D. Grenkie

Katrina Gilmour, found guilty of fraudulent conduct, applied to re-open her case, alleging that TD Bank records used in her trial were unreliable and required full discovery.

The Crown brought a motion to summarily dismiss this application, arguing it was manifestly frivolous.

The court granted the Crown's motion, dismissing Gilmour's application to re-open.

The judge found that Gilmour failed to articulate a sufficient basis for how the records were unreliable or how re-opening the case would change the trial outcome, emphasizing the rigorous standard for re-opening a case post-conviction and the need to protect trial efficiency and finality.

The accused, Katrina Gilmour, was charged with multiple offenses including fraud and identity theft against Christopher Lariviere.

The Crown alleged Gilmour defrauded Lariviere of significant funds by fabricating medical conditions (brain tumour, need for surgery/medication) and false property arrears, and used his identity to obtain propane accounts and a loan.

Gilmour denied the allegations, claiming Lariviere offered money and that she had genuine medical issues.

The court found the complainant credible and the accused's testimony unbelievable, inconsistent, and illogical.

The court found Gilmour guilty on counts of fraud over $5,000 (medical and property arrears), forgery of a Superior Court document, fraud on Stinson, fraud on Lend Direct, and making a false document for Superior Propane.

The Crown applied to have the offender designated a dangerous offender and sentenced to an indeterminate period of incarceration following convictions for aggravated assault, break and enter, choking, and failing to comply with probation.

The offender conceded he met the criteria for a dangerous offender designation but sought a determinate sentence.

The court designated the offender a dangerous offender.

After considering Gladue factors, expert psychiatric evidence regarding the offender's antisocial personality disorder and substance use disorder, and the potential for risk reduction through treatment and aging, the court concluded a lesser measure than an indeterminate sentence would adequately protect the public.

The court imposed a determinate sentence of 8 years (in addition to presentence custody) followed by an 8-year Long-Term Supervision Order.