D. Sahulka

The offender was convicted of defrauding the victim of $200,000.

The Crown sought a three-year sentence, restitution, and a fine in lieu of forfeiture.

The offender argued that his prior convictions, which were entered after the commission of the current offence, could not be considered as aggravating factors under the 'Coke rule'.

The court rejected this argument, finding the prior convictions demonstrated a pattern of behaviour.

The offender was sentenced to three years' imprisonment, ordered to pay $200,000 in restitution, and ordered to pay a $200,000 fine in lieu of forfeiture.

The accused was tried for defrauding the victim of over $5,000.

The victim sought a $3.2 million loan to purchase shares in an insurance brokerage.

The accused provided a 'loan agreement' and extracted $180,000 in upfront fees from the victim, despite knowing the victim had no collateral and having no intention or ability to provide the loan.

Applying the W.(D.) principles, the court rejected the accused's testimony that the document was merely a preliminary term sheet.

The court found the accused guilty of fraud over $5,000.

Two offenders were sentenced following convictions for fraud over $5,000 under s. 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code arising from a scheme that defrauded victims of $100,000 through a purported land development investment.

The court considered aggravating factors including the significant planning of the fraud, the vulnerability of the victims, and the serious financial and emotional harm caused.

While the Crown sought penitentiary terms of three to four years, the court concluded that the case fell below the range of large‑scale fraud and that conditional sentences could adequately satisfy denunciation and deterrence.

Both offenders were sentenced to conditional sentences of two years less a day with strict house arrest conditions, followed by probation.

The court also imposed fines in lieu of forfeiture and a joint and several restitution order of $100,000 in favour of the victims.