Benjamin Lerer

The appellant, Jerry Revolus, appealed his 18-month custodial sentence for fraud over $5,000 and conspiracy to commit fraud, seeking a conditional sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the original sentence to be very low given the seriousness of the orchestrated fraud scheme, which involved over $330,000 from 80+ victims, coercion, and threats of violence, including a handgun.

The court rejected the argument that a conditional sentence was unavailable due to the appellant's Québec residence, stating that even if there was an error in that determination, a conditional sentence was inappropriate given the gravity of the offences and the appellant's central role.

The court also found no parity with a co-accused who received a conditional sentence, citing significant differences in their roles and circumstances.

The appellant, Thomas Lush, pleaded guilty to several property-related offences and appealed his sentence.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge erred by imposing a sentence of 2 years and 3 months, which was higher than the 2 years less a day agreed upon by the Crown and defence, without advising the parties or inviting submissions on the proposed increase.

Citing R. v. Nahanee, the court determined this procedural error affected the sentence.

The conviction appeal was dismissed as abandoned, and the sentence appeal was allowed, reducing the global sentence to 2 years less one day.

Terry Croteau was sentenced after pleading guilty to fraud over $5000, making false representations in telemarketing contrary to the Competition Act, and using a forged document.

The offences stemmed from intertwined direct mail and telemarketing schemes that defrauded over 2,000 victims of approximately $1.3 million between 2012 and 2019.

The schemes involved misleading "Final Notices" and telemarketing calls designed to appear affiliated with legitimate directories like Yellow Pages, and the use of forged collection letters from "Credifax." Croteau had a prior US conviction for similar fraudulent activity.

The court accepted a joint submission for a 30-month jail sentence, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence due to the magnitude, duration, and recidivism of the offender.

This costs endorsement followed successful appeals by the Fram and Kerbel entities against Romandale Farms Limited.

Romandale had initially been awarded substantial indemnity costs for four intertwined actions tried together.

The Court of Appeal, applying the principle of overall success rather than issue-by-issue determination, found that Fram and Kerbel were entitled to partial indemnity costs for the original actions, having achieved overall success on appeal and having beaten a joint settlement offer.

The appellants, Fram and Kerbel, appealed a trial judgment that declared a 2005 land sale agreement between Kerbel and Romandale at an end.

The trial judge had found that Kerbel repudiated the agreement by entering into a settlement agreement with Fram that delayed the closing of the land sale until after secondary plan approval.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeals, finding that Romandale was estopped by convention from asserting that the settlement agreement breached the 2005 agreement, as all parties had shared the assumption that the sale could only close after secondary plan approval.

The Court also held that the 2005 agreement was not frustrated or void for mistake, Kerbel's claim was not limitation-barred, and Kerbel was entitled to specific performance because the lands were unique.