DATE: 2013-03-26

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

– and –

WALTER GARRICK

John Scutt, for the Crown

Robert Tomovski, for Walter Garrick

Heard: March 7, 8, 2013 (Sentencing Submissions)

J. D. McCombs J.

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

OVERVIEW

[1]. Walter Garrick has been convicted of four counts of fraud over $5000[^1]. The offences occurred over a three-year period ending in January, 2007. The Crown seeks a custodial sentence in the upper reformatory range, to be followed by three years’ probation with a restitution order. The Crown also seeks a fine in lieu of forfeiture, and a mandatory order requiring that in default of payment of the fine, Mr. Garrick serve a consecutive custodial sentence of between two and three years[^2].

[2]. The defence submits that a non-custodial sentence would be sufficient to satisfy the need for denunciation and deterrence in all the circumstances of this case. The defence concedes that a restitution order is appropriate, but resists the imposition of a fine in lieu of forfeiture, arguing that on the facts of this case, the court has a discretion to refuse to impose a fine in lieu of forfeiture.

The Facts

[3]. Garrick’s general method of deceit was to falsely pose as a wealthy, well-educated person with prominent and powerful friends, and with knowledge and connections that had allowed him to become a savvy, successful investor. He also presented himself as a person who wanted to give back to the community through work with disadvantaged youth and other charitable causes.

[4]. The proven facts are set out in detail in my reasons for judgment[^3] and need not be repeated here. However, for convenience, I will briefly summarize the main features of the four fraud convictions.

a) Michael Clemons--$57,000

[5]. Walter Garrick befriended Michael “Pinball” Clemons by treating him as a valued and respected mentor. He worked hard to win his trust, and in doing so, he gained credibility and insider-status with the Toronto Argonauts football organization. As Clemons’ trusted friend, Mr. Garrick was able to cloak himself with Clemons’ reputation for integrity and generosity. By various dishonest representations, he convinced Mr. Clemons that he was a savvy and successful investor, and induced Clemons to part with a total of $56,000. Instead of investing Mr. Clemons’ money as he promised, Garrick used it for his own purposes, to pay bills and to continue his masquerade as a wealthy person. When Clemons began to inquire about his money, Garrick provided lies, false promises, and excuses. None of the money has been repaid.

b) Damon Allen--$45,000

[6]. Damon Allen was quarterback for the Argos and a friend of Michael Clemons. He knew that Clemons trusted Garrick, and believed that Garrick was a wealthy and savvy investor. Allen wanted in, and Garrick was only too happy to accommodate him. Allen lost $45,000 to Garricks fraud. When Allen eventually became suspicious and demanded an accounting, Garrick again provided only lies, false promises, and excuses. None of Allens money has been repaid.

c) Kenneth Vadas--$59,000 USD (approximately $70,000 CDN)

[7]. Vadas was just twenty-three when he met Garrick. He had some money from his moderately successful former career as a model and actor, and Garrick quickly saw that Vadas was looking for new opportunities and a change in direction for himself. Garrick held himself out as someone who could help Vadas become wealthy and successful.

[8]. He induced Vadas to part with a total of $62,000 U.S. — almost all of his savings. Instead of investing Vadas’ money as promised, Garrick spent it on himself, paying personal expenses and maintaining his lifestyle. Garrick paid $3,000 back to Vadas, likely for the purpose of appeasing him during the currency of the fraud.

[9]. I have found that Vadas was defrauded of $59,000 U.S., all of which remains outstanding. In my decision today, I will treat this loss as equivalent to $70,000 CDN[^4].

d) Rahim Valani--$90,000 (approximately)

[10]. Rahim Valani was a young doctor starting out in his career, working at The Hospital for Sick Children. Garrick quickly perceived that Valani was ambitious and a promising target. Garrick held himself out to be a medical doctor, a graduate of Columbia University who chose to defer the remaining accreditation process required to practice medicine because his investment and philanthropic activities required his full attention.

[11]. Through conversations with Valani, Garrick knew he was burdened with substantial student loan debt. Garrick used his email address, drwegarrick@sympatico.ca, for his correspondence. The letters “dr” at the beginning of the email address suggested of course that he was indeed a doctor. Garrick flattered Valani and won his trust through various means, including promises of a leading role in a non-existent charitable foundation he called the Garrick Foundation, which was about to donate $8 million to SickKids Foundation, HSC`s charitable arm. In order to reinforce his claims of wealth, power, and altruism, Garrick brazenly approached SickKids Foundation and met with its vice-president. Garrick then forwarded altered emails to Valani to make it look as if the Garrick Foundation had already donated $4 million; and that another $4 million was on the way.

