Court File and Parties

Court File No.: Brampton 15-8055 Date: 2016-11-08 Ontario Court of Justice

Between: Her Majesty the Queen

- and -

Eliza Lazaro

Before: Justice James Stribopoulos

Heard on: May 17, July 29, October 6, 2016

Reasons for Sentence Released on: November 8, 2016

Counsel:

• Ms. V. Goela for the Crown
• Mr. K. Mehar for Ms. Lazaro

STRIBOPOULOS, J.:

Introduction

[1] Eliza Lazaro immigrated to Canada from the Philippines in 1990 through the Live-In Caregiver Program. She was in her early twenties at the time. After working for three years as a live-in caregiver, she moved on to other forms of employment. Ms. Lazaro has held a variety of jobs over the years. After selling insurance and other financial products for a period, in 2008 she decided to begin offering her services as an immigration consultant; she was never licensed to do so.

[2] Ms. Lazaro's activities as an immigration consultant aptly demonstrate why those who work in that field must be carefully regulated. Despite her own experience as an immigrant whose entry into the country was facilitated through the Live-In Caregiver Program, over a five-year period she repeatedly exploited other would-be immigrants who aspired to come to Canada through that program. She lied to them, cheated them, and, in some cases, even threatened them. By doing so, not only did she harm the very vulnerable people who she promised to help, she also repeatedly subverted the integrity of Canada's immigration system.

[3] Ms. Lazaro pled guilty before me to seven counts of violating section 126 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, for her role in counselling applicants for entry to Canada to unwittingly furnish false information in support of their applications.

[4] These are my reasons for sentence in Ms. Lazaro's case.

Circumstances of the Offences

[5] The offences for which Ms. Lazaro pled guilty were committed over a span of five years. I will briefly describe the circumstances surrounding each offence; there are a number of similarities between them. In addition, to the extent that I was provided with information regarding the impact of these crimes upon the individual victims, that too will be detailed.

Merlita Lingas

[6] In the summer of 2009 Jocelyn Aycardo reached out to Ms. Lazaro for help in bringing her cousin, Merlita Lingas, to Canada from Hong Kong. Ms. Lazaro agreed to assist, ultimately receiving $2,000.00 for doing so.

[7] In time, Ms. Lazaro emailed Ms. Lingas a live-in caregiver contract that named a prospective employer who had purportedly agreed to hire Ms. Lingas once she arrived in Canada. With that contract in hand, Ms. Lingas obtained a visa to come to Canada; arriving here in December 2009.

[8] Following her arrival, Ms. Lazaro told Ms. Lingas that her employer was away on vacation. Over the coming months, Ms. Lingas' repeated efforts to contact her would be employer proved unsuccessful. She eventually found work with someone else and managed to remain in Canada. (It would appear there was never actually any job as described in the live-in caregiver contract that Ms. Lazaro had supplied to Ms. Lingas.)

[9] A year or two after arriving in Canada, Ms. Lingas received a text message from Ms. Lazaro, demanding more money and threatening to "send her back" if she did not pay. By that point, Ms. Lingas was working legally in Canada. As a result, she thankfully ignored Ms. Lazaro's threat.

Tenette Lood

[10] In the summer of 2009 a friend of Ms. Lood's contacted Ms. Lazaro on her behalf. At the time, Ms. Lood was in Saudi Arabia and wanted to come to Canada to work as a live-in caregiver. She was told that Ms. Lazaro could assist her in doing so by processing the required paperwork and finding her an employer.

[11] Initially, Ms. Lazaro received $2,500 for her services, paid by Ms. Lood's friend who was in Canada, with an expectation that another $1,000 would be paid when Ms. Lood received her visa.

[12] After receiving the initial payment, Ms. Lazaro sent Ms. Lood an email that attached a copy of a positive Labour Market Opinion (LMO) for a live-in caregiver position. The LMO noted that "William J. Gekas" would be her employer.

[13] Things turned sour when Ms. Lazaro refused to provide an original copy of the LMO. At that point, Ms. Lood's friend demanded a refund. Ms. Lazaro provided her with a post-dated cheque but it was made payable to Ms. Lood, who was in Saudi Arabia, so it was never cashed.

