Sabrina Montefiore

The accused, a chartered accountant, pleaded guilty to fraud over $5,000 for his role in a large-scale tax evasion scheme involving false personal income tax returns and fraudulent charitable donation receipts.

Over six years (2003-2008), the accused prepared 487 false returns for numerous clients, resulting in false deduction claims totalling $3,674,000 and unpaid taxes of $1,045,111.21.

The accused received approximately $94,000 in compensation.

The defence sought a conditional sentence of two years less a day, while the Crown sought a penitentiary sentence of three to five years.

The court imposed a two-year penitentiary sentence with a $100,000 fine.

The appellants, a real estate agent and his co-accused, were convicted of conspiracy to produce marijuana and related offences.

During the trial, the trial judge interrupted the Crown's cross-examination of the real estate agent to ask if he knew what perjury was and suggested his counsel advise him on its consequences.

The appellants appealed, arguing this intervention created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding the trial judge's comments indicated he had prejudged the accused's credibility before hearing all evidence, fatally compromising the fairness of the trial for both accused.

The appeals were allowed and new trials ordered.

The appellant appealed his nine-year sentence for importing 4.1 kg of cocaine.

The trial judge found that the appellant organized the importation and was in a superior position to the 19-year-old vulnerable courier.

The Court of Appeal found no error in principle and held that the sentence was not demonstrably unfit given the appellant's role and the multi-kilo quantity of cocaine.

The appeal was dismissed.

Sentencing following a jury conviction for fraud over $5000 arising from a tax refund scheme involving falsified charitable donation receipts.

The offender, a tax preparer, filed 26 fraudulent returns over three taxation years, generating approximately $129,381 in improper refunds, though his personal gain was estimated at about $31,500.

The defence sought a conditional sentence while the Crown requested a custodial term.

The court held that denunciation and deterrence were the primary objectives for mid‑range fraud of this scale and that a conditional sentence would be inconsistent with the principles of sentencing under ss. 718 to 718.2 of the Criminal Code.

A custodial sentence followed by probation was imposed.