[12]. In fact, Garrick had no intention or ability to make the donation; but the altered emails had the desired effect of alleviating some of Valani’s concerns, and helped facilitate Garrick’s continued fraudulent conduct.

[13]. Garrick defrauded Valani of about $90,000—money that Garrick knew Valani had to borrow. Garrick did not invest the money as promised, but instead used it to pay personal bills and to prop up his lifestyle.

e) Total Amount of the Frauds and the Amounts Outstanding

[14]. I find that the total amount of the frauds committed by Walter Garrick is $261,000 Canadian. Valani launched a civil action which ultimately resulted in settlement. Valani received $80,000 and abandoned any claim to further monies. In the circumstances, for purposes of sentencing, I do not intend to order Garrick to pay any further monies to Valani.

[15]. I therefore find that Walter Garrick owes the victims Clemons, Allen, and Vadas, a total of $172,000 ($57,000, $45,000, and $70,000 respectively).

Victim Impact

[16]. Clemons and Allen elected not to make victim impact statements. With respect to restitution, Mr. Clemons has asked that the other victims be paid first, and that if there is any money left over, it should go to his charitable foundation, The Michael “Pinball” Clemons Foundation.

[17]. Vadas filed a victim impact statement. Garrick’s fraud has had a profoundly negative impact on his life. He has lived with this situation for eight years. His trust in people has been seriously eroded. He has been humiliated and almost ruined financially by Walter Garrick.

[18]. Valani’s victim impact statement notes that (presumably because of the publicity surrounding the case), he had difficulty continuing his work because his “peers would keep asking me about the case”. He advised that because of Garrick’s fraud, he was unable to properly care for his parents and was financially unable to hire a support worker to provide palliative care to his dying father.

[19]. I have no doubt that Garrick’s frauds had a profound effect on all four victims. Mr. Clemons testimony at trial showed that he blames himself for his lapse in judgment that allowed Garrick to gain credibility through his friendship with Clemons, and allowed him to perpetrate the frauds against Allen and Vadas. And having heard the testimony of Damon Allen at trial, I think it likely that his victimization put at least a temporary strain on his close friendship with Michael Clemons.

[20]. Mr. Vadas and Dr. Valani were impacted the most, however. They were both relatively young and financially more vulnerable than Clemons and Allen. They learned the hard way that Mr. Garrick’s easy charm masked a calculating, cold and callous disregard for the harm he was doing to them, not only financially but emotionally.

The Circumstances of the Offender

a. Fraud Convictions for Offences Committed After the Offences Before This Court

[21]. At the time of the commission of these offences, Garrick had no criminal record. However, in April of 2012, he was convicted by Ricchetti, S.C.J. of three further frauds that he committed in Burlington, Oakville, and Hamilton during the three months immediately following the events forming the basis of the counts in the indictment before me[^5]. In the case before Ricchetti J., Garrick’s method of operation was markedly similar to this case. By holding himself out as a wealthy investor, he induced three victims to give him money totaling $159,000 to invest in an I.P.O. by a company known as Interactive Brokers, the same company that figures in the convictions before me. The victims received nothing in return but lies and broken promises.

[22]. Ricchetti J. imposed a 23-month conditional sentence, less ten months credit (for a combination of pre-sentence custody on a two-for-one basis and two months credit for the strict bail conditions he was subject to while out of custody awaiting his trial). He placed Garrick on further probation for three years with strict terms, and ordered him to pay $159,000 in restitution[^6].

b. Contempt of Court Proceedings

[23]. In the course of the trial before me, Mr. Garrick elicited evidence that he had been jailed for contempt of court in relation to the civil action against him by Dr. Valani. Citing R. v. Edwards, [2001] O.J. 2582 (c.a.), and R. v. Angillo 2006 SCC 55, [2006] S.C.J. 55, the Crown argues that evidence of the findings in the contempt rulings may be admitted on this sentencing hearing, as it is relevant to Garrick’s character and can assist the court in determining a fit and proper sentence. The Crown says that the contempt rulings may not be used as an aggravating factor in determining sentence, but submits that they show Garrick’s “background and character”, and show Garrick’s “contempt for the justice system and for court orders”. The Crown submits that this background information is relevant to a determination of whether Garrick is likely to comply with any order requiring him to repay his victims.