[14] In January 2011 Ms. Lazaro emailed Ms. Lood to advise her that the employer had cancelled the visa. She threatened Ms. Lood, telling her that she would make sure she was banned from Canada for two years. Because of this threat, Ms. Lood and her friend gave up on their efforts to obtain a refund.

[15] Investigation revealed that Mr. Gekas was someone with whom Ms. Lazaro had some past business dealings. He had never heard of Ms. Lood and was never in need of a live-in caregiver.

[16] It would appear that Ms. Lood never managed to realize her goal of immigrating to Canada.

Shirley Icatlo

[17] In the spring of 2010, Ms. Icatlo was working as a nurse in Saudi Arabia. She wanted to come to Canada. A friend of Ms. Icatlo's referred her to Ms. Lazaro, who agreed to assist her by finding her employment and arranging for an LMO. In total, Ms. Icatlo paid Ms. Lazaro $4,500 for her services.

[18] Eventually, in November 2010, Ms. Icatlo received a copy of a positive LMO by mail. The employer listed was "Bernabe Lazaro" and it was noted that he was seeking a live-in caregiver for his father. With the LMO in hand, Ms. Icatlo successfully applied for a temporary resident visa.

[19] In December 2012 Ms. Icatlo arrived in Canada. Ms. Lazaro met her at the airport and arranged accommodation for her that first night. She next stayed with a friend in Toronto. After that, she made repeated efforts to contact Ms. Lazaro because she wanted to commence her employment. In time, it became apparent to her that the live-in caregiver job detailed in the LMO was not genuine. The "employer" was Ms. Lazaro's husband, who only posed as such in order to facilitate Ms. Icatlo's application for entry to Canada.

[20] Ms. Icatlo ultimately managed to remain in Canada, despite having entered the country based on an offer of employment that was not bona fides.

Anna Yabut

[21] In the fall of 2010, a family friend referred Ms. Yabut to Ms. Lazaro, who she understood could assist her with immigrating to Canada from the Philippines as a live-in caregiver. Ms. Lazaro agreed to help and Ms. Yabut paid her $5,000 for her services.

[22] Ms. Lazaro eventually advised Ms. Yabut that she had found someone who was willing to employ her as a live-in caregiver. The employer was reportedly, "Rita Serrano Novelero". In time, Ms. Lazaro submitted an application to Service Canada on behalf of Ms. Serrano Novelero seeking to hire Ms. Yabut as her live-in caregiver. An LMO eventually issued and copies were provided to Ms. Yabut, who used it to successfully apply for a visa to come to Canada. She arrived here in March of 2014.

[23] It would appear that Ms. Serano Novelero was never in need of a live-in caregiver. She admitted to investigators that Ms. Lazaro paid her $500 to pose as a prospective employer for Ms. Yabut. Upon executing a search warrant at Ms. Lazaro's home, the authorities discovered documents containing fictitious information regarding Ms. Serano Novelero.

[24] Despite the circumstances surrounding her entry into Canada, Ms. Yabut has managed to remain in the country.

Allyn Caccam

[25] In 2011, Ms. Caccam was living in the Philippines when she contacted Ms. Lazaro for help in coming to Canada as a live-in caregiver. She ultimately paid a $5,000 fee to Ms. Lazaro for her assistance in securing a temporary resident visa.

[26] In time, Ms. Lazaro advised Ms. Caccam that someone named "Dorris Kelly" was willing to hire her to care for her elderly mother. Ms. Caccam eventually received a temporary resident visa to work for Dorris Kelly in Toronto. On arriving in Canada, when questioned by immigration authorities, Ms. Caccam acknowledged that she had never actually been in contact with Ms. Kelly. This led to her deportation.

[27] Further investigation revealed that Dorris Kelly had never applied for a live-in caregiver. During the execution of a search warrant at Ms. Lazaro's home, authorities found a number of false documents in the name of "Dorris Kelly", including tax forms, an Ontario Driver's License and an OHIP card.

[28] Ms. Caccam prepared a Victim Impact Statement, which became an exhibit on sentencing. Not surprisingly, she found the experience of being deported traumatic. On her return to the Philippines she felt embarrassed by what had happened to her, which resulted in her avoiding neighbours, friends and family.

[29] The financial impact on Ms. Caccam was also significant. Not only was she out of pocket the fees she paid to Ms. Lazaro, there were a number of other costs associated with the process, which meant that her total loss was actually $11,400. During the period that she waited on her Canadian visa she also turned down other employment opportunities.

