Mary Elizabeth Cremer

The accused was charged with impaired driving, exceeding 80 mg of alcohol, dangerous driving, and assault on police following a motor vehicle collision on New Year's Day 2012.

The accused was convicted of dangerous driving and exceeding 80 mg, but acquitted of assault on police due to reasonable doubt regarding his intent to apply force.

The court found that the accused was subjected to excessive use of force during arrest, constituting a serious breach of his Charter rights to security of the person.

However, the court declined to grant a stay of proceedings, finding the misconduct did not meet the exceptional threshold required.

Instead, the court imposed concurrent suspended sentences with probationary conditions, including alcohol counselling and driving restrictions, to balance the seriousness of the criminal conduct with the Charter breach.

The offender was sentenced after being convicted of fraud over $5,000, using a forged document, and three counts of failing to comply with recognizance conditions.

The offences arose from a 56‑day stay at a hotel during which the offender amassed over $22,000 in charges and attempted payment with a forged cheque while breaching release conditions prohibiting computer use and requiring residence at a specified address.

The offender had an extensive criminal record for similar fraud‑related offences and repeated breaches of court orders.

The court emphasized denunciation, deterrence, and protection of the public, finding numerous aggravating factors including the prolonged and planned nature of the fraud and the offender’s persistent recidivism.

Consecutive sentences were imposed totaling four years’ imprisonment consecutive to an existing sentence, along with restitution to the victim hotel.

The accused was charged with fraud over $5,000, using a forged document, and three counts of failing to comply with a recognizance after staying 56 days in a luxury hotel without paying and tendering a counterfeit cheque exceeding $20,000.

Police conducted a warrantless search of the accused’s hotel room and seized computers and documents, leading to a Charter s. 8 challenge.

The court held the accused had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the hotel room and that the search violated s. 8.

However, applying the framework in Grant, the court admitted the evidence because the police acted in good faith, the breach was not serious, and the evidence was reliable and central to the Crown’s case.

Based on circumstantial evidence, including forged corporate documents and counterfeit cheque materials found in the room, the court concluded the accused orchestrated a fraudulent scheme and knowingly used a forged cheque.

The accused was charged with fraud over $5,000 and knowingly using a forged document after depositing a series of cheques into his criminal defence lawyer’s trust account to pay a $34,000 retainer for a preliminary hearing.

Evidence showed the first cheque was forged and the remaining cheques were not backed by funds, yet the accused confirmed the deposits and represented them as genuine while the lawyer performed extensive legal work.

Surveillance footage linked the accused to the deposit of the forged cheque, and surrounding circumstances supported the inference that he knew the cheques were fraudulent and intended to delay detection until after the preliminary hearing commenced.

Applying the principles from Théroux and Zlatic on fraud and Valois on forged documents, the court found both the actus reus and mens rea of the offences proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The lawyer suffered financial deprivation after performing over 100 hours of work without payment and faced a potential bank investigation into his trust account.

The accused was convicted on both counts.