[24]. I have given the issue of the admissibility of the contempt findings careful consideration and I have concluded that the evidence of Garrick’s conduct that led to the contempt proceedings and committal to jail should not be considered by me. I am well aware of my broad discretion to receive “all relevant information” but in my view, the evidence will not assist me in determining the appropriate disposition. It is already clear to me on the evidence adduced at trial that Mr. Garrick has a history of false promises. Consideration of the protracted civil proceedings and the contempt findings will in my view create a danger that the focus of the sentence hearing will appear to be diverted from its true purpose of determining a fit sentence; one that is proportionate to the gravity of the offences and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

[25]. I also reject the defence submission that Garrick should be given credit for the 21 days he spent in custody as a result of the contempt proceedings. Garrick’s conduct that led to his incarceration for contempt was different than the conduct under consideration here.

c. Personal Circumstances

[26]. Walter Garrick is now forty-three years old. He lives in Oakville with his parents. The pre-sentence report prepared in the other criminal proceeding was filed on consent at this sentencing hearing. Unfortunately, it does little to shed light on the personality of Walter Garrick.

[27]. Walter Garrick has a loving, responsible family. He has a close relationship with his parents, his sister, and in the words of his mother and father, he has a very small, very tight group of friends who are all independently successful, and have never been in trouble with the justice system. Many of them have written letters attesting to Walter Garrick’s devotion to his family and to his two sons. Reference has been made to acts of kindness and of caring for others. These descriptions are consistent with some of the evidence and some of what I observed during this trial. I accept that to those close to him, he is a kind and loving father, son, brother, relative, and friend.

[28]. Walter Garrick is an intelligent, perceptive individual. He has demonstrated that he is able to do well academically, although it is not clear to me just how much formal education he has actually achieved.

[29]. His fraudulent conduct has not only hurt the victims; it has also profoundly hurt his family members. His father Wilfred was overcome by emotion during his testimony at trial as he struggled to convey the pride that he has taken all his life, in his family’s reputation and name. In the letter of support filed on his and his wife’s behalf at the sentencing hearing, Walter Garrick’s parents stated that “the situation with our son grieves us”. Unfortunately, Wilfred Garrick is unable to accept the reality that his son Walter has repeatedly committed crimes of dishonesty.

[30]. The evidence shows that Walter Garrick set out on a course of action years ago that was founded almost entirely on deceit. He pretended for years to be someone he was not, and in the process he has defrauded and hurt multiple victims. When his crimes came under scrutiny, he blamed others, often making mean-spirited, audacious, unfounded allegations against his accusers and other perceived enemies.

[31]. Walter Garrick has not been employed for many years. On the evidence that I accept, it seems that his sole non-criminal source of income has been his father and his grandfather. If there have been other legitimate sources of funds, I have not heard credible evidence about them.

[32]. Although Garrick concedes errors in judgment, and states that he is “100% responsible” for the losses suffered by the complainants, he does not acknowledge that his conduct was criminal. In that sense, there is an absence of remorse and a staggering lack of insight into the seriousness of his criminal misconduct. Lack of remorse is not an aggravating factor, but I find that the mitigating factor of remorse[^7] is absent in this case.

Positions of the Crown and Defence

a) Crown

i. Imprisonment

[33]. Mr. Scutt, on behalf of the Crown, acknowledges that Garrick is to be sentenced as a first offender. He submits, however, that having regard to the host of aggravating factors, only a substantial period of imprisonment would adequately reflect the gravity of the offences and meet the legitimate objectives of sentencing. He submits that an appropriate sentence in all of the circumstances would be in the lower penitentiary range. He concedes however, that having regard to Garrick’s lack of a prior criminal record, and also any credit for pre-trial custody in jail or strict house arrest, an upper-reformatory custodial sentence is appropriate.

ii. Credit for Time Served

[34]. Mr. Scutt conceded in oral submissions that Garrick should be given credit for time served in custody on these charges on a two-for-one basis. That amounts to credit of 100 days. Mr. Scutt also conceded that I have a broad discretion in considering what credit, if any, should be given to Garrick for the 531 days he spent under strict house arrest, and submitted that since most of the delay was attributable to the conduct of Mr. Garrick, any credit for house arrest should be very limited. He submitted that a reasonable amount of credit would be the same as that given by Ricchetti J., who gave only two months credit for the 561 days of house arrest Garrick spent with respect to the other charges.

