Is count 5 bad by reason of multiplicity or duplicity?

I now turn to the question of whether count 5 is bad by reason of multiplicity or duplicity. Milvain C.J. stated in the Medicine Hat case: “In approaching a decision, I feel it important to realize the whole Act contemplates returns on an annual basis, and that it is income on such basis that is subject to tax. …. When it is borne in mind that the Income Tax Act, contemplates returns on an annual basis, and that there are many ways in which an offence under Section 239 (1) (d) might come about, it would seem clear that the joint information and also count (1) of the individual information become defective in that they lack particularity and infringe the concept of multiplicity and duplicity. In my view the informations do not sufficiently define time, place and matter which go to a sufficient definition of the offence charged, as is contemplated by Brodie v. The King 1936 CanLII 1 (SCC), 1936 S.C.R. 188.”