” and “natural persons” drawn by Mr. Blerot. His arguments have no legal foundation and have been consistently rejected by Canadian courts. See: Canada (National Revenue) v Stanchfield, 2009 FC 99 at paras 22-30; R v Nagel, 2010 SKCA 118 at para 12, 362 Sask R 145; Meads v Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 at paras 417-423,  3 WWR 419.
 Mr. Blerot also argued that his convictions cannot stand because, as a natural person, he has absolute and inalienable rights in relation to life, liberty and property. In this regard, he referred to the Canadian Bill of Rights, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Mr. Blerot submits that the convictions deny those rights and must be set aside as a result.
 Again, these arguments cannot succeed. There are no “absolute” rights of the kind described by Mr. Blerot. Neither the Bill of Rights, the Charter nor the Universal Declaration of Human Rights can be interpreted or applied in a way which would render the convictions here invalid.
 With respect to his sentence, Mr. Blerot returned to the alleged distinction between “legal persons” and “natural persons”. He argued that it was the legal person who had been convicted of the offences in issue here but that it was he, the natural person, who was bearing the weight and impact of the sentence. Again, this argument cannot succeed. It turns on a notion of there being a difference between “legal” and “natural” personality which simply does not exist.
 As a result, Mr. Blerot’s appeals from both conviction and sentence are dismissed.
Frankly I'm not feeling the love. Even I have to admit that it is a gross perversion of justice to throw the wrong man in jail. But rough justice I suppose. If the natural person and the legal person both inhabit the same physical body then the natural person is just going to have face the fact that his physical form is going to be dragged into jail along with the perp. Unless either the natural person or the legal person vacates the premises! Blerot had considered every other inane argument to get out of this so why not that? Why didn't he tell the appeals court that the legal person had fled leaving the natural person as the sole occupant of the meatsack they both once called home. So go find the legal person's new residence and arrest him there. As sensible, and logical, as any other argument Blerot tried.