Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CRIMJ(P) 919/15 DATE: 2016 05 11

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Christina Sibian, for the Crown

- and -

NUZHAT MAMOON Arman E. Hoque, for Nuzhat Mamoon

HEARD: February 29, March 1, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 14, and April 13 2016

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Justice D.L. Edwards

Introduction

[1] Nuzhat Mamoon stands charged that she, during a period between April 11, 2012 ending on or about the 31st day of December 2013 at the City of Brampton in the Central West Region and elsewhere in the Municipal Region of Peel unlawfully did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means defraud the public of a sum of money, of a value exceeding $5,000, contrary to s. 380(1) (a) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

[2] Eight witnesses for the Crown testified that Ms. Mamoon obtained money from them generally for investment purposes, guaranteeing that they would receive their money back together with a profit of at least 100 percent in less than 30 days, sometimes in 2 or 3 days. One witness testified that he gave Ms. Mamoon money based upon her representations that she was obtaining title to a home for him, when in fact she took no steps whatsoever to do so. All of these witnesses testified that they did not receive any profit and they did not receive their money back, or in the case of the one witness, he did not receive his money back or title to the home.

Agreed Matters

[3] The parties submitted the following Agreed Statement of Fact that was marked as Exhibit 1:

1. Safia Farooq gave Nuzhat Mamoon $3,000 cash to join the Umme Rubab Organization. Nuzhat Mamoon never returned $2,500 of this amount to Safia Farooq.
2. Nasim Begum gave Nuzhat Mamoon $2,500 cash towards a catering event run by the Umme Rubab Organization.
3. Nadeem Sayani gave Nuzhat Mamoon $14,500. Nuzhat Mamoon never returned this money to Nadeem Sayani.
4. The Umme Rubab Organization is run by Nuzhat Mamoon alone.
5. Nuzhat Mamoon goes by the nickname Umme Rubab.

[4] During the trial the accused’s counsel also agreed that Nuzhat Mamoon had placed her signature on:

1. Exhibit 3 Promissory Note for $23,400;
2. Exhibit 6 Red Rose Hall rental document;
3. Exhibit 11 Umme Rubab Community Organization receipt;
4. Exhibit 12 Umme Rubab Community Organization Amended receipt;
5. Exhibit 13 Notice of Cancellation of Ms. Farooq’s membership;
6. Exhibit 14 Receipt for Ms. Begum.

The Law

[5] This matter is primarily a fact driven credibility case. Prior to analyzing the evidence, it is useful to review the applicable general principles.

Presumption of Innocence and Burden of Proof

[6] Ms. Mamoon has pleaded not guilty. She is presumed innocent.

[7] The prosecution must establish her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, having regard to the totality of the evidence.

W. (D.) Analysis

[8] The accused testified, and therefore a W.(D.) analysis is required.

[9] The W.(D.) analysis has no application to individual items of evidence or to discrete facts in the case. Rather, it applies to the elements of the offence charged which must be proved by the Crown beyond a reasonable doubt: R. v. Morin (1988), 4 C.C.C. (3d) 193 (S.C.C.) para 205-211

[10] In making such analysis, I must determine:

First, if I believe the evidence of the accused, I must acquit.

Second, if I do not believe the testimony of the accused, but I am left in reasonable doubt by it, I must acquit.

Third, if after consideration of all of the evidence, I am unable to decide whom to believe, I must acquit.

Fourth, even if I am not left in doubt by the evidence of the accused, I must ask myself whether based upon the evidence of the trial that I accept, am I convinced beyond a reasonable doubt by that evidence, of the guilt of the accused. If not, I must acquit.

Credibility

[11] Credibility is often a central issue in a criminal trial. I may believe all, none, or some of a witness’ evidence: R. v. Francois, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 827 at para. 14. The demeanour of a witness is a factor to consider in assessing a witness’ credibility. However, the trier of fact’s perception of demeanour can be an unreliable predictor of the accuracy of the evidence given by a witness; demeanour alone cannot suffice to found a finding of guilt: R. v. Atwal (2015) O.J. No 3748 (Ont. S.C.J.)

Circumstantial Evidence

[12] In addition to the direct evidence led by the Crown, I am asked to consider circumstantial evidence. In order to find guilt in a circumstantial evidence case, I must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the only rational inference that can be drawn from the circumstantial evidence is that the accused is guilty: R. v. Griffin and Harris (2009), 2009 SCC 28, 244 C.C.C. (3d) 289 (S.C.C.) at paras. 33-4.

[13] Inference must be distinguished from conjecture or speculation. When assessing circumstantial evidence, I must be alert to explanations or contradictions or inferences that would point towards innocence. I must assess the reliability and credibility of underlying direct evidence, as well as whether the evidence reasonably supports the circumstantial inference to be drawn. Circumstantial evidence must be evaluated cumulatively: R. v. Atwal 2015 ONSC 4425 at paras. 86-87.

Fraud

[14] The leading case on fraud is R. v. Theroux, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 5. There the court explained the elements of fraud:

Since the mens rea of an offense is related to its actus reus, it is helpful to begin the analysis by considering the actus reus of the offense of fraud. Speaking of the actus reus of this offense Dickson J. (as he then was) sent out the following principles in Olan [[1978] @ S.C.R. 1175]]

(i) the offense has two elements: dishonest act and deprivation; (ii) the dishonest act is established by proof of deceit, falsehood or” other fraudulent means; (iii) the element of deprivation is established by proof of detriment, prejudice, or risk of prejudice to the economic interests of the victim, caused by the dishonest act.

Olan marked a broadening of the law of fraud in two respects. First, it overruled previous authority which suggested that deceit was an essential element of the offense. Instead, it posited the general concept of dishonesty, which might manifest itself in deceit, falsehood or some other form of dishonesty. Just as what constitutes a lie or a deceitful act for the purpose of the actus reus is judged on the objective facts, so the “other fraudulent means in the third category is determined objectively, by reference to what a reasonable person would consider to be a dishonest act. Second, Olan made it clear that economic loss was not essential to the offense; the imperiling of an economic interest is sufficient even though no actual losses been suffered. By adopting an expansive interpretation of the offense, the court established fraud as an offense of general scope capable of encompassing a wide range of dishonest commercial dealings.

Subsequent cases followed Olan’s lead, fleshing out the elements of the offense set out in Olan in a broad and purposive manner. One of the first questions which arose was whether the third type of dishonest conduct: other fraudulent means”, was a super added element which the Crown must prove in addition to proving either deceit or falsehood. This was rejected in. R. v. Doran (1982), 36 O.R. (2D) 114 (C.A.); see also R. v. Kirkwood (1983), 42 O.R. (2D) 65(C.A.). A number of subsequent cases, courts have defined the sort of conduct which may fall under this third category of other fraudulent means to include the use of corporate funds for personal purposes, nondisclosure of important facts, exploiting the weaknesses of another, unauthorized diversion of funds, unauthorized irrigation of funds of or property… As noted above, where it is all alleged that the actus reus of a particular fraud is” other fraudulent mean, the existence of such means will be determined by what reasonable people consider to be dishonest dealing.

[15] Further the mens rea for fraud has also been determined by Theroux:

Having ventured these general comments on mens rea, I returned to the offense of fraud. The prohibited act is deceit, falsehood or some other dishonest act. The prohibited consequence is depriving another of what is or should be his, which may, as we have seen consist in merely placing another's property at risk. The mens rea would then consist in the subjective awareness that one was undertaking a prohibited act (the deceit, falsehood or other dishonest act) which could cause deprivation in the sense of depriving another of property or putting that property at risk. If this is shown, the crime is complete. The fact that the accused may have hoped that the deprivation would not take place, or may have felt that there was nothing wrong with what he or she was doing, provides no defence. To put it another way, following the traditional criminal law principle that the mental state necessary to the offense must be determined by reference to the external acts which constitute the actors of the offense (see Williams, supra, c.3) the proper focus in determining the mens rea of fraud is to ask whether the accused intentionally committed the prohibited act(deceit, falsehood or other dishonest act knowing or desiring the consequences proscribed by the offense(deprivation, including the risk of deprivation. A personal feeling of the accused about the morality or honesty of the act or its consequences is no more relevant to the analysis then is the accused awareness that the particular acts undertaking constitute a criminal offense.)

Elements of the Offence

[16] Ms. Mamoon is charged with fraud. In order for me to find Ms. Mamoon guilty of fraud, Crown counsel must prove each of the following essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

(1) that Ms. Mamoon deprived the public of something of value; (2) that Ms. Mamoon’s deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means caused the deprivation; (3) that Ms. Mamoon intended to defraud the public; and (4) that the value of the property exceeded $5,000.

[17] If the Crown does not satisfy me beyond a reasonable doubt of each of these essential elements, I must find Ms. Mamoon not guilty of fraud.

[18] If the Crown has satisfied me beyond a reasonable doubt of each of these essential elements, I must find Ms. Mamoon guilty of fraud.

The Evidence

[19] During the trial eight witnesses testified for the Crown alleging that Ms. Mamoon defrauded them. Ms. Mamoon is charged with only one count of fraud. However, for the sake of clarity I will review and analyze separately the evidence regarding the interaction of each complainant with Ms. Mamoon.

[20] Before, doing that it is helpful to review Ms. Mamoon’s evidence regarding her background.

Ms. Mamoon’s Background

[21] Ms. Mamoon was born January 8, 1968 in Pakistan. She married in Pakistan in 1989 and stated that she was always independent. She came to Canada first in June 2008 with her four children. Her husband, Mamoon Rashid, had been in Canada since 2000. He met them at the airport and took them to a house in Scarborough where he was renting a room. He left and then the owner of the home evicted her and her children from the house, as he was only renting a room to her husband.

[22] Ms. Mamoon testified that she never lived with her husband and that they only lived together for 10 days. He lived abroad and she lived in Pakistan. However, he is the father of her four children.

[23] She stated that she began to work at Coffee Time, but it closed in 6 or 7 months, so she took admission at Everest College to be a personal service worker. She received OSAP until the end of 2010. She said that she is very handy and does drawings, stitching and embroidery. She had no other income during that time. She was the only person supporting her four children.

[24] She testified that in 2009 her husband returned and beat her.

[25] She returned to Pakistan with her children in 2010. She lived with her father. After two months she married Mial Idrees. He is a very rich man, but she said that he did not treat her well, so she left with her children for Canada on September 17 or 18, 2011. She is unaware as to whether he divorced her or not.

[26] Once in Canada she gave a $10,000 advance and rented a home at 5210 Oscar Peterson. She also in 2012 bought a Lexus for $6,000 or $7,000.

[27] She announced the Umme Rubab organization on May 20, 28, or 29, 2012. She said that it was properly registered through her accountant as a Not-For-Profit organization. However, she also testified that she required 4 directors to properly constitute the organization and the organization never had 4 directors. Contrary to this evidence, the Agreed Statement of Fact states that Ms. Mamoon ran the organization herself.