iii. Probation and Restitution

[35]. The Crown further submits that the jail sentence should be followed by three years’ probation with strict conditions including a restitution order.

iv. Fine in Lieu of Forfeiture; and in Default, Consecutive Penitentiary Sentence

[36]. Finally, the Crown submits that it has met the criteria set out in s. 462.37 of the Criminal Code and that in the circumstances of this case, I am required to make an order imposing a fine in an amount equal to the value of the property that has not been recovered. Further, the Crown submits that under the Criminal Code s. 462.37(4), because the amount of the required fine—in this case, $171,000—falls between 100,000 and $250,000, I am required to order that in default of payment of the fine, Garrick must serve a consecutive period of imprisonment of two to three years in the penitentiary.

b) Defence

i. Conditional Sentence of Imprisonment

[37]. Mr. Tomovski submits that this is a case in which a conditional sentence of imprisonment is the appropriate disposition. He concedes that the conditional sentence should be followed by a period of probation and that a restitution order should be made. He submits however, that I have a discretion to refuse to impose a fine in lieu of forfeiture, and with it, the mandatory order of at least two more years in prison if his client defaults in paying the fine.

[38]. Mr. Tomovski submits that 18 months imprisonment less credit for time served is an appropriate sentence. He submits that Mr. Garrick should receive a total of 100 days of credit for time spent in custody and that he should receive additional credit of up to four months for the 531 days of strict house arrest that Mr. Garrick spent awaiting trial. He submits that, unlike in the case before Ricchetti J., there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support a finding that Mr. Garrick was intentionally delaying the case.

[39]. Mr. Tomovski submits, among other things, that there are exceptional circumstances in this case that favour the imposition of a conditional sentence of imprisonment notwithstanding the admittedly serious nature of the frauds. He points to the fact that Garrick is a first offender. He emphasizes that Garrick received a conditional sentence when convicted by Ricchetti J. of similar, albeit somewhat less serious frauds committed more or less during the same period as the offences before me.

[40]. Mr. Tomovski submits that it would be unfair if Garrick were to be sentenced to imprisonment for the offences before me, when he received a conditional sentence for similar offences committed subsequently. He submits that the Crown, having made the decision to prosecute the related offences separately, must now live with its decision. If the offences had all been tried together, then a period of imprisonment likely would have been appropriate, but since they have been dealt with separately, and since a conditional sentence was imposed for the other offences, it would be unfair to now send Mr. Garrick to prison.

Discussion and Conclusions

a) Credit for pre-trial custody

[41]. I start with a brief discussion of the issue of credit to be given for time spent in custody and the issue of credit to be given for the time spent on bail under house arrest. Crown and defence agree that Garrick should be given credit of 100 days for time spent in custody on these charges prior to trial. As for the issue of credit for the 531 days of house arrest, I conclude that while much of the delay in bringing the matter to trial was due to the actions of Mr. Garrick, I accept that some of it was because of factors outside his control. Applying the factors identified by Rosenberg J.A. in R. v. Downes (2006) 3957 (Ont. C.A.), I conclude that an appropriate credit for pre-trial house arrest under strict conditions is in the range of three to four months.

[42]. There is no mathematical formula to apply in deciding the total credit for pre-trial custody to be given in a particular case. The court’s responsibility is to weigh the myriad of factors and make a determination as to what is appropriate in the circumstances. In this case, I give Mr. Garrick a total of six months credit for time served in jail and for pre-trial house arrest.

b) Is a Conditional Sentence Appropriate?

[43]. The evidence shows that Walter Garrick embarked upon a sophisticated and calculating course of action over a period of almost three years. During that period, he maintained the façade of a wealthy and powerful investor motivated by a desire to give back to the community and to help others. He varied his approach to his victims to suit the circumstances. He used every means at his disposal to win the trust of his victims and to exploit that trust for his own gain. Some of the money he stole has been repaid as a result of a civil law suit initiated by Rahim Valani. But the other three victims have not seen any of their money, and $172,000 remains outstanding. Two of Mr. Garrick’s victims—Vadas and Valani—were particularly vulnerable and the crimes committed against them were more serious for that reason.

