R. v. Kumar, 2026 ONCJ 33

ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

CITATION: R. v. Kumar, 2026 ONCJ 33

DATE: 2026 01 22

COURT FILE No.: Halton Info #998 24 12103700

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

— AND —

BRIAN KUMAR

Before Justice Jennifer Campitelli

Heard on July 30th 31st, September 22nd 23rd 24th 25th 26th, 29th, October 1st, 2nd, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 28th 29th, 30th, 2025

Reasons for Judgment released on January 22, 2026

N. Chiera and R. Conway counsel for the Crown

J. Kushnir counsel for the accused Brian Kumar

CAMPITELLI J.:

Introduction and Overview

1Mr. Kumar is charged with ten counts of fraud over $5000. The crown alleges, between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2018, by various mechanisms, Mr. Kumar defrauded numerous complainants, each of significant sums of money.

2Mr. Kumar adamantly denies these allegations, refuting any suggestion he engaged in any fraudulent or dishonest behaviour. Instead, Mr. Kumar maintains he entered into fully informed contractual agreements with many of the complainants, who collectively elected to pursue civil action, rather than enforcing their interests on available securities. With a view to Jamie and David Novis in particular, Mr. Kumar takes the position he compensated them in full in conjunction with a separate Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada (IIROC) investigation and settlement.

Section 11(b) Application

3Prior to Mr. Kumar’s trial commencing on July 30, 2025, he argued that his rights as protected by section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms had been violated, in that he had not been provided with a trial within a reasonable time. Mr. Kumar asked me to stay these proceedings as a result. In a decision released on June 30, 2025, I dismissed Mr. Kumar’s s. 11(b) application ultimately finding the total delay was 1633 days. However, the defence delay to be subtracted (explicitly waived and defence-caused) was 1108 days, which left the net delay at 525 days (17.3 months). Therefore, I concluded the delay did not exceed the ceiling outlined in R .v. Jordan, and I did not find it to be unreasonable on the record before me at that time.

4Mr. Kumar’s trial commenced on July 30, 2025; however, it did not conclude as anticipated on October 9, 2025. Rather, Mr. Kumar’s trial finished on October 30, 2025, just one day shy of the eighteen-month ceiling imposed by my earlier ruling. As such, Mr. Kumar argues his rights, as protected by s. 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms have been violated and again, asks me to stay these proceedings as a result.

5The parties agree that the presumptive ceiling, as calculated on this record is 547.2 days. Given I calculated the net delay at 525 days, the presumptive ceiling imposed by my June 30, 2025, ruling is October 31, 2025. Notwithstanding, Mr. Kumar’s trial finished under the presumptive ceiling, he argues the delay was unreasonable, stressing the crown did not make use of all available court time, and failed to effectively and appropriately case manage and streamline this prosecution.

6On July 30, 2025, Mr. Kumar’s trial was scheduled to commence; however, due to the unavailability of one crown witness, the entire court day was effectively lost. The crown was pressed on why it elected to give up valuable court time, with respect to a prosecution pushed up against the eighteen-month Jordan ceiling, rather than simply re-scheduling its witnesses. Given the complexity surrounding the insurance-based frauds, the crown took the position that a proper foundation was required for the court to understand this area of evidence. A great portion of that foundation coming from the witness employed by Sun Life, who was apparently out of town and thus, unavailable on July 30, 2025. On this very particular record, I agree. Having heard the insurance-based evidence attached to the counts related to Jamie and David Novis, it was not only helpful but essential that the court be provided with a proper and objective foundation. This area of evidence was complex and technical, and required background information so it could be understood. Consequently, I do not find the crown was complacent with a view to the court time that was lost on July 30, 2025. Certainly, losing a day of available court time was extremely unfortunate; however, I find the decision made by the crown was reasonable in the circumstances it found itself in.

7Moreover, July 30, 2025, was accounted for in my previous ruling. It was not characterized as defence delay and was not subtracted from the 1633 days of total delay. As such, it would be improper for me, at this juncture, to engage in any analysis, which would adjust any previous calculations.

8The defence further argues that the crown failed to effectively case manage this prosecution, electing to streamline some of the counts far too late. A decision that resulted in Mr. Kumar’s matter not coming to completion in the time allotted, making the overall delay unreasonable. Certainly, as the evidence unfolded, the crown’s case with respect to some of the alleged counts weakened. This is not uncommon, as many criminal prosecutions rely on the evidence of civilian witnesses. Evidence, that is not vigorously tested through cross-examination prior to trial. Reasonably, in its final submissions, the crown narrowed the particulars related to Mr. Allen, as a result of how the evidence ultimately unfolded. The crown also narrowed its cross examination of Mr. Kumar, and it made its final submissions first, which was out of order on this record, as October 31, 2025, caused a scheduling issue for the lead counsel. When assessed in its totality, I do not find the conduct of the crown towards either the use of available court time, or how it proceeded on this record resulted in unreasonable delay.

9As previously stated, the delay on this record does not exceed the ceiling as outlined in R .v. Jordan. I do not find it to be unreasonable. Therefore, Mr. Kumar’s rights as protected by s. 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms have not been violated and his application is dismissed.

Guiding Legal Principles

The Presumption of Innocence and the Burden of Proof

10Mr. Kumar is presumed innocent unless and until the crown has proven his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence is a cornerstone of our criminal justice system, originally embedded in our common law tradition and now guaranteed as a fundamental legal right under our constitution: R. v. Nyznik 2017 ONSC 4392, [2017] O.J. No. 4138 at para. 4. The presumption of innocence and the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, are important safeguards to ensure that no innocent person is convicted of an offence. Without these protections, there would be a serious risk of wrongful convictions, an outcome, which cannot be accepted in a free and democratic society: R. v. Nyznik at para. 5.

11The concept of proof beyond a reasonable doubt was articulated by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Lifchus. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary or frivolous doubt. It must not be based upon sympathy or prejudice. Rather, it is based on reason and common sense. It is logically derived from the evidence or absence of evidence. Even if I believe Mr. Kumar is probably or likely guilty, that is not sufficient. In those circumstances, I must give the benefit of the doubt to Mr. Kumar and find him not guilty, as the crown would have failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It would not be safe to convict: R. v. Lifchus 1997 319 (SCC), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 320 at para. 39; R. v. Nyznik at para. 6.

