Theft

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered an application by Raymond LeBlanc, who appealed convictions for robbery, forcible confinement, theft, theft of a motor vehicle, and possession of stolen property, as well as his sentence.

The appeal was adjourned to allow the applicant to pursue an application for production under s. 683(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The court also granted a s. 684(1) order appointing counsel for the limited purpose of this application, now characterized as a motion for directions.

The court determined that, due to complex privilege and confidential informant issues, the other grounds of appeal should be determined first.

The matter was converted to a solicitor appeal, with Michael Lacy appointed as counsel.

The Associate Chief Justice will case manage the matter as necessary.

This sentencing decision addresses serious domestic violence offences committed by K.B., who pleaded guilty to multiple counts including assault, assault with choking, threatening to damage property, threatening death, and theft.

The offender has a significant prior record for domestic violence offences in Alberta, including sexual assault and assault with a weapon, and had been paroled for over five years before reoffending.

The court carefully balanced aggravating factors such as the severity and multiplicity of offences and prior record, with mitigating factors including guilty pleas, harsh pre-sentence custody conditions, remorse, and community support.

The total sentence imposed was 30 months imprisonment, with credit for 337 days pre-sentence custody and Summers credit, followed by a three-year probation order with strict conditions including no contact with the victim and mandatory counselling.

Martin James Stover, a former investment adviser, was charged with theft, fraud, and obstructing a police officer in relation to funds provided by two former clients, Harry and Cheryl Whitehead and Peter Voight.

The court found that Stover fraudulently took $150,000 from the Whiteheads and $75,000 from Voight, neither of which was returned or properly accounted for.

Stover’s explanations were found to be implausible and evasive, and his conduct toward the investigating officer was found to be obstructive.

The court convicted Stover of two counts of fraud and one count of obstructing a police officer, staying the theft charges pursuant to the Kienapple principle.

The Ontario Court of Justice sentenced T.O. following his guilty pleas to four counts of voyeurism under s. 162(1) and one count of theft under s. 334(b)(i) of the Criminal Code.

The offences involved surreptitious sexualized photography of children and adults, including nude images and the theft and sexual use of victims' underwear.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the large volume of images (over 1,000), the prolonged duration of offending over five years, abuse of trust, and the significant impact on victims and their families.

Mitigating factors included T.O.'s lack of prior record at the time of offences, guilty pleas, remorse, and engagement in treatment.

The court rejected a conditional sentence order, imposing an effective custodial sentence of almost 18 months, followed by three years’ probation with strict conditions, and a 10-year SOIRA order.

Ancillary orders included DNA sampling, forfeiture of electronic devices, and communication restrictions.

Ashley Gallie, a pharmacy technician, was sentenced for multiple criminal and drug charges, including theft over $5,000 and possession of oxycodone for the purpose of trafficking, arising from stealing large quantities of oxycodone from two pharmacies where she was employed.

The court found her guilty of possession for the purpose of trafficking for the first pharmacy (Nova) but not for the second (IDA), accepting her addiction but rejecting her claim of sole personal use for all stolen drugs.

The sentencing considered aggravating factors such as breach of trust and the large quantity of drugs, and mitigating factors including her lack of prior record, addiction, and family circumstances.

A penitentiary sentence of four years and six months was imposed for possession for the purpose of trafficking, with concurrent sentences for other charges.

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 accused, Conrad Grizzle, faced six charges including threatening, assault, theft, and breach of a release order, stemming from an altercation with his ex-partner.

The court assessed witness credibility, the applicability of "lawful excuse" for the breach, and the "de minimis" and "consent fight" defenses for the assault and theft charges.

The court found the accused not guilty of theft of a car key, one count of assault (related to taking the phone), and breach of release order (due to lawful excuse to protect a child).

However, the accused was found guilty of threatening bodily harm, assault (bear hug), and theft of the cellphone, rejecting the de minimis and consent fight defenses in the context of intimate partner violence.

The defendant, Ian Katumo, was tried on charges of sexual assault, forcible confinement, and theft.

The complainant alleged that Katumo and another individual engaged in non-consensual sexual activity, confined her, and took her cellular telephone.

DNA evidence confirmed sexual contact between the complainant, the defendant, and the other individual.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of both the complainant and the defendant.

The defendant's testimony was rejected due to inconsistencies and reliance on legally impermissible reasoning regarding consent.

The complainant's testimony, despite minor inconsistencies regarding timeline, was found to be clear, consistent, and compelling on the central issue of lack of consent and physical restraint.

The court found the defendant guilty on all counts.

The defendants brought a Rule 21 motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for theft and conversion as statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiff argued the limitation period was suspended until the conclusion of a related criminal investigation, believing a restitution order would be an appropriate remedy.

The court found that the plaintiff had actual or constructive knowledge of the material facts by July 2019.

It held that an ongoing criminal investigation or the mere prospect of a restitution order does not constitute an "appropriate means" to remedy a civil loss, nor does it suspend the limitation period, unless the civil claim is directly against the Crown or police.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim as out-of-time.

The defendant, a caregiver, was charged with theft and forgery related to an elderly veteran's finances and a vehicle purchase.

The Crown alleged a pattern of ATM withdrawals from the complainant's account matching deposits into the defendant's, and a falsified vehicle purchase agreement.

The court found the defendant guilty of theft for a specific withdrawal made on the day the complainant died, as posthumous consent was impossible.

However, the court found reasonable doubt regarding consent for prior withdrawals.

For the forgery charge, the court found the incorrect address on the vehicle contract was not a "material particular" and that the Crown failed to prove intent to induce action, leading to an acquittal on that count.

