DATE: 2012-12-19

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

– and –

WALTER GARRICK

John Scutt, for the Crown

Walter Garrick, self-represented

Heard: October 1-4, 9-11, 15- 19, 22- 26, 29-31, November 1, 2, 5, 13-16, 22.

J. D. McCOMBS J.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

OVERVIEW

[1] Walter Garrick faces a ten-count indictment alleging theft and fraud. The charges involve five victims, and cover a period between February 16, 2004 and January 31, 2007.

[2] Mr. Garrick is accused of having falsely posed as a very wealthy investor, a graduate of Columbia University with a medical degree, who wanted to give back to the community through charitable work and large donations, and who was willing to help his victims with their investments. The Crown says that through a combination of deceit, falsehood, and other fraudulent means, Mr. Garrick cultivated the trust of the five complainants and either directly or indirectly induced them to part with money for the purpose of investment on their behalf.

[3] I have concluded that the evidence establishes the guilt of Walter Garrick beyond a reasonable doubt on eight of the ten charges. These are the reasons for my decision.

(a) Overview of Crown Case

[4] The Crown position is that Garrick never invested the complainants’ money, but instead used it for his own dishonest purposes, to achieve the dual purposes of supporting his opulent lifestyle and maintaining his façade as a wealthy and sophisticated investor.

[5] In support of its case, the Crown relies on the testimony of the five complainants, as well as seven other witnesses, including Mr. Garrick’s former spouse, and representatives of various institutions, including the Canada Revenue Agency, Td Bank/Canada Trust, the SickKids Foundation (the charitable fund-raising arm of the Hospital for Sick Children), an owner of 10 Toronto Street (the former home of Hollinger Inc.), and a representative of the United Bank of Switzerland (UBS) (introduced in writing as an agreed statement of fact). The Crown also relies on the testimony of a forensic accountant who analyzed and tracked the flow of some of the complainants’ monies through bank accounts controlled by Mr. Garrick.

[6] The Crown case is supplemented by documentary evidence, including bank records, cheques, bank drafts, money orders, copies of handwritten promissory notes and other handwritten material, and emails to and from Mr. Garrick.

(b) Overview of Defence

[7] Mr. Garrick presented three witnesses for the defence: his father, Mr. Wilfred Garrick, the investigating officer, Detective Sergeant Alex Gauthier (who was cross-examined by Mr. Garrick with the consent of the Crown and the permission of the Court), and himself.

[8] Mr. Garrick’s position is that he was indeed wealthy and sophisticated in identifying investment opportunities. He did not hold himself out to be a medical doctor, did not mislead the complainants about his wealth and connections, and did not commit fraud or theft.

[9] Mr. Garrick’s position with respect to the complainants Mr. Clemons and Mr. Allen, is that their evidence was given honestly but that their memories are unreliable; and that they are mistaken in their recollections of material events; and viewed with that in mind, Mr. Garrick did not defraud them.

[10] In the case of the other three complainants, Mr. Vadas, Dr. Valani, and Mr. Foltys, Mr. Garrick’s position is that they have repeatedly lied under oath, created false documents, colluded with each other and with the investigating officer; and that they were never defrauded by Mr. Garrick.

[11] Mr. Garrick’s position is that many of the other Crown witnesses have also either lied under oath or have selectively presented only such evidence as would assist the Crown case, and omitted or distorted evidence that supports Mr. Garrick’s position that there was no fraud.

[12] A central theme of Mr. Garrick’s defence is that the investigating officer abused his authority as a police officer, manipulated witnesses, and generally orchestrated a personal vendetta against Mr. Garrick.

Duties of the Court Where the Accused is Self-Represented

[13] Mr. Garrick represented himself at his trial. I considered, among others, the following authorities: R. v. Gonsalves, [2005] O.J. No. 1238 (C.A.). R. v. Tran, 2001 5555 (ON CA), [2001] O.J. No. 3056 (C.A.), at paragraph 22; R. v. Turlon (1989), 1989 7206 (ON CA), 49 C.C.C. (3d) 186 (Ont.C.A); R. v. McGibbon (1988), 1988 149 (ON CA), 45 C.C.C. (3d) 334 (Ont. C.A.) at 347; R. v. Taubler (1987), 20 O.A.C. 64.

[14] I endeavoured to ensure trial fairness for Mr. Garrick, whose conduct of his defence, while generally respectful of the court and of Crown counsel, was often unfocussed and strayed into areas that were not relevant to the core issues in the case.

[15] I endeavoured throughout the trial to ensure that Mr. Garrick was aware of the law, his rights under the Charter, including the right to full disclosure of all relevant evidence, the burden of proof, the defences available to him, and when they arose, of issues related to the admissibility of evidence. To that end, I endeavoured to ensure that Mr. Garrick understood the significance of issues presented by the evidence, as well as the relevant law. I also allowed Mr. Garrick very wide latitude in examining witnesses and in presenting his defence.

Charter Application

[16] At the outset of the trial, at the request of Mr. Garrick, I waived the notice and procedural requirements of the Criminal Proceedings Rules and granted an adjournment to permit Mr. Garrick to file a Charter application. After a further adjournment to allow Mr. Garrick to provide more focused materials, I invited argument based on the assumption that the facts alleged in the motion materials could be established.

[17] After hearing argument, I ruled that Mr. Garrick’s allegations, even if they could be established, could not attract the Charter s. 24 remedy of exclusion of evidence Mr. Garrick was seeking. Therefore, I dismissed Mr. Garrick’s Charter application.

Applicable Legal Principles

[18] This outcome in this case is primarily fact-driven. It is not necessary to outline the applicable legal principles in detail. I will, however, discuss what must be proved before guilt may be found on any of the counts, and explain why I have concluded that the evidence on each count in the indictment may be considered on the other counts.

The Elements of the Crimes of Fraud and Theft

(a) The Elements of Fraud

[19] For the purposes of this case it is enough to point out that fraud is proved under S. 380 (1) of the Criminal Code where a person, by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, defrauds any person of property, money or valuable security or any service.

[20] The law is well-settled that use of another’s money or property for personal gain is fraud if the accused acts dishonestly and the victim suffers economic deprivation as a result of the actions of the accused. The key elements that must be proved are dishonesty and deprivation: R. v. Olan et. al., 1978 9 (SCC), [1978] 2 S.C.R. 1175, 41 C.C.C. (2d) 145; R. v. Theroux (1993) 1993 134 (SCC), 79 C.C.C. (3d) 449 (SCC) at p. 457; R. v. Zlatic (1993), 1993 135 (SCC), 79 C.C.C. (3d) 466 at 477-8 (SCC) at p. 477-8.

i. Dishonesty

[21] The dishonesty requirement is met where the Crown can prove "deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means" on the part of the accused. The phrase “other fraudulent means” is broadly interpreted to include all means that can properly be characterized as dishonest, and includes non-disclosure of material facts.[^1] For dishonesty to be proved, the Crown must establish that the accused knowingly undertook the dishonest acts and was aware that deprivation could be the result.

ii. Deprivation

[22] The notion of deprivation is broad. The deprivation requirement is met where the Crown can prove that the economic interests of the victim were imperilled. There is no requirement for the victim to suffer actual economic loss: R. v. Ruhland, [1998] O.J. No. 781 at paras. 7-12 (C.A.); R. v. Théroux, supra note 2 at p. 457; R. v. Zlatic, supra at 480; R. v. Huggett (1978), 1978 2529 (ON CA), 42 C.C.C. (2d) 198 (C.A.).

(b) The Elements of Theft

[23] For present purposes, it is sufficient to observe that theft is proved where a person fraudulently and without colour of right takes or converts the property of another for their own use. In the case before me, it is sufficient to say that the phrase “without colour of right” means without an honest belief in the right to the use of the property. See: R. v. DeMarco (1973) 1973 1542 (ON CA), 13 C.C.C. (2d) 369 (Ont.C.A.), at paras 7-9.

Admissibility of Evidence on Each Count in Considering the Evidence on the Other Counts

[24] In appropriate cases, where the court is dealing with a multi-count indictment and multiple complainants, and the charges relate to an ongoing pattern of behavior on the part of the accused, the evidence relating to each count is admissible on the other counts. The Crown submits that the evidence in this case shows a clear and consistent pattern of deceit, falsehood, and other fraudulent means and that the evidence on each count ought to be considered with respect to the other counts.

[25] In R. v. Kirk, 2004 7197 (ON CA), 188 C.C.C. (3d) 329, [2004] O.J. No. 3442 (C.A.), the Court of Appeal adopted the words of Doherty J. (as he then was) in R. v. Sahaidak, [1990] O.J. No. 3228 (H.C.) at para. 150:

In most cases where a multi-count indictment is before the Court, evidence adduced on one count is not admissible for or against an accused on the other counts. Where, however, the events underlying the various counts are part of an ongoing course of dealings, and where those events are interwoven and interrelated so that as a matter of logic and common sense, the events underlying one count also enlighten and assist the trier of fact in understanding and assessing the evidence on the other counts, then evidence directly relevant to one count is admissible on the other counts as well.

[26] In the case before me, the events underlying the various counts are part of an ongoing course of conduct by Walter Garrick. The events are interwoven and interrelated, and as a matter of logic and common sense, the events underlying each count assist in understanding and assessing the evidence on the other counts.

[27] The evidence respecting each count in the indictment is therefore admissible with respect to each of the other counts.

THE EVIDENCE

(A) Evidence for the Crown

Michael Clemons

[28] Michael “Pinball” Clemons is a famous and respected Canadian sports icon. He is also well-known for his philanthropic work, and in particular, his commitment to helping disadvantaged youth. He is a member of the Order of Ontario and the CFL Hall of Fame.

[29] In 2003, Mr. Clemons was head coach of the Toronto Argonauts football team. He was and remains a very busy person, dealing with his charitable causes as well as his professional responsibilities. Mr. Garrick concedes that Mr. Clemons is known for his integrity, generosity, courtesy and friendliness.