[28] She testified that when she came to Canada in 2008 she had the idea that rather than asking for donations, she would create an organization that would improve skills of needy women. However, also according to Ms. Mamoon’s testimony she was working at a minimum wage job to support her four children.

[29] She said that when she returned to Canada in 2011 she wanted to expose herself to the community because when she returned to Canada she found pamphlets and newspaper articles that were written about her claiming that she was a very dangerous woman.

[30] She said that she went to the police in December 2011 to discuss the pamphlets that were circulating and spreading lies about her. She did not have the police report. She gave no examples of what she was alleged to have done prior to September 2011.

[31] In order to expose herself to the community to counter these allegations, she said that she organized two programs, one at the Quality Restaurant and one at Pearl Banquet Hall, plus other programs in her basement and one at the Sohad Banquet Hall. There was no charge to participants for these events.

[32] She testified that she hired a “boy” to make a website for her organization, but she also stated that she stopped everything on the website September 9, 2012.

[33] Ms. Mamoon testified that she did not do any work for her organization after September 2012.

[34] Ms. Mamoon testified that she took out advertisements in newspapers offering to teach the Koran.

[35] She stated that when she returned to Canada in 2011 her income came from teaching the Koran, painting landscapes, portraits, calligraphy, selling clothes and welfare.

[36] She testified that at the events that she organized the cost of the food varied from $400 to $2,600. She did not charge for admission, nor did she sell advertising for the events. She stated that she was not expecting to make a profit, and that she did not tell anyone that she was expecting to make a profit. However, she did say that she did have stalls at these events from which she sold paintings.

[37] I will now review and then analyze the evidence regarding the first complainant, Shahid Waheed’s interactions with Ms. Mamoon.

Evidence re: Shahid Waheed

[38] Mr. Waheed is 69.4 years old. He was born in Pakistan and came to Canada August 1972. He retired 4.5 years ago. He has been married since 1980 and has 4 children.

[39] On March 4, 2012 he and his wife read an advertisement in the Pakistan Times in which Ms. Mamoon offered to teach the Koran, sell clothes and do catering. They also saw photographs and articles about her in the newspaper.

[40] Together they spoke to Ms. Mamoon by phone about her teaching their granddaughter. They visited her the next day, which was March 5, 2012. For 2 or 3 weeks he brought his granddaughter to Ms. Mamoon’s home and she taught the Koran to her. The lessons stopped because it was too time consuming and the granddaughter’s mother began teaching her the Koran instead.

[41] Mr. Waheed testified that Ms. Mamoon told him that she was a rich business lady who owned 2 Tim Horton’s, one in Toronto and one in Barrie, a factory in China and in Belgium, and that she undertook certain charitable undertakings. Because she was so rich she told him that she did not want to be paid for teaching the Koran to his granddaughter. She told him that she had $70,000,000 worldwide in assets. She stated that she wanted to go into business with him. He felt that she was an expert businesswoman.

[42] Mr. Waheed said that they gradually developed a close relationship where they called each other brother and sister. Her children referred to him as uncle and his wife as aunt. In the summer of 2012 Ms. Mamoon moved into a motel, as she said that it had better security, as she was afraid of her ex-husband. During that time, Mr. Waheed and his wife prepared food for Ms. Mamoon and her children. She told Mr. Waheed that her kids were tired of “outside” cooking, and therefore enjoyed the home cooking.

[43] Mr. Waheed stated that Ms. Mamoon told him that her husband, Idrees, was an industrialist in Pakistan, and that she used to live in America and brought lots of money with her and had lots of money in America. However, Ms. Mamoon never introduced him to Idrees.

[44] Mr. Waheed said that at one point she asked him to open a bank account close to his home at the Royal Bank so that she could put $3 million into it. Her plan was that if Idrees came, she would have some money left that he would not know about. Mr. Waheed did not open the account.

[45] Mr. Waheed testified that she suggested to him that they rent a house together and open a day care centre, and also sell jewelry and clothes from there. The house was across the street from where Ms. Mamoon was living at 5210 Oscar Peterson.

[46] He said that she asked for $4,000 for the first and last month’s rent for the house in order to start the business. She would only take cash from him. He gave her $4,000 in cash on March 30, 2012. The house to be rented was across the street from her house. She took him to the house and they went inside. The house was empty. They met a person who said that he was the owner.

[47] Mr. Waheed said that he signed a rental paper that Ms. Mamoon kept. He does not have a copy.

[48] She said to him that they would split the profit 50/50.

[49] He testified that two days after he paid her $4,000, she called him to say that the deal was cancelled because the person wanted $24,000 up front for one year rental. She then asked him where he lived. He was renting for $2,000 per month. She told him that she “had” 5 or 6 houses - 2 on Mississauga Road, one in Scarborough, 2 semi-detached - 5187 and 5189 Nessling Grove Mississauga. She said that she would demolish the wall separating the semis and he could rent to own both houses, 5187 and 5189 Nessling Grove. She said that her friend from Pakistan, Amina, lived there and would leave the keys so that Ms. Mamoon could show the house to him. She told him not to approach Amina because she was dangerous.

[50] Mr. Waheed testified that Ms. Mamoon said that if he gave her $36,000 over time he could live there and that money would be the down payment for the house and would cover the lawyer’s fee to transfer title to the home to him. He would continue to pay $2,000 to cover the mortgage cost. Ms. Mamoon told him that he would get title to the house. A few days later she called him and asked for $5,000 so she could give him the house sooner. On April 15, 2012 he gave her cash of $5,000. Then she called and asked for more. So on April 20, 2012 he gave her another $5,000 in cash.

[51] Mr. Waheed said that in May 2012, Ms. Mamoon called him and asked for a further $15,000. He did not have the money so he borrowed it from his friend, Zakir Nayyer. He signed a document saying that he would pay it back in three years. That document is dated May 5, 2012 and marked as Exhibit 8. On May 7, 2012, Mr. Waheed went to Ms. Mamoon’s house and gave her the money in cash. She required that all of the payments to her be paid in cash.

[52] Mr. Waheed testified that on May 30, 2012 Ms. Mamoon called him and demanded a further $7,000. He borrowed that from his son and gave it to her in cash on the same day. Once again she required that it be paid in cash.

[53] He said that Ms. Mamoon told him that she would give him the lawyer’s name and all the papers when the deal was done.

[54] Mr. Waheed testified that in December 2012 Ms. Mamoon came to his house and asked for a photo of his driving licence, as the lawyer needed it to complete the transfer of title to the home. They went together to a convenience store and photocopied his driver’s licence. Ms. Mamoon took the photocopy of Mr. Waheed’s driver’s licence with her.

[55] Ms. Mamoon denied that this occurred.

[56] Mr. Waheed said that he often went to Ms. Mamoon’s house between May 30, 2012 and December 2012 to inquire about the property. She always gave him an excuse of some sort.

[57] He testified that in May or June 2013 Ms. Mamoon came to his home and said that she had discovered that he owed $3,300 on an old debt from 2002 or 2003. She asked for $1,500 so that she could give it to the lawyer to allow him to straighten it out. She said that this debt needed to be resolved before the title to the house could be transferred. On January 12, 2013 Mr. Waheed gave Ms. Mamoon $1,500 in cash.

[58] Mr. Waheed testified that in February 2013 Ms. Mamoon called him and said that she needed $500 for an inspection fee for the house before title to the home could be transferred. Mr. Waheed gave that amount to Ms. Mamoon in cash. He never received any documents showing that a house inspection had taken place.

[59] Mr. Waheed stated that in total he gave Ms. Mamoon $38,000 in cash and never received it back. He never received any receipts or other documents for this money from her, nor did he receive title to 5187 and 5189 Nessling Grove Mississauga.

[60] Ms. Mamoon denied promising to transfer title of 5187 and 5189 Nessling Grove Mississauga to Mr. Waheed or receiving $38,000 from Mr. Waheed towards the purchase of a home.

[61] Ms. Mamoon stated that she met Mr. Waheed at a Mother’s Day program around June 23, 2012, and that following that event Mr. Waheed and his wife called about her providing Koran lessons to his grandchildren. She agreed that she gave free Koran lessons for a while to the grandchildren.

[62] Ms. Mamoon testified that she sold 8 or 9 suits worth around $4,000 to $6,000 to Mr. Waheed when his son was being married. Mr. Waheed paid for the suits in instalments of $100 or $200. She did not provide a receipt and other than this money, she denied receiving any money from Mr. Waheed.

[63] Mr. Ijaz Ahmad testified that he was the owner of 5187 Nessling Grove and had owned it with his wife since August 2009. He said that he never transferred title to anyone and never had any offers from anyone.

[64] He said that he knew Ms. Mamoon, and that she never approached him about transferring title to Mr. Waheed.

[65] Another issue arose regarding whether Mr. Waheed had guaranteed a residential lease.

[66] Ms. Mamoon testified that commencing December 1, 2012 she resided at 5715 Philip Drive pursuant to a lease dated December 1, 2012 and marked as Exhibit 9. The landlord was Muhammad Arshad.

[67] Mr. Waheed testified that in May or June of 2013 Muhammad Arshad came to his home, and through this meeting Mr. Waheed determined that his signature as guarantor had been forged on a rental agreement for a house at 5715 Philip Drive.

[68] Ms. Mamoon testified that she, her son, and her daughters signed the document, but later agreed that only her daughters signed.

[69] She said that the reason that she did not sign the lease - or put another way, why she was not named as tenant - was because she had no chequing account. She testified that she had closed an account that she previously held.

Position of the Parties

[70] The Crown submits that Ms. Mamoon intentionally defrauded Mr. Waheed of $38,000 by accepting that money from him based upon her promise to obtain title to 5187/5189 Nessling Grove Mississauga for Mr. Waheed, when she never intended to obtain such title for him.

[71] Ms. Mamoon asserted that she did not accept any money from Mr. Waheed for the purchase of 5187/5189 Nessling Grove Mississauga, and she never promised to obtain title to that property for Mr. Waheed.

Findings re: Shahid Waheed

[72] I had several concerns with Ms. Mamoon’s testimony regarding her interactions with Mr. Waheed

[73] For example, Ms. Mamoon’s testimony with respect to the lease for 5715 Philip Drive causes me to doubt her credibility regarding her evidence about her interactions with Mr. Waheed.

[74] Ms. Mamoon’s testimony as to why she did not sign the lease for 5715 Philip Drive herself simply does not withstand scrutiny. Obviously, it is the strength of the financial covenant that is relevant to a landlord; not whether Ms. Mamoon had a chequing account open at the time. If Ms. Mamoon’s financial covenant was worthwhile, the landlord would have required Ms. Mamoon to open a bank account and provide the cheques. However, since, by her own testimony, Ms. Mamoon’s only source of income was welfare, selling homemade clothes and paintings, the landlord required a stronger covenant.

