COURT FILE NO.: CR-19-1529
DATE: 2022 02 18
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
T. Hill, for the Crown
- and -
MARK ANDROLIA
C. De Giorgio A. Evangelista, for the Accused
HEARD: February 18, 19, 20, 21, 24, 2020 October 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 2021 November 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 2021
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
FRAGOMENI J.
INTRODUCTION
[1] Mark Androlia is charged with one count of fraud over $5,000. The Crown’s case against Mark Androlia stands on three pillars:
A fake civil lawsuit against the Region of Peel, Peel Regional Council, Chief of Police Herbert Metcalfe and Director of Human Resources, Douglas Bowman.
A fake trust fund in the name of Beatrice Schikschneit and her son, Justin Schikschneit. This fake trust fund had been created by the death of Beatrice’s fictitious husband, Joe, who had been killed in a fictitious motor vehicle accident by an impaired driver.
A fake cancer diagnosis and treatment with respect to Beatrice, also known as a cancer scam.
[2] It is not challenged by Mark Androlia that none of this was true. At no time did a real and legitimate lawsuit get issued. At no time was a trust fund in existence and at no time had Beatrice been married to a man called Joe. Finally, at no time did Beatrice have cancer.
[3] The victim in this complex and long-lasting fraud is Mark Androlia’s brother, Brian Androlia. Brian Androlia was defrauded in the amount of $750,000. I will at times for convenience, refer to the parties in these reasons as Beatrice, Mark and Brian.
[4] Beatrice Schikschneit pleaded guilty to numerous charges at the start of this trial in February 2020. As a result, the trial before me involved only Mark Androlia. I will review the details of Beatrice’s plea before Justice Durno shortly. At this time, it is helpful to identify the position advanced by Mark Androlia at his trial before me.
[5] Mark Androlia’s defence to this charge is based on the following:
He, like his brother, Brian, is also a victim of Beatrice’s elaborate fraud.
He was totally and completely unaware of the fraudulent circumstances that Beatrice set up for the purpose of defrauding his brother, Brian.
He believed and had no reason to disbelieve everything that Beatrice was telling him regarding the lawsuit, the trust fund, and her cancer diagnosis.
Beatrice initiated the fraudulent scheme for the purpose of sustaining her extramarital relationship with Mark Androlia.
Mark Androlia’s conduct throughout the entire period amounted only to being an innocent agent lacking in the mens rea required in the commission of the fraud.
[6] The issue before me is whether the conduct of Mark Androlia amounts to a fraud and whether he actually knew of, or was wilfully blind to, the elaborate fraudulent scheme put forward by his girlfriend, Beatrice Schikschneit.
Plea of Guilt of Beatrice Schikschneit – February 13, 2020
[7] Beatrice pleaded guilty to the following:
• That between the 1st day of April 2008 and the 10th day of April 2017, she did by deceit, falsehood and other fraudulent means defraud Brian Androlia of a sum exceeding $5,000.
• That she, between the 1st day of April 2008 and the 10th day of April 2017, did knowingly make false documents with intent that they be acted upon as genuine, thereby committing forgery.
• That she, between the 19th day of September 2011, and the 10th day of April 2017, did fraudulently personate Morris Fish with intent to gain advantage for herself.
[8] Beatrice also testified at trial for the defence and essentially acknowledged the underlying facts read in at her plea of guilt. I will review her trial testimony later in these reasons. At this time it is sufficient to note that both at her pleas of guilt and in her trial testimony she stated that she alone was responsible and liable for this fraud. She stated that Mark Androlia was as much a victim of this fraud as his brother Brian Androlia was. In order to provide context to the trial testimony given by Beatrice it is useful and informative to set out portions of the transcript of the pleas of guilt before Justice Durno. The following facts were read in by the Crown, in part:
Beatrice Schikschneit was born on the 22nd of May 1960. For a period of the time set out in the indictment, Beatrice Schikschneit was a civilian clerk for the Peel Regional Police. Her good friend Mark Androlia was a Police Constable with the Peel Regional Police.
In or about 2011, Beatrice Schikschneit’s employment with the Peel Regional Police came to an end.
The fraudulent activity was advanced upon three pillars. Beginning on or about April 2008 to on or about April of 2017, Beatrice Schikschneit directly and through Mark Androlia, told the victim, Brian Androlia, that Beatrice Schikschneit and Mark Androlia were suing the Region of Peel, Regional Council, Chief of Police Herbert Metcalfe, and Director of Human Resources, Douglas Bowman, for the mistreatment in the employment relation and other grievances.
Brian Androlia, the victim herein, is the brother of Mark Androlia.
