ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
DATE: 2026 02 18
COURT FILE No.: Toronto Region
4810 998 25 48103584
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
David LUU
Before Justice C. Faria
Heard on October 1, 2025, January 22, 2026
Reasons for Sentence released on February 18, 2026
Anita Singh, Carime Boehr.............................................................. counsel for the Crown
Peter Zaduk................................................................. counsel for the accused David LUU
Faria J.:
[ 1 ] On October 1, 2025, David Luu pled guilty to defrauding the company he was working for between May and October 2022 contrary to s.380(1) (a) of the Criminal Code . The Crown proceeded by Indictment. A Pre-Sentence Report (PSR) was ordered, and submissions were heard on January 22, 2026. These are my reasons for sentence.
Facts
[ 2 ] Mr. Luu was hired as an accountant with Breakthrough Entertainment in March 2022. This is the parent company of Christmas Hill Productions and Sunshine One Productions.
[ 3 ] Initially, he had limited access to the company accounts, but by July 2022, Mr. Luu had full online access to the corporate and production bank accounts in anticipation of the existing accountant leaving the company at the end of the month.
[ 4 ] Although the company required two signatures on all company cheques, it was common for cheques to be "pre-signed" by one signatory and the second signature added when required.
[ 5 ] After Mr. Luu took over as the only accountant, additional pre-signed cheques were provided to him in anticipation of an office move and remote work.
[ 6 ] Between May 6, 2022, and October 25, 2022, Mr. Luu issued a total of 21 fraudulent cheques from the company accounts.
[ 7 ] Mr. Luu issued himself 15 pay cheques above and beyond his regular pay cheques. Each of these 15 additional pay cheques were about $2000 and totaled just over $34,000.00.
[ 8 ] In that same period, 6 additional pay cheques were written to Jessica Nguyen, also in the $2000.00 range, and these totaled just over $16,000.00.
[ 9 ] Mr. Luu defrauded the company $50,308.98.
David Luu
[ 10 ] Pursuant to his PSR [^1] , Mr. Luu is a 35-year-old born, and raised in Toronto by immigrant parents from Vietnam. He is an only child and had a stable and supportive upbringing. He has lived with his parents until recently when he moved in with his fiancé who is expecting their first child. Mr. Luu continues to provide elder care numerous times a week including doing groceries, attending medical appointments, and providing translation for their needs.
[ 11 ] Mr. Luu graduated from high school and completed some post-secondary education. He worked in a grocery store for some time, learned bookkeeping and has done that for several companies including for the company he currently defrauded. Mr. Luu is currently working full-time for a sales and distribution company and was promoted from customer service representative to sales support specialist. [^2]
[ 12 ] His pro-social background is marred by addiction. Mr. Luu’s substance abuse began with cannabis during his teenage years and escalated to cocaine and crystal meth during his first full-time employment as a bookkeeper. He used these substances as stimulants to deal with the volume of work, the face-paced nature of the work and the pressure of the job. He then became addicted.
[ 13 ] His criminal convictions, which will be referred to shortly, are related to his addictions and his work for those bookkeeping companies. [^3]
[ 14 ] Mr. Luu first started substance abuse counselling in January 2022 at CAMH and then St. Michael’s Hospital. He was unsuccessful until just before the start of his federal sentence in February 2023. Programming with SMART Recovery while serving his sentence and during parole in 2024 led to success. [^4]
[ 15 ] Mr. Luu continues with the SMART program. He completed the Facilitator Training in June 2025 and now provides counselling for those with addictions in both a group setting and one-on-one weekly. Mr. Luu provided verification of this role.
Legal Principles
[ 16 ] Every sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence, and the blameworthiness of the offender.
[ 17 ] The sanction I impose should have one or more to the following objectives:
- to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences
- to separate offenders from society, where necessary
- to assist in rehabilitating offenders
- to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community
- to denounce unlawful conduct
- to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims and to the community.
[ 18 ] The principles of rehabilitation and parity must be considered, as must all aggravating and mitigating factors.