[30] Mr. Clemons first met Walter Garrick on a December evening in 2003. They had both been at a Special Olympics event that day. Mr. Garrick approached him and said that he’d been trying to connect with him.

[31] Garrick talked about his experiences growing up as a person of colour in Oakville and told Mr. Clemons that he had studied medicine at Columbia University in New York, that he’d met some wealthy and influential people, and had come into significant success and wealth and wasn’t sure how to balance it. Mr. Garrick dropped names, such as the Rothschild family, and Larry Page, one of the founders of Google. He struck Mr. Clemons as an intelligent gentleman, and as they continued their conversation in the parking lot, Mr. Garrick invited him to come to his home to meet his family. Mr. Clemons testified that he declined a couple of times but Mr. Garrick persisted, so he finally said he’d come to the door for a brief visit.

[32] Mr. Clemons testified that he met Mr. Garrick’s father Wilfred that evening. Wilfred Garrick impressed Mr. Clemons as “humble, decent, hardworking and authentic”. When Walter Garrick asked Mr. Clemons for his help, he gave him his phone number.

[33] Mr. Clemons and Mr. Garrick began to meet more frequently, when Mr. Clemons’ schedule would permit it. Mr. Clemons had some long talks with Walter Garrick’s father. Mr. Clemons was particularly impressed with him. Mr. Clemons testified that his respect for Wilfred Garrick was a big part of his growing trust in his son Walter Garrick.

[34] In the ensuing months, Mr. Clemons met with Walter Garrick many times, and a trusting friendship developed. Although Mr. Garrick did not hold himself out to be a licenced investor or a medical doctor, he claimed to be a multimillionaire with considerable investment savvy. He told Mr. Clemons about Garcorp, his holding company, which he said was headquartered in New York City. He also claimed to have significant shares in Google – that he had been able to get in on the ground floor; and that when Google goes public, he would make very significant additional revenue. He was living with his parents during this period, but told Mr. Clemons that he was in the process of acquiring or building a mansion commensurate with his financial circumstances.

[35] Mr. Garrick discussed his personal ambitions, and confided that having come into such considerable wealth, he wanted to be a role model for others. He mentioned public service ambitions, possibly in public office. He said that he would like to meet the Argonaut owners, possibly investing in the club as part-owner, and possibly investing in a new stadium for the club at York University, with possible naming rights. Mr. Clemons referred him to Keith Pelly, then president of the Toronto Argonauts.

[36] By February of 2004, a bond of friendship had developed between Clemons and Garrick. Garrick told Clemons that he could invest for him and give him better returns than he was receiving. Mr. Clemons testified that he trusted Garrick and decided to give him some of his money for investment purposes. Based on representations made by Mr. Garrick, Mr. Clemons believed that his investments would be supervised by Mr. Garrick. He understood that Mr. Garrick would invest the money through Mr. Garrick’s “financial person”. Some if not all of the money was to be invested in a company called Interactive Brokers.

[37] Over the next several months, Mr. Clemons gave Mr. Garrick cheques or bank drafts for investment purposes on his behalf totalling $57,000. Each cheque or bank draft was drawn on Mr. Clemons’ holding company, 31 and Company.

[38] Mr. Clemons’ investments with Mr. Garrick were as follows:

• i. February 16, 2004, cheque from 31 and Company $5000
• ii. March 15, 2004, cheque from 31 and Company $7500
• iii. March 31, 2004, cheque from 31 and Company $15000
• iv. May 4, 2004, cheque from 31 and Company $12000
• v. May 12, 2004, cheque from 31 and Company $7500
• vi. June 8, 2004, cheque from 31 and Company $10000

Total: $57,000

[39] Mr. Garrick’s relationship of friendship and trust with Mr. Clemons provided him with an entrée into the inner circle of the Toronto Argonauts organization. Mr. Garrick was invited to practices, introduced to players, coaches and owners, and attended Argos games in a private box that he had arranged for himself. Mr. Garrick was often accompanied by Kenny Vadas, one of the complainants in this trial. Mr. Clemons testified that Mr. Vadas acted as if he was Garrick’s “personal concierge”, running errands for him and doing whatever he was directed to do by Mr. Garrick.

[40] Mr. Clemons’ father lived in Florida. He had been ill, and Mr. Clemons had been going down to visit him when he could. Mr. Garrick offered to fly him down in a private jet but Mr. Clemons declined, saying he could manage his own arrangements. But when Mr. Clemons’ father died in the spring of 2004, he took him up on his standing offer and flew with his family to Florida on a private jet arranged by Mr. Garrick.

[41] There were a number of occasions when Mr. Garrick spent money on gifts for Mr. Clemons or to assist members of his family. The amount spent on Mr. Clemons by Mr. Garrick is unclear, but on the evidence of Mr. Clemons, it was likely in the tens of thousands of dollars.

[42] By the summer and into the fall of 2004, Mr. Clemons’ trust in Mr. Garrick had begun to wane. Mr. Clemons wanted to see tangible results from his investments. Timelines had been missed and promises not kept. Mr. Clemons recalled an occasion where Mr. Garrick offered his expensive car as collateral, another where he gave him an IOU for one million dollars, and another where Mr. Garrick had someone who spoke with a European accent telephone him, purporting to be from the Swiss bank UBS, who advised him that Mr. Garrick had hundreds of millions of dollars on deposit. Mr. Clemons could not recall the specific number but recalled that the caller indicated the amount right down to the penny, something that Mr. Clemons found odd, given the amount of money allegedly on deposit.

[43] Sometime in late 2004, Mr. Garrick gave Mr. Clemons the name of a person he said was working at the UBS office in Toronto. He was told that he could go there and pick up a bank draft or cheque for significantly more than his total investment. Mr. Clemons went to the UBS office, but there was no one there with the name he had been given, and Mr. Clemons came away empty-handed.

[44] By late 2004 and into 2005, Mr. Clemons’ trust in Walter Garrick was at an end. Mr. Garrick had gone from calling him frequently, to not responding to his calls. During the first several months of 2005, he spoke to Mr. Garrick only occasionally. One call Mr. Clemons recalled was received as he was heading into the stadium. He was surprised, and told Mr. Garrick that “respectfully, we have no relationship any more”. When Mr. Garrick asked what he could do to rectify things, Mr. Clemons told him to return his capital and that if he didn’t then there would be no more conversation. He told him that “respectfully, I am going to hang up the ‘phone”.

[45] Mr. Clemons testified that he eventually concluded that he was not going to receive any return on his investments with Mr. Garrick; that he realized that he had made a mistake in trusting Mr. Garrick; and he made the decision that that he was going to move on and “not bring him to court”.

[46] Mr. Clemons was contacted by Detective Alex Gauthier of the MTPS Fraud Squad in April of 2007. Although he had decided not to take action against Garrick, he agreed to cooperate with police because he considered it his “civic duty”.

[47] Mr. Clemons rejected suggestions by Mr. Garrick in cross-examination that Detective Gauthier had acted improperly. He never told Mr. Clemons what to say, but only asked him to honestly provide information concerning his dealings with Mr. Garrick.

Damon Allen

[48] Mr. Allen is a Canadian football icon. He was a CFL quarterback for twenty-three years, is a member of the CFL Hall of Fame, and at the relevant time, was the quarterback for the Toronto Argonauts. He was named Grey Cup MVP when the Argonauts won the Grey Cup in 2004, and in 2005, he received the CFL Outstanding Player Award. He played two more years with the Toronto Argonauts before announcing his retirement in 2007.

[49] Mr. Allen was and remains a friend of Michael Clemons. It was Mr. Clemons who introduced him to Walter Garrick. Mr. Allen had heard about Garrick’s alleged wealth and investment successes. He was aware that Garrick was part of the inner circle of the Toronto Argonauts – as he put it, Mr. Garrick was “all over the culture and environment of the Argos”.

[50] Mr. Allen knew that Mr. Clemons was investing with Mr. Garrick. His involvement with Mr. Garrick was minimal compared to the level of friendship and trust between Clemons and Garrick, but he trusted Mr. Clemons; and in April of 2004, he decided that he wanted to be involved.

[51] Mr. Allen’s investments with Walter Garrick were confirmed in his testimony and supported by copies of the cheques and bank records. The investments were as follows:

• i. April 16, 2004, cheque from 31 and Company[^2] $20000
• ii. April 23, 2004, cheque from Desiree and Damon Allen $25000

Total: $45000

[52] Mr. Allen testified that he was not directly induced by Mr. Garrick to invest with him. His decision to invest was mainly because he trusted Mr. Clemons and knew the faith he had in Mr. Garrick. His trust in Mr. Garrick was, however, directly reinforced by statements made to him by Mr. Garrick about his wealth and connections and his success as an investor.

[53] Mr. Garrick from time to time spoke to Mr. Allen about the nature of the investments and the expected returns. During the 2004 season, when he would occasionally see Mr. Garrick, he was told that the investments were “looking good”. Mr. Allen was understandably focused on football and didn’t pay much attention to his investments with Mr. Garrick; but from his few discussions with him, he believed that his money had been invested in stocks and that the investments were doing well.

[54] By 2007, as Mr. Allen’s twenty-two year playing career was winding down, he began to think more about his investments with Garrick. He still had received no return on his investment. When he began to insist on some action from Garrick, he received only promises and excuses.

[55] Although Mr. Allen was unsure of the approximate times or locations of his various discussions with Mr. Garrick, he recalled some highlights:

• Mr. Garrick told him that he had a home on the Lakeshore in Oakville. Mr. Allen lived in Oakville and knew the value of those properties to be in the millions of dollars.
• Mr. Garrick confirmed to him that the money was being invested in stocks.
• On one occasion, Mr. Garrick was on the telephone with a man who supposedly handled Mr. Garrick’s banking account. Mr. Garrick wanted Mr. Allen to listen to what he had to say and gave him the phone. Mr. Allen testified that “the money the person was talking about was in the millions”.
• When Mr. Allen began in 2007 to seriously inquire about realizing on his investment, Mr. Garrick gave a number of stories. One that Mr. Allen recalled in particular was Mr. Garrick telling him that he was having trouble moving his money into Canada – that there was a “freeze” on the money and that was the reason for the holdup in returning his investment.
• On three occasions, Mr. Garrick called him suggesting they meet for lunch so that he could give him his cheque. On each occasion, Mr. Garrick did not provide Mr. Allen with a cheque, but instead offered only excuses and more promises.

