Lia Di Giulio

Terry Croteau was sentenced after pleading guilty to fraud over $5000, making false representations in telemarketing contrary to the Competition Act, and using a forged document.

The offences stemmed from intertwined direct mail and telemarketing schemes that defrauded over 2,000 victims of approximately $1.3 million between 2012 and 2019.

The schemes involved misleading "Final Notices" and telemarketing calls designed to appear affiliated with legitimate directories like Yellow Pages, and the use of forged collection letters from "Credifax." Croteau had a prior US conviction for similar fraudulent activity.

The court accepted a joint submission for a 30-month jail sentence, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence due to the magnitude, duration, and recidivism of the offender.

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level in excess of the legal limit contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown sought to rely on breath test results obtained through an approved screening device at the roadside and an approved instrument at the police division.

The defendant challenged the admissibility of the evidence on Charter grounds, arguing the officer lacked reasonable grounds to demand the roadside breath test and that the samples were not taken as soon as practicable.

The court found the officer had reasonable grounds for the initial demand but determined the Crown failed to establish that the breath samples were taken as soon as practicable due to an unjustified twenty-minute delay at the roadside.

Without the statutory presumption of identity, the Crown could not prove the defendant's blood alcohol concentration at the time of driving, and the charge was dismissed.

The appellant appealed summary conviction findings of guilt for impaired operation, driving with excess blood alcohol, dangerous operation, and failing to remain at the scene of an accident.

The appellant argued that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence regarding the route taken by the fleeing driver compared to the police canine tracking route, and failed to properly consider discrepancies between witness descriptions and the appellant’s appearance.

The appellant further submitted that the trial judge failed to properly account for the frailties of eyewitness identification evidence.

The court held that the trial judge was aware of and considered the alleged inconsistencies and identification frailties, and that any discrepancies were not material misapprehensions affecting the verdict.

The court concluded that the trial judge’s findings were open on the evidence and disclosed no reversible error.