Fraud

Boris Borissov, a Toronto Police Service officer, was sentenced for multiple offences including theft, fraudulent use of bank cards, trafficking stolen property, attempt to obstruct justice, unauthorized use of police computer systems, and possession of a motor vehicle obtained by crime.

The offences involved abusing his position to steal from vulnerable victims (a missing person and a deceased woman) and to assist criminal associates by providing internal police information and obstructing investigations.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence as primary sentencing objectives for police officers who breach public trust.

Despite mitigating factors such as good character, PTSD, and rehabilitation efforts, the court imposed a global sentence of 7 years' incarceration, finding the offences to be profound and repeated abuses of police power.

The appellant, convicted of two counts of fraud over $5,000, appealed his sentence of two years' less one day imprisonment and two years' probation, along with forfeiture and a fine.

He argued the sentencing judge erred by not granting credit for presentence custody or time under restrictive bail conditions, and that the sentence was demonstrably unfit.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in denying credit for presentence custody due to lack of causal connection to the fraud charges.

While acknowledging an error in the sentencing judge's assessment of the link for restrictive bail conditions, the Court found the conditions were not punitive enough to warrant mitigation.

The Court affirmed the fitness of the sentence, emphasizing the need for denunciation and deterrence for sophisticated frauds.

The applicant sought to validate an informal, unwitnessed document dated December 31, 2021, as a will or codicil of the deceased, Garnet Earl Rombough, under section 21.1 of the Succession Law Reform Act.

The deceased had a formal will from 2012.

Respondents challenged the 2021 document, alleging lack of testamentary capacity, undue influence, fraud, and forgery.

The court found the 2021 document authentic, made with testamentary capacity, and free from undue influence or fraud.

It determined that the 2021 document, read in conjunction with the 2012 will, represented the deceased's final testamentary intentions, acting as a codicil to the earlier will.

The application was granted, and both documents were admitted to probate.

The appellant, Kyle Robert Bancroft, appealed his convictions for two frauds, arguing that the trial judge failed to provide sufficient assistance to him as a self-represented accused, particularly regarding the distinction between evidence and argument and the proper procedure for impeaching witnesses.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge did err in not providing adequate assistance and in refusing to allow the appellant to recall witnesses or introduce banking records.

However, the court concluded that these errors were not material to the outcome, as the evidence against the appellant was overwhelming and corroborated by independent witnesses.

The appeal was dismissed.

Following a trial, the accused, Arif Ali Versi, was found guilty of five counts of fraud over $5000, resulting in total losses of $338,400 to five victims through a real estate scheme.

The Crown sought a penitentiary sentence of 3.5 to 4 years and ancillary orders, including a fine in lieu of forfeiture.

The defence sought a conditional sentence and probation.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the deliberate and sophisticated nature of the fraud, significant losses, multiple victims, and the accused's prior fraud convictions and failure to pay restitution.

Mitigating factors included family support and positive steps taken since arrest.

The court determined that a penitentiary term was required, imposing a sentence of 3 years imprisonment, along with a restitution order for $338,400 and a fine in lieu of forfeiture for the same amount.

Ancillary orders included a no-contact order with victims and a DNA order.

The accused, Yuan-Hung Lo, was charged with Fraud Over $5000 and three counts of Possession of Property Over $5000.

The Crown alleged that Mr. Lo knowingly participated in a fraud scheme where the complainant was defrauded of $181,000, or was wilfully blind to it.

The defence argued that Mr. Lo believed he was involved in a legitimate business deal and was unaware of the fraud.

The court found that while Mr. Lo's business practices were odd and naive, his testimony and efforts to document transactions raised a reasonable doubt as to his knowledge or wilful blindness.

Consequently, the court found Mr. Lo not guilty of all charges.

The Plaintiff sought judgment on a claim of fraud against the Defendant.