[56] In cross-examination, Mr. Allen acknowledged that he had been approached by Ken Vadas, who was bitter because he had invested money with Mr. Garrick and hadn’t got it back. Mr. Allen acknowledged that he was later contacted by Detective Gauthier and that he met with him and Mr. Vadas at a coffee shop. They had a conversation about the investigation of Mr. Garrick and about Mr. Allen’s situation. Mr. Allen’s view of the purpose of the meeting was so that Detective Gauthier could determine whether he “was a guy they want to use—that is be involved in the case”.

[57] Mr. Allen agreed that he had gone to the police station and was interviewed on tape.

[58] In re-examination, Mr. Allen testified that Detective Gauthier never told him what to say, but he “just wanted me to tell my side of it and my experience with Walter”. Mr. Allen also testified that Mr. Vadas never suggested that he make up stories or lies and tell them to other people.

[59] Mr. Allen has never received any accounting for his investments, and none of his money.

Ken Vadas

(i) Examination-in-chief

[60] Mr. Vadas is now aged thirty-one. He has a high school education. He had some modest success as a child model and then as an actor until age seventeen, when he started a software company.

[61] Mr. Vadas met Walter Garrick in May of 2004, when he was twenty-three. Vadas was organizing a car show for the Children’s Wish Foundation, and had been approaching dealers to try to persuade them to contribute by providing high-end cars for the show. While at a dealership called Cross Avenue Auto, the owner introduced him to “Dr.” Garrick. Garrick was encouraging and told him he would help get him some fine cars, and would bring some celebrities to the show. He put him in touch by telephone with some high-end car dealers and told him to say Walter Garrick told him to call. At the mention of Walter Garrick’s name, the response was “anything for Mr. Garrick”; and the result was that a number of very expensive cars, such as Rolls Royce, Bentley and Lamborghini, were provided for the Children’s Wish car show.

[62] When the show took place in early June, Walter Garrick came with a photographer, Richard Foltys (one of the complainants in this trial), and a person Garrick introduced as his publicist. CFL football stars Michael Clemons and Damon Allen were also there. Although Vadas didn’t know much about football, he realized that they were well-known public sports figures. He was impressed and excited.

[63] Mr. Vadas ran into Mr. Clemons a couple of weeks later at a car dealership, and overheard him talking about buying a computer for his son. Mr. Vadas told Garrick that he could get it much cheaper and Garrick asked him if he would buy it for him and Garrick would reimburse him. Vadas, who was thoroughly impressed with Walter Garrick, was only too happy to help. He bought the computer and brought it to the Oakville address Garrick had given him. It was Garrick’s parents’ modest family home. Garrick thanked Vadas, reimbursed him, and told him he was moving back to Canada from the U.S. and was in the process of buying a mansion on the Lakeshore.

[64] There were a few meetings after that, in which Garrick told Vadas that he had studied medicine at Columbia University, had met some influential people and gotten into venture capital. He mentioned the Rothschild family – Vadas didn’t know who they were, so Garrick told him. He dropped other names. He said that Jean Chretien and John Tory were friends, as were Larry Page and Sergey Brin, the founders of Google. He told Vadas he was already very wealthy - worth eighty or ninety million - but with his 3% stake in Google, he expected to become a billionaire when the company goes public.

[65] Garrick told Vadas that he was impressed with what he was doing, raising money for charity and giving back to the community. He told Vadas that Michael Clemons was also interested in charitable causes. He told Vadas that he was in the process of buying the Toronto Argonauts and explained that Michael Clemons was the head coach and Damon Allen was the quarterback. Garrick told Vadas that he wanted to raise millions of dollars for the Ambassadors for Youth Programme, an initiative designed to connect community leaders with disadvantaged youth through football, including attending Argonauts football games.

[66] After a few such discussions, Mr. Garrick asked Vadas about his financial circumstances and how he had his money invested. Vadas had earned money through modeling and acting and told Garrick that his father managed his portfolio. Garrick asked how it was invested, and when Vadas told him some of it was in a mutual fund, Garrick said that was a bad investment strategy because fees are charged whether or not the fund makes money. Garrick asked what else his money was invested in, and Vadas told him it was in GIC’s. Garrick said his money was not being managed properly and he would be willing to provide advice as to how Vadas could do much better. Garrick said that his company, Garcorp, which was headquartered at the Rockefeller Centre in New York City, was going public and would soon issue shares, and that he was also involved with venture capital in a company whose shares were currently valued at around a dollar but would go to twelve when it went public.

[67] Vadas asked Garrick how much he needed as an investment, and Garrick said “can you do $20,000 U.S.?” When Vadas said yes, Garrick said he needed to come up with it right away in order to get involved, and asked if he could get it the following morning. Garrick promised a fourfold increase in the investment, and filled out a promissory note on the spot and gave it to Vadas. The document, introduced as an exhibit at trial, reads:

I Walter Garrick agree to pay $80K USD to Kenneth John-Paul Vadas by October 2004.

I am signing this on July 12th, 2004 (signed) Walter Garrick

[68] I pause to emphasize that this promissory note was given to Vadas by Garrick before he had even received the bank draft for $20,000 USD.

[69] The next morning, Garrick himself drove Vadas to his bank, arriving when it opened. Vadas obtained a $20,000 USD bank draft payable to Walter Garrick. Vadas had prepared a document to make the investment more formalized, and showed it to Garrick. The document as drafted contained a provision that $40,000 USD would be repaid by October 15, 2004. Garrick said that’s not how you do it because it would amount to loansharking and made some amendments to the document that Vadas had prepared. The document as executed is entitled “Investment Agreement” and refers to Garrick as the borrower and Vadas as the lender. The document acknowledges that the borrower has received $20,000 U.S. “for the purpose of investing it at the discretion of the borrower”. The document also indicates that the lender “cannot and will not influence what format and type of investment these funds will be used for”. The document also provides that the principal is repayable on or before the 15th of October, 2004.

[70] As for the handwritten promissory note Garrick had prepared the previous day, Garrick drew a line through “80K” and changed it to “20K”, explaining that otherwise the agreement would be loansharking. He also changed the date from July 12, 2004 to July 13, 2004.

[71] That same day, Garrick, describing himself as “an open book”, afforded Vadas a further glimpse into his purported world of wealth and power. Garrick took him to the airport and showed him “his” private jet, told him he had provided it to Michael Clemons to use and said that he had another one that he keeps in the U.S. He took him to the law firm Heenan Blaikie, where Garrick was greeted warmly by his lawyer, Brad Elberg, a former Argos football player. Garrick had some documents to sign, and told Elberg that he had no problem with Vadas being present for his meeting with his lawyer. Vadas perceived Garrick as a prestigious client of a prestigious law firm. At some point (the chronology is not clear), Garrick told Vadas that he had arranged for a meeting with a Thomas Ovegjestvang, purportedly of UBS, in order to show him how much money Garrick was worth, but before the meeting, a man claiming to be Ovegjestvang called Vadas and cancelled the meeting. Garrick then arranged a three-way call with Vadas, Ovegjestvang of UBS, and Garrick. Garrick told Ovegjestvang that Vadas was on the line and at Garrick’s request, Ovegjestvang confirmed that Garrick had given Clemons and Allen $20 million, and that Garrick was already worth many millions of dollars, but when Google went public, he would receive over a billion dollars. Vadas recalled that the number given by Ovegjestvang was right down to the penny.

[72] Garrick took Vadas to Argos games in his private box. Vadas noted that Garrick had VIP privileges, that he had important guests, and was friendly with the Argos owners.

[73] Vadas felt fortunate that an important and successful person like Walter Garrick would even give him the time of day, much less afford him an opportunity to become involved in his world.

[74] Less than two weeks after Vadas’ initial $20,000 USD investment, Garrick called Vadas to say that another investment opportunity had arisen. The pharmaceutical company Biovail, founded and run by his “friend” Eugene Melnyk, was about to put a new drug on the market and this was a rare opportunity to invest. Garrick, by his manner, conveyed a sense of urgency and told Vadas that if he were to invest in Biovail, it would not only yield significant returns, but also would link him with Melnyk and likely secure for Vadas the opportunity for a position in Garrrick’s company, Garcorp.

[75] Vadas “begged” his skeptical father to let him withdraw some of his investments so he could invest with Garrick. His father eventually agreed, and on July 26, 2004, Vadas gave Garrick a bank draft for $5000 US, and on August 4, 2004, he gave him a further bank draft for $15000 US. Garrick offered his BMW X5 as collateral for the investment, which, based on Garrick’s representations, Vadas believed was earmarked for Biovail.

[76] On September 3, Vadas gave Garrick a cheque for another $8000 US. By then the total investment was $48000 US, a very significant amount for Vadas. Vadas was getting worried because he had not seen any returns, but he believed Garrick when he said that his money was held up in the U.S. for tax reasons, and that Garrick was finding it frustrating and stressful that he was unable to access funds in Canada, yet was able to live very well while in the United States. He decided to help Garrick out in hopes of staying on his good side and reaping the many rewards that Garrick was promising him.

[77] Vadas testified that he was never officially employed by Garrick who told him that he could earn a position with Garcorp but that he had to prove himself and that he “hadn’t made it yet”. Garrick repeatedly emphasized the importance of trust to him, and that Vadas’ trust had to be earned, and his abilities demonstrated. Vadas testified that Garrick told him there were many significant opportunities for Vadas if he could demonstrate his worth to Garrick and his organization.