The accused, Jasgeen Singh, was charged with robbery under section 344 of the Criminal Code of Canada.

The Crown alleged that Singh stole a vehicle and used violence against a passenger, Bhawana, to overcome her resistance to the theft.

The defence challenged the identification of Singh as the perpetrator and argued that the violence occurred after the theft was complete.

The court found the identification evidence, including surveillance video and a key fob found on the accused, to be overwhelming.

It also determined that the struggle for a cell phone and the physical push of Bhawana from the vehicle constituted sufficient violence, occurring contemporaneously with the theft.

Singh was found guilty of robbery.

The appellant, Gary Austin, was convicted of fraud and theft based on circumstantial evidence, where he received over $165,000 from fraudulent cheques drafted by a general manager of a company.

Austin appealed, arguing the trial judge misapplied the principles from R. v. Villaroman regarding circumstantial evidence and provided insufficient reasons.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge, when read as a whole, correctly applied the Villaroman standard by concluding that guilt was the only reasonable inference.

The court also found the reasons sufficient for appellate review, noting that speculative inferences of innocence, contrary to human experience, do not constitute reasonable doubt.

The accused, Terrence McLaren, was tried on three counts of breaking and entering dwelling houses with intent to commit theft or committing theft.

The Crown's case was entirely circumstantial, relying on DNA evidence found at two separate crime scenes (a water bottle and a toque) that matched McLaren's profile.

The court applied the principles of circumstantial evidence, including the "solitary reasonable inference" test and the holistic assessment of DNA evidence.

The court found that the only reasonable inference from the totality of the evidence was that McLaren committed the offenses, leading to a conviction on all counts.

This decision concerns the sentencing of an Indigenous offender, Evan Buswa, who pleaded guilty to multiple charges including theft, break and enter, and breaches of court orders, primarily involving the theft of donation and tip boxes.

The court considered significant mitigating factors such as the offender's Indigenous heritage, chronic homelessness, mental health challenges (schizophrenia), and substance addiction, applying Gladue principles.

Despite the Crown seeking a one-year jail sentence, the court emphasized the disproportionate impact of incarceration on vulnerable Indigenous individuals and the systemic factors contributing to their over-representation in the criminal justice system.

The judge ultimately imposed a suspended sentence with one year of probation, highlighting that jails are not a solution for issues rooted in poverty, mental health, and addiction.

The accused, Jairo Ortiz-Picon, faced multiple charges related to his former girlfriend, Karla Moreno.

The trial involved evidence and submissions on charges including criminal harassment, unlawfully in a dwelling house, theft, possession of an identity card, harassing communications, and breach of release orders.

The court found the accused guilty on most charges, including unlawful entry, theft of a cell phone, possession of a health card, harassing communications, and breach of curfew, based on the complainant's credible testimony and corroborating evidence.

However, the criminal harassment charge was dismissed due to reasonable doubt, specifically regarding whether the complainant's fear for safety was reasonable given evidence of continued contact and social outings.

Giuseppe Agostino pleaded guilty to 10 charges across four informations, including multiple counts of break and enter, theft, fraud, mischief, and failure to comply with bail and probation orders.

He was released on bail with the understanding he would attend residential drug treatment, but failed to complete the program and committed further offences.

The Crown sought a further 6 months of jail time in addition to 69 days pre-trial custody.

The court considered aggravating factors, primarily the extensive criminal record, and mitigating factors, including the guilty plea and pre-trial custody during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The judge found that a conditional sentence was not appropriate due to public safety concerns and the accused's failure to comply with prior orders.

A further custodial period of 90 days was imposed, consecutive to any sentence being served, along with 18 months of probation with specific conditions aimed at addressing his opiate addiction and preventing further offences.

The appellant purchased a recreational trailer and left it for free storage with the respondents.

The trailer was stolen from the dealership.

The appellant sued for negligence, but the trial judge found the respondents were gratuitous bailees and met the standard of care, finding no negligence.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge erred in determining the standard of care, failing to consider foreseeability of theft, and misapprehending expert evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial judge's finding that the respondents were not negligent under any standard of care, had addressed foreseeability of theft with security measures, and did not misapprehend expert evidence regarding security improvements.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing the verdict was unreasonable as the only direct evidence was his fingerprint on a stolen Bluetooth speaker.

He contended the trial judge over-emphasized this evidence and failed to consider the speaker's portability, access by roommates, and alternative perpetrator theories.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the fingerprint evidence was bolstered by the complainant's testimony that he saw the perpetrator touch the speaker without gloves, lived alone, regularly disinfected the speaker, and that roommates had not been present for a month.

The court deemed alternative theories speculative.

The appellant, Archibald McKay, appealed his conviction for theft over $5,000, mischief to property, and possession of break-in tools.

He also appealed his sentence, which he had already served.

On conviction appeal, he argued that the trial judge erred in determining his identification and in concluding that items in his possession were break-in tools.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's findings of guilt were justified by the evidence, including extensive surveillance and the appellant’s proximity to the stolen goods.

The appellant appealed his conviction for break and enter and theft, which was based entirely on circumstantial evidence.

The Court of Appeal found that the evidence, while suspicious, was equally consistent with the appellant becoming involved with the stolen vehicle after the break-in and thefts had occurred.

The court determined that the inferences necessary to prove possession of the vehicle or participation in the initial crimes could not be reasonably drawn, and therefore, the trier of fact could not reasonably be satisfied that guilt was the only reasonable conclusion.

The appeal was allowed, and acquittals were entered.