[30] Finally, Ms. Caccam's husband resigned from his job in order to return home to the Philippines to care for their children, so that she could come to Canada, in the hope that the entire family would one day be able to join her.

[31] Unfortunately, it would seem that Ms. Caccam's deportation served to dash the family's dreams of immigrating Canada.

Mandy Marmolejo

[32] In 2012 Mr. Marmolejo was referred to Ms. Lazaro who he understood could assist him in immigrating to Canada as a live-in caregiver. He eventually paid Ms. Lazaro $4,500 for her services.

[33] In time, Ms. Lazaro sent Mr. Marmolejo an LMO, in relation to a position in the employee of "Rolando Tan" who apparently was seeking to hire him as a live-in caregiver for his elderly father. Using that LMO, Mr. Marmolejo successfully applied for a visa to immigrate to Canada.

[34] After arriving in Canada in October 2014, Mr. Marmolejo went to Rolando Tan's address to begin work. It was only then that he discovered that there was in fact no job for him. Mr. Tan was not in need of a live-in caregiver. It would appear that Ms. Lazaro had used his name without his knowledge. Investigation revealed that the various documents that she had submitted in support of the LMO, including T4 slips, tax assessments, and employment records, were all fictitious.

[35] Mr. Mamolejo was able to remain in Canada. Nevertheless, his Victim Impact Statement explains that Ms. Lazaro's actions occasioned a considerable financial and emotional toll for him.

Rowena Digo

[36] In the spring of 2014 a co-worker introduced Rowena Digo to Ms. Lazaro, who she understood could help with the immigration of her two nieces to Canada. Eventually, Ms. Digo signed a contract and provided $10,000 in payments to Ella Wordwide Services, with Ms. Lazaro being described in the documents as the "owner/manager" of this entity.

[37] The plan was apparently for Ms. Lazaro to assist with the immigration of Ms. Digo's nieces to Canada where they would work as worm pickers. The contract that was signed, however, made clear that after arriving in Canada the young women might be expected to take on work as caregivers instead. The contract therefore contemplated that immigration authorities would be misled.

[38] In the end, however, it would seem that Ms. Lazaro never actually prepared any application on behalf of Ms. Digo's nieces. In short, she took the money and never provided any services in return.

[39] Ms. Digo has already recovered the fees she paid by suing Ms. Lazaro. In her Victim Impact Statement Ms. Digo also details the emotional toll this experience had on her, referencing the stress and sleepless nights it occasioned and the dreams that Ms. Lazaro's actions served to destroy. It would appear that neither of her nieces ever managed to immigrate to Canada.

Circumstances of the Offender

[40] As noted above, Ms. Lazaro is originally from the Philippines. She immigrated to Canada as a live-in caregiver when she was 24 years of age. She married her husband when she was just sixteen; they have three adult daughters. Her eldest daughter describes her in glowing terms, characterizing her as a loving, generous and supportive parent who is the backbone of the entire family. A number of family members and friends attest to her good character more generally; they speak of her kindness and generosity as a person.

[41] Since arriving in Canada, Ms. Lazaro has held a variety of jobs. After initially working as a live-in caregiver, she eventually moved on to working in a garment factory, where she remained for a number of years and rose to the rank of a supervisor. A diagnosis of tendinitis required that she leave that position. Thereafter, she worked for a period as a Personal Support Worker. Eventually, Ms. Lazaro returned to school and received training to sell insurance and financial products. She worked in that field for approximately four years.

[42] Given the familiarity she gained with the Live-In Caregiver program through her own experience, Ms. Lazaro informally began helping both family and friends who were interested in immigrating through that program. By 2008, she decided to begin offering these services to others for remuneration. Unfortunately, Ms. Lazaro was never registered with the Immigration Consultants of Canada Regulatory Council to offer such services.

[43] Ms. Lazaro was arrested for these offences on July 7, 2015. Her arrest was widely reported in both the mainstream and Canadian Filipino media. She spent 18 days in pre-trial custody, finally obtaining her release on July 24, 2015. Since then, she has been working as a house cleaner and as a Personal Support Worker.

[44] Ms. Lazaro comes before the court with no prior criminal record; she is a first offender.

