Argument amounted to submission that even if there was error, no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred

Curative proviso. Accused tax return preparer filed claims for charitable donations of used goods to registered charity on behalf of his clients, believing that claims were valid. Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA) investigator gave evidence that charity had reported very few donations and that donation claims were false. Jury convicted accused of fraud over $5,000 for filing false claims of charitable donations on behalf of his clients. Trial judge sentenced accused to 30 months in custody. Majority of Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed accused’s appeals from conviction and sentence. Accused appealed. Appeal dismissed. Majority commented that, while Crown did not explicitly refer to curative proviso, Crown’s argument amounted to submission that even if there was error in admitting investigator’s evidence, no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice had occurred. This comment was adopted. Given that there was no miscarriage of justice, curative proviso was properly relied on.

R. v. Ajise (2018), 2018 CarswellOnt 19672, 2018 CarswellOnt 19673, 2018 SCC 51, 2018 CSC 51, Abella J., Karakatsanis J., Côté J., Brown J., and Rowe J. (S.C.C.); affirmed (2018), 2018 CarswellOnt 8628, 2018 ONCA 494, Robert J. Sharpe J.A., Pardu J.A., and Fairburn J.A. (Ont. C.A.).