Christopher Ponesse

The self-represented accused brought a pre-trial motion to sever a 12-count indictment into separate trials.

The charges included criminal harassment, defamatory libel, threatening bodily harm, attempting to obstruct justice, and public mischief, involving multiple complainants connected to a fitness club.

The court dismissed the motion, finding a strong factual and legal nexus between the counts, overlapping evidence, and no demonstrated prejudice to the accused's right to a fair trial.

The Crown alleged that Michelle Hyde, a bookkeeper operating as Simply Bookkeeping, defrauded her client Castor Canadensis of approximately $300,000 between August 7, 2013 and June 20, 2016.

The Crown's case rested on evidence of fraudulent cheques written to cash or to Simply, many of which were either mis-posted to other suppliers in the general ledger or not posted at all, with funds deposited into Hyde's Simply bank account.

The defendant claimed the payments were legitimate compensation for work performed at an agreed hourly rate of $80/hour, and that cheques to cash were part of a scheme with the firm's principal to conceal the extent of bookkeeping expenditures from investors.

The court rejected the defendant's evidence entirely and found her guilty based on the totality of evidence, including testimony from the firm's principal, its accountant, and documentary evidence showing a pattern of deliberate misposting and non-posting of cheques.

The accused pleaded guilty to attempting to obstruct justice by lying to police about the identity of the person who killed her ex-boyfriend.

The accused was assaulted by her ex-boyfriend with a knife, and her current boyfriend shot and killed him in defence.

When police arrived, the accused gave false statements claiming she did not know who the shooter was, and she attempted to persuade a witness not to mention her boyfriend to police.

The accused maintained this lie for seven and a half months before finally admitting the truth.

The court imposed a nine-month conditional sentence followed by one year of probation, balancing her youth, guilty plea, and lack of criminal record against the serious nature of obstructing justice in a homicide investigation.

The accused, Simon Gares, was charged with assault causing bodily harm and breach of probation after violently attacking a 5-year-old child.

The trial proceeded by judge alone after a mistrial.

The central issue was whether Gares was not criminally responsible (NCR) due to mental disorder under s. 16 of the Criminal Code.

Two forensic psychiatrists provided divergent opinions on Gares' mental state and capacity to know his actions were morally wrong.

The court found Gares guilty, concluding that he failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he was NCR, as his post-offence conduct suggested an awareness of wrongdoing and there was evidence of malingering.

The offender, a 26-year-old security guard with no prior record, was convicted of stealing 46 computers valued at $79,145 from a bank.

The Crown sought 6-8 months imprisonment, while the defence sought a suspended sentence.

The court noted the aggravating factor of breach of trust but emphasized the offender's youth, lack of criminal record, and late expression of remorse.

Finding that incarceration would not serve a meaningful public purpose and that a conditional sentence was legally unavailable, the court imposed a suspended sentence with 3 years of probation, 250 hours of community service, and a full restitution order of $79,145.

The accused, a security guard at an RBC building, was charged with multiple offences including break and enter, theft, and mischief after 46 new Lenovo laptops went missing from a storage room.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including video surveillance showing the accused removing boxes from the storage room, obstructing a security camera, and Kijiji advertisements for the stolen laptops linked to the accused's phone number, address, and Facebook photos.

The court found the circumstantial evidence overwhelming and convicted the accused on all counts.

Monique Clarke, a payroll administrator, was convicted of fraud over $5,000 against her employer, Acxsys Corporation, involving a sophisticated scheme of unauthorized transactions totaling over $300,000.

The court considered aggravating factors including breach of trust, the planned nature of the fraud, and a prior conviction for dishonesty, balanced against mitigating factors such as family support, education, and a medical condition.

The Crown sought 30-36 months imprisonment, a prohibition order, a DNA order, and restitution of $254,798.00, plus a fine in lieu of forfeiture.

The defence sought a suspended sentence and probation.

The court imposed a 36-month federal prison sentence, a lifetime prohibition from positions of financial trust, and a restitution order of $12,282.78, declining the DNA order and fine in lieu of forfeiture.

Monique Clarke, a payroll administrator, was charged with fraud over $5,000 against her employer, Acxsys Corporation.

The Crown alleged she manipulated payroll records to divert funds to terminated employees' accounts, which were then deposited into seven different bank accounts, including one jointly held by her husband, and also granted herself unauthorized excess remuneration.

The court found the ADP and banking records reliable through comparison, establishing a total fraud of over $300,000.

The defense argued lack of proven actual loss and suggested other perpetrators, but the court dismissed these arguments, finding that Clarke had the exclusive opportunity and motive to commit the fraud.

The court concluded that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Clarke committed the fraud.