Fraud

The accused pleaded guilty to defrauding her small business employer of $45,222.26 over a two-and-a-half-year period.

The accused, who was responsible for accounts receivable and payable, transferred the funds into her own accounts and her child's account across 73 transactions.

The court rejected the defence's request for a conditional sentence, emphasizing the paramountcy of denunciation and general deterrence in breach of trust employee frauds.

The accused was sentenced to 12 months in jail, 36 months of probation, and ordered to pay a fine in lieu of forfeiture.

The accused, a bank teller charged with identity theft and fraud, brought Charter applications under ss. 8 and 10(b) and a Garofoli application to exclude evidence mid-trial.

The police arrested the accused in a parking lot and briefly searched his car to retrieve his wallet for identification, finding a sticky note with customer data.

The court held the search was a valid search incident to arrest and, alternatively, the evidence would not be excluded under s. 24(2).

The court also dismissed the Garofoli application, finding sufficient basis for the cell phone warrant even without the sticky note, and dismissed the s. 10(b) claim as the short delay in providing access to counsel at the nearby station was reasonable.

The offender, a tax protester, was convicted of eight counts of improperly claiming or obtaining refunds under the Income Tax Act.

He devised a sophisticated scheme using trusts and corporations to evade taxes and fraudulently claim refunds, personally profiting over $100,000 and attempting to secure over $600,000 for a client.

The court sentenced him to a global term of 24 months imprisonment, less 7 months enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody and COVID-19 lockdown hardships, leaving 17 months to serve.

The court also imposed mandatory fines totaling $499,919, rejecting a conditional sentence order due to the need for denunciation and deterrence.

The accused was charged with multiple counts of fraud, conspiracy, forgery, and public mischief arising from two schemes.

In the first, he conspired to sell a wood processor and falsely reported it stolen to police and his insurer to claim the insurance proceeds.

In the second, he forged a bill of sale for a non-existent wood processor to obtain financing from a leasing company.

The court rejected the accused's statement to police as incredible and accepted the evidence of his accomplices, which was corroborated by independent witnesses and documentary evidence.

The accused was found guilty on 11 counts and acquitted on one count of possessing proceeds of crime.

The accused, charged with fraud-related offences, brought a motion to exclude bank records obtained via a production order, alleging violations of sections 7, 8, and 11(d) of the Charter.

The accused argued that the Crown was estopped from relying on the records and that seeking a new production order mid-trial constituted an abuse of process.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that issue estoppel did not apply as no prior judicial findings had been made regarding the records, and that the Crown's conduct was not oppressive or vexatious.

The court upheld the validity of the production order, concluding there were reasonable and probable grounds for its issuance, and ruled the evidence admissible.

The Ontario Provincial Police applied for a production order under s. 487.014 of the Criminal Code in relation to a fraud investigation known as Project Gundy.

The investigation concerned syndicated mortgage investments where multiple development projects were never completed and investors were allegedly misled about conflicts of interest, the use of their funds, and the priority of their claims.

The court found that the statutory prerequisites were met and that it was in the best interests of the administration of justice to issue the order to assist investigators in determining whether unlawful business practices occurred.

The application was granted.

The accused faced 31 criminal charges including fraud, breach of trust, and bribery relating to his Senate expense claims and a $90,172.24 payment from the Prime Minister's Chief of Staff.

The charges were divided into categories: primary residency claims, travel expense claims, consulting contracts, and the $90,000 payment.

The court found that the accused's residency declarations and travel claims were made in accordance with the Senate Administrative Rules and advice from Senate leadership.

The consulting contracts were used to pay for legitimate Senate-related work.

Regarding the $90,000 payment, the court found that the accused was coerced by the Prime Minister's Office into accepting the funds as part of a political damage control strategy, and lacked the requisite corrupt intent.

All 31 charges were dismissed.

The applicant obtained a default judgment for fraud against the respondents regarding a tax loss allocation scheme.

He subsequently obtained an ex parte order under s. 101 of the Courts of Justice Act appointing a receiver over the respondents' assets.

Through further ex parte applications, the receivership was expanded into a broad investigative receivership freezing the assets of 43 additional non-party individuals and entities to protect the interests of thousands of other investors.

The Court of Appeal set aside the orders, holding that while s. 101 permits investigative receiverships in appropriate circumstances, the orders here were unjustifiably overreaching and went beyond protecting the applicant's judgment recovery.

The United States sought the appellant's extradition for arson, fraud, and firearm offences.

At the committal hearing, the appellant sought to introduce evidence challenging the credibility of two accomplices whose anticipated evidence was summarized in the record of the case.

The extradition judge refused to admit the evidence and committed the appellant for surrender.

The Minister of Justice subsequently ordered the appellant's surrender.