12On the other hand, I have reminded myself that it is virtually impossible to prove anything with absolute certainty and the crown is not required to do so. Such a standard of proof is impossibly high. Essentially, before I can find Mr. Kumar guilty, I must be sure that he has committed the offences charged: R. v. Lifchus at para. 39; R. v. Nyznik at para. 7.

The Offence of Fraud

13The prohibited act is deceit, falsehood, or some other dishonest act. The prohibited consequence is depriving another of what is or should be his, which may be merely placing another’s property at risk. With a view to the requisite mens rea, it involves the subjective awareness that one is engaging in a prohibited act (the deceit, falsehood or other dishonest act), which could cause deprivation in the sense of depriving another of property or putting that property at risk. If this is shown, the offence is made out: R .v. Theroux, 1993 134 (SCC), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 5 at para. 24 (S.C.C.).

14The fact that the accused may have hoped the deprivation would not take place, or may have felt there was nothing wrong with what he or she was doing, provides no defence. The proper focus in determining whether the mens rea of a fraud related offence has been established, is to ask whether the accused intentionally committed the prohibited acts (deceit, falsehood, or other dishonest act) knowing or desiring the consequence prescribed in the offence (deprivation, including the risk of deprivation): R. v. Theroux at para. 24.

15Recklessness as to the consequences also attracts criminal responsibility. Recklessness presupposes knowledge of the likelihood of the prohibited consequence. Recklessness is established when it is shown that the accused, with such knowledge, commits acts which may bring about these prohibited consequences, while being reckless as to whether or not they ensue: R .v. Theroux at para. 26.

16Helpfully, in R .v. Theroux, the Supreme Court of Canada outlines the requisite elements of both the actus reus, and the mens rea of fraud:

(1) The actus reus of the offence of fraud will be established by proof of:

(a) The prohibited act, be it an act of deceit, a falsehood, or some other fraudulent means; and

(b) Deprivation caused by the prohibited act, which may consist in actual loss or the placing of the victim’s pecuniary interests at risk.

(2) Correspondingly, the mens rea of fraud is established by proof of:

(a) Subjective knowledge of the prohibited act; and

(b) Subjective knowledge that the prohibited act could have as a consequence the deprivation of another (which deprivation may consist in knowledge that the victim’s pecuniary interests are put at risk): R .v. Theroux, at para 27.

Assessing the Credibility and Reliability of Witnesses

17I must consider both the credibility and the reliability of a witness’ evidence, and these concepts are different. Credibility relates to the veracity, or the truthfulness of a witness’ evidence, while reliability relates to the accuracy of the witness’s testimony including their ability to accurately observe, recall and recount the events in question. Sometimes an honest witness might be unreliable: R. v. H.C., 2009 ONCA 56, [2009] O.J. No. 214 at para. 41; R. v. McLeod, [2025] O.J. No. 3315 at para. 467.

Circumstantial Evidence

18Where proof of one or more of the elements of the offence depends exclusively or largely on circumstantial evidence, guilt can only be found if it is the only reasonable inference available from the proven facts: R .v. Villaroman, 2016 SCC 33, [2016] S.C.J. No. 33 at para. 30.

The R. v. W(D.) Framework

19Given that Mr. Kumar, the defendant, has provided evidence, the framework set out in R. v. W(D.) 1991 93 (SCC), [1991] S.C.J. No. 26 applies. Specifically, the test outlined at paragraph 28:

(1) If I believe the evidence of Mr. Kumar, obviously, I must find him not guilty;

(2) Second, even if I do not believe the testimony of Mr. Kumar, but I am left in reasonable doubt by it, I must find him not guilty;

(3) Finally, even if I am not left in doubt by the evidence of Mr. Kumar, I must ask myself whether on the basis of the evidence which I do accept, if I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt by that evidence of the guilt of Mr. Kumar.

20In turning my mind to the analysis I must engage in, I have also reviewed the article written by Paciocco J.A. entitled, “Doubt about Doubt: Coping with W.(D.) And Credibility Assessment” found at 2017 22 Canadian Criminal Law Review 31. In that article, Justice Paciocco helpfully breaks down the W.(D.) principles into five analytical points:

(1) Criminal trials cannot properly be resolved by deciding which conflicting version of events is preferred;

(2) A criminal fact-finder that believes evidence that is inconsistent with the guilt of the accused cannot convict the accused;

(3) Even if a criminal fact-finder does not entirely believe evidence inconsistent with guilt, if the fact-finder is left unsure whether that evidence is true there is a reasonable doubt and an acquittal must follow;

(4) Even where the fact-finder entirely disbelieves evidence inconsistent with guilt, the mere rejection of that evidence does not prove guilt; and

(5) Even where the fact-finder entirely disbelieves evidence inconsistent with guilt, the accused should not be convicted unless the evidence that is given credit proves the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Evidence

Jamie and David Novis: Count #1 and Count #2

21Jamie Novis testified that he started “Sivon Investments (Sivon)” with his brother David Novis in 1998. It was primary a real estate business, where the brothers initially bought properties and rented them out; however, they eventually came to develop their own rental properties. It was Mr. J. Novis’ evidence that the brothers began to have some concern, given the nature of their partnership, regarding possible financial implications in the event of their death. As a result, they pursued the purchase of life insurance strategies.¹ Jamie and David Novis met Mr. Kumar after responding to a flyer they received in the mail from “Investors Group”. Mr. J. Novis recalled that they attended a meeting where Mr. Kumar talked about life insurance and other tax saving strategies, and they proceeded to meet him at his office, where they pursued life insurance strategies further.²

22Mr. J. Novis remembered that in 2008, Mr. Kumar assisted “Sivon” with pursuing its first “10/8” life insurance contribution strategy.³ By way of brief background, the “10/8” strategy was a universal life insurance policy, which provided a permanent life insurance product with an investment component. Clients were able to capitalize on market-based earnings, by depositing an excess of insurance premium costs. Additionally, clients were able to deposit monies into the policy fund, and then immediately take those monies out and invest them in separate investment vehicles. There was a tax benefit if the loan interest was paid, which could then be used to cover premium costs. This was a very specific strategy, utilized by Jamie and David Novis; however, the “Canada Revenue Agency (CRA)” cancelled this program as of December 31, 2013.⁴