[75] I accept Mr. Waheed’s evidence that he was approached in May or June of 2013 by Muhammad Arshad who was the landlord of 5715 Philip Drive under a Lease dated December 1, 2012 and marked as Exhibit 9. Mr. Arshad was there to demand Mr. Waheed perform his obligations as guarantor of that lease.

[76] Ms. Mamoon gave no clear explanation as to why Mr. Waheed would guarantee the lease, nor how his signature was obtained. She said that only she and her children were present when the lease was signed. She said that she gave the landlord Mr. Waheed’s name, but she had no knowledge on how his signature came to be on the lease. She gave no explanation as to why she gave the landlord Mr. Waheed’s name.

[77] It defies belief that Ms. Mamoon had no role with respect to Mr. Waheed’s signature purporting to be on the lease.

[78] I accept Mr. Waheed’s testimony that in December 2012 Ms. Mamoon asked him for, and obtained, a photo copy of his driver’s licence because she told him that it was needed for the purpose of transferring title to 5187 and 5189 Nessling Grove, Mississauga that she said she was buying for him.

[79] No such transfer of title for that home occurred; however, Mr. Waheed’s name did appear as guarantor on the lease without his knowledge.

[80] I accept that Mr. Waheed had no knowledge of this lease and he did not sign as guarantor.

[81] I suspect that Ms. Mamoon forged his signature, but for the purposes of this case, I need not make any finding on this issue. However, Ms. Mamoon’s testimony regarding the lease does make me question her credibility.

[82] Another inconsistency in Ms. Mamoon’s testimony arose regarding the state of affairs when she returned to Canada in 2011. She testified that when she returned to Canada in 2011 there were pamphlets in her community saying “bad” things about her. This was her reason for “exposing” herself to the community in 2011 to counter those allegations.

[83] However, the first alleged victim in this trial, Shahid Waheed, testified that his interactions with Ms. Mammon did not occur until March 2012, almost 6 months after Ms. Mamoon returned to Canada. There was no evidence of specific claims against Ms. Mamoon arising before her return to Canada in 2011, nor did Ms. Mamoon testify that she had undertaken any actions that one could construe as making her a dangerous woman. She said that she went to the police about this issue. However, she did not produce the police report, the pamphlets or any corroboration to support this testimony.

[84] This evidence is another reason for me to question the credibility of Ms. Mamoon.

[85] Throughout the trial Urdu translators were present. Occasionally they translated, for the benefit of Ms. Mamoon, the evidence of a witness who testified in English, but predominantly interpreted for witnesses who testified in Urdu.

[86] I am cognizant of the fact that occasionally there was some confusion and the witness may have misunderstood the question as a result of this process. I observed this in both the Crown witnesses, as well as with Ms. Mamoon. However, with all of the witnesses, with the exception of Ms. Mamoon, this occurred only occasionally. With Ms. Mamoon, her answers were often non-responsive to the question asked of her.

[87] I found Ms. Mamoon to be an evasive witness. She was often nonresponsive to the question, even questions asked by her own counsel. Often it was necessary to ask her the same question several times before she would respond directly to it. She treated questions as an opportunity to begin a narrative, which usually was not responsive to the questions.

[88] This is another reason that I do not accept Ms. Mamoon’s uncorroborated evidence that she did not promise to arrange for the transfer of the title to the Nessling Grove properties to Mr. Waheed, and that she did not receive $38,000 from him.

[89] Not only do I not accept Ms. Mamoon’s evidence on her interactions with Mr. Waheed, but I find that I am not left in reasonable doubt by it.

[90] I accept Mr. Waheed’s evidence that he gave to Ms. Mamoon $38,000 based upon her promises that she would arrange for the title to 5187 and 5189 Nessling Grove Mississauga to be transferred to him.

[91] Mr. Waheed’s evidence was consistent and unshaken on cross examination.

[92] Also, the promissory note in favour of Zakir H. Nayyer is consistent with Mr. Waheed’s testimony that he borrowed $15,000 from Mr. Nayyer and gave this money to Ms. Mamoon towards the purchase of Nessling Grove. In fact, the note includes a reference that the “amount is to purchase a house from Ms. Nuzhat Mamoon (Umme Rubab)”.

[93] I find that during the period from March 30, 2012 to February 2013, Mr. Waheed gave to Ms. Mamoon a total of $38,000, based upon her representations to him that he would acquire title to 5187 and 5189 Nessling Grove Mississauga; that Ms. Mamoon took no steps whatsoever to arrange for the transfer of the title of the house to Mr. Waheed; that she had no intention of obtaining such title for Mr. Waheed; and she did not return the funds to him.

[94] Based upon the evidence of the trial that I accept, I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt by that evidence that Ms. Mamoon through deceit obtained $38,000 from Mr. Waheed by promising to obtain title to a property when she in fact intentionally took no steps to do so.

Evidence re: Safia Farooq

[95] Chronologically, Ms. Farooq’s interactions with Ms. Mamoon followed Mr. Waheed’s interactions.

[96] Ms. Farooq is married with 4 children and lives in Mississauga. She came to Canada from Pakistan in 2009. She has not worked in Canada. Her husband was a taxi driver in 2012.

[97] She testified that in September 2012 she saw Ms. Mamoon’s advertisement about free cooking and Koran classes. She called Ms. Mamoon, and left a message for her. Later Ms. Mamoon called her back, and they talked. At Ms. Mamoon’s invitation, on the same day that they had talked on the phone, Ms. Farooq had her husband drove her to Ms. Mamoon’s home on Oscar Peterson. Ms. Mamoon was dressed in Eastern clothes. She appeared to be very religious. She appeared to be wealthy. She said that she was the wife of a wealthy industrialist in Pakistan. Ms. Farooq trusted her.

[98] Ms. Farooq stated that Ms. Mamoon told her that the person who gave the cooking classes was away, but that she had other opportunities for Ms. Farooq. She said that she ran a not-for-profit organization, and for a fee Ms. Farooq could become a director. She said the normal fee was $10,000, but because Ms. Farooq looked like her relative, she could become a director for $3,000, and that it was refundable. Ms. Mamoon told Ms. Farooq that as a director she would make money in different ways.

[99] Ms. Farooq testified that Ms. Mamoon said that of any donations received by the organization, 30 percent would be divided among the directors who were Ms. Mamoon’s two daughters and Ms. Farooq. Ms. Mamoon denied this and stated that the Umme Rubab organization never accepted donations.

[100] Ms. Farooq also testified that Eid celebrations were coming, and that Ms. Mamoon said that if she joined as a director, Ms. Mamoon would book a hall in her name at Red Rose Banquet Centre and 50 percent of the profit would go to her. Ms. Mamoon told her that she had held Eid celebrations for many years, and each year they were profitable. She said she was booking halls in many other cities. Usually there was $8,000 profit per site, and in that case, Ms. Farooq would get $4,000, three to four days after the event. Eid would be over by the end of October 2012. Ms. Mamoon told her that there was no question that the event would be successful.

[101] Ms. Mamoon’s testimony contrasts to Ms. Farooq’s evidence. Ms. Mamoon stated that she met Ms. Farooq at a Father’s Day program in July, and that Ms. Farooq called her many times after that wanting to come to her home because she had read about Ms. Mamoon’s organization in the newspaper and wanted to know more about it.

[102] Ms. Mamoon denied discussing catering with Ms. Farooq. She stated that she never cooked for these events; that she does not charge admission or for food; and that she does not expect to make a profit on them. Ms. Mamoon denied having a catering business.

[103] Ms. Farooq testified that Ms. Mamoon required that the fee be paid in cash. Therefore, the same day that Ms. Farooq first met with Ms. Mamoon, she went home to get the cash. She quickly checked on the internet to confirm that the organization existed. She did not read the details on the website. She said that the fact that the organization had a website was a factor in her trusting Ms. Mamoon, and giving her the money.

[104] Ms. Farooq testified that Ms. Mamoon called her several times while she was at home, telling her to hurry. Once she said that she had a meeting with Prime Minister Steven Harper. However, Ms. Farooq testified that she thought that Ms. Mamoon was joking, or exaggerating about this. Ms. Farooq got the $3,000 cash and took the money back to Ms. Mamoon’s home, and gave it to Ms. Mamoon on September 28, 2012.

[105] Ms. Mamoon gave her a receipt for the $3,000 on Umme Rubab letterhead and retained the duplicate. In her testimony, Ms. Mamoon acknowledged that she signed the receipt.

[106] Ms. Farooq stated that when she went home, she noticed that the receipt did not state that the money was refundable, so she asked for, and got another receipt signed by Ms. Mamoon, confirming that the $3,000 fee was refundable on one month’s notice. Ms. Farooq testified that Ms. Mamoon initially had told her that the fee was refundable on 10 days’ notice. The first receipt is marked Exhibit 11 and the second is Exhibit 12. Ms. Mamoon testified that Ms. Farooq told her that she had lost the first receipt and that the second one was a replacement receipt.

[107] Ms. Mamoon testified that she advised Ms. Farooq that she would hold the $3,000 until Ms. Farooq emailed her information about her education and how she could help the organization. Then Ms. Mamoon would provide a proposal, and if Ms. Farooq accepted it, she could become a director. Ms. Mamoon also testified that she would use the funds to pay for expenses.

[108] Ms. Farooq thought that she would have some responsibilities for the Eid celebration, but when she called Ms. Mamoon, she was told by her that she had many people to help her. Ms. Mamoon told her to stay at home with her children, and when the celebration was over, she would give Ms. Farooq the profit.

[109] Ms. Farooq said that after the Eid celebrations she called Ms. Mamoon to discuss the profits. Ms. Mamoon told her that the person who arranged the celebrations was sick, and that Ms. Farooq had to wait until he was better before she could get her profit. Ms. Mamoon said that the celebrations were successful, but did not say how profitable. She had previously told Ms. Farooq that she would get her profit and her money back within three to four days after Eid. Ms. Farooq called her many times to follow up, but Ms. Mamoon told her to not bother her, and that she would get back to her.

[110] Ms. Farooq testified that on November 9, 2012 she and her husband went to Ms. Mamoon’s home, and took a written notice demanding her $3,000 back. Ms. Mamoon would not sign acknowledging receipt of it until Ms. Farooq removed the word “profit” from the notice, so Ms. Farooq scratched that word out.

[111] Ms. Farooq, her husband and Ms. Mamoon signed the notice. That document is marked as Exhibit 13. Ms. Mamoon told Ms. Farooq not to contact her for one month, because that was how long she had to repay the $3,000 under the terms of the receipt.

[112] Ms. Farooq testified that she waited one month, and when there was no contact from Ms. Mamoon, Ms. Farooq contacted her and was asked to wait another 15 days, at which time Ms. Mamoon would contact Ms. Farooq. Ms. Mamoon did not contact her after 15 days, so Ms. Farooq phoned her. Ms. Mamoon politely said that she would pay her when the money came in.

