Fraud

The appellant was convicted after a 70-day trial of two counts of fraud over $5000, two counts of fraud under $5000, one count of attempting to obstruct justice, one count of forgery, and one count of causing someone to use a forged document.

She was sentenced to 14 months in jail.

The appellant appealed her convictions on multiple grounds, including claims that the trial judge erred in refusing an adjournment, that certain counts were void for vagueness, that the convictions were unreasonable, and that the burden of proof was reversed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal and upheld the convictions.

The appellant appealed a Superior Court decision dismissing his application for certiorari to quash decisions by two Justices of the Peace who refused to issue process on private informations for fraud under $5,000.

The appellant had previously commenced a civil action against the same individuals, which was dismissed and settled.

The Justices of the Peace declined to issue process on various grounds, including lack of prima facie case, expiration of limitation periods, and absence of reasonable prospect of conviction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no jurisdictional error by either Justice of the Peace and noting that the Crown would have been duty-bound to withdraw any charges issued.

A licensed pharmacist was convicted after trial of trafficking over 5,000 fentanyl patches over a two-year period, public mischief for staging a false robbery to cover up inventory discrepancies, and fraud against his insurance company.

The offender, who owned three pharmacies, ordered fentanyl from licensed suppliers and distributed the vast majority of patches illegally through false prescriptions and to a co-conspirator.

When the discrepancy was discovered by an employee, the offender staged a robbery with the co-conspirator, reported it to police, and defrauded his insurance company of over $36,000.

The court imposed a sentence of 14 years imprisonment for trafficking, with concurrent five-year sentences for public mischief and fraud.

The appellants appealed their convictions for methamphetamine production and possession, and challenged a pre-trial ruling dismissing their Charter applications.

The appellants obtained a residential property through fraud and converted it into a methamphetamine laboratory.

They were arrested during a police search warrant execution.

The application judge found the appellants lacked standing to bring a section 8 Charter claim and dismissed their section 7 claim as lacking factual foundation.

The Court of Appeal upheld these findings, concluding that the appellants' tenuous connection to the property through fraudulent means, combined with their temporary and illegal use of it, precluded any reasonable expectation of privacy.

The conviction appeals were dismissed, and leave to appeal sentence was denied.

The accused was tried on an 11-count information alleging various fraud offences.

The Crown stayed counts 6-11 at the conclusion of its case, and a directed verdict was granted on count 5, leaving counts 1-4 to proceed.

The accused filed two Charter applications challenging the validity of three production orders obtained by police to seize bank records.

The first application alleged that the first two production orders were obtained under the wrong section of the Criminal Code.

The second application alleged abuse of process, arguing that police and Crown used the accused's Charter application to discover a flaw in their case and obtain a third production order.

The court dismissed both Charter applications, finding no jurisdiction to entertain a leave to cross-examine application not grounded in a section 8 Charter violation, and finding no abuse of process where the police acted in good faith and disclosed the true purpose of the third production order.

The accused was charged with defrauding No Panic Computing over $5,000, using a forged document, obtaining merchandise by false pretence, and making a false statement in writing.

The Crown's case involved a fraudulent scheme whereby the accused, posing as a sales agent, fabricated a contract with Encana Corporation using a fictitious representative and fake email addresses.

The accused obtained over $91,000 in commissions from the victim company based on this fraudulent transaction.

The trial court found the evidence overwhelming and convicted the accused on all counts.

The appellant appealed a 15-month jail sentence imposed for two counts of making false statements contrary to the Canada Small Business Financing Act and three counts of fraud contrary to the Criminal Code.

The appellant had exploited the Canada Small Business Financing Program by using false documents to secure loans for his own business and seven other business entities, resulting in over $1 million in loans advanced and $409,000 in losses to Industry Canada.

The appellant extracted $192,000 in fees and obtained $100,000 through his own company.

The sentencing judge imposed imprisonment after finding that a conditional sentence would not sufficiently advance general deterrence and denunciation.