23Mr. J. Novis testified that “Sivon” contributed funds towards “10/8” life insurance policies in 2008, 2009, and 2010. They were able to draw back against those funds, and none of those transactions form part of the record before me. However, in 2011, Mr. J. Novis recalled that “Sivon” wanted to make additional contributions towards a “10/8” strategy between January and March. As such, funds approximating $700,000 were advanced to Mr. Kumar in anticipation of getting a loan back. However, it was Mr. J. Novis’ evidence that Mr. Kumar told them the “10/8” strategy was under review, which prevented them from drawing against it as they had in the past. Therefore, Mr. J. Novis recalled Mr. Kumar suggested “Sivon” utilize a “PAR” life insurance policy as an investment strategy instead.⁵ A Sun Par Accumulator (PAR) policy works differently than a universal life policy, as it has a fixed premium. However, it still has a cash value attached to it that is accessible to the client, and clients are able to borrow against “PAR” policies as well.⁶

24There was a great deal of evidence heard on this record surrounding life insurance investment strategies, the nature of policies Jamie and David Novis held with Sun Life, and the allocation of funds. However, the evidence, which is relevant to my ultimate analysis, surrounds any and all communication between Mr. Kumar and Jamie and David Novis related to the $1,486,256, which was advanced to Mr. Kumar while he remained affiliated with Sun Life between January 12, 2011, and January 19, 2012. Both Jamie and David Novis testified that the totality of the funds advanced to Mr. Kumar were to be directed to Sun Life. Those were their very clear instructions, and those instructions never changed. It's the position of Jamie and David Novis that Mr. Kumar agreed to comply with those instructions. In fact, they maintained the relevant funds were obtained at the direction of Mr. Kumar, and the specific amounts advanced were intentional, and corresponded to instructions they received from him. Simply put, it was the evidence of Jamie and David Novis that the $1,486,256 advanced to Mr. Kumar ought to have maintained Sun Life life insurance polices that ultimately lapsed without their knowledge. As such, they were deprived of the intended benefit of those funds at Sun Life.⁷

25Mr. Kumar recalled meeting Jamie and David Novis in 2007, just as they described. He also acknowledged being advanced approximately 1.4 million dollars by “Sivon Investments” while he was working with Wellington West, and remained connected with Sun Life.⁸ Mr. Kumar testified that he deposited funds with Sun Life, which were to the benefit of Sun Life policies owned by “Sivon Investments”.⁹ However, it was Mr. Kumar’s evidence that he invested the funds advanced to him by Jamie and David Novis; only forwarding the specific amounts to Sun Life, which were required to keep the life insurance policies held by “Sivon Investments” from lapsing.¹⁰ Mr. Kumar remembered receiving “lapse notices” from Sun Life in his role as “advisor” to Jamie and David Novis. But it was Mr. Kumar’s evidence that a Sun Life employee by the name of Steven Kim advised him not to be concerned about the lapse notices. That an internal Sun Life policy would address the error. This was information Mr. Kumar recalled communicating to Jamie and David Novis.¹¹

26Mr. Kumar testified about numerous financial instruments, which show, between January 13, 2011, and April 23, 2015, that he directed a total of $731,044.57 to Sun Life, to the benefit of policies owned by “Sivon Investments”. This leaves $755,211.43 outstanding with a view to the $1,486,256 initially advanced, where there is no record of these funds ever reaching Sun Life. Of note, only a total of $292,451.30 was advanced to Sun Life by Mr. Kumar between January 12, 2011, and January 19, 2012.¹² The financial instruments produced reveal a further $306,610 was advanced directly to accounts attached to Jamie and David Novis between January 9, 2015, and February 27, 2015.¹³

27Mr. Kumar testified that the funds Jamie and David Novis instructed him to invest became a part of a larger “IIROC” investigation into his conduct. It was his evidence that when he reached a settlement with “IIROC”, those funds were referenced in the “Reasons for Decision” as follows, “none of Mr. Kumar’s clients have complained about the amount of moneys which have been returned to them, which tended to corroborate the fairness and accuracy of Mr. Kumar’s repayment to the clients of their funds and the return upon those funds”. Additionally, Mr. Kumar took the position that the following also referred to funds advanced to him by Jamie and David Novis, “he has paid back to the clients all the monies that he had taken, together with a return on those monies, and accordingly, did not himself derive any personal return from those monies”.¹⁴ However, Mr. Kumar’s evidence to this end must be considered against the backdrop of his contention that Jamie and David Novis were the only clients who did not participate in the “IIROC” investigation.¹⁵ Moreover, with a view to the $1,486,256 advanced to Mr. Kumar, there is a discrepancy of $448,601.43, where there is no record of these funds either reaching Sun Life, or being returned to Jamie and David Novis. I simply do not accept this aspect of Mr. Kumar’s evidence.

28Much was made of a particular sum of money advanced to Mr. Kumar by Jamie and David Novis in February of 2011. On February 23, 2011, David Novis obtained a bank draft from “Libro Credit Union” in the amount of $557,100. The draft indicates, “to the order of: Brian Kumar. Re: Investment”¹⁶. David Novis testified that Mr. Kumar had provided Jamie with a specific amount of money that had to be directed into their Sun Life polices. Jamie told him to go to “Libro” since he was there locally.¹⁷ David Novis did not have a specific recollection of why he instructed the word “investment” be noted on the instrument.¹⁸

29Jamie Novis clarified, referencing email correspondence from Mr. Kumar received on February 22, 2011¹⁹, that the $557,000 withdrawn from “Libro”, was to be applied towards a final “10-8” installment.²⁰ When pressed while under cross-examination as to why the word investment would be located on the instrument, Jamie Novis referenced the investment component of the universal life insurance products. He was adamant that instructions relative to those funds did not change at any point. The entirely of that amount was to be deposited with Sun Life to the benefit of policies held by “Sivon Investments”.²¹

Analysis

The Evidence of Jamie and David Novis

30Jamie and David Novis provided evidence that was clear, candid and for the most part, unshaken through cross-examination. Their evidence was internally consistent and corroborated by independent email correspondence. Mr. D. Novis’ evidence surrounding his signature not being accurately reflected on his police statement was somewhat troubling.²² However, Mr. D. Novis’ police statement was taken in March of 2017, more than six years prior to him providing evidence before me. Overall, I did not find this aspect of Mr. D. Novis’ evidence adversely impacted his credibility or the reliability of his evidence. Rather, I found both Jamie and David Novis to be credible witnesses, and their evidence to be reliable.