[78] On seven more occasions in September, beginning on September 14, Vadas gave Garrick cheques, money orders and bank drafts totaling $11000 US. By then, Garrick had received a total of $59000 US from Vadas. Between October 8 and November 9, Vadas provided five more money orders to Garrick, totalling $3,000 US and bringing the amount given to Garrick to $62000 US. All of the money was deposited into USD or CND accounts at the TD Bank that, as I will discuss later, were controlled by Walter Garrick.

[79] The $11000 US given to Garrick by Vadas during September was mainly to help Garrick out so that he could give it to Michael Clemons as a gesture of friendship to help with cancer treatments for his sister-in-law. Clemons was of course deeply focused on the 2004 football season, and his time was very limited by his many responsibilities. The five cheques totalling $3000 US given to Garrick between October 8 and November 9 were to tide him over until his substantial US fortune could be accessible to him in Canada.

[80] A major catalyst for the breakdown of Vadas’ relationship with Garrick concerned the rental of a residential property in Oakville. Vadas testified that Garrick told him that the Argos were eyeing a quarterback from Nebraska and intended to bring him to Canada. It was not public yet but he was a very special player and if Vadas wanted to be a part of Garcorp this was his opportunity to show Garrick how he could carry out instructions and execute what needs to be done.

[81] Vadas found a residential property at 2510 Falkland Crescent in Oakville available on a one-year lease at $1700 per month, and told the landlord it was to be occupied by an Argos quarterback, but because Garrick hadn’t told him the player’s name, Vadas went ahead and signed a one-year lease under his own name. Garrick gave Vadas $3000 in cash for the deposit, and money for the first two or three months rent. Vadas entered into the lease on September 9, 2004. Vadas initially believed the anonymous quarterback would be living in the house, but after the first two or three months, the payments stopped and Vadas was concerned because he was the lessee and was responsible for the rent.

[82] Vadas became increasingly concerned about Garrick. He was suspicious because of Garrick’s history of broken promises and excuses. Garrick had repeatedly told him he would fly him to New York on his private jet to see the Garcorp offices but that hadn’t happened. Requests for an accounting on his investments had been met with excuses and no money.

[83] When Garrick would call him, the call display would show as a “private number”, but on one occasion, a call from Garrick had not been blocked and was from a “905” number. Vadas was suspicious as to where Garrick was living and now he had a phone number. Garrick had said he was buying a mansion on Lakeshore but Vadas had never seen it. Vadas decided to hire Skiptrace, a telephone number tracker, in order to determine the Lakeshore address. He received a report dated March 24, 2005 indicating that the phone was registered to 2510 Falkland Crescent, Oakville, the house that Vadas had rented at Garrick’s request for the Argo’s quarterback prospect. Vadas was shocked to think that it was Garrick himself and not a football player, who was living in the rented house leased in Vadas’ name, especially since the rent was in arrears.

[84] Vadas confronted Garrick with this information and told him he didn’t understand why his phone was associated with the Falkland Crescent address when he was living on Lakeshore. Garrick became upset, denied living at Falkland Crescent, and gave the explanation that he had had the phone attributed to that address for privacy reasons. Vadas did not believe the explanation, and drove by the house many times after that and became satisfied that Garrick was living there. Eventually he took legal steps to terminate the lease.

[85] The ultimate collapse of the relationship took place in February of 2005. After persistent insistence from Mr. Vadas that he wanted his money back, Garrick came to his house and gave him a cheque for $65000 US post-dated February 28, 2005, about a week later. Garrick told Vadas that the cheque was being provided as security. Vadas testified that Garrick said he was working on getting the money, that he had funds in Canada, and that he asked Vadas to hold off until he called, but that if he hadn’t heard from Garrick within a week, then he could go ahead and cash the cheque. Vadas testified that he waited over a week, and when he didn’t hear from Garrick, he deposited the cheque on March 3, 2005. The cheque was returned to Vadas’ bank, which sent him a notice dated March 27 that it had been returned due to insufficient funds. When Vadas contacted Garrick about the returned cheque, Garrick blamed Vadas and said the cheque bounced because Garrick had told the bank to hold off and Vadas had now made it worse by depositing it.

[86] Garrick told Vadas that if he had a U.S. account, it would be easier for Garrick to transfer money to him. Vadas set up a U.S. account and gave the account information to Garrick. Vadas checked the balance from time to time and was surprised to learn that on April 25, 2005, $3000 US had been deposited by Garrick into his account. Vadas contacted Garrick and asked about the rest of the money he was owed. Garrick said he would have to send it in increments but that he’d have it all in a week or so.

[87] The money never came. Apart from the $3000 U.S. deposited to his account on April 25, 2005, Mr. Vadas has not received any of his money back from Garrick.

[88] Vadas eventually decided to go to the police. He first went to the Halton Regional Police, then later to the Metropolitan Toronto Police Service. The subsequent investigation eventually led to Garrick’s arrest on September 20, 2007.

[89] For convenience of reference, I reproduce the payments from Vadas to Garrick:

• i. July 13, 2004 US draft $20,000
• ii. July 26, 2004 US draft $5,000
• iii. August 4, 2004 US draft $15,000
• iv. September 3, 2004 US cheque $8,000
• v. September 14, 2004 US money order $1,000
• vi. September 15, 2004 US cheque $2,000
• vii. September 16, 2004 US money order $1,000
• viii. September 20, 2004 US money order $1,000
• ix. September 20, 2004 US draft $3,000
• x. September 21, 2004 US draft $2,000
• xi. September 30, 2004 US money order $1,000
• xii. October 8, 2004, US money order $500
• xiii. October 12, 2004, US money order $1,000
• xiv. October 14, 2004, US money order $500
• xv. November 8, 2004, US money order $500
• xvi. November 9, 2004, US money order $500

Total: $62,000 US

Total received from Garrick: $3,000 US

(ii) cross-examination

[90] Mr. Garrick was given wide latitude in cross-examining Mr. Vadas, not only about the core issues, but also about peripheral matters that could potentially impact upon his credibility.

[91] He was not shaken in cross-examination.

[92] I found Vadas to be credible in his denials that he had colluded with other complainants or witnesses or with the investigating officer, Detective Alex Gauthier. I accept his denials that he tampered with or altered any of the exhibits.

[93] Garrick confronted Vadas with the fact that he and his software company, Mobile Software Technologies, had been sued in the U.S. for copyright infringement, and that a default judgment for approximately $150,000 had been obtained. Vadas testified that he had not knowingly done anything improper, and provided an explanation for his decision not to defend the action. I found his explanation to be believable.

[94] Vadas acknowledged speaking to the press, and agreed that he had been interviewed by the Toronto Star and for an article in Toronto Life Magazine. He said he simply told the truth about his experiences with Mr. Garrick.

[95] There was nothing in the extensive cross-examination of Mr. Vadas that undermined his credibility on the core issues in this case.

[96] I found Mr. Vadas to be intelligent, straightforward, and honest. He came across as an innocent victim who was vulnerable to fraud because of his youth and ambition, and who was drawn in by the smooth dishonesty and false promises of wealth and power made by Walter Garrick.

Richard Foltys

[97] Mr. Foltys is a professional photographer. He met Walter Garrick in May of 2004 while doing photography at a political event. He testified that he stepped out for some fresh air and became engaged in a conversation with Garrick. Garrick told him he was friends with Pinball Clemons and had driven to the event with him. Foltys had seen Clemons there earlier. Garrick told Foltys that he had made Clemons over two million dollars; that he had made a fortune in Google; that he was in the business of making money; and that he aspired to become Prime Minister of Canada one day.

[98] Foltys testified that they exchanged contact information. Later he was invited to the Skydome to watch an Argos game in Garrick’s private box. Garrick introduced him to important people as the professional photographer to the royal family.

[99] Foltys testified that “after some time brainwashing me”, Garrick asked him if he wanted to get involved. Foltys said that looking at the situation and the credibility of the people around Garrick, he decided to give it a chance. He met Garrick in his silver BMW car at his request and gave him $5000 in cash that he had saved for his wedding. Foltys testified that he always gets paperwork and this was no exception. Garrick’s represented that the money was to go into a stock called Celtar.

[100] The next time he spoke to Garrick a few weeks later, Garrick told him that his initial investment of $5,000 was already worth $6500. He testified that Garrick had the $6500 in cash with him in an envelope. Garrick asked him if he wanted to take the cash or invest more money. Foltys readily agreed to invest more.

[101] Garrick called shortly thereafter to say he needed $20,000 within 24 hours as some investments he was working on were about to close. Foltys said to let him think about it and shared the information with Jan Valle, a person working in his office who also became interested in investing with Garrick.

[102] Foltys testified that he gave Garrick a cheque dated August 2, 2004 for $5,000 and obtained a handwritten acknowledgement of a debt of $6500 from Walter Garrick.

[103] On Foltys’ evidence, Garrick did not owe him $6500 on August 2; he owed him $6500 plus the $5,000 he gave him by cheque dated August 2.

[104] Foltys testified that in addition to the $5,000 he gave Garrick on August 2, there was an additional $5,000 given to Garrick from Foltys’ associate, Jan Valle.

[105] Foltys also described a meeting at Sassafraz, a high-end restaurant/bar in Yorkville, where Garrick bragged about his wealth, and said that based on Foltys’ character, he would offer him a him a house and a job working for him at $500,000 a year. Foltys also testified that during their meeting, Garrick purported to call “Thomas”, his banker[^3]. Garrick was rude to him on the phone and told Thomas to tell him how much was in his account. He then held the phone up to Foltys’ ear and he heard Thomas say a number in excess of $400 million.

[106] Foltys described an occasion where he got a call saying he urgently needed to meet Walter Garrick at York University. He drove up because he wanted to meet Garrick face-to-face to discuss the state of his investments. He met Garrick in a parking lot, and Garrick told him he was going into a meeting with important people and wanted him to attend. Foltys attended the meeting and heard Garrick advise the York University representatives that he would give up to $15 million as an investment in a stadium at the university, to be named after him. Foltys testified that he had no idea what was happening or why he was there.