The appellant appealed the committal order and applied for judicial review of the surrender order, arguing that the potential sentence in the United States was grossly disproportionate to a comparable Canadian sentence, violating s. 7 of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and the application, finding that the proffered evidence would not have rendered the record of the case manifestly unreliable, and that the potential sentence disparity would not shock the conscience.

The appellants were convicted of fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud in relation to a high yield investment scam.

On appeal, they argued the trial judge erred in admitting expert profiling evidence, giving confusing jury instructions on conspiracy, and admitting preliminary inquiry evidence.

The Court of Appeal found the expert evidence was properly admitted and the preliminary inquiry evidence met the statutory requirements.

However, the trial judge erred in his conspiracy instructions by presenting it as an 'all or nothing' proposition and failing to properly explain the Carter stages.

The conspiracy convictions were set aside.

The court also reduced one appellant's restitution order by two-thirds to reflect the shared responsibility of all three co-accused.

The appellant appealed his sentence for fraud, arguing the trial judge erred by not permitting him to address the court before sentencing and by finding a conditional sentence inappropriate.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the failure to allow the appellant to speak was an inadvertent procedural error that would not have changed the outcome, as the judge was already aware of his remorse.

The court further found the sentence was fit given the monetary amount, breach of trust, and lengthy duration of the fraud.

The appellant appealed his convictions for fraud and breach of trust by a public officer.

He argued the trial judge erred in assessing evidence, finding a key witness credible, and applying the elements of fraud.

The appellant had submitted false travel expense claims to the government, claiming $217 per trip while only paying $50 and pocketing the difference.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence or credibility.

The court also held that the element of deprivation for fraud was met, as the government would not have paid the claims had it known the truth.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a committal for extradition to the Republic of Korea for fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud, and sought judicial review of the Minister's surrender order.

The appellant argued the record of the case lacked sufficient basis for committal and contained inconsistencies and translation issues.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the will-say statements provided sufficient evidence of fraudulent transactions to support committal.

The application for judicial review was also dismissed, as the Minister was not required to seek assurances that the appellant would be tried only on particularized allegations.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing his motion to set aside an interim, interim without prejudice order requiring him to pay child and spousal support.

The appellant argued the original order was obtained by fraud and without notice, and that the motion judge failed to consider the Child Support Guidelines.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's conclusion that the order was not obtained by fraud, and noting that the original order was designed to maintain the status quo pending a case conference.

The plaintiffs in a proposed class action appealed a motion judge's decision striking out several claims from their statement of claim against an insurer regarding the sale and administration of universal life insurance policies.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, reinstating the claims for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, breach of contract, and deceit and fraud, finding it was not plain and obvious these claims would fail.

The court upheld the striking of allegations concerning releases because the plaintiffs failed to request specific relief for those who signed them.

The appellant appealed a conviction entered by a jury.

The Court of Appeal found the jury verdict unreasonable, as the conclusion that the appellant was a party to the offence relied on mere speculation that the transaction was fraudulent from the outset or that the appellant aided the transaction after it was shown to be fraudulent.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction set aside, and an acquittal entered.

The appellant was convicted of fraud over $5,000 and using forged documents after obtaining a fraudulent mortgage using her half-sister's identity.

She appealed her convictions, arguing they violated the Kienapple rule, and her 3.5-year sentence.

The Crown appealed the trial judge's refusal to order a fine in lieu of forfeiture.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no legal nexus between the offences.

While the trial judge erred in principle during sentencing, the 3.5-year sentence was upheld as fit given the breach of trust and the appellant's history.

The Crown's appeal was allowed in part, with a $10,700 fine in lieu of forfeiture ordered based on the limited evidence of the appellant's control over the unrecovered funds.

The appellant, a caregiver for an elderly man, was convicted of fraud and theft after withdrawing approximately $180,000 from his bank account over several years.

She was also convicted of defrauding the Department of Veterans Affairs.

She was sentenced to 20 months in custody, two years of probation, and ordered to pay restitution.

On appeal, she argued the trial judge erred in finding she controlled the victim, that the verdict was unreasonable, and that the restitution order failed to consider her ability to pay.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's conclusions reasonable and the restitution order appropriate given the amounts taken and the modest payment schedule imposed.

The self-represented appellants appealed an order striking their amended statement of claim without leave to amend.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that the pleading contained overly broad, conclusory allegations of conspiracy, fraud, and negligence without supporting material facts.

The Court also noted that many allegations were attempts to re-litigate previously determined issues, and the defects could not be cured by further amendment.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment dismissing their claims of fraud and breach of fiduciary duty against the respondents.

The trial judge had found no evidence of misappropriation of funds and concluded that the respondents' involvement was financially neutral to the appellants.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge's findings of fact were amply supported by the evidence and entitled to deference.

A cross-appeal regarding costs was also dismissed.