31I accept that Jamie and David Novis advanced $1,486,256 to Mr. Kumar for the sole purposes of those funds being deposited with Sun Life, to benefit of life insurance policies held by “Sivon Investments”. I also accept that their instructions to this end, with respect to the totality of those funds, did not change. This area of their evidence is corroborated by independent email correspondence, and the timing of related financial instruments. I further accept that Mr. Kumar, acting in his role as their Sun Life advisor, provided Jamie and David Novis with direction with respect to the specific amounts required for deposit at Sun Life. This aspect of Jamie Novis’ evidence was also corroborated by independent email correspondence.

The Evidence of Brian Kumar

32Mr. Kumar provided evidence that was vague, inherently implausible and internally inconsistent. I do not find the “Reasons for Decision” related to the “IIROC” matter support his contention that Jamie and David Novis were fully compensated. In particular, given Mr. Kumar acknowledged they did not engage in the “IIROC” proceedings, and the financial instruments produced do not corroborate this aspect of Mr. Kumar’s evidence. I simply do not accept that Mr. Kumar transferred an additional $448,601.43 to Jamie and David Novis; but was not able to locate a record of any related transactions. I found this area of Mr. Kumar’s evidence to be inherently implausible. To be clear, I did not believe Mr. Kumar’s evidence relative to his interactions with Jamie and David Novis, nor was I left in doubt by it.

The Funds Not Deposited with Sun Life

33When the record is carefully reviewed, with a view to the $1,486,256 advanced to Mr. Kumar by Jamie and David Novis between January 12, 2011, and January 19, 2012, only $731,044.57 was advanced to Sun Life to the benefit of policies held by “Sivon Investments”. That leaves $755,211.43 that was never deposited with Sun Life; however, Mr. Kumar did transfer $306,610 to an account attached to Jamie and David Novis directly.

34I find as fact that the communication between Jamie and David Novis and Mr. Kumar was clear. Specifically, Mr. Kumar, acting as the Sun Life advisor to Jamie and David Novis was given clear instructions to deposit a total of $1,486,256, which he received between January 12, 2011, and January 19, 2012, with Sun Life to benefit life insurance policies held by “Sivon Investments”. Mr. Kumar failed to do so, which was an intentional and dishonest act. By failing to deposit those funds with Sun Life, Mr. Kumar placed the life insurance policies held by “Sivon Investments” at risk, and they ultimately lapsed.²³ Therefore, Jamie and David Novis were completely deprived of any benefit attached to the $755,211.43, which Mr. Kumar intentionally failed to deposit with Sun Life. Finally, I find that Mr. Kumar would have been subjectively aware that by failing to deposit the requisite funds with Sun Life, Jamie and David Novis would be deprived of their intended benefit. In this case, benefit attached to life insurance policies held by “Sivon Investments”.

The Promissory Note Personal Loan Agreement Complainants

Christopher Robinson: Count #5

35Mr. Robinson provided honest and straightforward evidence, which was corroborated by the financial instruments and agreements produced.²⁴ I found Mr. Robinson to be a credible witness, and his evidence to be reliable.

36Mr. Robinson testified that he met Mr. Kumar in 2016 through his ex-spouse, Kimberley Beattie, who participated in jury duty with Mr. Robinson’s spouse, Crystal Robinson in 2014. Mr. Robinson recalled the two couples became friends. He remembered after a year, at a point where the pair had developed a strong friendship, Mr. Kumar offered Mr. Robinson an opportunity to invest with him. It was Mr. Robinson’s evidence that Mr. Kumar invited himself and his wife out to dinner in Bronte Village. At that that meeting, Mr. Robinson recalled Mr. Kumar telling him that he graduated from Queen’s University and showing him some of the successes he had enjoyed by investing in the stock market. Mr. Robinson was impressed, thought Mr. Kumar was an expert, and felt excited about the possibility of someone else successfully investing his money.²⁵ Following this meeting, Mr. Robinson provided $9000 to Mr. Kumar on October 5, 2017.²⁶ Mr. Robinson also signed what was titled a “Promissory Note Personal Loan Agreement”, wherein “agreed investments” are listed.²⁷ Mr. Robinson remembered the contract limited the investment to certain stocks, certain companies that were not supposed to be high risk.²⁸

37Mr. Robinson testified that two weeks later, he received a $3,000 return from Mr. Kumar, which he felt confirmed his initial feeling, that Mr. Kumar was very good at investing funds.²⁹ As a result, Mr. Robinson provided Mr. Kumar with an additional $35,000 on October 17, 2017.³⁰ He signed an updated agreement, again listing the “agreed investments”.³¹

38In January of 2018, Mr. Kumar was incarcerated in connection with an action taken by the Family Responsibility Office. Mr. Robinson was asked to produce the funds required for bail, and he agreed.³² Mr. Robinson recalled that once Mr. Kumar was released from custody, he encouraged Mr. Robinson to invest $27,000 of those funds with him.³³ As a result, Mr. Kumar only returned $10,000 of the initial $37,000 advanced to Kim Beattie.³⁴

39It was Mr. Robinson’s evidence that he built a house in Bronte Village, which resulted in a significant mortgage payment. Ultimately, Mr. Robinson realized he would have to sell the house; however, in the intervening period, Mr. Kumar suggested increasing his investment to help cover some of the mortgage payment.³⁵ Therefore, on February 8, 2018, Mr. Robinson advanced an additional $20,000 to Mr. Kumar utilizing a draft made out to Kimberly Beattie.³⁶ There was a corresponding agreement, which captured all previous investments and again, listed “agreed investments” on its face.³⁷ On February 23, 2018, Mr. Robinson received $3,000 from Mr. Kumar, which he characterized as “payment for the gains.³⁸

40Mr. Robinson ultimately sold his property in Bronte Village, which resulted in him coming into some funds. Mr. Kumar suggested they put together another “deal” and showed him some different options with appealing returns.³⁹ In the end, Mr. Robinson agreed to invest an additional $149,000 with Mr. Kumar. An agreement was signed, which captured all previous investments and specifically noted “agreed investments”.⁴⁰ Mr. Robinson was clear that the identified list of investments is how he thought his money was being invested by Mr. Kumar.⁴¹ Mr. Robinson advanced $149,000 to Mr. Kumar utilizing a bank draft in the name of Kim Beattie.⁴² Mr. Robinson explained that Mr. Kumar asked him to put the funds in the name of Ms. Beattie to keep them away from ongoing divorce proceedings, which were occurring in the background.⁴³

41Mr. Robinson acknowledged receiving two payments of $15,000 back from Mr. Kumar. It was Mr. Robinson’s evidence that those payments were facilitated in May and June of 2018. However, an associated draft lists one of those transfers occurring in July of 2018.⁴⁴ Mr. Robinson recalled that on both occasions, Mr. Kumar provided $12,500 by bank draft and $2,500 in cash.⁴⁵ Therefore, only a total of $33,000, with a view to the principle advanced, was returned to Mr. Robinson by Mr. Kumar.