[107] Foltys gave some implausible versions of his interactions with Garrick. He said that he called Garrick after the York University meeting and Garrick pretended not to know him. He said that it was then that he “realized it was all a scam”. However, he also testified that he accepted an assignment to do family portraits for Garrick, and wasn’t paid when he invoiced him. As well, he took photos at Garrick’s son’s school and his invoice was never paid.

[108] Foltys testified that when he tried to talk to Garrick about his investment, he got the familiar series of promises, excuses, and outlandish stories.

[109] Foltys testified that he made repeated attempts to reach Garrick on his phone, and one day, Ken Vadas answered. As a result of their discussion with each other, Foltys knew he had been the victim of a fraud.

[110] Foltys testified that Vadas never told him what he should say.

[111] Several points made in cross-examination of Mr. Foltys bear mentioning.

[112] The photocopy of the cheque, exhibit 39, is of the front only. The back, where the bank’s stamp would be, was not produced. The cheque, from “CTI” is drawn on an account at a Bank of Montreal branch at 4800 Dufferin St. When it was suggested in cross-examination that Jan Valle had a business called Citi Design Studio, with an account at the Bank of Montreal at 4800 Dufferin St., Foltys replied “I don’t recall”.

[113] I have difficulty accepting the evidence of Richard Foltys. He presented as forceful and confident, but some of his evidence did not make sense. In particular, I am troubled by his testimony concerning ex. 40a, the handwritten acknowledgment of Garrick’s debt to Foltys of $6500. Initially, Foltys said that he wrote up the document when he gave him the first installment of $5000 cash, but when the document was shown to him and he saw that it made reference to a debt of $6500, he quickly changed his testimony and said that it must have been written when he gave Garrick the second $5000 by cheque. This possibility makes no sense, because upon giving Garrick the second $5000, he would have been owed $11,500, not $6500 as exhibit 40a states. Moreover, exhibit 40a is undated and the signatures are illegible.

[114] Unlike with the other four complainants, there is no reliable documentary evidence corroborating Foltys’ version of events, and some of what he has said in evidence is implausible. In all the circumstances, I am left in a state of reasonable doubt about the reliability of the evidence of Mr. Foltys.

Rahim Valani

(i) examination-in-chief

[115] Rahim Valani is a medical doctor. He is now thirty-nine years old. He obtained his M.D. from Queens University in 1999, and completed his residency in 2001. He is currently an assistant professor of medicine and paediatrics at McMaster University, and practices his specialty, emergency medicine.

[116] Between 2003 and 2005, he did a fellowship programme at the Hospital for Sick Children (HSC), then returned to HSC in early 2006 as a staff emergency physician.

[117] He first met Walter Garrick in May, 2006 when Garrick and his spouse Nancy Saporowski brought their two sons to the hospital for medical treatment. In asking routine questions of the parents, Garrick told Valani that he was a medical doctor, a physician, but that he had not completed his residency and had never practiced medicine. He said he was retired based on his investments.

[118] Garrick told Valani that he was pleased with the medical treatment that he had provided and asked if he could have his contact phone number. Because Valani was impressed with Garrick and viewed him as a medical colleague, he gave him his number.

[119] Garrick called a week later indicating that his children needed further medical attention. Valani told Garrick that he was not on shift, but was in the hospital and would agree to see the Garrick children.

[120] After the second treatment session, Garrick again told Valani how pleased he was with the treatment.

[121] During the two visits, Garrick and Valani chatted further about Garrick having come into significant wealth through investments when he was in medical school. Garrick said he was still active in investments.

[122] Valani testified that a couple of days later, Garrick called him. Garrick again told him how happy he was with Valani’s treatment of his family, and had decided to afford him an investment opportunity.

[123] Garrick told Valani that a company, Syncronoss Technologies, was about to go public, and that the IPO would be at $9 a share. Garrick said that through his connections with Synchronoss, he could acquire shares for Valani at their current value of $1.

[124] Valani testified that Garrick told him he had never done this before for somebody outside the family, but because he was very happy with the way Valani had conducted himself in treating his family, he was going to give him the opportunity to come in on this investment. Valani testified that Garrick suggested a meeting. Valani agreed, saying it would be a worthwhile investment to take on.

[125] Valani checked out the Synchronoss website and it confirmed what Garrick was saying; that there would soon be an IPO.

[126] Valani met with Garrick soon after, in a coffee shop near the hospital. Garrick brought his laptop and showed Valani pictures of himself with famous people and expensive cars. Valani recalled a photo showing Garrick standing beside a Ferrari that Garrick claimed to own. Valani had seen Garrick’s expensive BMW SUV outside the coffee shop, and the effect of all this was that he believed Garrick to be who and what he claimed to be.

[127] Garrick brought up the issue of the investment opportunity in Synchronoss and a $20,000 investment was discussed. Valani said it would take him a couple of days to get the money but Garrick said it had to be done that very day because he had a meeting that afternoon at UBS in order to make the arrangements to acquire the shares.

[128] Valani told Garrick that his CIBC bank branch was in Kingston but Garrick told him he could obtain a draft from a nearby CIBC branch. They went to the local CIBC branch together. Garrick went outside saying he had to make some calls and while Valani was standing in line waiting to talk to a teller, Garrick called his cell and told him to get as much of it in cash as possible. Valani was able to obtain $2000 in cash and a bank draft made out to Garrick for $18,000. He gave the cash and the draft to Garrick. Garrick gave him a loan agreement for $20, 000. He signed it and Valani initialled it. The bank draft, loan agreement, and supporting bank records are found in a booklet of documents entered as exhibit 12, under tab 1.

[129] Over the next several months, there were a number of meetings and frequent email communications between Valani and Garrick. At the meetings, Garrick made various representations about his wealth; including showing him a letter on CIBC letterhead stating that he had $35 million on deposit. He talked about being interested in buying a seat on the New York Mercantile Stock Exchange for $100 million.

[130] At one of the meetings, likely in July, Garrick laid out his plans to set up a foundation to be known as the Garrick Foundation, for the purpose of helping fund healthcare in Ontario. He told Valani that he wanted him to head up the Foundation. He promised him a salary of $600,000 a year, a house in Oakville that he had purchased for $1.89 million, and an expensive car to drive. He said that the Garrick Foundation office would be housed at 10 Toronto Street, the former offices of Conrad Black, which Garrick claimed to have purchased.

[131] At some point in mid-July Garrick showed him the $1.89 million house in Oakville that he claimed his wife Nancy had already purchased on his behalf. He gave Valani a copy of the agreement of purchase and sale, dated June 16, 2006, a copy of which is contained under tab 3 of the booklet of documents marked exhibit 19. The agreement refers to a deposit of $100,000. As I note below when referring to the evidence of Nancy Saporowski, the $100,000 deposit was never made and the deal never closed.

[132] He told Valani that he would be donating $10 million to the SickKids Foundation, the charitable arm of HSC and that in return, the hospital atrium was to be named the “Walter and Nancy Garrick Atrium”.

[133] Valani testified that at the meetings in which Garrick’s grand plans were discussed, Garrick sketched the outlines of those plans on paper. Valani retained those notes, copies of which are contained in the booklet of documents entered as exhibit 19. The notes are consistent with Valani’s testimony as to what he was told by Garrick.

[134] Over the period between May 30, 2006 and August 1, 2006, Valani gave Garrick bank drafts or money orders totalling $83,200. He testified that Between September 1, 2006 and December 29, he gave Garrick cash on a number of occasions and that his total investment with Garrick was in the neighbourhood of $120,000. Valani testified that he did so because he saw Garrick as a patron who was providing him, a young and ambitious doctor, with a dream opportunity.

[135] Valani’s testimony concerning the money he invested and the promises Garrick made is supported by documentary evidence contained in binders entered as exhibits 12 and 19. Although it is not necessary to detail their contents in their entirety, it is useful to point to some of them.

[136] Among the documents contained in exhibit 12 are copies of bank drafts or money orders, all payable to Walter Garrick from Dr. Rahim Valani. For convenience, I list them here:

• i. May 30, 2006 Bank Draft $18,000
• ii. June 8, 2006 Bank Draft $12,000
• iii. June 19, 2006 Bank Draft $20,000
• iv. July 4, 2006 Bank Draft $10,000
• v. July 17, 2006 Bank Draft $10,000
• vi. July 25, 2006 Bank Draft $7,000
• vii. July 31, 2006 Money Order $2,200
• viii. August 1, 2006 Money Order $2,000

Total $83,200

[137] Also contained in exhibit 12 are bank records that reflect cash withdrawals made by Valani that he testified he gave to Garrick. Valani testified that he withdrew cash and gave it to Garrick on September 1, September 29, December 19, and December 27, 2006. Valani’s bank records reflect cash withdrawals on each of those dates in the amounts Valani claims to have given Garrick. The total amount of cash Valani claims to have given to Garrick is $10,500 which, when added to the $83,200 given to Garrick in bank drafts and money orders, totals $93,700.

[138] Valani testified that to appease his concerns about not getting any of his money back, Garrick gave him four cheques drawn on the account of his spouse, Nancy Saporowski. One was a blank cheque dated July 30, 2006. Valani testified that Garrick gave it to him saying that his wife wanted to contribute to the hospital and he could fill in the amount himself. Valani never filled out the cheque, but retained it. I pause to say that the position of the Crown with respect to this cheque is that it was used by Garrick to reinforce the trust he had built with Valani.

[139] The other three cheques drawn on the account of Nancy Saporowski made payable to Dr. Valani were all dated December 1, 2006 and were for amounts of $3000, $4000, and $4000. Valani testified that he deposited those cheques later in December and on two occasions, gave $800 in cash back to Garrick because Garrick said he didn’t have cash at the time.

[140] All three Saporowski cheques were returned because the account had previously been closed. Ms. Saporowski testified that she had no knowledge of the cheques and that the signatures on the cheques were not hers.