[45] Defence counsel advises that he has $20,000 in his trust account that he has received from Ms. Lazaro, which is earmarked for restitution. (The total loss still outstanding in terms of fees charged to the victims of these offences is $23,500.) During the sentencing hearing defence counsel undertook to only use these funds to make restitution to the victims as the Court might direct.

Positions of the Parties

[46] Although the parties agree that a custodial sentence is warranted by the aggravating circumstances in this case, they disagree on both the form and duration of that sentence.

[47] On behalf of the Crown, Ms. Goela argues that a sentence of 21 months imprisonment, concurrent on all counts, as well as a $50,000 fine, would be appropriate. Somewhat strangely, in my view, the Crown does not seek restitution for the individual victims. In that regard, it would appear that the Crown is principally concerned with the impact of Ms. Lazaro's offences upon the integrity of the Canadian immigration process.

[48] Defence counsel, Mr. Mehar, emphasizes the presence of a number of mitigating factors in arguing in favour of a lengthy conditional sentence in this case (i.e. the guilty plea, lack of a criminal record, and up front restitution). He submits with the right conditions, including significant restrictions on Ms. Lazaro's liberty, a conditional sentence would be consistent with the principles and objectives of sentencing, including deterrence and denunciation. Finally, he submits that allowing Ms. Lazaro to serve her sentence in the community would best serve her rehabilitation. Ultimately, defence counsel submits that a conditional sentence of just less than two years would be the appropriate sentence in this case.

Sentencing Principles and Analysis

[49] The Criminal Code provides that the "fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society" and to contribute "to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society".

[50] Those purposes are to be realized through the imposition of "just sanctions" that reflect one or more of the traditional sentencing objectives: denunciation, general and specific deterrence, separation of offenders, rehabilitation, reparation to victims, and promoting a sense of responsibility in offenders and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims and to the community.

[51] The fundamental principle of sentencing is that the sentence imposed must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. This long-established tenet of the sentencing process is now expressly contained in the Criminal Code. To satisfy this requirement a sentence must "fit" both the gravity of the crime and the offender's level of blameworthiness in its commission.

[52] In assessing the gravity of the offence, a number of considerations must be borne in mind, including: any minimum and maximum punishments mandated by Parliament; the threat the offence poses to the public and its impact on the community, both in a generic sense and in the particular circumstances presented by the case before the court; and the various considerations enumerated in section 718.2(a) of the Criminal Code.

[53] The accused pled guilty to seven counts of counselling a misrepresentation, contrary to section 126 of the Act. That offence carries no minimum penalty, but where the Crown proceeds by indictment (as it did here) the maximum punishment is five years imprisonment and/or a fine of not more than $100,000. The purpose behind section 126 is as obvious as it is important. The proper operation of Canada's immigration and refugee system depends upon the receipt of accurate information by those who are charged with the administration and enforcement of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Through her actions, Ms. Lazaro repeatedly subverted the integrity of that system, which is, as the maximum punishment prescribed by Parliament makes clear, a very serious crime.

[54] In arriving at the appropriate sentence, section 718.2(a) of the Criminal Code also instructs that the sentence to be imposed should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender. I turn to consider these next.

Aggravating Circumstances

[55] In my view, there a number of significant aggravating features in this case. First, the fact that Ms. Lazaro's unlawful activities took place over a span of five years. This was not a momentary lapse in judgment. Through her conduct, Ms. Lazaro engaged in a prolonged course of illegal activity that served to repeatedly undermine the integrity of Canada's immigration system.

[56] Second, these offences involved a fair amount of planning and a degree of sophistication. The obtaining of favourable Labour Market Opinions (LMOs) often relied on the use of false identification and other forged documents. As a result, identity theft and forgery formed part of this scheme. In other words, this was a somewhat elaborate unlawful enterprise.

[57] Third, the motivation for these crimes was clearly profit. Although I accept that Ms. Lazaro first began dabbling in this field to help friends and family, it is apparent from her various dealings with the victims in this case that her actions eventually became motivated exclusively by money. The way in which she took advantage of her "clients" and threatened some of them when they dared to complain or ask for a refund makes this patently obvious.

[58] Finally, in my view, the most significant aggravating feature in this case is that Ms. Lazaro preyed on especially vulnerable victims. Even at the best of times, immigrating to a new country can be an extremely daunting and even unnerving experience. Those who come to Canada through the Live-In Caregiver Program are an especially vulnerable group of newcomers.