Sean Deline: Count # 6

42Mr. Deline provided evidence that was clear and candid. I found him to be a credible witness and his evidence to be reliable. Mr. Deline testified that he met Mr. Kumar through Chris and Crystal Robinson around 2018. Mr. Deline recalled that he met Mr. Kumar with his partner, Ms. Elik, at a local restaurant where they discussed a possible investment. It was Mr. Deline’s evidence that Mr. Kumar promised a 100% return on Mr. Deline’s investment in three months time.⁴⁶ Mr. Deline remembered Mr. Kumar told him he would invest the $25,000 he advanced to him in various stocks, which were located on the “sheet”. Mr. Deline noted both “Google” and “Apple”.⁴⁷ Of note, Mr. Deline’s evidence on this point is corroborated by a signed agreement produced, which was signed on March 26, 2018, ⁴⁸by both Mr. Deline and Mr. Kumar. Mr. Deline was pressed through cross-examination on another agreement, which he stated was signed on June 26, 2018; however, it was backdated.⁴⁹ Notwithstanding, the second agreement does not list the “agreed investments” in a manner consistent with the first agreement, I accept Mr. Deline’s evidence that he believed the terms of the first agreement were still in force.⁵⁰ It is entirely implausible to believe that Mr. Deline would suddenly decide to “loan” Mr. Kumar funds initially targeted for investment.

43Similar to Mr. Robinson, Mr. Deline testified that Mr. Kumar told him the funds needed to be advanced to Kim Beattie, as he was engaged in ongoing divorce proceedings, and he wished to insulate them.⁵¹

44Mr. Deline did not receive any return on funds advanced to Mr. Kumar.

Kristin Elik: Count #8

45Ms. Elik provided perhaps the most truthful and candid evidence on this record. She very honestly admitted hat she found the entire agreement proposed by Mr. Kumar at the dinner she attended with Mr. Deline to be “shady”. She recalled that it struck her as “odd”. Essentially, if what Mr. Kumar suggested was an “above-board” kind of thing, then “everybody in the world would be doing something like this”. However, she chose to ignore her intuition.⁵²

46Ms. Elik testified that she was influenced by Mr. Deline’s acceptance of Mr. Kumar’s proposal; but the pair made independent decisions.⁵³ Ultimately, it was Ms. Elik’s evidence that she provided $13,000 to Mr. Kumar for him to invest in the stock market and “work his magic”. It is Ms. Elik’s position that she was of the understanding Mr. Kumar was going to double her money, and she trusted that was happening.⁵⁴ There was an agreement signed by both parties on March 28, 2018, in relation to these funds, where “agreed investments” are outlined.⁵⁵

47Ms. Elik did not receive any return on funds advanced to Mr. Kumar.

Sandra Arnott: Count #10

48Ms. Arnot provided her evidence in a straightforward and truthful manner. I found Ms. Arnott to be a credible witness and her evidence to be reliable. Ms. Arnott testified that she met with Mr. Kumar at his home in 2018 to discuss an investment. She recalled being in the company of her sister, Lori Clinton, who had recommended Mr. Kumar to her. It was Ms. Arnott’s evidence that Ms. Beattie was at the meeting as well; however, she simply served them coffee and went downstairs. Ms. Arnott remembered Mr. Kumar showing her graphs, explaining the timing of investments, and telling her he had made other people a lot of money. Similar to the other complainants, Ms. Arnott recalled Mr. Kumar telling her he would double her money, which is consistent with the written agreement signed on November 2, 2018.⁵⁶ As a result of their discussion, Ms. Arnott felt comfortable⁵⁷, and agreed to invest $20,000 with Mr. Kumar on November 2, 2018, and a further $20,000 on November 22, 2018.⁵⁸ All funds were advanced to Ms. Beattie, as Mr. Kumar told Ms. Arnott that he had to keep the funds away from his first wife, who was trying to take his money.⁵⁹

49Ms. Arnott testified that she did not hear anything from Mr. Kumar until December, where he asked to meet with her and Ms. Clinton at a Kelsey’s in Hamilton. It was Ms. Arnott’s Evidence that Mr. Kumar encouraged her to invest more money to cover “fees” connected with the investments. After much thought, Ms. Arnott agreed to invest an additional $15,000 with Mr. Kumar, which was advanced in Ms. Beattie’s name on December 31, 2018.⁶⁰

50Ms. Arnott reached out to Mr. Kumar when investments became due; however, she did not receive any response.⁶¹ Ms. Arnott did not receive any return on funds advanced to Mr. Kumar.

Lori Clinton: Count #7

51Ms. Clinton tried her very best to be forthright when providing her evidence. However, it became evident that the passage of time had significantly impacted her memory. Therefore, notwithstanding I find Ms. Clinton was a credible witness, I do not find her evidence to be reliable.

52Ms. Clinton testified that she attended Mr. Kumar’s home with her sister Kathy in March of 2018. She recalled Mr. Kumar showed her investments and told her he could do some “quick trading”.⁶² Ms. Clinton decided to invest $10,000 with Mr. Kumar, which was advanced in the name of Kimberley Beattie on March 3, 2018.⁶³

53Ms. Clinton recalled she received a “bonus” when her sister, Ms. Arnott, invested funds with Mr. Kumar. But she was not able to recall the exact amount. It was a couple of thousand dollars.⁶⁴ Significantly, Ms. Clinton was pressed while under cross examination about a civil action she pursued against Mr. Kumar. An endorsement was produced from the Superior Court of Justice in Hamilton, wherein it became clear that Ms. Clinton had settled her civil action with Mr. Kumar, on consent. There was a documented judgment against Mr. Kumar in the amount of $1,500.⁶⁵ It was Ms. Clinton’s evidence that she had never seen the judgment, which I simply do not accept. Moreover, Ms. Clinton was shown a related statement of defence, wherein Mr. Kumar contends that he had remitted a total of $8,500 to Ms. Clinton between November 2, 2018, and January 7, 2019. Again, Ms. Clinton took the position that she had never seen the statement of defence filed, and that she did not receive those funds back from Mr. Kumar. Given the agreed settlement was $8,500 and the initial amount invested with Mr. Kumar was $10,000; again, I simply do not accept this area of Ms. Clinton’s evidence. Speaking frankly, I find her evidence to be completely unreliable, and it would be unsafe to convict relying on evidence such as this.