[141] Dr. Valani’s testimony concerning Garrick’s representations about his intention to donate millions of dollars to the SickKids Foundation is corroborated by the documentary evidence and by the testimony of Cindy Yelle, who was its vice-president from 2004 to 2009.

[142] Fifty-six pages of email exchanges between Valani and Garrick are contained at tab 4 of the booklet of documents entered as exhibit 19. They are entirely consistent with Valani’s version of events. The most telling - indeed the “smoking gun” - is the fake email from Ms. Yelle of the SickKids Foundation that Garrick forwarded to Valani.

The fake email from Ms. Yelle of SickKids Foundation forwarded to Valani by Garrick

[143] On October 5, 2006, Garrick, using his email address: drwegarrick@sympatico.ca[^4], forwarded an email to Valani saying “Rahim I wanted to speak with you today. I will see you tomorrow”. The forwarded email purports to be from Ms. Yelle of the SickKids Foundation concerning Garrick’s large charitable donation.

[144] The forwarded email confirms a proposed meeting the following day to “discuss the administration of your generous 4 million dollar gift and naming of the Atrium”. Ms. Yelle’s purported email goes on to state: “we have spoken with Shona Stone at UBS and we thank you in advance for the additional 4 million in funding. We will follow the wishes of you and your lovely wife and we will hold off on the press announcement until we receive direction from you.”

[145] Ms. Yelle testified that SickKids Foundation had not received any donation from Mr. Garrick, much less $4 million; and that she had not spoken to Shona Stone of UBS. Shona Stone of UBS confirmed in an agreed statement of fact filed on consent that she had never spoken to Ms. Yelle and also confirmed that Garrick had never done business with UBS.

[146] If Garrick forwarded this fake message purportedly from the vice-president of SickKids Foundation to Valani, it could have only one purpose: to give credence to Garrick’s false, misleading, and dishonest representations to Valani.

[147] Mr. Garrick does not dispute that the email is a fake. He asserts that it has been altered either by Dr. Valani or someone else who is out to get him.

[148] Valani testified that he has never received an accounting of the investments he made with Walter Garrick, and never received any of his money back from him.

ii. cross-examination of Valani

[149] Mr. Garrick’s cross-examination of Dr. Valani was focused primarily on attempting to demonstrate that he is a vindictive liar who has attempted to deceive the court and was entirely capable of going so far as to alter documents that had been tendered to the court as exhibits.

[150] I will deal first with the allegation that Dr. Valani altered exhibits. There is no basis for such a conclusion. It would make no sense for him to do so, particularly in light of the abundance of documentary evidence supporting his claims – documents that are not alleged to have been altered in any way.

[151] Moreover I find it highly unlikely that Valani altered the contents of the email about the large charitable donation that was sent to Mr. Garrick by Ms. Yelle, and forwarded to Dr. Valani. To do so would be foolhardy, since copies of the original could easily have been produced. I conclude that Valani did not alter any documents.

[152] With respect to the issue of the return of money to Dr. Valani, it emerged that he had commenced a civil action against Walter Garrick, his father Wilfred Garrick, and Ms. Nancy Saporowski. Walter Garrick had been facing jail for contempt of court and Wilfred Garrick had agreed to a settlement of the civil action, the terms of which included payment by Wilfred Garrick of $80,000 to Dr. Valani, and an apology to be published in the Globe and Mail newspaper acknowledging that neither Wilfred Garrick nor his wife had participated in a fraud or committed any wrongdoing. As well, as part of the settlement, Ms. Saporowski was required to pay to Valani $10,000 to be paid at a modest monthly rate. It is not clear to me how much money has been paid by Ms. Saporowski. Valani said he wasn’t sure.

[153] Walter Garrick repeatedly suggested to Valani in cross-examination that he had tried to mislead the court and had withheld the information that he had received over $80,000 in relation to his dealings with Walter Garrick. Dr. Valani initially advised the court that he was unsure whether he could answer questions about the settlement of the civil action because the settlement agreement precluded disclosure of its terms. Dr. Valani was afforded an opportunity to obtain legal advice, and after receiving it, returned to court and indicated that he would answer the questions.

[154] Valani then acknowledged that he had received $80,000 from Wilfred Garrick and a further sum of money (he was not sure how much) from Ms. Saporowski. He insisted that he had not meant to mislead the court when he testified that he had not received any of his money back from Walter Garrick. That was the truth, and if the testimony was misleading, it was not his intention to do so.

[155] I have given this issue careful consideration and I have concluded that Valani did not intend to mislead the court. He never testified that he had not received any money back – he testified that he had not received any money back from Walter Garrick. As I noted previously, when Valani was confronted with the circumstances of the civil action he had commenced against Walter Garrick , Wilfred Garrick, and Ms. Saporowski, he sought legal advice and then answered the questions. He acknowledged the terms of the settlement and that he had received $80,000 from Wilfred Garrick but testified that he wasn’t sure how much he had received of the $10,000 settlement concerning Ms. Saporowski.

[156] There is an abundance of documentary and other evidence confirming the essential aspects of Valani’s evidence that he was defrauded by Walter Garrick. When I consider the evidence of Valani in the light of the other evidence, including the bank drafts, money orders, and the fake email from Ms. Yelle of SickKids Foundation that Garrick forwarded to Valani, I have no difficulty accepting Valani’s account of Garrick’s dishonest representations and fraudulent conduct.

Cynthia Ounpuu-Yelle

[157] To avoid confusion, I will refer to this witness as Ms. Yelle (her married name), because when she was vice-president of the SickKids Foundation between 2004 and 2009, she was known as Cindy Yelle, and her name appears as Cindy Yelle on some of the exhibits in this case.

[158] Ms. Yelle confirmed that Garrick had approached SickKids Foundation about an $8 million donation. She had a few telephone conversations with him, and met with him three or four times. Garrick described himself as a Columbia University-educated doctor residing in Oakville. He had done very well in the internet boom of the early 2000’s and was a significant shareholder of Google. He had generated significant wealth, and was a grateful parent for the care his older son had received.

[159] Garrick’s quid pro quo was that the hospital atrium was to be named “The Walter and Nancy Garrick Atrium” after himself and his wife. An artist’s rendering was prepared reflecting the proposal and it was given to Mr. Garrick around November 11, 2006.

[160] Ms. Yelle said that there had been “a lot of back and forth” over several months. An agreement was signed in late October or early November of 2006. Garrick advised that the first installment of $4 million would be made in mid-November. The first installment was not forthcoming and Mr. Garrick postponed until mid-December, when a sizeable portion of the donation was to be forthcoming.

[161] When that donation was not made, Ms. Yelle tried repeatedly to contact Garrick through telephone calls and emails, but without success. In Ms. Yelle’s words, Garrick “had disappeared”.

[162] Prior to this, Ms. Yelle had begun making inquiries about Mr. Garrick. She checked with Columbia University. They had no record of his having attended there. He raised this with Garrick, who said that he had had his records expunged for privacy reasons. Google representatives would not release any information about shareholders’ holdings. A call from the president of HSC to Michael Clemons left him with “concerns”. Ms. Yelle called Brad Elberg, Garrick’s lawyer, but he advised that he could not provide information, citing solicitor-client privilege.

[163] Ms. Yelle was shown the email dated October 5 purporting to be from her, which Garrick had forwarded to Dr. Valani. It will be recalled that the email stated that the purpose of the meeting the next day was “to discuss the administration of your generous 4 million dollars gift and naming of the Atrium”. The email also stated that “we have spoken to Shona Stone of UBS and we thank you in advance for the additional 4 million in funding”, etc. Ms. Yelle testified that the email Garrick forwarded to Valani had been altered, because the hospital had not received any money from Garrick, much less $4 million, and she had not spoken to Shona Stone at UBS.

[164] Ms. Yelle testified that SickKids Foundation did more research on Garrick than had ever been done with respect to any other donor. She testified that she had never before experienced or even considered that someone would come forward claiming to want to make a significant donation and lie about it. She said that Garrick had an answer for everything.

[165] Ms. Yelle’s evidence was completely believable. It is internally consistent and consistent with the other evidence in the case. I accept it without hesitation.

Shona Stone

[166] The evidence of Shona Stone was received as an agreed statement of fact and marked exhibit #38. In receiving it in evidence, I ensured that Mr. Garrick understood the significance of agreeing that it be received.

[167] I highlight the following parts of Ms. Stone’s evidence:

• i. Ms. Stone is currently the Executive Director, Head of Investment Products and Services for the UBS Bank (Canada) in Toronto. She has worked for UBS since 2000.
• ii. Ms. Stone met Mr. Garrick on one occasion in 2000. She has not had any correspondence or conversations or any other dealings with him since that time. To the best of her knowledge, UBS has never conducted any business with Mr. Garrick.
• iii. There is no person currently employed at UBS by the name Thomas Gjestvang or Thomas Ovegjestvang. From her own knowledge, there was no one employed in Canada with either name since 2000 when she joined UBS.
• iv. She has never spoken to Cindy Yelle of the SickKids Foundation.

Nancy Saporowski

[168] Ms. Saporowski and Walter Garrick were friends in high school. They had a brief relationship during that period and rekindled their relationship in the early 2000’s and began living together in 2003. Ms. Saporowski has a son from a prior relationship who was born in 1991, and a son with Walter Garrick, born in November of 2004. Ms. Saporowski testified that she ended her relationship with Walter Garrick in August of 2006, and that any subsequent contact between Garrick and herself has been related to issues of child support, access, and legal matters.

[169] There is a clear history of acrimony between Ms. Saporowski and Mr. Garrick since the termination of their relationship. Walter Garrick’s cross-examination of Ms. Saporowski, as well as his testimony in his own defence, made it very clear that they disagree on almost everything about the history and nature of their relationship. He was given wide latitude in his cross-examination of Ms. Saporowski, and he took full advantage of it, exploring many details of their relationship that were of marginal relevance at best.

