H. Apel

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 appellant appealed a conviction for dangerous driving under s. 249(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, arguing that the trial judge’s reasons were insufficient and improperly conflated the actus reus and mens rea requirements.

The court reviewed the trial reasons in the context of the submissions made and concluded that the trial judge had adequately addressed both elements of the offence, even though the analysis was not clearly demarcated.

The court held that the trial judge’s findings established the actus reus and separately explained why the driving constituted a marked departure from the standard of care required to establish mens rea.

The appellant also argued that the trial judge failed to resolve an alleged inconsistency regarding whether a civilian witness observed the police vehicle with lights and siren activated.

The court found the discrepancy immaterial and not necessary to resolve for the purposes of determining guilt.

The offender was convicted of three counts of fraud over $5,000 after defrauding three individuals of $139,000 through a fake investment scheme.

The Crown sought 21 to 36 months' imprisonment, while the defence sought an 18-month conditional sentence.

The court found that a conditional sentence was appropriate given the offender posed no danger to the community.

After applying 10 months of credit for pre-sentence custody and strict bail conditions, the court imposed a 13-month conditional sentence followed by three years of probation, along with a restitution order for the full amount defrauded.

The accused was charged with four counts of fraud over $5,000.

He represented himself as a wealthy, successful business person with influential connections to induce three individuals to invest money in an upcoming IPO for Interactive Brokers.

The accused did not invest the funds as promised and the victims lost their money.

The court found the accused guilty on three counts of fraud, concluding he made deceitful and false statements to obtain the funds.

The accused was found not guilty on the fourth count involving a school board, as the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the scoreboard in question did not exist.