Fraud

The offender was found guilty of trading without registration, failing to file a prospectus, and fraud under the Ontario Securities Act.

He operated two companies that fraudulently took over $5 million from investors under the guise of mortgage investments, diverting at least $2 million for personal use.

The court weighed the significant aggravating factors, including the devastating financial impact on over 70 victims, against mitigating factors such as the offender's age, prior good character, and health issues.

The offender was sentenced to 3.5 years in prison and ordered to pay $4,859,552.58 in restitution.

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 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 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 in Davies developments, where investors were allegedly misled and funds diverted.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe a fraud over $5,000 occurred and that evidence would be found in records held by the court-appointed receiver, KSV Kofman Inc. The application for the Production Order was granted.

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 involving syndicated mortgage investments.

The court reviewed the Information to Obtain (ITO) and found reasonable grounds to believe a fraud over $5,000 occurred and that evidence would likely be found in the records of the suspect's accountant.

The court granted the Production Order, noting the strong public interest in investigating potential Ponzi schemes.

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 applicants sought ex parte interim relief in an application alleging extensive dishonest conduct, including impersonation of a business through a similarly named corporation, diversion of funds, and theft of business opportunities.

The court held that while the record did not show a clear likelihood that assets would be moved out of the jurisdiction, the evidence disclosed strong and compelling evidence of fraud.

Applying the Mareva injunction principles and the inference-based approach recognized in the fraud cases, the court found a real risk that assets could be hidden, dissipated, or removed.

The court granted limited ex parte preservation relief, including a Mareva injunction, freezing of bank accounts, a prohibition on payment of insurance proceeds, a stay of certain actions, and a CPL, with a prompt return date.

The applicant sought a stay of proceedings on a pending fraud charge, alleging unreasonable delay contrary to s. 11(b) of the Charter.

Applying the pre-Jordan Morin framework, the court assessed neutral intake time, Crown disclosure delay, defence delay, institutional delay in both the Ontario Court of Justice and Superior Court, and prejudice.

Although the court found a period of Crown responsibility arising from delayed disclosure and recognized meaningful institutional delay, the combined delay fell within the lower end of the applicable guideline range and the evidence of actual prejudice was weak.

The stay application under s. 24(1) was dismissed.

The accused, an insurance agent, was charged with fraud for knowingly issuing a fake auto insurance certificate to a customer and keeping the cash premium.

The court found the accused guilty, noting he issued a six-month binder policy without insurer authorization, failed to issue a proper receipt, and admitted to police that he issued the certificate.

The accused also brought an application under section 11(b) of the Charter alleging unreasonable delay.

The court dismissed the application, finding the total delay of nearly 18 months was reasonable given inherent time requirements and unforeseen scheduling issues.

The plaintiff brought an urgent motion arising from allegations that the defendant defrauded him of $186,000 through an altered bank draft provided in a condominium purchase transaction.

The court granted substituted service by e-mail, leave to issue a certificate of pending litigation, and interim relief restraining the defendant from encumbering, damaging, or dealing with the condominium unit pending a further hearing.

The court also ordered plaintiff's counsel to have sole keyed access to the unoccupied unit, subject to the plaintiff's undertaking to pay damages.

Costs were reserved.

The moving party sought directions on how to reopen a dismissed civil action based on fresh evidence allegedly undermining trial credibility findings in an employment placement fraud dispute.

After his appeal had already been dismissed, he relied on rule 59.06(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and tendered a broadcast said to show the respondents making representations inconsistent with their trial evidence.

The court held that the rationale of rule 59.06(2)(a) survives the dismissal of an appeal because the rule addresses orders later shown to be wrong due to fraud or subsequently discovered facts, rather than reversible trial error.

The motion to introduce new evidence had to be brought in the Superior Court, but not necessarily before the original trial judge.

Service was validated against one respondent who had notice but failed to respond in writing.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of a civil claim alleging that religious divorce documents had been fraudulently altered to include a waiver of rights to a marriage gift.

The court upheld the trial judge’s credibility findings and rejected arguments concerning corroboration, bias, waiver, and factual error.

The proposed fresh evidence did not relate to the central authenticity issue, could have been obtained with diligence before trial, and would not have affected the result.

The appeal was dismissed, with no appeal costs to one respondent and fixed costs awarded to another.

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.

The appellants appealed their fraud convictions, arguing that a production order for bank documents violated their s. 8 Charter rights due to the non-disclosure of statutory declarations.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial judge that while a s. 8 violation occurred regarding personal documents, the evidence should not be excluded under s. 24(2) because the officer's carelessness did not render the breach serious enough to warrant exclusion.

The court found the trial evidence overwhelming and dismissed the appeals.

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their motion to challenge Ontario's jurisdiction and stay the action on the basis of forum non conveniens.

The respondent alleged the appellants conspired to defraud it of over $2,000,000.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that a presumptive connecting factor existed (a tort committed in Ontario) and that the appellants failed to rebut the presumption of a real and substantial connection.

The Court also found no basis to interfere with the motion judge's conclusion that Ontario was the appropriate forum.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The accused, a Wal-Mart cashier, was charged with fraud and fraudulent use of a credit card for allegedly participating in a scheme to process fraudulent credit cards in exchange for gift cards.

The Crown relied on the testimony of an accomplice who recruited individuals to use the fake cards at the accused's register, as well as video surveillance and text messages.

Applying the W.(D.) framework for credibility, the court rejected the accused's testimony as contrived and accepted the corroborated evidence of the accomplice.

The court found the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The offender was convicted of theft over $5,000 and fraud over $5,000 for using a Power of Attorney to place unauthorized mortgages on his 86-year-old mother's properties, resulting in her eviction and homelessness.

The court considered numerous aggravating factors, including the offender's extensive criminal record of 69 prior convictions for crimes of dishonesty, his lack of remorse, and additional uncharged frauds against his mother and his lawyer.

Finding the offender to be a psychopath incapable of rehabilitation, the court imposed the maximum sentence of 10 years imprisonment for theft, to be served consecutively to his current sentence, and a concurrent 10-year sentence for fraud.

On a summary judgment motion, the moving defendants argued that claims arising from alleged overpayments, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and oppression were barred by a two-year limitation period.

The court held that the plaintiffs' action, as framed, was an action to enforce a prior Court of Appeal order and that no limitation period applied to such enforcement proceedings.

Judgment was granted to permit recovery of the overpayments made by the trustee to itself and to the law firm in the amounts previously determined.

In a later amended endorsement, the court clarified the earlier ruling and accepted the responding parties' position on the identified clarification issues.