Lia Louise 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.

The accused was sentenced following convictions for robbery, using an imitation firearm to commit robbery, and committing robbery while masked in a residential carjacking-style offence.

The court emphasized aggravating factors including the planned nature of the offence, use of imitation firearms to terrorize the victim, targeting of a vulnerable victim at her home, and the offender’s criminal record and lack of remorse.

The court also considered youth at the time of the offence and limited prior custody as mitigating factors, while prioritizing denunciation and deterrence.

The court addressed credit for pre-sentence custody including time spent detained on unrelated charges later stayed, granting limited mitigation.

A global sentence of three and a half years’ imprisonment was imposed, resulting in a further 20½ months to serve after credit.

The accused was charged with robbery, having his face masked with intent to commit robbery, and use of an imitation firearm while committing robbery.

The Crown's case relied on the testimony of an accomplice and a videotaped confession by the accused.

The accused testified that he was high on marijuana, unaware of the robbery plan, and falsely confessed due to police threats.

The court rejected the accused's testimony, found the accomplice's evidence corroborated by the confession and physical evidence, and found the accused guilty on all charges.

The accused was arrested for an armed carjacking after police intercepted the stolen vehicle.

During the arrest, an officer grounded the accused, causing a minor cut to his chin, to secure a replica handgun tucked in his waistband.

The accused subsequently gave a videotaped statement to police.

On a confessional voir dire, the defence argued the statement was involuntary due to oppressive police conduct, specifically the use of force during the arrest.

The court found the officer's use of force was reasonable and necessary given the dynamic and high-risk situation of an armed suspect.

The court concluded the accused's will was not overborne, and the statement was voluntary and admissible.