Positions of the Parties
[ 19 ] Ms. Singh for the Crown recommends 12 months in jail and a period of probation. She emphasizes denunciation and deterrence and relies on the timeline of the fraud as an aggravating feature that necessitates incarceration to reflect Mr. Luu’s blameworthiness. She provided caselaw in support of her position. [^5]
[ 20 ] Mr. Zaduk for Mr. Luu recommends a period of probation, and no jail. In the alternative he recommends a 6-month Conditional Sentence. Mr. Zaduk too relies on the same timeline of the fraud and a previous guilty plea for his position.
Analysis
[ 21 ] R. v. Williams , [2007] O.J. 1604 provides a helpful list of factors to consider breach of trust fraud cases. With that guidance, I note the following aggravating factors:
i. This is a significant breach of trust. Mr. Luu was the only accountant for the small production company and was trusted with pre-signed cheques that he used to defraud the company.
ii. Mr. Luu knew the company’s accounting system, and was sophisticated enough to cash relatively small cheques frequently so as to avoid detection.
iii. Greed was one, though not the only, motivation for the fraud.
iv. There were numerous transactions, 21 in fact, over a period of 6 months.
v. There is little hope of restitution.
vi. Mr. Luu was caught as opposed to voluntarily stopping his criminal conduct.
vii. The impact of Mr. Luu’s fraud was to exacerbate the financial difficulty the company was going through at the time. The company went into bankruptcy.
viii. Mr. Luu brought another person into the deception who was also criminally charged.
ix. Mr. Luu has a criminal record for 2 other similar frauds committed against companies he has worked for.
[ 22 ] The mitigating factors include the following:
i. Mr. Luu pled guilty, and communicated his intention to do so, early in the process via a Judicial Pre-Trial.
ii. Mr. Luu expressed his accountability to the PSR author, to his parents, and to the court. He expressed insight and remorse for the harm he caused to the victims of the frauds and his family.
iii. Mr. Luu has family support, via both his parents and his fiancé.
iv. He has obtained employment, which is difficult after serving a penitentiary sentence for crimes of dishonesty.
v. Most significant, is the 3 years Mr. Luu has put into dealing with his addiction. He has now managed his addiction to the point of working with a reputable organization as a facilitator for those who face the same substance addiction he manages. The numerous exhibits filed document his addiction, his work overcoming it, the way he is using his experience to continue to stay healthy, and how he is helping others.
[ 23 ] In this case, the context of Mr. Luu’s offence, within the timeline of his previous offences, and what he has done with his life since his last sentence, provides an opportunity to evaluate the applicability of the principles of deterrence and denunciation when rehabilitation has already been demonstrated.
[ 24 ] The timeline is as follows:
• Between 2018 and 2020, Mr. Luu defrauded the company he was working for in the amount of over $287,000. He was arrested in May 2020. I will call this Fraud #1 on his criminal record.
• Between October 2021 and January 2022, Mr. Luu defrauded another company he was working for in the amount of over $100,000. He was arrested on this fraud. I will call this Fraud #2 on his criminal record.
• Mr. Zaduk assisted Mr. Luu with his guilty plea to these two frauds in September 2022. In February 2023, Mr. Luu was sentenced to 2.5 years in the penitentiary for these offences.
• Mr. Luu did his time, was paroled in December 2023 and pulled his life together.
• On November 27, 2024, the Information charging the fraud of just over $50,000 was sworn. Mr. Luu was defrauding the company he was working for between May 6, 2022, and October 25, 2022.
• Mr. Luu turned himself in on December 11, 2024, and pled guilty to this, Fraud #3.
[ 25 ] The Crown asks the court to consider Mr. Luu’s blameworthiness at the time he committed this offence as aggravating because it was after his second fraud and while he was in the process of pleading guilty to two frauds.
[ 26 ] Mr. Zaduk submits Mr. Luu was trying to resolve all his matters with a guilty plea in September 2022 and did so. He would have resolved this matter too, if he had been charged with it. Mr. Zaduk argues that Mr. Luu has done all that he can do since he was sentenced to rehabilitate himself and with verified success.