[113] Ms. Farooq said that another time she went to Ms. Mamoon’s house because Ms. Mamoon called her to come to the house to get the money. She said that she waited 3 hours while Ms. Mamoon got dressed, and then Ms. Mamoon told her that she had lost her bag with all of her identification, and therefore she could not go to the bank to get the money.

[114] Ms. Farooq said that on another day Ms. Mamoon told her to pick up the money at her home between 10 a.m. to 12 noon because some people were coming to her home with money. Ms. Farooq waited for two to three hours at Ms. Mamoon’s home. At one point she borrowed Ms. Mamoon’s cellphone to call home. Ms. Farooq said that later Ms. Mamoon told her that if she did not trust her, she should take her cell phone home with her as a guarantee. Ms. Farooq took the phone; later that day the police came to Ms. Farooq’s home and asked for the cellphone, suggesting that Ms. Farooq might have stolen it.

[115] Ms. Farooq gave the phone to the police and was never charged.

[116] Ms. Mamoon said that she called the police a few hours after Ms. Farooq left because she did not have Ms. Farooq’s address and she was not answering the cellphone.

[117] Ms. Mamoon’s evidence and Ms. Farooq’s evidence diverge on many issues, including whether any or all of the $3,000 was repaid. Ms. Mamoon testified that on the day after Ms. Farooq’s resignation letter was delivered, Ms. Farooq called her and asked whether she could take clothes instead of cash. Ms. Mamoon stated that Ms. Farooq selected clothes worth $2,500 and therefore that left $500 outstanding. Ms. Mamoon testified that she met Ms. Farooq at a coffee shop at the corner of Queen and Thomas, where she gave Ms. Farooq the remaining $500.

[118] Ms. Farooq denied receiving the dresses and she denied receiving $500 cash from Ms. Mamoon.

Position of the Parties

[119] The Crown asserts that by promising Ms. Farooq profits from a non-existing event and a non-operating charity, Ms. Mamoon deprived Ms. Farooq of $3,000 and that she did it intentionally.

[120] Ms. Mamoon submits that she did not deprive Ms. Farooq of any money through deceit or other fraudulent means and that any money that Ms. Farooq gave to her was returned.

Findings re: Farooq

[121] I find that there were inconsistencies within Ms. Mamoon’s testimony regarding this issue, and some of it was at odds with the Agreed Statement of Facts and documentary evidence.

[122] The original receipt given to Ms. Farooq is dated September 28, 2012. Ms. Mamoon testified that she did not do any work for her charitable organization after September 2012. It is difficult to accept Ms. Mamoon’s testimony that she did nothing through her organization after September 2012, when in fact, on September 28, 2012 she accepted $3,000 for an individual to become a director of that organization.

[123] Also, Ms. Mamoon denied discussing catering with Ms. Farooq. She stated that she never cooked for these events; that she does not charge admission or for food; that she does not expect to make a profit on them; and that she did not have a catering business. However, in the Agreed Statement of Fact with respect to another of the alleged victims, Ms. Mamoon acknowledged that Ms. Begum gave her “$2,500 cash towards a catering event run by the Umme Rubab Organization”.

[124] Further, the receipt given to Ms. Begum is dated January 31, 2013, four months after the date that Ms. Mamoon testified that she had ceased operating through her charity.

[125] Ms. Mamoon testified that Ms. Farooq advised her that she had lost the first receipt and that is why she wanted another receipt. I reject that testimony for two reasons: first, there was a breach of the rule in Browne and Dunn on this point and second, the amended receipt does not state that it is a replacement receipt. The only issue that it addresses is the fact that the $3,000 is refundable. This is an example where Ms. Mamoon’s testimony appears to be inconsistent with documentary evidence.

[126] Ms. Mamoon had testified that she stopped all work on her organization’s website on September 9, 2012. However, Ms. Farooq testified that the website was online on September 28, 2012. This is another inconsistency in Ms. Mamoon’s evidence.

[127] Ms. Mamoon said that she called the police a few hours after Ms. Farooq left her home because she did not have Ms. Farooq’s address and she was not answering the cellphone. However, Ms. Farooq’s address is written on the duplicate receipt marked as Exhibit 11 that Ms. Mamoon had given to Ms. Farooq for her $3,000. This is another aspect of Ms. Mamoon’s testimony that is contradicted by a document created by her. Further, it is difficult to understand why Ms. Mamoon would call the police so quickly with respect to someone with whom she had a business relationship.

[128] Further, in the Agreed Statement of Facts Ms. Mamoon acknowledges that “Safia Farooq gave Nuzhat Mamoon $3,000 cash to join the Umme Rubab Organization. Nuzhat Mamoon never returned $2,500 of this amount to Safia Farooq.” Ms. Mamoon’s evidence that she gave Ms. Farooq dresses valued at $2,500 is inconsistent with that agreed fact.

[129] Finally, as I have already noted, Ms. Mamoon was an evasive witness who most frequently was non-responsive to questions. I have previously identified the inconsistencies in her testimony regarding her charitable organization and when people began to say “bad” things about her.

[130] For all of those reasons I do not believe Ms. Mamoon’s evidence on her interactions with Ms. Farooq and I am not left in reasonable doubt by it.

[131] Ms. Farooq’s evidence is consistent with the receipts given by Ms. Mamoon. It is also internally consistent and logical. I believe Ma. Farooq.

[132] Based upon all of the evidence I find that Ms. Farooq gave to Ms. Mamoon the sum of $3,000 based upon her representations that she would be a director of the Umme Rubab organization, and as a result, she would receive a share of the donations received by the organization, and further, her name would be used for the rental of halls and she would receive 50 percent of the profit from those events.

[133] Further, I find that Ms. Mamoon assured her that it was a guaranteed thing. I further find that Ms. Mamoon did not make Ms. Farooq a director of her organization, nor did she book halls in Ms. Farooq’s name at the time of the Eid celebrations. I also find that Ms. Mamoon never returned $3,000 to Ms. Farooq in cash or in clothes.

[134] Based upon the evidence of the trial that I have accepted I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt by that evidence that Ms. Mamoon fraudulently obtained $3,000 from Ms. Farooq and did so intentionally, by promising her guaranteed huge quick profits from a non-existent event and from a non-operating charity.

Evidence re: Nasim Begum

[135] Chronologically, Ms. Begum’s financial interactions with Ms. Mamoon are next.

[136] She is 73 years old and married with six children. She came to Canada in 2000. She has never worked, but she does teach the holy book and translate it.

[137] Ms. Begum testified that she attended a program in a Brampton restaurant in 2013 and met Ms. Mamoon for the first time. At this meeting Ms. Mamoon read verses from the Koran. She said that Ms. Mamoon’s recitation was impressive. Ms. Begum testified that Ms. Mamoon told her that she lived on Mississauga Road, which was close to Ms. Begum’s home, so Ms. Mamoon gave her a ride home after the program. Ms. Mamoon testified that she did not tell Ms. Begum that she owned a home on Mississauga Road, and acknowledged that she never owned a home on Mississauga Road.

[138] Based upon Ms. Mamoon’s conversation with her, Ms. Begum understood that Ms. Mamoon ran an NGO, a catering business, and owned a factory in China and a Tim Horton’s.

[139] She testified that Ms. Mamoon told her that if she invested in the catering business she would have 100 percent profit and her money would be refundable.

[140] Ms. Begum said that on January 31, 2013 she gave Ms. Mamoon $2,500 cash and Ms. Mamoon told her that she could have it back within two days. Ms. Begum gave Ms. Mamoon the money on a Thursday, and on Saturday was to get back the original $2,500 plus $2,500 profit. Ms. Mammon prepared and signed a receipt for the money, marked as Exhibit 14. Ms. Begum said that Ms. Mamoon told her that she does not have loses in the catering business and Ms. Begum believed her. The receipt that Ms. Mamoon signed, states that the money was for catering by the Umme Rubab organization and it was refundable.

[141] Later Ms. Mamoon asked for more money; $1,000 or $1,500, but Ms. Begum did not give her any more money.

[142] Ms. Begum testified that she left for Pakistan the Sunday after she gave Ms. Mamoon the money. She asked Ms. Mamoon for the money back before she left, and was told that she would get it as soon as Ms. Mamoon could get it. Ms. Begum was away in Pakistan for four months. When she came back to Canada she called Ms. Mamoon asking her for the money. Ms. Mamoon told her that she did not have the money and Ms. Begum could go to court; alternatively, if Ms. Begum would give her another $1,000 to $1,500, she would put a house into Ms. Begum’s name.

[143] Ms. Begum said that she attended a press conference called by Ms. Mamoon. At that time Ms. Mamoon acknowledged that she owed money to people. She said that those who showed her proof would be paid. Ms. Begum showed her the receipt, but Ms. Mamoon did not acknowledge it, and was busy at the meeting. Ms. Mamoon has never repaid Ms. Begum any money.

[144] Ms. Mamoon also testified that she did get $2,500 from Ms. Begum for a “program” for her charity. She denied that she was carrying on a catering business. She said that she agreed to pay it back. However, she said that Ms. Begum never asked her for her money back. Rather Ms. Begum went to the newspapers and accused her of fraud.

Position of the Parties

[145] The Crown submits that Ms. Begum gave $2,500 to Ms. Mamoon based upon her promise of a guaranteed return within a few days from a catering event, when in fact Ms. Mamoon had no intention of holding such a catering event.

[146] Ms. Mamoon asserted that she received the $2,500 for a program for her charity and that she has agreed to pay it back, but Ms. Begum never asked for the money back; rather she went to the newspapers and accused her of fraud.

Findings re: Nasim Begum

[147] Ms. Mamoon’s testimony regarding Ms. Begum was not credible.

[148] For example, it is an agreed fact that Nasim Begum gave Nuzhat Mamoon $2,500 cash towards a catering event run by the Umme Rubab Organization. The receipt is dated January 31, 2013. In contrast, Ms. Mamoon testified that she did not have a catering business, and that after September 2012 she did no work through the Umme Rubab Organization.

[149] Further, the receipt from Ms. Mamoon states that the money was “for catering” and “it’s refundable”. The agreed fact and the receipt are consistent with Ms. Begum’s testimony.

[150] Ms. Begum’s testimony was corroborated with the agreed fact and the receipt. Her evidence was unshaken on cross-examination. She was responsive to questions.

[151] Ms. Mamoon was non-responsive to questions asked of her about Ms. Begum. As well, I have already noted other inconsistencies in her testimony, both with respect to other complainants and regarding her charitable organization.

[152] Ms. Mamoon did not deny obtaining the money from Ms. Begum, but did deny that it was for her catering business, notwithstanding the agreed fact that the money was for a catering event run by her charitable organization.

[153] I do not believe Ms. Mamoon’s evidence on her interactions with Ms. Begum, and I am not left in reasonable doubt by it.