The Defendant, noted in default, repeatedly failed to comply with a Mareva injunction requiring disclosure of assets and the whereabouts of the Plaintiff's funds, providing only a misleading "debt disclosure." The court found the Defendant's conduct reprehensible and granted judgment to the Plaintiff for $345,000 in compensatory damages, $100,000 in punitive damages, and $55,000 in substantial indemnity costs.

The court declined to issue an order barring the Defendant from future attempts to set aside the default judgment, noting the high hurdle he would face.

Stuart Murray, convicted of fraud, sought an extension of time to appeal his conviction, arguing his guilty plea was involuntary and uninformed due to his mental state and unexpected collateral consequences from Law Society proceedings.

The Crown opposed, citing delay and lack of merit.

The motion judge granted the extension, finding that psychiatric evidence raised sufficient doubt about Murray's cognitive functionality at the time of the plea and adequately explained the delay, thus warranting an appeal on the validity of the guilty plea.

Trade Capital Finance Corp. (TC) and Buduchnist Credit Union Limited (BCU) filed opposing motions in an insolvency appeal.

TC sought an extension of time and leave to appeal a lower court's final disposition order concerning the distribution of receivership proceeds, arguing the order allowed BCU to enforce judgments arising from transactions in breach of a Mareva order.

BCU sought to lift the automatic stay of proceedings and security for costs.

The Court of Appeal granted TC's motions for extension of time and leave to appeal, finding the appeal prima facie meritorious and raising issues of general importance regarding Mareva orders and creditor enforcement in insolvency.

The court denied BCU's motions to lift the stay and for security for costs, concluding that the BIA governed the appeal and that lifting the stay would render TC's appeal moot, and that security for costs was not fitting given BCU was the applicant below and TC's insolvency stemmed from the alleged fraud.

The accused, Raphael Fortune, was charged with fraud over $5,000 and possession of proceeds of crime in relation to an alleged diamond investment scheme.

The complainant, Mike Rantissi, invested a significant sum with Fortune based on representations of no risk and high profits, but never received diamonds or his money back.

The court found that Fortune intentionally deceived Rantissi, diverting the funds for personal expenses rather than purchasing diamonds as promised.

The accused was found guilty of both counts.

The appellant was convicted of defrauding a business partner and sentenced to 18 months incarceration and restitution.

He appealed his conviction, arguing a s. 11(b) Charter violation (right to be tried within a reasonable time) and an error in the R. v. W.(D.) analysis.

He also sought leave to appeal his sentence.

The Court of Appeal found a s. 11(b) violation, concluding that the trial judge incorrectly applied the presumptive ceiling for delay.

The court dismissed the Crown's request to impose a remedy other than a stay of proceedings, reaffirming that a stay is the appropriate and only available remedy for a s. 11(b) breach.

The conviction for fraud was stayed.

The appellant's other grounds of appeal, including the W.(D.) analysis and the sentence appeal, were dismissed.

The Crown brought a Rule 21 motion to strike various paragraphs and counterclaims from the Statements of Defence of Sanjay Madan, Shalini Madan, Chinmaya Madan, and Ujjawal Madan.

The Crown alleged that the pleadings contained untenable claims of contributory negligence, frivolous and vexatious allegations, and counterclaims that were not tenable in law, including claims of direct tort liability against the Crown and vicarious liability for intrusion upon seclusion.

The court granted the Crown's motion, finding that the defence of contributory negligence is not available for fraud, the Crown is immune from direct tort liability for systemic negligence, and no private law duty of care or vicarious liability for intrusion upon seclusion was established based on the facts pleaded.

The court also struck pleadings related to the Crown's conduct in the litigation as improper.

The moving parties, NDrive, Navigation Systems S.A. and its directors, sought security for costs under Rule 61.06(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure against the appellants (Zhou parties) in an ongoing appeal.

The motion judge had previously found the appellants liable for civil fraud, awarded substantial damages and full indemnity costs, and noted their shocking and reprehensible litigation conduct.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion for security for costs, totaling $300,000, finding that the prior findings of fraud and litigation misconduct, coupled with the appellants' insufficient assets in Ontario, constituted "other good reason" under Rule 61.06(1)(c).