Mr. Kumar

54Mr. Kumar provided evidence related to the “Promissory Note Personal Loan Agreement Complainants” that was extremely vague, implausible and troubling. I did not believe Mr. Kumar’s evidence relative to these counts, nor was I left in doubt by it.

55Mr. Kumar’s evidence surrounding how and where he met this group of complainants was entirely consistent with what they presented. The terms of the documented written agreements, and the amount of funds transferred are also not disputed on this record. However, when Mr. Kumar was pressed while under cross-examination about what his understanding of his obligations were relative to agreements reached with Mr. Deline and Ms. Elik, Mr. Kumar referenced the default clause included in both related agreements. Significantly, Mr. Kumar did not make any reference to an obligation on his part to invest funds.⁶⁶

56Even more troubling, when Mr. Kumar was asked about the funds deposited into Ms. Beattie’s account, he became extremely evasive. Mr. Kumar distanced himself from those funds. First, he denied trading utilizing Ms. Beattie’s account; then, Mr. Kumar suggested Ms. Beattie was engaging in trades herself on that account. Most troubling, when it was suggested to Mr. Kumar very clearly that Mr. Robinson had lent him funds to trade, and not Ms. Beattie, Mr. Kumar asked to see the “actual agreement again”.⁶⁷ In fact, following a series of very evasive responses, it was Mr. Kumar’s evidence that Mr. Robinson knew that either himself or Ms. Beattie could be engaging in trades with his money.⁶⁸ When asked whether the other complainants would have had a similar understanding, Mr. Kumar acknowledged they would have understood that he would be involved in any investment process discussed. However, he further explained “one of the things may have been Ms. Beattie or myself doing a transaction at a certain date and then taking it off several weeks later”.⁶⁹ Given Ms. Beattie was a personal trainer, with no admitted experience investing money⁷⁰, I find this area of Mr. Kumar’s evidence to be completely unbelievable. It is nonsensical to think that any of the complainants would have entrusted Ms. Beattie with investing the funds advanced to her. Mr. Kumar was the individual with the background in finance. A background, which he very articulately outlined for me on this record. I do not believe for a moment that any one of the complainants who entered into these agreements were told, or personally thought that Ms. Beattie would be responsible for investing their money, on any level. I accept that they all advanced the relevant funds to Ms. Beattie, where applicable, as Mr. Kumar told them he was trying to insulate the funds from litigious family law proceedings. That evidence was consistent amongst all complainants.

Kimberley Beattie

57Ms. Beattie was not an impressive witness. She testified to experiencing self-described memory “blackouts”⁷¹, and having a foggy memory such that she could not remember the day she married Mr. Kumar.⁷² Incredibly, it was Ms. Beattie’s evidence that she does not really know how to turn on a computer, in 2025.⁷³ I do not accept any of this. I also do not accept Ms. Beattie’s contention that she has no clear memory of depositing the funds advanced to her by the complainants. Deposits, which include very significant sums of money such as Mr. Robinson’s bank draft for $149,000.⁷⁴ There is no doubt in my mind that Ms. Beattie remembers depositing all of the related drafts, and her evidence to the contrary is a clear attempt to distance herself from those funds.

58Ms. Beattie was pressed while under cross-examination about her access to those funds. Moreover, it was suggested to her that, given she was residing with Mr. Kumar at the relevant time, Ms. Beattie was benefiting off of a lifestyle financed by the complainants. Ms. Beattie, notwithstanding she has no memory of depositing the relevant funds, was quick to indicate that Mr. Kumar immediately transferred the funds into his account to invest. She then stated, “it’s not like we were living off of it”.⁷⁵ I find the opposite to be true.

59Significantly, in 2018, Ms. Beattie was able to access Mr. Kumar’s interactive broker’s account. She was aware of the security questions and confirmed that she withdrew $4000 from that account.⁷⁶

Analysis

60I find as fact that all the complainants, who entered “Promissory Note Personal Loan Agreements” with Mr. Kumar, did so with an understanding that Mr. Kumar was personally going to be investing their money. Frequently, in very specific stock options. I accept that Mr. Kumar promised the complainants significant returns, and all funds were advanced pursuant to an agreement requiring Mr. Kumar to personally direct the related investments. Specific stocks were frequently listed, and that is the premise that grounded these agreements. I note, the complainants I reference in this aspect of my analysis does not include Ms. Clinton, who I find provided evidence that was wholly unreliable. I also find, for reasons I will articulate below, that Mr. Robinson’s final advancement of $50,000 to Mr. Kumar in June of 2018 is not captured.

61Carrying my analysis forward, I find that Mr. Kumar intentionally failed to invest the funds previously referenced, which was dishonest and not in the spirit of the agreements he fostered. I appreciate the crown’s case with respect to this element is entirely circumstantial. I do not have the requisite financial records, which would allow me to track the funds following their deposit into either Mr. Kumar or Ms. Beattie’s account. Notwithstanding, I have determined that the only reasonable inference available on this record is that Mr. Kumar did not invest the funds as promised. I have come to that conclusion for the following reasons:

(1) None of the complainants were provided with the returns promised. In fact, many of the complainants were not provided with any return on the funds advanced to Mr. Kumar;

(2) I do not accept that Mr. Kumar and Ms. Beattie were not living off funds advanced by the complainants. In fact, I find the opposite to be true. Ms. Beattie’s income was very minimal at the relevant time, and Mr. Kumar had overwhelming financial obligations. In particular, financial obligations with the Family Responsibility Office, which resulted in his incarceration. The evidence called on this record reveals Mr. Kumar and Ms. Beattie could only be financing the extravagant lifestyle described by multiple witnesses utilizing funds being advanced by the complainants. Funds, which the financial instruments reveal were deposited into accounts held by Ms. Beattie; therefore, initially co-mingled; and

(3) Both Mr. Kumar and Ms. Beattie intentionally distanced themselves from the funds advanced by the complainants. I found their evidence to this end to be very telling, supporting the inference that the funds were not being allocated as Mr. Kumar promised.