Beatrice Schikschneit directly and through Mark Androlia told Brian Androlia that all of her sources of income had been frozen by the defendants in this lawsuit, and this included trust funds, which had been created for Beatrice Schikschneit’ s benefit and for her son, Justin Schikschneit’s benefit, upon the death of her husband, Joe, who was her son’s father, who had been killed in a road traffic accident by an impaired driver when Justin Schikschneit was a small child.
Beatrice Schikschneit directly and through Mark Androlia told Brian Androlia that she had cancer and required Brian Androlia to loan her money for living and medical expenses. Brian Androlia was told by Beatrice Schikschneit and Mark Androlia that once the case was concluded and her frozen trust funds released, she would repay him what he had loaned her.
Beatrice Schikschneit and Mark Androlia showed correspondence to Brian Androlia, all of which was fake, and a phony statement of claim, all in an effort to make what they were telling him verbally and via emails sound legitimate.
This material was shown to him under the false pretense of obtaining his advice as to how best to proceed.
None of this was true. There was no lawsuit. There were no trusts. She did not have cancer. Moreover, she had never been married to a man called Joe, and Justin Schikschneit’ s father is still alive. This was a scam from start to finish.
Beatrice Schikschneit forged letters from inter alia: Emil Kolb, the then Chair of the Regional Municipality of Peel and of the Police Board of Commissioners, Staff Superintendent Roman Boychuk, Mr. Douglas Bowman, Mr. Edward, a barrister, Mr. Albert Campea, a barrister, Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, Marie Deschamps, Justice of the Ontario Court of Justice, Ian Cowan, Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, Morris Fish, and Linda Fuerst, a barrister.
She also created a fake email address, jjschik007@gmail.com in the name of her son, Justin Schikschneit, and sent email correspondence to Brian Androlia causing him to believe that he was communicating with Justin Schikschneit. These emails, in which she was impersonating her son, were sent to solicit funds from Brian Androlia and further the fraud scheme.
In addition, she forged letters and other correspondence from fictitious characters, inter alia: Leland Birenbaum, a supposed barrister, Eve Mallet, a supposed barrister, a shady individual known only as ‘Angelo’, whose apparent job it was to deliver letters ostensibly written by Justice Fish, supposed Crown Attorney, Iris Copeland, and Saul, a supposed doctor.
During the time when Beatrice Schikschneit and Mark Androlia were telling Brian Androlia how badly off she was both health wise and money wise, they were taking trips to Las Vegas, Nevada 13 times, twice with her son and his wife.
Had this case gone to trial, you would have heard Brian Androlia say in his evidence that he had known about these trips, not only would he have stopped the payments, he would have called the police.
One egregious example is with respect to Las Vegas trip of January 17 to 24, 2017. There is an email from Beatrice to Brian which reads in part:
My cough is so much worse, and I am tiring so much more quickly during the day. The cough is really bothersome, but I am managing.
They want me to do home oxygen so that I can breathe easier. Could you assist me? It will be approximately $1,500 Canadian that will give me home oxygen.
Brian sent the money, and in fact, he sent more than requested. He sent $1,911.51 Canadian.
Mark then sent Brian an email which read, “Funds arrived” Will work on getting it to B.”
To contextualize this, one must recall that the mere three weeks before this, Beatrice had claimed to have undergone heart surgery and had told Brian in an email of January 1, 2017, “I am still in hospital. I’m not happy about it at all. I want to go home, but my temperature is still up.”
She goes on in that email to ask Brian to forward to her $1,800 Canadian to cover the cost of her semi private room in the hospital claiming that she’s being called upon to pay for all medication and she has nothing to cover the room cost.
The Crown has evidence that she was not in hospital on January 1, 2017, or at any time material to the facts in these proceedings. If she had a heart operation and was still in hospital on January 1, 2017, what is she doing in Vegas on January 17? If she did not have a heart operation and was not in hospital on January 1, 2017, why is she lying to Brian?
[9] I have not reviewed all of the facts read in, however, as I indicated some reproduction of the facts read in is important and informative. Beatrice essentially admitted the facts that were read in. She also advised the court that none of the funds were used in any way for the Las Vegas trips.
[10] Further, Beatrice advised the court that she is taking full responsibility and that Mark Androlia was just as much a victim as Brian Androlia was.
[11] Beatrice made it clear to the court that Mark acted on what Beatrice told him and Mark did not know her story was all lies, fabrications and forgeries.