[59] In this case, the people who hired Ms. Lazaro did so in the expectation that she had the knowledge and experience to help them successfully navigate the immigration process. Instead of helping the people who entrusted her, Ms. Lazaro cheated them. And, on a couple of occasions, when these vulnerable people dared to complain, Ms. Lazaro threatened them. She relied on the precarious legal status of those who she victimized, a situation for which she herself was responsible, to in turn ensure their silence and continue her unlawful activities. The Victim Impact Statements filed by at least some of the victims make clear that the consequences for those affected, in terms of the financial and emotional costs, were considerable.

Mitigating Circumstances

[60] All of that said, there are a number of mitigating considerations that I must also take into account. Firstly, Ms. Lazaro comes before the court without a prior criminal record. As a result, she is a first offender. In my view, she has also demonstrated her remorse; both by pleading guilty at a relatively early stage in the process and by assembling the funds to repay a substantial portion of the monies she charged as fees to the various victims.

Sentencing Precedents

[61] In deciding on the appropriate sentence, the Criminal Code also instructs that: "a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances". The parties placed a number of sentencing decisions before me involving offenders who violated either section 126 of the Act or the equivalent under its predecessor legislation, the Immigration Act. I will next turn to briefly reviewing the various decisions. For reasons that I will elaborate upon below, I do not think the circumstances in any of these decisions are entirely analogous to those presented by this case.

[62] In R. v. Mendez, the offender, an immigration consultant, pled guilty to a single count of counselling a contravention of what was then the Immigration Act by encouraging the making of false statements. She had counselled two different clients to create false stories of persecution to substantiate their refugee claims. She was on bail at the time of the offence, although she did not have a criminal record. The Court emphasized the need for denunciation and general deterrence, given the impact of the offence on the integrity of the immigration and refugee system. Concluding that a conditional sentence would be inconsistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing, the Court imposed a sentence of nine months imprisonment.

[63] In R. v. Lin the offender pled guilty to using a false passport to enter Canada, contrary to section 122(1)(b) of the Act. He was sentenced to eight months for that offence. He also pled guilty to five counts of violating section 126 of the Act, for counselling others to enter Canada using false passports. He was sentenced to nine months on each of those counts to be served concurrently. The Newfoundland Court of Appeal upheld these sentences on appeal.

[64] In R. v. El-Akhal, the offender pled guilty to a number of counts relating to a scheme whereby he would assist persons who were permanent residents of Canada who were seeking citizenship to create the false impression that they were residing in the country when they were not. There was a substantial loss to the Canadian Government, over $500,000, given that the scheme also involved some false claims for tax refunds. The scheme went on for over six years and involved a significant number of individuals. The accused was a first offender. Emphasizing the prolonged nature of the scheme and its sophisticated nature, the Court acceded to a joint submission for three years imprisonment.

[65] In R. v. Ajayi the offender pled guilty to two offences, including a contravention of section 126 of the Act. In short, the offender travelled across the border with a foreign national to whom she provided a Canadian passport that did not belong to that person. She then told a number of lies that were meant to mislead immigration officials regarding the true identity of the person who was using the passport. Her offences were the product of a misguided effort to help a friend. Although the Court noted that a jail sentence was necessary, it concluded that a conditional sentence was capable of addressing the objectives of denunciation and general deterrence. In the result, the Court imposed a conditional sentence of 9 months, concurrent on both counts. The offender was also required to perform 60 hours of community service.

[66] In R. v. Ren, the offender pled guilty to five counts of violating section 126 of the Act, and formally admitted the facts in relation to sixteen additional counts. Over a six-year period she ran a sophisticated scheme in which she offered services to foreign nationals who paid her substantial sums ($30,000 to $35,000) to assist them in gaining permanent resident status through marriages to Canadians that were not genuine. The accused recruited potential spouses, paid them between $7000 and $8000 to marry a Chinese national, and then assisted in all aspects of substantiating the appearance of a bona fide marriage. This included staged photographs to suggest a long courtship, an engagement party, and even an elaborate wedding party.