[170] I found Ms. Saporowski to be a truthful witness. Her answers were internally consistent, and consistent with the other evidence in the case.

[171] It is unnecessary to discuss the history of the relationship between Mr. Garrick and Ms. Saporowski. I will address only the important factual issues relating to the charges faced by Walter Garrick.

[172] Based on the totality of the evidence of Ms. Saporowski, the exhibits tendered during her testimony and through other witnesses, and the testimony of other witnesses whose evidence I accept, I make the following findings of fact:

• Although she and Walter Garrick were engaged, they never legally married.
• Garrick supported the family during the time they were living together.
• Garrick apparently had access to significant funds that he caused to flow through Ms. Saporowski’s account at Scotiabank at least during part of the period of their relationship, but she had no real knowledge of the amounts[^5].
• Garrick told her that he had “millions” in Google shares.
• Although she believed that Garrick had substantial assets, she had very little knowledge of his financial dealings.
• Garrick handled the family finances and had access to and control over all family bank accounts.
• She had never travelled on a private jet with Garrick. On their two vacations to the Bahamas in 2005, they flew commercial economy class. She had no knowledge of Garrick’s alleged ownership or access to a private jet.
• Ms. Saporowski never went by the name of Nancy Garrick.
• She knew nothing about the Garrick Foundation and Garrick had never discussed it with her.
• She had no knowledge of Garrick having plans to make a donation to SickKids Foundation and had never spoken to Cindy Yelle.
• Ms. Saporowski and Garrick lived in the house on Falkland Crescent that Vadas had leased for the unnamed quarterback who Garrick told Vadas was being brought to Canada by the Argonauts.
• Ms. Saporowski entered into an agreement of purchase and sale of a residential property in Oakville for $1.89 million on June 16, 2006. She did so on Garrick’s behalf and with his encouragement. She believed it was to be their family home. The $100,000 deposit referred to in the agreement of purchase and sale was never provided, and Garrick later said he didn’t like the house and didn’t want to go through with the purchase. The deal never went through. This is the same property that Garrick showed Dr. Valani and promised him as part of his compensation for heading up the Garrick Foundation. A copy of the agreement of purchase and sale had been given to Dr. Valani by Garrick and tendered in evidence during Valani’s testimony under tab 4 of the booklet of documents marked exhibit 19.
• Ms. Saporowski had no knowledge of the February 28, 2005 cheque for $65,000 drawn on her Scotiabank account and given to Vadas by Garrick. Her purported signature on the cheque is a forgery.
• Ms. Saporowski had no knowledge of the cheques given to Valani in 2006 that purported to be drawn on her Scotiabank account. Her purported signatures on the cheques are forgeries. The account had been closed, and her relationship with Garrick was over in August 2006.
• Jan Valle was Garrick’s assistant.
• As part of the settlement of the civil action initiated by Dr. Valani, Ms. Saporowski agreed to pay him $10,000.

Jonathan Morgan

[173] Mr. Morgan is a partner in Morgan Meighen & Associates, owners of 10 Toronto Street. The building was purchased in 2006. Mr. Morgan testified that he had never had any dealings with Walter Garrick and had never heard of him until he was contacted by police.

Dorio Gritti

[174] Mr. Gritti is investigator/auditor with the enforcement division of the Canada Revenue Agency. After a voir dire, I gave oral reasons ruling that the provisions of s. 241 of the Income Tax Act[^6] had been complied with and that Mr. Gritti would be permitted to give evidence concerning whether Mr. Garrick had filed tax returns in Canada during the period covered by the indictment.

[175] Mr. Gritti testified that Mr. Garrick had not filed tax returns during the period covered by the indictment.

Thomas Hancock

[176] Mr. Hancock was with TD Bank/Canada Trust in 2007 and 2008. He was a senior investigator in the Corporate and Security department. His responsibilities included compliance with lawful production orders. He is currently Director of Security at ING Bank.

[177] Mr. Garrick consented to the introductions of the bank documents. However, because Mr. Garrick is self-represented, and bank records are subject to privacy interests that potentially engage the Charter, I conducted a voir dire to determine how the bank records had come into possession of the Crown. In oral reasons, I ruled that the Garrick had given his informed consent to their introduction; that the documents had been lawfully obtained under the authority of two court orders; that no Charter issues were engaged; that the documents had been kept in the ordinary course of business; and were admissible in evidence for the truth of their contents.

[178] The hundreds of pages of computer-generated records are contained in two volumes, exhibits 16 and 18, and relate to Garrick’s two bank accounts - a Canadian dollar account and a U.S. dollar account. They cover the period between January 2, 2004 to May 26, 2005, when both accounts were closed.

David Malamed—Forensic Examiner

[179] Mr. Malamed is a Chartered Accountant and a certified forensic examiner who is often retained by the MTPS Fraud Squad to conduct forensic examinations of financial documents. He prepared a report analyzing the bank records and relating them to the information provided by Detective Gauthier of the Fraud Squad concerning the amounts and dates of the investments said to have been made by the complainants.

[180] The documentary evidence examined and analyzed by the accountant provides compelling support for the case for the Crown. The forensic accountant was not able to tie all of the money advanced by the complainants to Garrick’s two accounts, but he was able to tie a total of more than $126,806 to three of the complainants, Michael Clemons, Ken Vadas, and Damon Allen. There were entries consistent with the version of events provided by Foltys as well, although the accountant was not able to point to specific documents proving that the money came from Foltys. As for Valani, it will be recalled that his investments were through bank drafts, money orders and cash, after the two accounts had been closed.

[181] During the period under examination, Garrick made cash withdrawals from his Canadian dollar account of almost $143,000, and from his U.S. dollar account, more than $21,000 U.S.

[182] There were other deposits made to Garrick’s accounts. I will mention only some of them. In the Canadian dollar account, there were nine deposits totalling $71,790 from John Avery (a former Argo player who was originally a complainant), four deposits totalling $33,000 from City Design Studio (apparently owned or controlled by Jan Valle), and three deposits totalling $15,200 from Jan Valle. As well, the accountant identified eighteen wire transfers from Tom Ovegjestvang (the person Garrick allegedly said was his contact at UBS) totalling $23,080.

[183] The forensic accountant was unable to find evidence that any of the money deposited from investors was ever given to a third party for investments purposes. In most cases, the money went into one or the other of Garrick’s accounts when the balance in those accounts was quite low, and then money began to immediately flow from the accounts both in the form of cash withdrawals, and to pay personal bills. In other words, the evidence shows that Garrick treated the money as his own, not as money earmarked for investment on behalf of the complainants.

(B) The Defence Evidence

Wilfred Garrick

[184] Mr. Wilfred Garrick is the father of Walter Garrick. He impressed me as an honest, principled gentleman. Unfortunately, his evidence did little if anything to assist his son.

[185] Wilfred Garrick confirmed that his son had attended Columbia University beginning in late 1991. It was his understanding that he studied there for two and one-half years. He stayed with an aunt in New York, then later had his own apartment.

[186] Wilfred Garrick understood that Walter was in a pre-med program. He had never seen any of Walter’s transcripts. Walter’s educational expenses were paid for him while he was at Columbia. Apparently a significant part of the cost was paid by Wilfred Garrick, but some of it (it is not clear to me what portion) came from a trust account that had been set up by the grandfather for Walter’s and his sister’s education.

[187] Walter Garrick dropped out of Columbia without telling his parents or his grandfather, the ones who were paying his way.

[188] Wilfred Garrick testified that his wife made some inquiries and learned in early 1994 that Walter had dropped out. Wilfred Garrick had bought him a ticket to fly to New York from Buffalo, and had driven him there and dropped off at the airport. He learned later that Walter had cashed the ticket in and had returned to Canada.

[189] Wilfred Garrick has no knowledge about Walter’s academic record at Columbia other than what he has been told by Walter. He has never seen transcripts from Columbia.

[190] Wilfred Garrick testified that Walter lived with the family when he returned to Canada, and that Walter told him he had been investing and had made a very significant amount of money in late 1993 and early 1994.

[191] Wilfred Garrick testified that in 1996, Walter told him he was bringing in $4 million from the U.S. He attended with Walter, and the bank manager called the police who came and arrested them.

[192] Wilfred Garrick testified that the arrests were baseless. Initially, it was believed that the money did not belong to Walter Garrick. Wilfred Garrick testified that after two years, the case was “thrown out”. Wilfred Garrick testified that he understood from Walter that he had received the $4 million U.S. He said that he had seen some money orders that he felt confirmed that Walter had received the money.

[193] Wilfred Garrick was asked in his evidence-in-chief what Walter did with the money. He replied that he thought he had reinvested it or spent it, that he didn’t know. He said that it was Walter’s money and “he didn’t want me diving into his business”.

[194] He agreed that over the ensuing years, Walter Garrick spent money on various expensive cars, including a Porsche, a Mercedes, and a Range Rover. He testified that after he got the money, he got serious with Nancy Saporowski. He spent a substantial amount of money supporting her, sending her son Denzil to private school, and buying her expensive gifts.

[195] Wilfred Garrick testified that Walter spent considerable time researching investments. He testified that Walter still has some shares in Google. He also knew of Thomas Gjestvang and understood that “he’s the guy who looks after Walter’s money in the States”. He testified that Gjestvang is with a financial institution, but he didn’t know which institution.

[196] Wilfred Garrick confirmed that Yan Valle had been a tenant in one of the family properties. He testified that Walter had told him he had given money as a block to “this guy” and there were losses. He didn’t know who “this guy” was. He testified that Walter told him that Mr. Clemons knew who the guy was.

[197] Wilfred Garrick gave extensive evidence concerning his perception that his son had been mistreated by Detective Gauthier. He also testified at length about the law suit initiated by Dr. Valani and his belief that he and his family had been slandered by Valani. He explained that he agreed to settle the case with Valani for $80,000 and an apology from the Globe & Mail because he wanted to put an end to the matter and keep his son out of jail for contempt of court. Wilfred Garrick became very emotional at times when he was discussing his perceived mistreatment by Valani and his lawyer, and when he was talking about the treatment Walter received from Detective Gauthier.