62Consequently, I find that Mr. Kumar intentionally failed to invest the funds advanced to him by the complainants, an act he would have been subjectively aware would put their pecuniary interests at risk. Ultimately, co-mingling the relevant funds in personal accounts held by himself and Ms. Beattie, rather than investing them as promised. This act resulted in the complainants being deprived of their respective interests in those assets.

The Loans

Christopher Robinson

63Mr. Robinson testified that in June of 2018, Mr. Kumar represented to him that the Ontario Securities Commission had frozen his accounts, and he was very anxious because he couldn’t trade. It was Mr. Robinson’s evidence that Mr. Kumar told him he could not pay his bills and asked him to loan him $50,000. Mr. Robinson recalled that Mr. Kumar was his best friend, he could see that things were not going well, so he agreed to loan Mr. Kumar those funds. Mr. Robinson was not able to produce a corresponding financial instrument, and the associated agreement is distinguishable from previous agreements, as it does not indicate “agreed investments”.⁷⁷

Terrance Allen: Count #3

64Mr. Allen tried his best to provide detailed and truthful evidence; however, it was clear the passage of time had impacted his memory. I found Mr. Allen to be a credible witness; however, I did not find his evidence to be reliable. Ultimately, I have been asked to consider a $25,000 personal loan that was advanced to Mr. Kumar in February of 2016. The pair had developed a friendship and Mr. Kumar told Mr. Allen that he needed money because of “cash flow” issues. Mr. Kumar provided Mr. Allen with post dated cheques; however, Mr. Allen was never able to cash those cheques. Instead, Mr. Allen placed some pressure on Mr. Kumar in the summer months of 2016, wherein Mr. Kumar returned $5,000 to him.⁷⁸

Robin Kumar: Count #4

65Robin Kumar is Mr. Kumar’s brother and provided honest, and very difficult evidence on this record. Robin Kumar was a credible witness and his evidence was reliable. Mr. Kumar testified that he loaned his brother three separate amounts of money. $25,000 in January of 2016, $10,000 in July of 2016 and a final $10,000 in January of 2017. All loans were premised on Mr. Kumar requiring money for legal fees, so he could engage in ongoing custody proceedings. Mr. Kumar framed the nature of his request with a sense of urgency; essentially, he needed the funds, or he would lose custody of his children. Robin Kumar felt an emotional connection, both to his brother, and to his niece and nephew, so he agreed to advance his brother the requested funds.⁷⁹

Maxime Careau: Count #9

66Mr. Careau provided honest and detailed evidence. I found Mr. Careau to be a credible witness and his evidence to be reliable. He testified that in October of 2018, Mr. Kumar approached him about a $5,000 loan. At the time, Mr. Careau’s grandmother had passed, so he had some extra money. Mr. Careau recalled that he was concerned, as he had previously lent Mr. Kumar $5,000, which had not been returned. Mr. Kumar expressed that he required the funds to cover his living expenses at the time, that he was feeling the “financial pinch”. Mr. Kumar offered to throw in some extra money; however, Mr. Careau agreed to lend Mr. Kumar the funds, only asking for the principal to be returned. It was Mr. Careau’s evidence that the pair were friends, and he understood that Mr. Kumar was in a tight spot. When Mr. Careau was asked whether he thought Mr. Kumar would be in a position to pay him back, Mr. Careau candidly replied that he had become concerned as “Ford Credit” had notified him about some missed payments, there were “some cracks in the armour”” and he had a feeling that “this might not come together”.⁸⁰

Analysis

67I can dispose of the counts related to personal loans provided to Mr. Kumar by friends and family members very quickly. First, I want to make it very clear that I find the complainants involved provided evidence that was truthful, and forthright. However, these transactions simply do not satisfy the requisite elements of fraud. These were personal loans requested of friends and family wherein Mr. Kumar indicated to them he was in financial need. There was an emotional component present, which motivated these complainants to lend Mr. Kumar funds. Unfortunately, many of those funds were not returned; however, that reality standing alone does not make the related transactions fraudulent.

Conclusion

68In the result, I find Mr. Kumar guilty with respect to the following counts:

(1) Count #1 and Count #2 related to Jamie and David Novis. The amount of the fraud being $755,211.43 relative to both, which I found was intentionally not deposited with Sun Life to benefit life insurance policies held by “Sivon Investments”, which was agreed between the parties. However, I would note that Mr. Kumar independently deposited $306,610 into an account attached to Jamie and David Novis;

(2) Count #5 related to Christopher Robinson. The amount of the fraud being $240,000, which I found was intentionally not invested by Mr. Kumar as agreed between the parties. However, I would note that Mr. Kumar did advance a total of $33,000 to Mr. Robinson personally through three separate transactions;

(3) Count #6 related to Sean Deline. The amount of the fraud being $25,000, which I found was intentionally not invested by Mr. Kumar as agreed between the parties;

(4) Count #8 related to Kristin Elik. The amount of the fraud being $13,000, which I found was intentionally not invested by Mr. Kumar as agreed between the parties; and

(5) Count #10 related to Sandra Arnott. The amount of the fraud being $55,000, which I found was intentionally not invested by Mr. Kumar as agreed between the parties.

69I find Mr. Kumar not guilty with respect to the following counts:

(1) Count #3 related to Terrance Allen;

(2) Count #4 related to Robin Kumar;

(3) Count #7 related to Lori Clinton; and

(4) Count #9 related to Maxime Careau.