[154] Ms. Begum’s evidence was corroborated by the receipt. Her evidence was consistent throughout and not shaken on cross-examination. I believe Ms. Begum.

[155] I find that Ms. Begum gave Ms. Mamoon the sum of $2,500 based upon Ms. Mamoon’s representations that she was organizing a catering event through the Umme Rubab organization, and she would return that money back to Ms. Begum, together with a profit of $2,500 within 3 days. This fact is consistent with the receipt from Ms. Mamoon and with the Agreed Statement of Facts.

[156] I also find that the Umme Rubab organization did not run an event on the weekend after January 31, 2013.

[157] I also find that Ms. Begum has asked for the money back from Ms. Mamoon, and she has not received payment of the original principal or any profit.

[158] Based upon the evidence of the trial that I have accepted, I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt by that evidence that Ms. Mamoon deprived Ms. Begum of $2,500 by deceit by promising her huge returns on a guaranteed investment with respect to a non-existing event.

Evidence re: Bilail Rauf and Rahat Tasneem

[159] The next two complainants were living together as husband and wife at the date of the alleged payment to Ms. Mamoon. I will review and analyze the evidence with respect to their interactions with Ms. Mamoon together.

[160] Bilail Rauf is married to Rahat Tasneem. They separated in February of this year.

[161] Mr. Rauf testified that he first met Ms. Mamoon on March 12, 2013. His wife introduced them. Ms. Mamoon came over to their home to discuss a potential investment in her catering business. At that time, he was earning about $1,400 after tax per month. His wife did not work.

[162] He stated that he gave $1,000 cash to his wife for her to give to Ms. Mamoon to be invested in Ms. Mamoon’s catering business. Ms. Mamoon promised him 100 percent return within one week of the investment; that is by March 18 or 19. Ms. Mamoon told him that there was a three-day event that weekend. Ms. Mamoon said that the catering business would succeed.

[163] Mr. Rauf testified that Ms. Mamoon gave the impression that she was a rich lady; that she was married to Idrees, who was a rich industrialist in Pakistan.

[164] Mr. Rauf said the he called Ms. Mamoon several times to request his money and the profit. Finally, he attended at her house on March 23 or 24, 2013. He said that each time he spoke to Ms. Mamoon, she made excuses; she said she was in an accident; she said that she was in the hospital because of high blood pressure.

[165] He never got his money back.

[166] Rahat Tasneem testified that she is the wife of Bilail Rauf. She has been unemployed since July 2008, and on ODSP since 2010 or 2011. She first read about Ms. Mamoon in an advertisement in an Urdu newspaper. She understood from the advertisement that Ms. Mamoon assisted women who were divorced or separated. She thought that Ms. Mamoon might help her sister who was having problems with her husband, so she called Ms. Mamoon. This call occurred between March and April of 2012. Once Ms. Tasneem talked to Ms. Mamoon “she did not feel right about it” and did not think that Ms. Mamoon could help her sister.

[167] Ms. Tasneem said that she first actually met Ms. Mamoon in August 2012 at an Iftar party. She said that Ms. Mamoon called her many times to invite her to attend the Iftar party, so she finally went. There were many people there, including the Consul General from Pakistan. Ms. Mamoon spoke at the party and appeared to host it. The event included food and was totally free. After the party Ms. Tasneem changed her opinion about Ms. Mamoon and she was very impressed.

[168] Ms. Tasneem said that in March 2013 Ms. Mamoon called her and inquired how she was doing and if her husband was feeling better. Ms. Mamoon knew that her husband was only working four to five hours a day due to illness. Ms. Mamoon suggested that Ms. Tasneem come to work with her in her catering business. She said that she helped needy people. Ms. Mamoon told her that if she invested $250 or $500, she would get double back, as soon as the function was held. She would get 100 percent profit on any investment. Ms. Tasneem was to have no active role in the business. Ms. Mamoon told her that the “profit was bound to be there”. Ms. Tasneem discussed this with her husband when he came home from work. Later that day Ms. Mamoon called her and Ms. Tasneem advised her that she and her husband had agreed to invest in her catering business.

[169] Ms. Tasneem testified that her husband gave her $1,000 cash to give to Ms. Mamoon to invest in the catering business. Ms. Mamoon drove over to Ms. Tasneem’s home, and then drove Ms. Tasneem to Ms. Tasneem’s bank, where Ms. Tasneem withdrew $2,000. This withdrawal is shown on Exhibit 10, being a CIBC ATM withdrawal slip.

[170] Ms. Tasneem said that she had agreed to invest in total $2,000 with Ms. Mamoon, being $1,000 from her husband and $1,000 from her own account, but when they were at the bank Ms. Mamoon asked her for a $1,000 loan so that she could pay for supplies that day. Ms. Mamoon told her that if she had to go home to get the $1,000, it would be too late to pay the suppliers that day. Ms. Mamoon told Ms. Tasneem that she would pay the suppliers, and then drive to her home to get $1,000 for Ms. Tasneem, and she would repay the $1,000 loan that day.

[171] Ms. Tasneem testified that she withdrew $2,000 from her line of credit and gave this, plus the $1,000 cash from her husband, to Ms. Mamoon. After receiving the $3,000 Ms. Mamoon drove to a strip mall at the corner of Mavis and left Ms. Tasneem in the car. Ms. Mamoon returned to the car, and said that she had paid for the supplies. Later Ms. Tasneem returned to that area and determined that Ms. Mamoon had entered the Rent A Car store.

[172] Ms. Tasneem said that Ms. Mamoon drove Ms. Tasneem directly back to Ms. Tasneem’s home. When Ms. Tasneem questioned her about the repayment of the $1,000, Ms. Mamoon told her that they were talking and she forgot about going to her house to get the money to pay back the loan of $1,000. She asked Ms. Tasneem to invest that money in the catering business, and that she would receive $6,000 back on March 18, 2013. Ms. Tasneem agreed.

[173] Ms. Tasneem testified that she did not get any money back from Ms. Mamoon on March 18, 2013 or any other day. After March 19, 2013 she called Ms. Mamoon many times and each time received excuses from Ms. Mamoon. For example, once Ms. Mamoon said that her Tim Horton’s had burned down. She last talked to Ms. Mamoon March 30, 2013 at which time Ms. Mamoon told her to go to the police.

[174] Ms. Tasneem said that she did not sign any documents, or get any documents from Ms. Mamoon regarding the investment. Ms. Mamoon told her that word of mouth was a great thing, and that she was a religious person so nothing on paper was needed.

[175] Ms. Tasneem testified that in 2013 she attended a press conference held by Ms. Mamoon. Ms. Tasneem thought that Ms. Mamoon had agreed to give back money to people that she owed. At the conference Ms. Mamoon passed out when the media pressed her with questions.

[176] Ms. Mamoon denied ever taking money from Ms. Tasneem. She said that she only met Ms. Tasneem once when she went to Ms. Mamoon’s home with her sister and they needed a lawyer.

Position of the Parties

[177] The Crown submits that Ms. Mamoon through deceit obtained $2,000 from Ms. Tasneem and $1,000 from Mr. Rauf by promising them guaranteed huge profit from a non-existing catering event.

[178] Ms. Mamoon denied obtaining any money from Ms. Tasneem or Mr. Rauf.

Findings re: Rauf and Tasneem

[179] Ms. Mamoon was a non-responsive witness regarding this issue. Her unwillingness to answer questions is a negative factor in assessing her credibility. Additionally, I have already noted many other inconsistencies in her testimony, both internally and when compared to either agreed facts or documentation.

[180] I do not believe Ms. Mamoon’s evidence on her interactions with Ms. Tasneem and Mr. Rauf and I am not left in reasonable doubt by it.

[181] Ms. Tasneem’s evidence regarding the withdrawal of funds is corroborated by the ATM withdrawal slip. Her evidence is consistent. Her evidence regarding the event where the Consul General of Pakistan was present, and over which Ms. Mamoon appeared to host, is consistent with Ms. Mamoon’s own evidence regarding that event.

[182] I believe Ms. Tasneem and Mr. Rauf with respect to their interactions with Ms. Mamoon.

[183] I find that Ms. Tasneem gave $3,000 cash to Ms. Mamoon to invest in her catering business on the basis that she would get $6,000 back on March 18, 2012, which was 6 days after she gave the money to Ms. Mamoon. I find that $1,000 of the $3,000 was cash given to her by her husband, Bilail Rauf, to give to Ms. Mamoon for the same purpose.

[184] I further find that Ms. Mamoon did not have a catering business; she did not invest the funds in a catering business, and she never paid back any money to Ms. Tasneem or to Mr. Rauf.

[185] Based upon the evidence of the trial that I have accepted, I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt by that evidence that Ms. Mamoon through deceit obtained $3,000 from Ms. Tasneem and Mr. Rauf for a non-existent catering event.

Evidence re: Almas Rashid

[186] The next person, chronologically, having dealings with Ms. Mamoon is Almas Rashid.

[187] Ms. Rashid testified that she is married to Muhmmad Rashid Iqbal. She works as a travel agent and now makes about $2,000 per month net after tax.

[188] Ms. Rashid stated that she first met Ms. Mamoon when Ms. Mamoon came to her travel agency to purchase a ticket to go to Pakistan. The next time they met was at the Quality Restaurant in 2011 or 2012. Ms. Mamoon was conducting a program there and Ms. Rashid’s husband was invited because he was a journalist.

[189] Ms. Mamoon stated that Ms. Rashid attended two programs at the Quality Restaurant, one in December 2011 and one in January 2012. However, other than exchanging greetings, they did not talk.

[190] Ms. Mamoon and Ms. Rashid both testified that the program at the Quality Restaurant were cultural programs about needy people. There was another person—a political person–who invited Ms. Rashid’s husband by the nickname of Bunti. There were some prayers, and then Ms. Mamoon said that those who wanted to join the program and volunteer to help should come forward, and leave their name and phone number. Ms. Rashid did that.

[191] Ms. Rashid stated that one or two weeks after that program Ms. Mamoon called her. She was upset and crying. She said that her brother in Pakistan was running in an election and needed money. Ms. Rashid agreed to give her $500, even though she was asking for $2,000. Ms. Rashid gave her $500 cash, and, although she is unclear on the date, it was in the winter as there was snow on the ground. The next day or the day after she gave Ms. Mamoon another $500. The total of $1,000 was a loan and Ms. Mamoon agreed to repay it within 15 to 20 days. They did not discuss any interest rate and they did not reduce the agreement to writing.

[192] Ms. Rashid said that Ms. Mamoon called her again and asked Ms. Rashid to invest in her catering business. She said that she would double her money in 15 to 30 days on any investment.

[193] Ms. Rashid testified that one day Ms. Mamoon went to Ms. Rashid’s business. Ms. Rashid went downstairs and gave Ms. Mamoon $1,500. About two months later she gave Ms. Mamoon another $1,500. Both amounts were paid in cash because Ms. Mamoon required cash. There were no written agreements to reflect the investment.