[67] In Ren the offender had no criminal record. She had suffered from brain cancer in the recent past and she also played an active role in caring for her elderly parents. Prior to her legal troubles she had made very substantial charitable donations to hospitals involved in her cancer treatment. In addition, prior to sentencing, she had completed over 450 hours of community service. Given the importance of public confidence in the integrity of Canada's immigration process, the Court noted that denunciation and deterrence were paramount sentencing objectives. After describing it as a "close case" and giving the matter "anxious consideration" the Court concluded that a conditional sentence of two years less one-day was appropriate. The Court emphasized that a substantial portion of that sentence would be served under house arrest.

[68] In R. v. Monteiro, the offender pled guilty to a single count of violating section 126 of the Act. This case is connected to the Ren matter. It would appear that Ms. Ren recruited Ms. Monteiro, who was only 20 years old at the time and under significant financial pressure, to act as a "bride" for one of her clients. She was paid $4,500 for performing this role. In addition, Ms. Monteiro also acknowledged recruiting a number of other young women to do the same for Ms. Ren. By the time of sentencing, the offender was 28 years old. She had no criminal record, had graduated from university, and was gainfully employed. After emphasizing a number of mitigating circumstances unique to the offender, the Court granted her a conditional discharge and placed her on probation for 18 months, one of the conditions required that she perform 100 hours of community service.

[69] In R. v. Large, the offender pled guilty to a single count of violating section 126 of the Act. She acknowledged that over a four-year period she counselled over a hundred young foreign nationals to mislead immigration officials by falsely representing that they were entering the country for holidays when they were in fact planning to work as au pairs for Canadian families. At least eleven of the potential au pairs were deported. The offender earned fees associated with this scheme, for placing the au pairs with Canadian families in need of childcare services. The offender did not have a criminal record. The Court concluded that the primary sentencing objectives that were applicable were denunciation and deterrence. A conditional sentence with sufficiently punitive conditions was considered capable of meeting those objectives. As a result, a 15-month conditional sentence was imposed, which included "full house arrest" for five months. The Court also imposed a $15,000 fine. Finally, one of the conditions required that the offender perform 100 hours of community service.

[70] In R. v. Al-Awaid, the offender pled guilty to eight counts of violating section 126 of the Act, as well as ten counts (for analogous offences) in contravention of the Citizenship Act. The offender worked as an immigration consultant. His offences stemmed from him providing a variety of illegitimate services to clients, in return for payment, which were meant to falsify their residency obligations in order to maintain their permanent residency and ultimately obtain Canadian citizenship. This included the preparation of false documents, including false letters of employment, T4 slips, the payment of bills from bank accounts, picking up mail, and filing false tax returns. It was essentially a very sophisticated scheme undertaken for profit. That said, the Court emphasized that the offender's clients paid for these services, that they were essentially in on the deceit, and that these crimes therefore did not involve "the exploitation of vulnerable clients". The offender did not have a criminal record. After emphasizing the offender's significant health issues, which created a real risk of a life-threatening medical event in prison, the Court concluded that the appropriate sentence was a conditional sentence of two years less a day concurrent for each of the section 126 offences. He was also fined $400 for each count of violating the Citizenship Act.

Analysis of Precedents and Sentencing Objectives

[71] These decisions establish that when it comes to sentencing offenders who have violated section 126 of the Act, general deterrence and denunciation are clearly paramount sentencing objectives. This is understandable. The integrity of our immigration and refugee system very much depends upon those seeking entry into Canada furnishing truthful information to the responsible authorities. Those who furnish false information, or who counsel others to do so, commit a serious crime that strikes at the very core of our immigration and refugee system.

[72] It is therefore not surprising that so many of the cases have recognized the appropriateness of a custodial sentence for those who breach section 126 of the Act. Custodial sentences are necessary to deter others from engaging in such conduct, remembering that there are an endless stream of people desperate to come to Canada and unscrupulous individuals who might be prepared to encourage deceit in this process for their own gain. The sentences imposed must send a clear message that this behaviour will be severely punished; so that those who might contemplate such activities will appreciate that it is simply not worth it. That the cost to them if caught will be severe. Custodial sentences are also necessary to denounce the actions of such offenders. A clear and unequivocal message must be sent that such conduct is simply unacceptable.