The Court of Appeal upheld the sentence, finding no error in principle and that the sentence was not manifestly unfit.

The appellant appealed from a motion judge's order striking his pleading and dismissing his action as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The appellant had previously brought an action in contract against the respondents claiming they had guaranteed a $30,000 short-term loan.

That action was dismissed on summary judgment and the appeal was dismissed.

One month later, the appellant brought a new action arising from the same facts but framed in tort, alleging misrepresentation, fraud, and deceit.

The respondents moved to strike the second action as an abuse of process on the basis of res judicata.

The motion judge found the tort action was based on the same facts as the dismissed contract action and that the appellant should have included all causes of action in the original pleading.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision and dismissed the appeal with costs.

The applicant, Trevor William Zachary, sought certiorari to quash a fraud charge (Count 2) on an 18-count indictment following a preliminary inquiry.

He argued the preliminary inquiry judge erred by committing him to trial without evidence of deceit, falsehood, or other fraudulent means, failing to properly test the evidence against the elements of fraud, and not considering all relevant evidence.

The Superior Court found that the preliminary inquiry judge did not commit jurisdictional error.

It determined there was sufficient evidence to establish the actus reus and mens rea of fraud under the "other fraudulent means" category, specifically that the applicant, as a City employee, used his position to book ice time for himself at reduced or zero rates, thereby depriving the City of revenue or putting its economic interests at risk.

The application for certiorari was dismissed.

The accused, Grace Go Gaurino, sought a directed verdict of acquittal on charges of fraud over $5,000 and theft over $5,000 after the close of the Crown's case.

The Crown presented evidence that Ms. Gaurino received 19 cheques, which she wrote and deposited, totaling $16,629.96 beyond her salary, while caring for a 98-year-old, pain-medicated, and forgetful employer.

Applying the test from *R. v. Arcuri*, the court found sufficient evidence upon which a reasonable jury, properly instructed, could return a guilty verdict, noting that the judge's role is not to weigh competing inferences.

The motion for a directed verdict was dismissed.

Monique Clarke, a payroll administrator, was charged with fraud over $5,000 against her employer, Acxsys Corporation.

The Crown alleged she manipulated payroll records to divert funds to terminated employees' accounts, which were then deposited into seven different bank accounts, including one jointly held by her husband, and also granted herself unauthorized excess remuneration.

The court found the ADP and banking records reliable through comparison, establishing a total fraud of over $300,000.

The defense argued lack of proven actual loss and suggested other perpetrators, but the court dismissed these arguments, finding that Clarke had the exclusive opportunity and motive to commit the fraud.

The court concluded that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Clarke committed the fraud.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the defendant's statement of defence and counterclaim, or portions thereof, without leave to amend, citing non-compliance with pleading rules and the defendant's failure to comply with two costs orders.

The court found the defence to be frivolous, vexatious, and scandalous due to a complete absence of material facts and unsupported, inflammatory allegations of fraud and misrepresentation.

The defendant also failed to provide evidence or pay previously ordered costs.

The court struck the entire statement of defence and counterclaim without leave to amend and ordered the defendant to pay costs to the plaintiff.

The defendant, a Service Ontario customer service representative, was charged with four counts of fraud-related offences, including making false documents, possessing identification with intent to commit fraud, using forged documents, and breach of trust.

It was alleged he participated in a scheme to provide false identification for obtaining genuine Ontario Driver’s Licences and Health Cards.

The Crown's case relied heavily on circumstantial evidence and the testimony of a co-accused, which the court found unreliable.

The defendant testified he was unaware of the fraudulent nature of the documents, believing he was merely helping a friend's driving students bypass wait times.

The court found the Crown failed to prove actual knowledge or wilful blindness beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to an acquittal on all counts.

The offender, Sukhraj Atwal, was convicted of forgery and fraud after trial.

She was an external bookkeeper for Star Plastics Inc. and, over an 8-week period in 2006, forged 97 cheques totaling over one million dollars, resulting in an actual loss of $645,301.16 to the company.

