ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
INFORMATION NUMBER: 998-24-47106416
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
WALINDA ARANKY
Before Justice M.K. WENDL
Heard on February 12 and April 24, 2026
Reasons for Sentence dated June 5, 2026
S. MacDougall Counsel for Crown
B. Wilson….…………………………………….……..…… ……Counsel for M. Aranky
1Elder fraud is not simply about money. It erodes trust and causes feelings of embarrassment and vulnerability. Following such incidents, seniors may withdraw from community and social programming. It can strain family relationships, particularly where well-intentioned family members become overprotective. Victims may also become reluctant to use services involving online banking, financial transactions, or purchasing, thereby limiting access to resources and diminishing their overall quality of life.
2The day-to-day lives of elders are significantly impacted after an incident of fraud. They may worry about answering the door, using the internet, or managing personal information. This heightened sense of vulnerability can make even necessary daily activities feel risky. Seniors may begin to avoid situations they perceive as unsafe, even when those situations are legitimate and supportive.
3Ultimately, in addition to financial strain, elder fraud leads to increased fear and insecurity, withdrawal from legitimate programs and community participation, deepened isolation, and reduced access to resources.1
FACTS
4Walinda Aranky pleaded guilty to fraud over $5000 in relation to V.T..
5At the time of the offence, Ms. V.T. was 71 years old. On September 5, 2024, at approximately 10:30 a.m., she received a phone call from a male claiming to be her grandson. The caller stated he was unwell and that a friend was driving him to a medical appointment when they were stopped by police. He said he had been arrested as a passenger in a vehicle under investigation for drugs.
6During the call, an individual identifying himself as Police Constable Kevin Miller spoke to Ms. V.T. and advised that she was required to pay $12,000 to secure her grandson’s release. Although she initially stated she could not afford that amount, an agreement was reached for $6,000.
7In an effort to help her grandson, Ms. V.T. attended the bank and withdrew funds, combining them with savings she had at home for a total of $6,000. She confirmed this amount with the caller. The individual identifying himself as Constable Miller arranged for a courier to attend her residence and collect the cash, assuring her that her grandson would be released upon payment. She was instructed not to tell anyone and to keep the matter confidential.
8Shortly thereafter, a female courier attended her residence and was invited inside. After a brief interaction, Ms. V.T. handed over an envelope containing $6,000 in cash, addressed to “Constable Kevin Miller,” with a fabricated case number written on it. The courier left with the envelope.
9Later that day, Ms. V.T. spoke with her son and discovered that her grandson had not been arrested and that she had been defrauded.
10Ms. V.T.’s doorbell camera captured images of the courier. Detective Constable Poirier circulated these images, and Detective Constable Ben Elliott of the Toronto Police Service identified the courier as the accused, Walinda Aranky.
VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT V.T.
11Mrs. V.T. describes the significant impact of losing $6,000. Living on a fixed income, the loss has affected her financial security and her ability to meet daily needs for herself and her husband.
12She reports feelings of shame and embarrassment, and a diminished sense of safety. She and her husband now hesitate when responding even to legitimate communications.
13Poignantly, she writes:
We worked hard throughout our lives to build modest savings so we could live out our later years with dignity and independence. This crime has shaken that independence. It has made us feel vulnerable at a stage of life when we should feel secure. This was not simply a financial offence. It has resulted in a loss of confidence, trust, and emotional security. Those losses are not easily restored.
14I point out here how Mrs. V.T.’s victim impact statement echoes the community impact statement.
ACCUSED BACKGROUND
15Ms. Aranky is 37 years old and has no prior criminal record. She was born in Honduras and moved to Canada as an infant. At age 13, she returned to Honduras to live with her grandmother due to difficulties with her mother’s new partner. She later returned to Canada after her mother separated.
16She maintains close relationships with her sister and cousin and occasionally provides them with financial support. She is employed as a national retail and product manager and is described as a hardworking and reliable employee.
17Ms. Aranky expresses remorse and acknowledges responsibility for her actions. She attributes her involvement in the offence to financial stress. She is currently engaged in counselling and is willing to continue.
18The report notes that she has strong pro-social support, though her family has expressed disappointment in her conduct.
ANALYSIS
19The Crown seeks a custodial sentence of six months, while the defence requests a conditional sentence.
20Devine J. recently provided a comprehensive summary of the sentencing principles applicable to “grandparent scams” or elder fraud in Strelby.
The primary sentencing principles in this case are denunciation and general deterrence. This offence is increasingly common and is likely to become more sophisticated with the rapid advancement of artificial intelligence. Shortly after the first phase of the sentencing hearing, a Winnipeg Free Press article described a similar scam in which a victim was defrauded using an almost identical scenario.
Statistics referenced in that article indicate a rising trend in such offences, with reported cases increasing significantly year over year. A separate case reported by CTV News involved an offender receiving a three-year sentence for a similar scheme involving multiple victims and substantial financial losses.
This crime has become notorious. Sentences must be sufficiently severe to denounce the conduct and deter others from engaging in what is, in essence, elder abuse.
Sentencing must also reflect the significant harm suffered by victims, many of whom are unable to recover their losses due to age and limited income. Victims are often left feeling embarrassed, frightened, and less secure, independent, and confident.
21I agree entirely with the comments of Devine J. Denunciation and deterrence are paramount, and the severity of the sentence must reflect the profound harm caused by elder fraud.
22That said, sentencing is an individualized process. I must consider the mitigating factors: the guilty plea, strong pro-social support, willingness to repay the money, steady employment, and good prospects for rehabilitation.
23I note that Ms. Aranky’s role in the scheme was at the lower level, acting as a courier. While this puts her at the lower end of scheme, this does not eradicate her moral blameworthiness. She knew that Ms. V.T. was elderly because she met her. The accused had to look Ms. V.T. in the eye and take the money knowing she was defrauding her. Ultimately, as the courier she could have walked away without taking the money and scheme would have fallen apart. She chose not to.
24Balancing all relevant factors, I find that, although a conditional sentence is legally available, it would not adequately serve the principles of denunciation and deterrence in this case. A conditional sentence does not address the severity of the impact of the offence on the victims nor the need to send a message to the public that the courts must protect their most vulnerable members, in this case the elderly. Fraud on the elderly is elder abuse with cascading consequences on their both physical and emotional wellbeing and security.
25I find that the least restrictive sentence I can impose considering all the circumstances is six months custody. Absent her lesser role and strong rehabilitative prospects, a significantly longer custodial sentence would have been appropriate for this conduct
Released: June 5, 2026
Signed: Justice M.K. Wendl
Appendix A