DATE: 20040503

DOCKET: C32811

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) – and – WILLIAM PETER SIMPSON (Appellant)

BEFORE: CRONK, ARMSTRONG and LANG JJ.A.

COUNSEL: William Peter Simpson the appellant in person

Marie Henein duty counsel for the appellant

David Finley for the respondent

HEARD: April 26, 2004

On appeal from the conviction entered and the sentence imposed by Justice E. R. Browne of the Superior Court of Justice, sitting without a jury, on August 13, 1999.

E N D O R S E M E N T

[1] The appellant was convicted on August 13, 1999 of one count of fraud over $5,000, contrary to s. 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, in respect of alleged welfare fraud during the period March 1991 to March 1996. He received a twelve month conditional sentence, to be served in the community. He was also ordered to make restitution in the sum of $37,588. He appeals his conviction and his sentence.

[2] The appellant pleaded guilty at trial. He was represented at trial by a lawyer retained on his behalf by his mother. The appellant argues on his conviction appeal that his plea was entered under duress, that he received ineffective legal assistance from his lawyer, and that his lawyer had a conflict of interest by reason of his retainer by the appellant’s mother. We would not give effect to these grounds of appeal, for the following reasons.

[1] First, when the appellant pleaded guilty, the facts in support of his plea were read into the record by Crown counsel. The appellant, through his lawyer, accepted those facts as substantially correct. The appellant did not object to the facts read-in, or otherwise suggest that they were inaccurate, at any point during his trial.

[2] By his admission of those facts, the appellant acknowledged that he had other sources of income while receiving general welfare benefits. He did not disclose these other sources of income when he signed and submitted numerous monthly income declarations to the welfare authorities. These declarations, the completion of which was required as a condition of the appellant’s continued receipt of welfare benefits, specifically identified veteran’s allowance and Canada Pension Plan benefits as sources of income to be reported to the welfare authorities. The appellant did not do so.

[3] Second, although the appellant submits on this appeal that he did not receive Canada Pension Plan benefits prior to 1995 or 1996, the record before this court indicates that he received, at least, veteran’s allowance benefits in the total amount of $39,297.86 during the period in question.

[4] Third, while the appellant challenges the competency of his former trial counsel and alleges that he had a conflict of interest, there is no evidence before this court that supports that assertion. In addition, his former lawyer swore an affidavit in this proceeding, which was not challenged by the appellant, in which, contrary to the appellant’s submissions, he swore that he reviewed the relevant facts with the appellant prior to the appellant entering his guilty plea, that the appellant provided proper instructions concerning the plea, and that the appellant was not pressured into entering a plea of guilty.

[5] In all these circumstances, the conviction appeal must fail.

[6] The appellant has not advanced any specific grounds of appeal in support of his sentence appeal. We note, however, that his sentence was the result of a joint submission at trial by Crown counsel and the appellant’s lawyer that was accepted by the trial judge. In our view, the trial judge did not err in accepting the joint submission and the sentence was fit.

[7] Accordingly, for the reasons given, the appeal against conviction is dismissed, leave to appeal sentence is granted and the sentence appeal is dismissed.

“E.A. Cronk J.A.”

“Robert P. Armstrong J.A.”

“S. E. Lang J.A.”