The court considered aggravating factors such as breach of trust, planned and deliberate conduct, and the significant financial loss, and mitigating factors including her age (54), lack of prior record, and generally positive presentence report.

The court rejected the defence's arguments for a conditional sentence based on delay and the victim's alleged "unclean hands." A penitentiary sentence was deemed necessary for general deterrence.

The plaintiff insurers alleged a conspiracy to defraud by the defendants involving false medical assessment reports and invoices for statutory accident benefits claimants.

The moving defendants sought directions on producing medical documentation containing personal health information (PHI) of non-party claimants.

The court held that the claimants' consent in the Application for Accident Benefits (OCF-1) was broad enough to permit disclosure in civil litigation.

Furthermore, section 49(1) of the Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004 (PHIPA) independently permitted the plaintiffs, as recipients, to use and disclose PHI for the action's purposes.

To address privacy concerns, the court directed that PHI be filed separately in a sealed envelope with the presiding judicial officer, not in the public court file.

Elena Modanese sued her son Sante Modanese and his common-law spouse Donna Hixson, alleging fraud, unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duty, primarily concerning misappropriated funds and mortgages on her property.

Ms. Hixson moved for summary judgment to dismiss the claims against her, denying wrongdoing and asserting no complicity in Sante's alleged fraudulent activities.

The court found no evidence that Ms. Hixson benefited from the mortgage or knowingly aided Sante's alleged misappropriations, and that any benefits she received were vastly outweighed by her mortgage and insurance payments.

The motion for summary judgment by Ms. Hixson was granted, and the action against her was dismissed.

Sean Thomas pleaded guilty to one count of fraud and seven counts of robbery, including home invasions and convenience store robberies, committed over six weeks in 2012.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the sophistication and planning of the offences, victim vulnerability, use of weapons (including a discharged shotgun), and the significant impact on victims.

Mitigating factors included his youth (18 at the time of offences), genuine remorse, family support, and efforts towards rehabilitation in custody.

The court applied principles of totality and parity, imposing a global sentence of nine years, less credit for pre-sentence custody, resulting in three years and six and a half months remaining.

Ancillary orders included a lifetime firearms prohibition, DNA order, and non-communication orders.

The Crown brought an application for forfeiture of funds in three bank accounts held by the defendant, alleging they were proceeds of crime arising from a series of financial frauds perpetrated in 2013-2014.

The defendant had pleaded guilty to eight counts of fraud and three counts of failure to comply.

The court found that the defendant had generated approximately $84,500 in proceeds of crime through various fraudulent schemes targeting insurance policy holders and their beneficiaries.

The court ordered forfeiture of the restrained funds under section 462.37 of the Criminal Code, finding that the funds constituted proceeds of crime either under the mandatory forfeiture provision or the discretionary forfeiture provision.

The accused was convicted after trial on 16 counts of fraud arising from his involvement in billing practices at his employer, Attersley Tire, which fraudulently invoiced Highland Trucking for promotional gifts totaling $17,353.00.

The court found that while the accused participated in the scheme, the fraud was orchestrated and encouraged by Attersley Tire and its management.

The accused received only indirect benefits through job retention.

Despite the seriousness of the offences, the court imposed a conditional discharge with 18 months of probation, finding that general deterrence carried less weight than the accused's personal circumstances, positive pre-sentence report, and rehabilitation prospects.

The court rejected restitution as a probation term given that the victim company showed no interest in recovery and the funds remained with Attersley Tire.

The defendant was convicted after trial on six counts of fraud for stealing approximately $5,000 from the Shelburne Branch of the Royal Canadian Legion Poppy Fund while serving as president.

The Crown sought jail time, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court imposed a one-year conditional sentence to be served in the community with strict conditions, including electronic monitoring for the first six months, house arrest restrictions, and a subsequent 12-month probation period.

The court found that while theft from a position of trust is serious and ordinarily requires incarceration, the defendant's age, health status, prior good character, and the disproportionate impact of jail warranted a conditional sentence.