[44]. In cases like this one, the principles of denunciation and general deterrence are central to the sentencing process. Garrick’s conduct should be viewed as a large-scale series of frauds involving multiple victims committed over a protracted period of time. Large-scale frauds, with rare exceptions, attract substantial custodial terms. Moreover, where the offender has abused a position of trust, particularly in relation to the victim, general deterrence is the most important factor: R. v. Dobis, supra, para. 52-54, R. v. Scott, [2007] O.J. No. 1154 (C.A.).

[45]. In most but not all[^8] cases involving a breach of trust, the offender was an employee or caregiver of the victim. In this case, although Garrick was neither an employee nor a caregiver, he went to great lengths to win the confidence of his victims, cultivated and nurtured their trust, and then defrauded them. In the cases of Vadas and Valani, Garrick’s conduct was particularly egregious, given their financial circumstances, their relatively young ages, the lengths he went to in order to cultivate their trust in order to defraud them, and the cold and callous way he dealt with them when they became suspicious and began to ask questions.

[46]. The Criminal Code requires that a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender[^9]. The Criminal Code also requires that a court take into consideration a number of enumerated factors, both aggravating and mitigating. One of the aggravating factors deals with abuse of trust in these terms: “the offender, in committing the offence, abused a position of trust or authority in relation to the victim”. Mr. Tomovski argues that this provision is not intended to apply to circumstances such as those found in this case. I accept that the provision fits more neatly into other types of cases, but in my view the principle that abuse of trust is an aggravating factor should not have a compartmentalized, rigid application. Indeed, the preamble to the enumerated factors set out in s. 718.2 includes the words “without limiting the generality of the foregoing”.

[47]. Walter Garrick cultivated his victims’ trust, nurtured it, and then breached their trust. I view that as a significant aggravating circumstance.

[48]. Garrick is a first offender. He is entitled to six months’ credit for pre-trial custody served both in custody and in the community under house arrest. Those are the only two mitigating factors that I have identified.

[49]. In my opinion, because of those mitigating factors, an appropriate sentence is in the upper-reformatory range.

[50]. However, in my opinion, the crimes committed by Walter Garrick are too serious to attract a conditional sentence of imprisonment. S. 742.1 of the Criminal Code permits the imposition of a conditional sentence, provided certain criteria are met. The sentence must be less than two years; serving the sentence in the community would not endanger the safety of the community, and serving the sentence in the community would be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing. Although I recognize the importance of rehabilitation, and give considerable weight to the fact that Mr. Garrick is a first offender, I am firmly of the view that only a period of imprisonment will adequately address the paramount considerations of denunciation and deterrence. Put another way, in my view it would be inconsistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing to permit Mr. Garrick to serve his sentence in the community.

[51]. In my view, despite the fact that he is a first offender, only a custodial sentence can adequately reflect the gravity of his crimes.

[52]. I have not given up on Mr. Garrick, nor do I wish to impose a crushing sentence upon him. I have hopes for him and his family that he will begin to accept his criminal responsibility and develop insight into the harm he has done. Only then will the process of rehabilitation begin. Mr. Garrick is a highly intelligent and talented individual. He is still a relatively young man, and with effort, he can be a source of pride to himself, his children, and his family and friends.

[53]. I have concluded that an appropriate sentence in this case is one of eighteen months. With six months’ credit for pre-trial custody, the sentence I impose today is one year imprisonment.

ii. Probation and Restitution

[54]. The period of imprisonment will be followed by probation for two years.

[55]. In addition to the usual terms contained in probation orders, Mr. Garrick shall be prohibited from communicating, directly or indirectly, with any of the victims or their families. He shall report twice monthly to his probation officer and not change his address without the prior approval of his probation officer. He shall remain within the province of Ontario unless he has permission in writing from his probation officer. He shall make every effort to seek and to maintain gainful employment.