[ 27 ] Mr. Zaduk argues Mr. Luu should not be punished for offences committed prior to his sentence, that he would have resolved had he been able to . The fact the authorities lay this charge after he was paroled for conduct committed prior to the offense he was sentenced for, places him in an unfair position. Mr. Zaduk relies on R. v. Burke , [1967] O.R. 562-564 for his position that therefore no jail is warranted.
[ 28 ] There is a sense of unfairness to the fact Mr. Luu is charged with criminal conduct, the nature of which was identified before he was sentenced, after he has pled guilty to similar offenses, done his time, and is turning his life around.
[ 29 ] Were all of Mr. Luu’s fraudulent acts to have occurred prior to his guilty plea in September of 2022 Mr. Zaduk’s submission for no further penal sentence would be compelling per R. v. Burke .
[ 30 ] However, a closer look into Mr. Luu’s fraudulent acts is required.
[ 31 ] The exact overlap is this: after Mr. Luu plead guilty to the two frauds in September 2022, he cashed at least 4 more fraudulent cheques to himself in October 2022 from Breakthrough Entertainment. [^6]
[ 32 ] This is blameworthy conduct warranting sanction. However, the sanction decided today, must reflect the offender before me today.
[ 33 ] The caselaw referred to by the Crown stresses denunciation and deterrence in breach of trust cases warrant custodial sentences. Conditional sentences may be appropriate in cases where substantial restitution is offered, defrauded amounts are on the lower end, and exceptional circumstances such age play a factor, none of which are the situation here.
[ 34 ] However, the contextual timeline of this offence and the principle of rehabilitation, in my view attenuate the applicability of denunciation and deterrence.
[ 35 ] A custodial sanction is warranted for Mr. Luu’s blameworthy conduct particularly after he pled guilty to his last offences, but a conditional sentence is appropriate to reflect the sincere, significant and successful rehabilitative efforts he has made to deal with his substance use addiction for the last 3 years since he committed the crime.
[ 36 ] This offence is not an excluded one per s. 742 of the Criminal Code , nor is there a minimum sentence for it. In my view, neither a suspended sentence nor a penitentiary sentence is appropriate. Given Mr. Luu has been on bail for a significant amount of time, with no breaches or violence on his record, there appears to be no indication that he is a danger to the community.
[ 37 ] This leaves the final pre-condition of whether a conditional sentence is consistent with the fundamental principles of sentencing.
[ 38 ] In my view, it is in this case, a conditional sentence can and will reflect the necessary principles of deterrence and denunciation. It will allow for the continued rehabilitation of Mr. Luu in the community where he can work, support his parents, his fiancé, his soon to be born child, as well as those in the SMART program he counsels, while still feeling the sting of stringent limitations on his liberty.
Conclusion
[ 39 ] I sentence Mr. Luu to a 6-month conditional sentence with terms to be determined after submissions.
Released: February 18, 2026
Signed: Justice Cidalia C. G. Faria
[^1]: Exhibit 1: Pre-Sentence Report, January 19, 2026. [^2]: Exhibit 3: Letter, Jamac Sales and Distribution Ltd. Jasmine McBride. [^3]: Exhibit 2: CPIC Criminal Record, Exhibit 9: Pre-Sentence Report, 2022. [^4]: Exhibit 5: Letter, St. Michael’s Hospital, March 11, 2022.Exhibit 6: Letter, St. Michael’s Hospital, April 12, 2022. Exhibit 8: Certificates of Completion,4-Point Facilitator Training, SMART Recovery, 43 pages. [^5]: R. v. Williams , [2007] O.J. no. 1604, R. v. Bogart , (2002) 41073 (ON CA), R. v. Castro , 2010 ONCA 718 , R. v. Johnson , 2013 ONSC 5633 , R. v. Mathur , 2017 ONCA 403 , R. v. Mohenu , 2019 ONCA 291 , R. v. Samson , 2010 ONSC 4451 , R. v. Taverner , 2017 ONCJ 469 . [^6]: On the original information, the offence dates of October, 11, 2022 twice, October 20, 2022, and October 25, 2022.