[194] Ms. Rashid said that she understood that she would help with cooking. However, Ms. Mamoon never asked her to do actually cook.

[195] Ms. Rashid testified that she called Ms. Mamoon every two or three days asking for the money, but Ms. Mamoon just gave her excuses, such as her money was stuck in the United States.

[196] Ms. Mamoon said that she never met Ms. Rashid outside of the programs or at the travel agency. However, she did say that Ms. Rashid signed the proposal voluntarily. It was unclear as to what proposal Ms. Mamoon was referring to. No proposal was introduced as evidence.

[197] Ms. Mamoon denied taking $3,000 from Ms. Rashid for her catering business and also denied that she had a catering business.

[198] Ms. Mamoon testified that she met Ms. Rashid May 17, 2012 at the Mother’s Day event, and she also attended the Father’s Day event on July 25. Also, she said that Ms. Rashid called her in 2013 saying she was facing a problem matchmaking for her children. She said that Ms. Rashid went to Ms. Mamoon’s 5712 Philip Drive home to discuss this issue.

[199] Ms. Mamoon stated that this meeting at Ms. Mamoon’s home was short. Ms. Rashid brought her children, but Ms. Mamoon said she was busy and could not help. A week later Ms. Mamoon invited the whole family including her husband, Rashid Iqbal and his younger brother to a restaurant for a meal.

[200] Ms. Mamoon stated that she received $100 for a $450 dress from Ms. Rashid. She was supposed to receive the balance later, but never did.

[201] Also, Ms. Mamoon testified that there was an Eid celebration and Ms. Mamoon arranged it for $600 at the Milan Banquet Hall. However, this line of questioning was not put to Ms. Rashid and I give this evidence no weight.

[202] Ms. Mamoon stated that she never received any other money from Almas Rashid.

Position of the Parties

[203] The Crown submits that Ms. Mamoon obtained $1,000 from Ms. Rashid by lying to her about her brother in Pakistan need for money, and a further $2,000 by promising her guaranteed huge profits from a non-existing catering business.

[204] Ms. Mamoon denied taking any money from Ms. Rashid

Findings re: Rashid

[205] Ms. Mamoon was non-responsive to the questions regarding this issue. I have already also described internal inconsistencies in Ms. Mamoon’s evidence. For example, Ms. Mamoon denied ever having a catering business, or speaking to Ms. Rashid about such a business, and yet, in the Agreed Statement of Fact with respect to another of the alleged victims, Ms. Mamoon acknowledged that Ms. Begum gave her “$2,500 cash towards a catering event run by the Umme Rubab Organization”. Further, that the receipt is dated January 31, 2013, four months after the date that Ms. Mamoon testified that she had ceased operating through her charity.

[206] These inconsistencies have a negative impact upon Ms. Mamoon’s credibility.

[207] I do not believe Ms. Mamoon’s evidence with respect to her interactions with Ms. Rashid and I am not left in reasonable doubt by it.

[208] I found Ms. Rashid to be a credible witness whose evidence was consistent and believable. She was forthright in acknowledging that she could not recall specific dates when she gave the money to Ms. Mamoon. Her testimony was not contradicted in any way during cross-examination. I believe Ms. Rashid.

[209] I accept Ms. Rashid’s evidence that she loaned $1,000 to Ms. Mamoon based upon Ms. Mamoon representations that she needed the money to assist her brother in Pakistan, and she gave Ms. Mamoon $3,000 cash based upon Ms. Mamoon’s representation that she would get her money back together with 100 percent profit in 15 to 20 days.

[210] I further find that Ms. Rashid did not receive back the $1,000 loan, or the principal of $3,000 that she gave to Ms. Mamoon as an investment in her catering business, nor did she receive any profit on this investment. I further find that Ms. Mamoon had no catering business in which to invest Ms. Rashid’s $3,000.

[211] Based upon the evidence that I have accepted I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt by that evidence that Ms. Mamoon through deceit obtained $4,000 from Ms. Rashid.

Evidence re: Anis Sayani

[212] Chronologically, Ms. Sayani is the next person to financially interact with Ms. Mamoon.

[213] Ms. Sayani is 63 years old and divorced. She first met Ms. Mamoon in April or May of 2013 through her sister Sharmeen. They became very close friends. Ms. Sayani had been depressed, having lost a daughter and was divorced and lonely. She was on welfare when she met Ms. Mamoon. She lived with Ms. Mamoon for four or five weeks. They treated each other like sisters.

[214] Ms. Mamoon stated that Ms. Sayani called her in 2013 to tell her that she was ill and Sharmeen’s behavior to her was bad. Ms. Mamoon stated that Ms. Sayani came to live with her in March 2013 because Sharmeen had beaten her. This question was not asked of Ms. Sayani resulting in a Browne and Dunn breach. I give the evidence regarding Sharmeen beating her sister, Anis, no weight.

[215] Before she moved in with Ms. Mamoon, Ms. Sayani had been living with her mother to help take care of her.

[216] Ms. Sayani testified that based upon what Ms. Mamoon told her, she understood that Ms. Mamoon was a successful business person and that she had expertise in selling clothes. Ms. Mamoon suggested that Ms. Sayani and she should buy a big store together, and then Ms. Sayani would not require welfare.

[217] Ms. Sayani said that in May 2013, Ms. Mamoon suggested that Ms. Sayani become involved in a laptop sales business in Pakistan in which Ms. Mamoon said that she already had invested. Ms. Mamoon told her that she would import the laptops from China and sell them in Pakistan. Ms. Sayani went to the bank and drew $15,000 on her line of credit and gave Ms. Mamoon the cash. Ms. Mamoon required that she receive cash. She said that if everything sold, Ms. Sayani’s money would double to triple within six weeks. Ms. Mamoon said that if the business was not successful, Ms. Sayani would not get the profit, but would get her money back. Ms. Mamoon said the business would be successful for certain.

[218] Ms. Sayani said that after six weeks passed, Ms. Sayani asked for the money. Ms. Mamoon told her that the sale was very successful, but her ex-husband was creating problems and she could not go to Pakistan to get the money. Ms. Sayani asked Ms. Mamoon for money so that she could pay the minimum monthly payment on her line of credit. Ms. Mamoon gave her four monthly payments of between $300 and $500 that Ms. Sayani used to make her monthly payment on her line of credit. The principal of the $15,000 remains outstanding today.

[219] Ms. Mamoon denied having a laptop business, asking for the money from Ms. Sayani or receiving the money from Ms. Sayani for a laptop business.

[220] Ms. Sayani testified that about one month after the first investment, around the Eid celebration, Ms. Mamoon asked Ms. Sayani for $10,000 to invest in her clothing business. Ms. Sayani drew on her line of credit and gave Ms. Mamoon this money in cash. Once again, Ms. Mamoon required cash. Ms. Mamoon told her that she would get her original investment back, together with part of the profit and that she would get her money back even if there was no profit. Ms. Mamoon never discussed specifics of the profit. Ms. Mamoon paid Ms. Sayani three payments of $500 with respect to these funds.

[221] Ms. Sayani said that she went with Ms. Mamoon to pick up some parcels and went to one store where Ms. Mamoon had a stall for clothes. Ms. Sayani saw Ms. Mamoon paying for the stall.

[222] Ms. Mamoon denied asking her for this money or receiving money from Ms. Sayani for a clothing business. She stated that she had no business dealing with Ms. Sayani. She denied having a clothing business, although she did say that she sold embroidered clothes from her home.

[223] Ms. Sayani stated that in addition to the $25,000 investment, during the months of June and July 2013, she allowed Ms. Mamoon to use her credit cards to a total of approximately $13,000 or $14,000. Ms. Mamoon told her that she would return the money. Ms. Mamoon paid the minimum payment on the credit cards for two or three months of approximately $300 each month for all of the credit cards. During this time, Ms. Sayani was living with Ms. Mamoon and Mamoon was buying groceries for her as well. Ms. Sayani did not pay rent.

[224] Ms. Mamoon denied ever using Ms. Sayani’s credit card and denied that Ms. Sayani purchased groceries for her as in Ms. Mamoon’s words, she was very “picky”.

[225] Ms. Sayani said that total amount that she gave to Ms. Mamoon is $31,500 and it remains outstanding. She asked for repayment many times, but never got it.

[226] Ms. Sayani testified that about one month after Eid, Ms. Mamoon said that she needed money for a Dubai fashion show. Ms. Sayani introduced her brother, Nadeem, to Ms. Mamoon. Ms. Mamoon told Nadeem that an investment would have a quick return. Ms. Sayani witnessed Nadeem invest $5,000 for this, and then later $3,000 in the catering business.

[227] Ms. Sayani stated that she left Canada in December 2013 for Rochester and stayed with her son because she had no place to live, and she was not well. She had no contact with Ms. Mamoon after that. Her credit is not good now. She still owes the money to the bank that she withdrew on her line of credit.

Position of the Parties

[228] The Crown submits that Ms. Mamoon through deceit obtained $25,000 from Ms. Sayani for non-existing businesses based upon promises of guaranteed, huge, quick profit and $31,500 by using Ms. Sayani’s credit card without her approval.

[229] Ms. Mamoon denies that she took money from Ms. Sayani for any business investment and she denies that she ever used Ms. Sayani’s credit card.

Findings re: Anis Sayani

[230] Ms. Mamoon was also non-responsive when asked questions about these matters. It is a negative factor when I assess her credibility. The inconsistencies in her testimony that I have already referred to is another factor in my finding that her testimony on this issue is not believable.

[231] I do not believe the evidence of Ms. Mamoon with respect to her interactions with Ms. Sayani and I am not left in reasonable doubt by it.

[232] I am satisfied that Ms. Sayani was not a sophisticated businessperson; she was vulnerable due to her health and the loss of her daughter. She did not understand that the representations that she would get her money back regardless of the success of the venture and that her money would double or triple in weeks, were improbable. She was very naïve about business matters.

[233] I believe Ms. Sayani and I accept her evidence. It was consistent in chief and in cross-examination.

[234] I find that Ms. Sayani gave to Ms. Mamoon $15,000 in cash based upon Ms. Mamoon’s representations that she was investing in a laptop business in Pakistan and would get her money back plus double or triple that amount within six weeks. I find that Ms. Mamoon did not have a laptop business, and she had not invested in that business prior to asking money from Ms. Sayani.

[235] I also find that Ms. Sayani gave $10,000 cash to Ms. Mamoon based upon her representations that she was investing in a clothing business, and she would get her money back together with profit. I find that Ms. Mamoon was not carrying on a clothing business at the time she asked Ms. Sayani to invest her money and she did not invest this money in a clothing business.

[236] I further find that Ms. Mamoon represented that Ms. Sayani would get her money back regardless of whether the ventures were successful or not.