[56]. There will be a free-standing restitution order pursuant to s. 738 of the Criminal Code payable to each of the following three complainants: Mr. Clemons, Mr. Allen, and Mr. Vadas, in the amount of $57,000, $45,000, and $70,000 respectively. Therefore I am not ordering that restitution be paid as a term of the probation order.

iii. Fine in Lieu of Forfeiture, Time to Pay the Fine, and Jail in Default of Payment of the Fine

[57]. Fraud is a “designated offence” under s. 462.3(1) of the Criminal Code. As such, it engages s. 462.37, the legislative scheme providing for forfeiture of the proceeds of crime. The Crown has applied for an order under s. 462.37(3) requiring Mr. Garrick to pay a fine in an amount equal to the value of the proceeds of crime that remain outstanding. If the stolen property can be located, a forfeiture order is mandatory under s. 462.37(1), but if a forfeiture order is not feasible because the property cannot be located on the exercise of due diligence, or if it has been transferred to a third party, or if it is located outside Canada, or if it has been substantially diminished or rendered worthless, then s. 462.37(3) applies. The section provides that the court “may” order the payment of a fine equivalent to the value of the lost property.

[58]. Further, s. 462.37(4) requires that where payment of a fine is ordered, the court “shall” impose a term of jail in default of payment consecutive to any other term of imprisonment imposed on the offender. The length of the mandatory period of imprisonment depends on the value of the property. Where, as in this case, the amount is between $100,000 and $250,000, the court must impose a consecutive term of jail in default of payment of between two and three years.

[59]. The word “may” contained in s. 462.37(3) fine provision suggests on its face that a fine order is not mandatory but remains a matter within the discretion of the court. The discretion, however, is very limited. For example, an inability to pay the fine is not a factor to be considered in determining whether to impose a fine. However, the ability to pay may be taken into consideration in determining the time limit for payment of the fine[^10].

[60]. As I indicated earlier, the defence position is that the limited discretion conferred by s. 462.37 may be applied in this case. However, I am unable to identify any factors that would permit the judicial exercise of discretion to refuse to order the fine and the mandatory accompanying order that in default of payment, the offender serve a consecutive jail sentence of between two and three years.

[61]. I therefore impose a fine of $172,000, the amount that I have found remains outstanding.

[62]. I turn now to the remaining issues of the length of the consecutive sentence in default of payment of the fine, and the amount of time to be given for payment of the fine.

[63]. Given the amount of the fine, s. 462.37(4) mandates a consecutive sentence of between two and three years in default of payment.

[64]. On the facts of this case, the only discretion I have relates to the length of sentence within the prescribed range for the amount of the lost property, and the length of time to be given to the offender to pay the fine.

[65]. I take into account the fact that Mr. Garrick is a first offender and the value of the lost property is midway between $100,000 and $250,000. In the circumstances I conclude that it is a proper exercise of my discretion to impose the minimum consecutive jail term of two years in default of payment of the fine.

[66]. In the exercise of my discretion, Mr. Garrick will be given three years to pay the fine. The three-year period shall be measured from the date of the completion of his probation.

Summary of Conclusions and Imposition of Sentence

[67]. Mr. Garrick is hereby sentenced to a period of imprisonment of twelve months. The indictment will be endorsed to reflect the fact that having regard to credit for pre-trial custody, the sentence is equivalent to one of eighteen months. Upon completion of his sentence, he will be on probation for two years on the terms discussed above. Mr. Garrick is hereby ordered to pay a fine of $172,000. He is given three years from completion of his probation to pay the fine. In default of payment, Mr. Garrick shall serve an additional consecutive sentence of two years in custody.

[68]. Each order with respect to a fine in lieu of forfeiture shall require the Attorney General to transfer all payments received from the offender made with respect to the fine payable to the satisfaction of the restitution orders, in priority first to Mr. Vadas, then Mr. Allen, and finally, Mr. Clemons.

[69]. That is the disposition of the court.

Released: March 26, 2013 ________________________

McCombs J.

[^1]: R. v. Garrick, 2012 ONSC 7183 [^2]: Criminal Code, s. 462.37 (4) [^3]: R. v. Garrick, 2012 ONSC 7183 [^4]: The calculation is based on a conservative estimate of the U.S. dollar exchange rate during the time period covered by the fraud. [^5]: R. v. Garrick [2012] O.J. No. 382 [^6]: R. v. Garrick [2012] O.J. No. 1806 [^7]: R. v. Cormier (1999), 140 C.C.C. (3d) 87 (N.B.C.A.) [^8]: See for example, R. v. Scott [2007] O.J. No. 1154 (C.A.). [^9]: Criminal Code S. 718.1 [^10]: R. v. Lavigne, [2006] S.C.R. 392.