[198] I found Wilfred Garrick to be a principled, honest man who rightly takes pride in his honesty and commitment to his family and his church. He genuinely believes that he and his son Walter Garrick have been wronged. However, his evidence, particularly concerning Walter Garrick’s financial circumstances and business dealings, was vague and unhelpful. Much of what he said was based on what he was told by his son Walter Garrick.

[199] With respect, there is nothing in Wilfred Garrick’s evidence that raises a reasonable doubt in my mind.

Detective Alex Gauthier

[200] Walter Garrick called Detective Gauthier as a defence witness. He was permitted to cross-examine him as a matter of fairness and with the consent of the Crown.

[201] A central theme advanced by Garrick throughout the trial was that Gauthier had engaged in serious criminal misconduct in his investigation of this case. Garrick’s complaints included allegations of arbitrary detention, abuse of police authority, interference with witnesses, suborning perjury, destruction of evidence, illegal, degrading, and unconstitutional strip searches, and a host of other improprieties.

[202] Detective Gauthier was on the witness stand for the better part of three days. He was vigorously cross-examined about his various alleged wrongdoings.

[203] There was not a single answer given by Detective Gauthier during Garrick’s extensive cross-examination that gave me reason to disbelieve him.

[204] Understandably, it emerged that some of the statements made in synopses or other documents contained errors. Where appropriate, Gauthier acknowledged the errors and explained that he had simply been mistaken.

[205] He denied the various improprieties that were levelled against him, and I found his answers to be entirely credible.

[206] The two strip searches conducted by Gauthier and his partner were conducted professionally and at the direction of the officer in charge in accordance with normal police procedure for persons who are to be housed in the general prison population.

[207] I have no doubt that Detective Gauthier’s persistent and thorough investigation was decidedly unwelcome to Walter Garrick, but I am satisfied that from the start of his investigation to the finish, Detective Alex Gauthier conducted himself professionally and was, as he put it, just doing his job.

Walter Garrick

[208] Mr. Garrick explained that without telling his parents or Nancy Saporowski, he elected to “defer” his studies at Columbia and use the money he had been given from his grandfather’s trust fund, to invest. He claimed to have earned huge returns, and by 1996, he was worth millions of dollars. He also purchased a condo in New York City for $569,000 with money from his grandfather’s trust.

[209] It was difficult to understand some of Mr. Garrick’s explanations concerning the source of his wealth. His evidence was confusing, often changing, and ultimately utterly implausible.

[210] He testified that his financial contact in the U.S. was Thomas Gjestvang, and that when he wanted something done with his money, he would contact him and provide him with instructions.

[211] The explanations Garrick provided concerning the charges against him were not believable. He said that he had selected Yan Valle as the person to whom he would give the money to be invested on behalf of Clemons, Allen, and Vadas. Yan Valle’s background is a mystery. Garrick met him when Yalle was sharing space with Foltys. When Valle and Foltys had a falling-out, Valle ended up living rent-free in a property owned by the Garrick family. Garrick claims that he, a sophisticated investor, gave Clemons’, Allen’s and Vadas’ money to Valle with instructions to invest it in Interactive Brokers. If Garrick had been acting honestly, it is hard to imagine a more unlikely person for Garrick to choose to act as investor for Clemons, Allen and Vadas than Mr. Valle. The document tendered as exhibit 43 by Mr. Garrick purporting to confirm an investment with Mr. Valle in Interactive Brokers does nothing to change my opinion that Garrick was lying about the role played by Mr. Valle in the investments of Clemons, Allen, and Vadas.

[212] Furthermore, the bank records, supplemented by the report of the forensic accountant, tell an entirely different story. They show that Garrick used the investments made by Clemons, Allen, and Vadas as if their money belonged to him. As it relates to the charges concerning Clemons, Allen and Vadas, I reject Garrick’s evidence entirely.

[213] I turn now to Garrick’s evidence concerning Valani. Garrick testified that Valani received only about $15,000. He argues that because there is no evidence as to where the money orders and bank drafts went, it cannot be said that he ever received the money. This is, in my view, a preposterous suggestion. Bank drafts and money orders are easily negotiable. Garrick has provided no documentary or other evidence showing what accounts he had at any financial institution at that time. He submits only that since the Crown cannot show where the money went, it cannot be established that he received it. The simple and uncontroverted fact is that Valani provided Walter Garrick with the bank drafts and money orders payable to Walter Garrick, and the money has not been accounted for.

[214] Furthermore, Garrick suggests that it was Valani who altered the emails that were forwarded to him purporting to be between Garrick and Ms. Yelle of SickKids Foundation. This assertion is not credible for at least three reasons. The emails were forwarded from Mr. Garrick’s email address, drwegarrick@sympatico.ca. The forwarded copies would be readily accessible from the “Sent” folder at Garrick’s email address. Garrick testified that he was unable to obtain the original because it was “gone”. But Garrick testified that he also sent blind copies to his lawyer, Brad Elberg. If Garrick himself had not altered the emails then the blind copies would establish that fact beyond doubt. The blind copies were not produced and Brad Elberg was not called as a witness. Finally even if Valani had been bent on destroying Garrick, it would make no sense for him to alter the emails. There was already an abundance of documentation showing that Valani had given Garrick large sums of money. It is impossible to imagine that Valani would risk it all to concoct fake emails when the evidence was already so overwhelming. The only plausible explanation for the altered emails is that Garrick became concerned that Valani was losing trust in him, and he wanted to bolster that trust by sending him alleged correspondence from Ms. Yelle of SickKids Foundation that confirmed he had already given $4,000,000, and that another $4,000,000 was confirmed by Shona Stone of UBS to be on the way.

[215] The evidence concerning the fraudulent conduct with respect to Valani is simply overwhelming. In the circumstances, I completely reject Mr. Garrick’s evidence concerning the charges of theft and fraud relating to Valani.

Summary of Conclusions concerning the Defence Evidence

[216] I found Wilfred Garrick to be an honest witness. However, with respect, I conclude that his evidence was of no assistance to his son Walter Garrick on the charges before the court. Much of what he said came from Walter Garrick himself. The rest of his evidence has little relevance to the issues I am called upon to decide. It does not raise a reasonable doubt in my mind with respect to any of the charges.

[217] I have accepted the evidence of Detective Gauthier that he did nothing improper. I have completely rejected the allegations put to him in the course of cross-examination. The evidence of Detective Alex Gauthier does not raise a reasonable doubt in my mind with respect to any of the charges.

[218] I reject completely the evidence of Walter Garrick. His evidence was full of obfuscation, implausibilities, and outright lies.

CONCLUSIONS

[219] It follows that the evidence of the defence witnesses, viewed both individually and collectively, does not raise a reasonable doubt in my mind with respect to any of the charges.

[220] In arriving at my conclusions, I have taken into account the totality of the evidence. Having found that the defence evidence does not raise a reasonable doubt in my mind, I am required, in accordance with the principles set out in R.v W.(D) 1991 93 (SCC), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742, to consider the evidence which I have accepted and to determine whether it establishes the guilt of the accused on any of the counts. As is evident from my reasons, the evidence satisfies me beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Garrick acted dishonestly in his dealings with Mr. Clemons, Mr. Allen, Mr. Vadas, and Dr. Valani. His representations were false; and he knew they were false. He was well aware that Clemons, Allen, Vadas, and Valani were relying on his dishonest representations when they turned over their money to him for the purpose of investment. Walter Garrick’s real purpose was to convert the money to his own use. He was very much aware that as a result of his dishonesty, the victims’ economic interests were, at the very least, imperilled.

[221] As I indicated previously, the evidence of Richard Foltys has left me in a state of reasonable doubt concerning counts 5 and 6, where Mr. Foltys is the complainant.

[222] I conclude that the Crown has proved the guilt of Walter Garrick beyond a reasonable doubt on counts 1 and 2 (re: Michael Clemons), counts 3 and 4 (re: Damon Allen), Counts 7 and 8 (re: Ken Vadas), and counts 9 and 10 (re: Rahim Valani).

[223] I agree with the Crown that the charges of fraud and theft with respect to each complainant involve the same acts, and that in the circumstances, the findings of guilt on the theft charges should be stayed on the basis of the rule against double punishment set out in R.v. Kienapple, 1974 14 (SCC), [1975] 1 S.C.R. 729).

[224] In the result, convictions are hereby registered against Walter Garrick on the four counts of fraud contained in counts 1, 3, 7 & 9 of the indictment.

J. D. McCombs J.

[^1]: See R. v. Theroux, supra, at p. 457 and R. v. Zlatic, supra, at pp. 477-8.

[^2]: This was a temporary loan to Mr. Allen from Mr. Clemons

[^3]: Various witnesses testified that Garrick told them that Thomas Gjestvang (or Ovegjestvang) was the person who handled his US accounts for UBS.

[^4]: Various witnesses, including Ms. Yelle of SickKids Foundation, and Dr. Valani testified that Garrick claimed to be a doctor, and said that his email address, drwegarrick@sympatico.ca reinforced their belief that he was a medical doctor. Garrick testified that he did not hold himself out as a doctor, and that the use of the “dr” at the beginning of his email address was intended only to reflect his aspirations to one day become a doctor.

[^5]: The amount of money flowing through Ms. Saporowski’s Scotiabank account is uncertain. The bank records were not tendered in evidence. However, exhibits 29 and 30 (letters from Andrew Jack, Personal Banking Officer, Scotiabank branch in Oakville, dated November 28, 2005 and December 6, 2007) suggest that there were weekly deposits going into the account, and that the deposits were never less than $8000.

[^6]: S. 241 of the Income Tax Act prohibits disclosure of evidence relating to a taxpayer. Exceptions include where criminal proceedings have been commenced either by the laying of an information or the preferring of an indictment.