Footnotes

1. 1Transcript of Proceedings: September 22, 2025, Page 87, Lines 21-33; Page 88, Lines 19-30; Page 89, Lines 1-3.
2. 2Transcript of Proceedings: September 22, 2025, Page 89, Lines 20-27.
3. 3Transcript of Proceedings: September 22, 2025, Page 94, Lines 13-18.
4. 4Evidence of Heather Heij, Sun Life. Transcript of Proceedings: July 31, 2025, Page 37, Lines 17-24; Page 50, Lines 24-32; Page 51, Lines 1-8.
5. 5Transcript of Proceedings: September 22, 2025, Page 99, Line 12-26.
6. 6Evidence of Heather Heij, Sun Life. Transcript of Proceedings, July 31, 2025, Lines 21-28.
7. 7Evidence of Jamie Novis. Transcript of Proceedings: September 22, 2025, Pages 97-102, 122; Evidence of David Novis. Transcript of Proceedings: September 25, 2025, Page 43 and September 26, 2025, Page 31.
8. 8Transcript of Proceedings: October 9, 2025, Page 59, Line 6.
9. 9Transcript of Proceedings: October 9, 2025, Page 64, Lines 6-10.
10. 10Transcript of Proceedings: October 9, 2025, Page 110-111.
11. 11Transcript of Proceedings: October 9, 2025, Page 102, Lines 4-11.
12. 12Defence Exhibit #7.
13. 13Defence Exhibit #7.
14. 14“Reasons for Decision” released on September 28, 2025, Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada Panel. 2015 IIROC 33. Paragraphs 9 and 18(c)(iv). Agreed Statement of Fact, Exhibit #16.
15. 15Transcript of Proceedings: October 9, 2025, Page 142, Lines 19-24.
16. 16Exhibit #9, Page 3.
17. 17Transcript of Proceedings: September 25, 2025, Page 43, Lines 23-28.
18. 18Transcript of Proceedings: September 26, 2025, Page 141, Lines 28-32.
19. 19Exhibit #10, Tab 2.
20. 20Transcript of Proceedings: September 23, 2025, Page 35, Lines 6-14.
21. 21Transcript of Proceedings: September 24, 2025, Page 150, Lines 3-7.
22. 22Transcript of Proceedings: September 26, 2025, Page 41.
23. 23Confirmed in email from Heather Heij dated November 24, 2016. Exhibit #6, Tab A.
24. 24Exhibit #17
25. 25Transcript of Proceedings: September 26, 2025, Page 147, Lines 3-21, 29-32; Page 148, Lines 3-6, 13, 20-23.
26. 26Exhibit #17, Tab 2.
27. 27Exhibit #17, Tab 1.
28. 28Transcript of Proceedings: September 29, 2025, Page 8, Lines 25-30.
29. 29Transcript of Proceedings: September 26, 2025, Page 148, Lines 24-28.
30. 30Exhibit #17, Tab 5.
31. 31Exhibit #17, Tab 4.
32. 32Exhibit #17, Tab 6.
33. 33Transcript of Proceedings: September 26, 2025, Page 149, Lines 5-10.
34. 34Exhibit #17, Tab7.
35. 35Transcript of Proceedings: September 26, 2025, Page 149, Lines 14-19.
36. 36Exhibit 17, Tab 10.
37. 37Exhibit 17, Tab 9.
38. 38Exhibit 17, Tab 11. Transcript of Proceedings: September 29, 2025, Page 61, Line 3.
39. 39Transcript of Proceedings: September 26, 2025, Page 149, Lines 26-28.
40. 40Exhibit 17, Tab 13.
41. 41Transcript of Proceedings: September 29, 2025, Page 85, Lines 16-17.
42. 42Exhibit 17, Tab 14.
43. 43Transcript of Proceedings: September 29, 2025, Page 70, Lines 18-20.
44. 44Exhibit #17, Tabs 15, 18.
45. 45Transcript of Proceedings: September 29, 2024, Page 83, Line 2.
46. 46Transcript of Proceedings: October 1, 2025, Page 122, Lines 10-13.
47. 47Transcript of Proceedings: October 1, 2025, Page 124, Lines 15-19.
48. 48Exhibit #22
49. 49Exhibit #24
50. 50Transcript of Proceedings: October 2, 2025, Page 47, Lines 7-8.
51. 51Transcript of Proceedings: October 2, 2025, Page 7, Lines 6-10.
52. 52Transcript of Proceedings: October 2, 2025, Page 75, Lines 22-30.
53. 53Transcript of Proceedings: October 2, 2025, Page 106, Lines 9-12.
54. 54Transcript of Proceedings: October 2, 2025, Page 88, Lines 8-13.
55. 55Exhibit #25.
56. 56Exhibit #29
57. 57Transcript of Proceedings: October 6, 2025, Page 66, Line 20.
58. 58Exhibit #29
59. 59Transcript of Proceedings: October 6, 2025, Page 64, Lines 3-9; Page 65, Lines 8-9, 20-22; Page 70, Line 4-7.
60. 60Exhibit #29.
61. 61Transcript of Proceedings: October 6, 2025, Page 101, Line 19.
62. 62Transcript of Proceedings: October 6, 2025, Page 141, Line 20; Page 144, Line 16.
63. 63Exhibit #31.
64. 64Transcript of Proceedings: October 6, 2025, Page 185, Lines 28-29.
65. 65Exhibit #33
66. 66Transcript of Proceedings: October 28, 2025, Page 70, Lines 1-3; Page 73, Lines 30-33; Page 74, Lines 1-3.
67. 67Transcript of Proceedings: October 28, 2025, Page 133, Lines 8-28.
68. 68Transcript of Proceedings: October 28, 2025, Page 135, Line 16.
69. 69Transcript of Proceedings: October 28, 2025, Page 139, Lines 17-27.
70. 70Transcript of Proceedings: October 7, 2025, Page 121, Line 15.
71. 71Transcript of Proceedings: October 7, 2025, Page 169, Line 30.
72. 72Transcript of Proceedings: October 8, 2025, Page 8, Line 11-21.
73. 73Transcript of Proceedings: October 7, 2025, Page 140, Lines 6-12.
74. 74Transcript of Proceedings: October 8, 2025, Page 17, Line 23.
75. 75Transcript of Proceedings: October 8, 2025, Page 155, Lines 3-32.
76. 76Transcript of Proceedings: October 8, 2025, Page 159, Lines 1-13.
77. 77Exhibit #17, Tab 17.
78. 78Transcript of Proceedings: October 7, 2025, Page 22, Lines 7-13; Page 32, Line 10.
79. 79Transcript of Proceedings: October 2, 2025, Page 127, Lines 1-9, Lines 8-13.
80. 80Transcript of Proceedings: October 1, 2025, Page 24, Lines 29-32; Page 25, Lines 1-5, 18-23; Page 27, Lines,16-24.