The appellant, Brenda Elliot, appealed her conviction for fraud over $5,000 and two counts of uttering a forged document, and her three-year sentence.

She argued that her s. 11(b) Charter right to a trial within a reasonable time was breached, and that her sentence was demonstrably unfit, offending the step principle, parity, and proportionality.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the application judge's calculation of trial delay, noting that even if there were errors, the net delay remained below the Jordan presumptive ceiling.

Regarding the sentence, the Court affirmed that the sentencing judge properly considered the step principle, parity, and proportionality, along with aggravating factors such as breach of trust, significant impact on victims (a non-profit agency), and the appellant's extensive criminal record for similar offences.

The Court dismissed the appeal against conviction and, while granting leave to appeal sentence, dismissed the sentence appeal.

Karen Cady pleaded guilty to defrauding her employer, Henninger’s Diesel Ltd., of over $1 million and possessing a forged document.

This was her third fraud conviction, with previous offenses also involving employers.

The court considered aggravating factors including the breach of trust, magnitude and sophistication of the fraud, its duration, and the significant impact on the victim company and its employees.

Mitigating factors included her guilty plea.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, imposing a four-year penitentiary term, a 10-year prohibition from positions of financial trust, a non-communication order, and a restitution order for the full amount of the loss.

This case involves a motion to quash an appeal in a mortgage priorities dispute.

The appellant, a second mortgagee, sought to appeal an application judge's determination regarding the enforceability and priority of charges under the first mortgage.

The respondent, the first mortgagee, moved to quash the appeal, arguing the order was interlocutory.

The Court of Appeal agreed that the order was interlocutory because the "very subject matter" of the litigation, specifically the enforceability and priority of the mortgage, had not been finally determined, as a trial of an issue regarding fraud was still pending.

Consequently, the appeal was quashed.

The United States sought the extradition of Festus Akpobome (also known as Ejiro Efevwerha and Andrew Ejiro Efevwerha) to face fraud charges.

The primary issues were whether the requesting state established the identity of the respondent as the person sought and whether the requesting state's conduct amounted to an abuse of process.

The court found that the evidence, including witness identification, photographic comparison, and email analysis, sufficiently established identity on a balance of probabilities.

The court also dismissed the abuse of process argument, finding no "blatant unfairness" or serious misconduct by the requesting state.

Consequently, an order was issued committing the respondent to custody for extradition.

The father applied to revoke the legal change of his daughter's surname from 'Russell' to 'Thompson', alleging the mother obtained the change fraudulently by failing to provide proper notice under the Change of Name Act.

The court found the mother intentionally sent blank papers instead of the required notice and affidavit of service, thereby obtaining the name change by fraud.

The court assessed the credibility of both parties based on their past litigation conduct and communication, finding the mother's actions to be hostile and vindictive, and the father's conduct reasonable.

The application was granted, and the name change was revoked.

The Attorney General of Canada, on behalf of the United States, appealed a discharge order in an extradition proceeding against the respondent for fraud-related charges.

The extradition judge had discharged the respondent, finding insufficient evidence in the Record of the Case (ROC) to establish his complicity.

The Court of Appeal found that the extradition judge erred by misreading the ROC and by failing to give proper effect to the presumptive reliability of the certified evidence, treating bald assertions as having no evidentiary value without considering the context of the accomplice's deep involvement in the scheme.

The Court concluded that, read as a whole, the ROC provided a sufficient basis for committal.

The appellants appealed their convictions and sentences for large-scale fraud obtained through the Government of Canada’s Small Business Financing Program.

The conviction appeals challenged the trial judge's summary dismissal of three s. 11(b) Charter motions for unreasonable delay, arguing that the judge erred by not addressing the merits due to non-compliance with deadlines.

The sentence appeals contested the length of imprisonment and a restitution order for one appellant, and the imposition of a custodial sentence for another.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all conviction and sentence appeals, affirming the trial judge's proactive case management and the fitness of the sentences.