James J. Keaney

The accused pleaded guilty to three counts of fraud over $5,000 contrary to Section 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The offender, a repeat fraudster with a prior 2010 fraud conviction, defrauded three victims of a combined total of approximately $134,569.53 through false representations regarding access to IPOs.

The offender targeted friends and acquaintances at a golf club and a woman he met on a dating website, exploiting her romantic interest.

The court imposed a global sentence of two years less a day with three years' probation, finding the offender to be an unrepentant conman with no genuine remorse despite his guilty plea.

The accused was charged with seven offences arising from two temporally and physically proximate events on May 17, 2014: a dangerous motor vehicle collision causing bodily harm, failure to remain at the scene, break and enter, mischief, assault on a peace officer, impaired operation causing bodily harm, and refusal to comply with a drug recognition evaluation demand.

The Crown led evidence from 15 witnesses.

The accused contested the driving and drug-related charges.

The court found insufficient evidence to establish the accused was the operator of the vehicle involved in the collision, as no eyewitness could identify the driver and both front doors of the vehicle were found open.

The court found the accused guilty of mischief, assault on a peace officer, and refusal to comply with the drug recognition evaluation demand, but acquitted on the remaining charges.

An employee of a car dealership was convicted of unauthorized use of a dealer plate while driving a vehicle with a dealer plate on her way to work.

The trial judge relied on erroneous evidence from the arresting officer that dealer plates could only be used by the owner, a family member of the owner, or for purposes related to the sale of a vehicle.

On appeal, the court found that the regulation permits private use of dealer plates by persons other than the owner and owner's family, and that the trial judge erred in law by accepting the officer's incorrect interpretation of the regulation.