[237] Based upon the evidence of the trial that I have accepted, I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt by that evidence that Ms. Mamoon through deceit deprived Ms. Sayani of $25,000 by promising her guaranteed, huge, quick profit on non-existing businesses.

[238] I am not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that all of the expenditures on Ms. Sayani’s credit cards constitute loans to Ms. Mamoon. By Ms. Sayani’s evidence, they were living together; she was not paying rent; nor was she paying for groceries. Some of the purchases on the cards were for groceries for Ms. Sayani, in addition to being for Ms. Mamoon and her children. From the evidence I am unable to conclude what portion of the $13,000 to $14,000 outstanding on Ms. Sayani’s credit cards were funds utilized by Ms. Mamoon for her own purposes.

Evidence re: Nadeem Sayani

[239] Chronologically, Nadeem Sayani is the next person to interact financially with Ms. Mamoon.

[240] He is 55 years old, lives in Oakville and is a pharmacist. He came to Canada in 1989 from Pakistan. His annual business income is $200,000 and personal income $80,000. He has two sisters in Canada, Anis and Sharmeen as well as a brother.

[241] He testified that he first met Ms. Mamoon in either July or October 2013. Her sister, Anis was living with Ms. Mamoon, and she told him that Ms. Mamoon could help get his sister a visa for Canada for a cost of $10,000. After discussing this with Ms. Mamoon, he did not feel comfortable with the proposal, so he did not proceed with it.

[242] In the summer of 2013 Anis insisted that Nadeem meet Ms. Mamoon. She described her as a business woman with many businesses. Ms. Mamoon told Mr. Sayani that she owned two Tim Horton’s--one in Toronto and one in Barrie--as well as a Swiss Chalet in Toronto. Also, she said that she owned a boutique in Toronto and two luxury homes: one in Oakville and one in Mississauga. She said that she wanted him to become a long term business partner with her. He said that his sister had been living with Ms. Mamoon for three or four months and described her as her best friend.

[243] Mr. Sayani testified that Ms. Mamoon also told him that she ran a Not-For-Profit organization called Umme Rubab. Its purpose was to help needy East Indian women in Canada. As well she helped women in Africa and other countries.

[244] Mr. Sayani stated that Ms. Mamoon said that she needed money for a fashion show in Dubai. She said that she was $14,000 short. Mr. Sayani agreed to invest $5,000 and wanted to write a cheque. Ms. Mamoon insisted on cash as it was the weekend and she said that there might be banking issues with a cheque. He went home and got the cash. He returned to 5712 Philip Drive where he met his sister, Anis and Ms. Mamoon. He gave the cash to Anis who counted it, and then gave it to Ms. Mamoon. He thought that he was investing in the fashion show. He did not get a receipt. They spoke Urdu.

[245] He testified that Ms. Mamoon said that he would get $2,500 to $3,000 profit together with his principal back in three days.

[246] Mr. Sayani said that he was never given details about the fashion show. Ms. Mamoon told him that she had an agent who would run the fashion show. She showed him 30 to 40 women’s dresses on a rack at her home and said that they would be similar ones for the show in Dubai.

[247] A week later his sister, Anis, called and said that $8,000 was ready to be picked up. He went to Ms. Mamoon’s house. Once he arrived Ms. Mamoon told him that her bank account was frozen because of a matrimonial dispute. Mr. Sayani testified that Ms. Mamoon said that an investor in her catering business wanted out, and she asked him for $3,000 so she could pay the other investor off. She offered Mr. Sayani to take the investor’s place in the catering business. She told him that he would get another $2,000, plus the $3,000 principal back as soon as her bank accounts were unfrozen. This was in addition to the $8,000 from the Dubai fashion show. Mr. Sayani testified that she said that he would get this money in a week. She told him that she was catering some parties in the Mississauga area, but she did not discuss the specific events.

[248] Mr. Sayani stated that he went home. His sister, Anis, and Ms. Mamoon followed him home. At that time, he checked the website for Ms. Mamoon’s charity. He testified that the website helped him feel comfortable that what Ms. Mamoon was telling him was accurate. He was satisfied that she was a business woman. She told him that she owned a boutique in Toronto and a textile mill in Pakistan. He trusted her completely. He gave her the $3,000 cash. He did not get a receipt or any other documentation. Ms. Mamoon told him that he would get $2,000 profit within three or four days.

[249] Mr. Sayani testified that in November 2013, Ms. Mamoon asked him for a loan for her daughter’s education. She told him that her daughter was attending University of Toronto Mississauga campus. He agreed to do this on a bank transfer basis, as he wanted some documentation. Mr. Sayani testified that at Ms. Mamoon’s direction, he transferred the money into the daughter, Maria’s, account in installments in November, totaling $14,000. These transfers dated November 12, 2103 are reflected on Exhibit 5.

[250] Mr. Sayani testified that he followed up with Ms. Mamoon for repayment of the funds outstanding many times. One day he stopped by her house to ask for money. Ms. Mamoon said $14,000 was available, but she had invested it in a house in Oakville that she said was worth $500,000. She said that she would transfer title into both of their names. She said that they would hold it for appreciation, and then sell it for the profit. Mr. Sayani testified that he was upset and told her that she should have obtained his approval before making the investment.

[251] He said that she did not tell him the address of the property. She said she would take him to the lawyer to transfer title. This never occurred, until finally she agreed to meet at a lawyer’s office. However, she arrived late at the lawyer’s office, and by that time the lawyer had left. Mr. Sayani said that he never saw any paperwork for this house.

[252] Mr. Sayani testified that next Ms. Mamoon asked to rent his house because she said that her husband was harassing her and she wanted to move to a new address where he could not find her. He agreed to a rent of $3,500 per month plus utilities, commencing December 1, 2013, provided he would continue to live in one room.

[253] Mr. Sayani testified that Ms. Mamoon moved in by surprise on November 24, 2013. Although she had agreed to pay first and last month’s rent when she moved in, she did not pay that amount or any amounts when she moved in.

[254] Mr. Sayani testified that when she moved in, she asked Mr. Sayani for a loan to pay for the cost of the movers. Ms. Mamoon drove him to the bank in her SUV. He went into the bank and removed $900. At Ms. Mamoon’s request he gave it to her daughter, Maria. Ms. Mamoon moved in with her three children. Anis also moved in. The withdrawal is shown on an ATM withdrawal slip marked Exhibit 2.

[255] Initially, Ms. Mamoon testified that she moved in to Mr. Sayani’s home on December 1, 2013, and she disagreed that she went to the bank on November 24, 2013 with Mr. Sayani to get money from the bank to pay for the movers. In cross examination she agreed that she had moved in November 24, 2013 and went with Mr. Sayani on that day when he withdrew funds for the movers.

[256] Mr. Sayani stated that he waived the rent for the first week and Ms. Mamoon agreed to pay two month’s rent on December 1, 2013.

[257] Ms. Mamoon did not pay the two months’ rent on December 1, 2013. Mr. Sayani asked her every day for his money. Once she told him that she went with his sister to her Tim Horton’s to get money, but said that the manager was not there. Once he got up early to go to Tim Horton’s with her. She did not get up and made an excuse; they did not go that day.

[258] Mr. Sayani said that a few days into December Mr. Sayani was “getting a bad feeling” and told her to leave. He prepared a promissory note for $23,400 dated December 9, 2013 that she signed and it is marked Exhibit 3. They did this in the living room. He went up to his bedroom. Mr. Sayani testified that she followed and screamed at him. He went downstairs and called 911. She left the next day.

[259] Ms. Mamoon testified that she was threatened by Mr. Sayani and that is why she signed the promissory note.

[260] Mr. Sayani and Ms. Mamoon exchanged text messages between December 17, 2013 and December 19, 2013 regarding the money (see Exhibit 4). In those text messages Ms. Mamoon acknowledged that the money was owing to Mr. Sayani and said, “swear of God I will give u back soon”.

[261] Mr. Sayani testified that he obtained a default judgment in Small Claims Court. He testified that the money that he gave Ms. Mamoon on the basis that it was for Maria’s education was a loan; whereas the balance was an investment.

[262] Mr. Sayani testified that around Christmas 2014 while he was in the room Sharmeen called Ms. Mamoon. Sharmeen then put the phone on speakerphone. Ms. Mamoon spoke with Mr. Sayani and offered to settle his claim for $10,000, provided he write an apology to police, asking that prosecution not occur. She said that $12,000 would follow in the next couple of months. He declined to do so.

[263] He testified that he had no personal relationship with Ms. Mamoon. He denied proposing to her, or that she prepared special meals for him because of a liver problem. Ms. Mamoon testified that Mr. Sayani was emotionally supporting her and she was looking for companionship.

[264] Ms. Mamoon testified that there was a plan whereby Mr. Sayani and Ms. Sayani would take care of her children and she would return to Pakistan. She said that she owned property there, as did her father. She said that she would sort that out and then pay back their loans. No evidence was provided to corroborate this evidence.

[265] Ms. Mamoon testified that Mr. Sayani gave her money from time to time for domestic expenditures; sometimes $3,000, sometimes $4,000. She always intended to pay him back. She acknowledged owing him $14,500 and testified that she was prepared to pay it back. However, she also acknowledged signing the promissory note that stated she owed Mr. Sayani $23,400

[266] Ms. Mamoon denied that she borrowed money for her daughter Maria’s education. She stated that her daughter had OSAP and worked part time.

Position of the Parties

[267] The Crown submits that Ms. Mamoon through deceit obtained from Mr. Sayani $8,000 based upon her promises of guaranteed, huge, quick returns from non-existing businesses; $14,000 based upon Ms. Mamoon’s lies that the money was for her daughter’s education; $900 based upon her promise that she would repay it and two months’ rent by promising to pay it, but never doing so.

[268] Ms. Mamoon denies receiving any money from Mr. Sayani for investment purposes or for her daughter’s education. She acknowledged that he loaned her money from time to time to assist her with her daily living expenses, and she was prepared to pay it back.

Findings re: Nadeem Sayani

[269] Ms. Mamoon’s evidence on these interactions is internally inconsistent.

[270] Initially she testified that she did not move in to Mr. Sayani’s home on November 24, 2013, but when pressed in cross examination, and in the face of the ATM receipt for $900 that day, which she agreed was to pay for the movers, she acknowledged that she did move in on that date.

[271] Also, she testified that she only signed the promissory note on December 9, 2013 because she was threatened. Yet between December 17 and 19, 2013 she exchanged emails with Mr. Sayani in which she clearly acknowledged the debt. Her evidence that she signed the promissory note because she was threatened is a further attempt by Ms. Mamoon to colour the story in her favour.

[272] Ms. Mamoon did not deny that she received some money from Mr. Sayani. She said that they were loans. However, she gave no explanation as to when it was to be repaid, or how much the loan was.