[73] That said, these same cases also provide a reminder that the sentencing objectives of denunciation and general deterrence can often be satisfied through a conditional sentence. This is in keeping with the guidance provided by the Supreme Court of Canada, which has made clear that a conditional sentence, with sufficiently onerous conditions, can undoubtedly achieve these important sentencing objectives. At the same time, the Supreme Court has also recognized that "there may be certain circumstances in which the need for denunciation is so pressing that incarceration will be the only suitable way in which to express society's condemnation of the offender's conduct." The same is true of deterrence, with the Court acknowledging that, "there may be circumstances in which the need for deterrence will warrant incarceration."

[74] The key question before me is whether, remembering the principles and objectives of sentencing, given all of the circumstances (both aggravating, and mitigating), the sentencing objectives of denunciation and general deterrence can be adequately addressed through a conditional sentence in this case. As noted, the parties are far from agreed on this question.

[75] I have given this matter very careful consideration. In the end, I have concluded that at least some of the aggravating features present in this case make it far worse than any of the sentencing decisions that were placed before me by the parties. In that regard, I am not so much concerned with the planning, sophistication, and duration of Ms. Lazaro's offences. Although a significant aggravating feature, I do note that Ms. Lazaro's crimes were not nearly as elaborate as those in Ren and Al-Awaid, cases in which the offenders received conditional sentences.

[76] More troubling, in my view, is a feature present in this case that is absent in the cases detailed above where a conditional sentence was imposed. In Ms. Lazaro's case, the very vulnerable people who entrusted her would have undoubtedly believed that they were paying her fees to obtain assistance in entering Canada lawfully. In that sense, they were victims of Ms. Lazaro's dishonesty. This is a significant aggravating feature that distinguishes this case from each of the cases detailed above where a conditional sentence was imposed.

[77] In my view, the aggravating features present in this case, in particular the exploitation of extremely vulnerable and innocent victims, whose difficult life circumstances were made even more precarious because of Ms. Lazaro's greed, makes the need for denunciation so pressing that a sentence of actual incarceration is the only suitable means by which to expresses society's condemnation. As Justice Doherty has acknowledged, "Incarceration remains the most formidable denunciatory weapon in the sentencing arsenal." In my view, nothing short of jail would be adequate to the task of denouncing Ms. Lazaro's crimes in this case.

[78] Before addressing what I consider to be the appropriate sentence, it is worth remembering a final well-established and important principle of sentencing. The Court of Appeal has repeatedly instructed that an offender's first sentence of imprisonment should be as short as possible and tailored to that individual's particular circumstances. The case law also makes clear that for such offenders rehabilitation is a critically important consideration.

Conclusion

[79] For all of these reasons, remembering the principles and objectives of sentencing, mindful of both the aggravating and mitigating feature in this case, especially the fact that these are Ms. Lazaro's first offences and the sentence imposed represents her first sentence of imprisonment, I have concluded that the appropriate sentence is twelve months imprisonment.

[80] Giving Ms. Lazaro due credit for her time spent in pre-trial detention, the total sentence going forward will be 11 months imprisonment concurrent on all counts.

[81] Following her release from custody, she will be placed on probation for a period of three years. She will subject to the statutory conditions, which include that she keep the peace and be of good behaviour; that she attend court, if and when directed to do so; and that she either advise the court or her probation officer, in advance, of any change of name, address or occupation.

[82] Ms. Lazaro will also be subject to the following additional conditions: that she report to a probation officer within two working days following her release from custody, and thereafter if and when directed to do so by her probation officer; further, that she not in any way assist or advise any person, whether for remuneration or otherwise, with respect to any matters relating to the immigration and/or refugee process; and that she not have any contact, directly or indirectly, with any of the following persons: Cecilia Bautista; Allyn Caccam; Shirley Icatlo; Merlita Lingas; Tenette Lood; Anna Katrina Ysabel Yabut; and Mandy Marmolejo.

[83] I will also make an order directing that she provide restitution in the following amounts to the following persons: Allyn Caccam ($5,000); Shirley Icatlo ($4,500); Merlita Lingas ($2,000); Tenette Lood ($2,500); Anna Katrina Ysabel Yabut ($5,000); and Mandy Marmolejo ($4,500). I appreciate that defence counsel currently has $20,000 in trust, which is $3,500 short of the amount necessary to fully compensate each of the victims. Given that essentially eight-five percent of the required funds are in place, at this point I would recommend that defence counsel arrange to pay each victim that percentage of what they are owed. Quite obviously, Ms. Lazaro will be required to pay each the balance in due course.

Released: November 8, 2016

Justice James Stribopoulos