[273] I find that I do not believe Ms. Mamoon with respect to her interactions with Mr. Sayani and I am not left in reasonable doubt by it.

[274] Mr. Sayani’s testimony was un-contradicted during cross-examination. His loan to Ms. Mamoon for what she told him was her daughter’s university education is supported by electronic transfer documentation. The $900 that he testified was a loan, and that he withdrew this money from his bank by an ATM is supported by Exhibit 2.

[275] I believe Mr. Sayani and I accept his evidence.

[276] I find that Mr. Sayani gave $5,000 cash to Ms. Mamoon based upon her representations to him that he was investing in her fashion show in Dubai and he would receive his money back together with profit of $2,500 to $3,000 within three days. Further, I am satisfied there was no fashion show in Dubai.

[277] I find that Mr. Sayani gave $3,000 cash to Ms. Mamoon based upon her representations that he was investing in her catering business and he would get his principal together with profit of $2,000 within three or four days. Further, I find that Ms. Mamoon had no catering business in which to invest.

[278] I further find that Mr. Sayani loaned to Ms. Mamoon $14,000 based upon Ms. Mamoon representations that the loan was for the purpose of assisting with Ms. Mamoon’s daughter’s post-secondary education when in fact the money was not used for that purpose.

[279] I further find that Ms. Mamoon represented to Mr. Sayani that she decided to purchase a home with $14,000 of his money, rather than return it, and that she made no such investment.

[280] I further find that Mr. Sayani loaned $900 to pay for the movers.

[281] Based upon the evidence of the trial that I have accepted, I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt by that evidence that Ms. Mamoon deprived Mr. Sayani through deceit of $22,900 through promises of guaranteed, quick huge profits from non-existent businesses as well as through other lies.

[282] I am not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Sayani was deprived of $7,000, being two months’ rent. Ms. Mamoon left his residence a few days into the month and Mr. Sayani had not been renting his home out prior to the agreement with Ms. Mamoon.

Evidence re: Press Conferences

[283] Ms. Mamoon testified that she held a press conference on July 8, 2013 at Red Rose Banquet Hall and a second press conference on August 25, 2013.

[284] She testified that she wanted to confront those people who said that she owed them money, and then she would give money back in front of all the people. She acknowledged that she had borrowed money from people and she wanted to return it. She did not state clearly who she owed money, how much and on what basis she owed the money.

[285] She testified that she took $4,000 with her to the press conference on August 25, 2013, but she did not give it to anyone.

[286] Narinder Dulai, the owner of Red Rose Banquet Centre testified that Ms. Mamoon reserved the hall for July 6, 2013, but that event was cancelled (see Exhibit 6). He was not asked whether an event was held on July 8, 2013.

[287] Ms. Mamoon did not testify that the event was originally scheduled for July 6, 2013, and then was moved to July 8, 2013.

[288] Ms. Mamoon testified that the participants at the conference were not respectful. Ms. Tasneem testified that when the reporters pressed Ms. Mamoon for answers, she appeared to faint, thus ending the press conference.

Findings re: Press Conference

[289] Mr. Dulai, the owner of Red Rose Banquet Centre was not asked whether an event was held on July 8, 2013. As this is a breach of the rule in Browne and Dunn, I attach no weight to Ms. Mamoon’s testimony that she held a press conference on July 8, 2013 at the Red Rose Banquet Centre.

[290] Further, Ms. Mamoon did not testify that the event was originally scheduled for July 6, 2013, and then was moved to July 8, 2013. Her evidence that the event was held in July is inconsistent with Mr. Dulai’s evidence that the July 6 event was cancelled. I find that this is another example of her evidence being inconsistent with documentary evidence.

[291] I find that by Ms. Mamoon’s own evidence she owes people money. The difficulty with her evidence on this point, which is consistent with much of her evidence, is that it consists of generalities, and the only conclusion that I can reach from her testimony is that she agrees that she took some money from some people for some purpose.

[292] I do not accept her testimony that she went to the press conference to pay back the money that she owed. First, she stated that she only had $4,000 cash with her. Second, she has acknowledged owing Ms. Begum $2,500 and Mr. Sayani $14,500. Mathematically, if one only considers those two individuals, it was impossible for her to pay them back. Her testimony defies belief.

[293] Ms. Mamoon’s testimony about the purpose of the press conference simply defies belief and is another reason to disbelieve her testimony. It does not leave me in reasonable doubt.

Evidence re: Shazia Asim

[294] Ms. Asim testified on behalf of the defence.

[295] She stated that thru a newspaper advertisement she determined that Ms. Mamoon provided Koran lessons. Ms. Mamoon taught her children in October or November 2011 for 2 ½ months to 3 months until transportation became an issue and the lessons were stopped. Ms. Mamoon charged for lessons after she initially checked their level of knowledge. The lessons were paid in cash.

[296] In 2012 and 2013 she purchased clothes for her daughters from Ms. Mamoon, who had 30 to 40 outfits on display at her home.

[297] Ms. Asim said that she attended a program organized by Ms. Mamoon on May 17, 2013. Her son attended at Ms. Mamoon’s home at Oscar Peterson Drive to practice for a stage presentation at the event. This event was held at the Pearl Banquet Hall. It was free and there were printed invitations. There were 1,000 to 2,000 people in attendance. She was invited to a Father’s Day event but could not attend.

Findings re: Shazia Asim

[298] The evidence is clear that Ms. Mamoon lived at Oscar Peterson Drive in 2012 until December 1, 2012, and on that date moved into 5715 Philip Drive. This casts doubt upon Ms. Asim’s evidence that the event that she attended was on May 17, 2013, as her son could not have practiced for that event at Ms. Mamoon’s home on Oscar Peterson. Ms. Mamoon did not live at Oscar Peterson in May 2013; she lived at 5715 Philip Drive.

[299] Even if I accept Ms. Asim’s testimony, her evidence does not contradict those witnesses who testified about their financial interactions with Ms. Mamoon.

Indictment

[300] The period during which Ms. Mamoon is alleged to have committed fraud is referred to in the indictment as commencing April 11, 2012 and ending on or about the 31st day of December 2013.

[301] I have found as a fact that Ms. Mamoon asked Mr. Waheed to give her $4,000 cash to begin a business and that on March 30, 2012 Mr. Waheed gave that money to Ms. Mamoon.

[302] The Crown requests that I amend the indictment to change the date of April 11, 2012 to March 30, 2012 to conform to the evidence. She submits that section 601 of the Criminal Code of Canada grants me the authority to do so.

[303] Alternatively, she asserts that pursuant to section 601(4.1)(a), as there is no prescribed period to prefer the indictment, the variance between the indictment and the evidence with respect to the time when the offence is alleged to have been committed is not material.

[304] Defence counsel had no real objection to the amendment; his primary point was that I should accept Ms. Mamoon’s evidence that this event did not occur.

[305] I am satisfied that Ms. Mamoon has not been misled or prejudiced by the time variance, and that the amendment can be made without injustice being done. Considering these factors, as well as the circumstances of the case and the evidence, I order that the indictment be amended to replace the date of “April 11, 2012” with the date of “March 30, 2012”.

Positions of Crown and Defence

[306] I have described the parties’ respective positions under the analysis of the evidence with respect to each complainant.

W.(D.) Analysis

[307] Even though there is only one count of fraud before me, I have completed a W.(D.) analysis for each interaction with a complainant, as they are discrete incidents.

[308] To summarize, I have concluded with respect to each incident that:

a) I do not believe Ms. Mamoon’s evidence. I have found that parts of her evidence were internally inconsistent; some parts were contrary to the Agreed Statement of Fact; some parts were inconsistent with documentary evidence; and some parts simply were not believable. Ms. Asim’s evidence in support of Ms. Mamoon is, in part, inconsistent with undisputed facts, and otherwise supports the position of the Crown. b) I do not believe Ms. Mamoon’s evidence, and I am not left in reasonable doubt by it. c) The Crown witnesses were credible and believable for all of the reasons set out in my Findings sections, and I accept their evidence regarding their interactions with Ms. Mamoon. d) Based upon the evidence that I have accepted, I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt by that evidence that: (1) Ms. Mamoon deprived the public of something of value; (2) her deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means caused the deprivation; (3) she intended to defraud the public; and (4) the value of the property exceeded $5,000.

[309] I am satisfied that the Crown has proven each of the essential elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

[310] I am satisfied that Ms. Mamoon sought out opportunities to meet vulnerable, financially unsophisticated individuals, primarily through her charitable organization, thereby earning their trust as she portrayed herself as a wealthy religious business person. She then promised them unrealistic profits on investments that she stated were guaranteed, with respect to non-existent business operations.

[311] Ironically, her explanation that she started the charitable organization to assist poor women is the real purpose for which she used it and she was that woman. She had virtually no other income and a family to support.

[312] Ms. Mamoon’s interaction with Mr. Waheed began through her charitable activity of teaching the Koran, and the fact that she portrayed herself as a wealthy, religious businessperson. However, at that point it deviated from her approach with the other complainants, as she promised Mr. Waheed, unrealistically, that he could purchase a home for little money down, and without documentation. Here too, Mr. Waheed’s lack of sophistication in business matters, and his trust in Ms. Mamoon, led to him giving her money without supporting documentation, at a time when he could not afford to do so; he had to borrow a significant portion of the funds.

[313] Ms. Mamoon’s interactions with Ms. Sayani and Mr. Sayani were different in that they did not start via her charitable organization, but are similar in that she portrayed herself as a wealthy religious businesswoman and she made the same promises of huge returns on guaranteed investments. She then invented one reason after another for either not returning the initial investment, or for asking for additional funds; all with respect to non-existent business enterprises.

[314] Summarizing my findings of fact, I have found that,

A) between March 30, 2012 and December 31, 2013, Ms. Mamoon deprived the following members of the public the amounts opposite their names:

(1) Shaid Waheed of $38,000. (2) Safia Farooq of $3,000. (3) Naslim Begum of $2,500. (4) Bilail Rauf of $1,000. (5) Rahat Tasneem of $2000 (6) Almas Rashid of $4,000. (7) Anis Sayani of $25,000 (8) Nadeem Sayani of $22,900.

B) Ms. Mamoon obtained those funds through deceit and falsehood. For example, she promised huge profits within days arising from events that she was not holding.

C) Ms. Mamoon intended to defraud these individuals of these funds. By her conduct it is clear that she had no intention to undertake any of the business which formed the basis upon which the individuals gave her funds. The creation of the Umme Rubab charitable organization was intended to give her access to individuals from whom she could obtain funds.

D) the value of the property exceeded $5,000.

[277] I therefore find Ms. Mamoon guilty of the offence set out in the indictment.

Justice D.L. Edwards Released: May 11, 2016

COURT FILE NO.: CRIMJ(P) 919/15 DATE: 2016 05 11 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE B E T W E E N: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN - and – NUZHAT MAMOON REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Justice D.L. Edwards Released: May 11, 2016