Agreed Statement of Facts
[12] An Agreed Statement of Fact was filed at the start of the trial and Mark Androlia admitted to the following facts, in part:
• Justice Morris Fish did not write, nor did he participate in writing the bundle of letters herein;
• The aforementioned bundle of letters can go into evidence in this trial on consent;
• Justice Morris Fish does not know and has never met or spoken with or corresponded with Beatrice Schikschneit, Mark Androlia, Justice Ian Cowan, Brian Androlia;
• Justice Ian Cowan did not write, nor did he participate in writing the bundle of emails and other correspondence herein;
• The bundle of emails and correspondence aforementioned can go into evidence in this trial on consent;
• Justice Cowan to the best of his knowledge, information and belief does not know and has never met, spoken to, or corresponded with Mark Androlia, Justice Morris Fish, Brian Androlia;
• Justice Cowan does know Beatrice Schikschneit from many years ago when her sister used to occasionally baby-sit his children. This was in Etobicoke, but many years ago he moved his family to Mississauga and has not seen Beatrice Schikschneit since moving to Mississauga;
• Ms. Linda Fuerst does not know Beatrice Schikschneit, Mark Androlia, Brian Androlia, Justice Cowan, Justice Fish;
• Ms. Linda Fuerst did not write nor did she participate in writing any of the correspondence (letters and emails) filed in this matter;
• Ms. Linda Fuerst has never acted for any of the above in any action or legal matter in any court, and particularly in the Supreme Court of Canada;
• Emil Kolb to the best of his knowledge, information and belief does not know Beatrice Schikschneit, Mark Androlia, Brian Androlia, and Albert Campea;
• Emil Kolb has no knowledge of the letters ascribed to him. He did not write them, nor did he participate in writing them. His signature on them is a forgery;
• Emil Kolb has no knowledge of the ostensible action described in the Statement of Claim to be introduced in this trial. He has never seen said Statement of Claim, and has never participated in meetings, consultations or otherwise in connection thereto;
• The Statement of Claim dated April 1, 2008 to be introduced in this trial was forged by Beatrice Schikschneit, and is not authentic;
• The script was read, signed and initialed by Beatrice Schikschneit and Mark Androlia; it was read on video by Beatrice Schikschneit;
• The wire transfers from Brian Androlia to Susan Androlia, Gerry Sumner, David Plant, Mark Androlia are admitted. It is agreed that the monies were given in cash to Beatrice Schikschneit by Mark Androlia after receiving said sums from Susan Androlia, Gerry Sumner, David Plant;
• Beatrice Schikschneit forged letters and internal memoranda as if such were composed and signed by Emil Kolb, S/Supt. Roman Boychuk, Douglas Bowman, Douglas Edward, Albert Campea, Justice Marie Deschamps, Justice McKenzie, Lelland Birenbaum;
• That material in the paragraph immediately above can go into evidence in this trial upon consent;
• “Saul” a supposed doctor does not exist;
• “Angelo” a Metro Toronto Police Officer who supposedly delivered letters to Beatrice from Justice Fish does not exist;
The Fake Lawsuit
[13] It is conceded by the defence that the lawsuit filed by Beatrice is a fake. The Statement of Claim was issued on April 1, 2008. Beatrice and Mark are the plaintiffs. They claim, in part, $2,000,000.00, jointly and severally for damages for pain and suffering, humiliation, malicious prosecution and mental and physical anguish. They also claim $500,000.00 for punitive and/or aggravated damages.
[14] Counsel of record who issued the Statement of Claim is noted as Albert Campea at Anderson Sinclair LLP, in Mississauga, Ontario.
[15] Albert Campea testified at trial. He confirmed that he did not draft the Statement of Claim. Mr. Campea does not know, nor has he ever met Beatrice or Mark Androlia. Mr. Campea was not a member of the Anderson Sinclair law firm on April 1, 2008. In her trial testimony, Beatrice confirmed that this lawsuit was in fact a fake. This was also confirmed in her pleas of guilt before Justice Durno.
[16] Beatrice also confirmed that the letters passing between Albert Campea and Emil Kolb, the Chair of the Council of Peel Region, as well as the Chair of the Board of Police Commissioners, were forged by her.
[17] These forged letters relate to a fictitious settlement of the claims. Albert Campea and Emil Kolb did not write these letters and neither of them were involved in this fictitious lawsuit in any way.
[18] Mark confirmed in his own testimony that he never met Albert Campea or any other lawyer that was involved in this civil action. Mark also testified that he never spoke to Albert Campea. He also confirmed that he never saw Beatrice meet with a lawyer in connection with this lawsuit.
[19] It is not necessary to review all of the forged letters that passed between the various fictitious participants in this lawsuit, but a review of some is helpful and informative to the discussion that follows and it gives context to the nature and extent of this aspect of the fraud.
May 15, 2008, Regional of Peel Council to Mr. Albert Campea
May 15, 2008
Mr. Albert Campea
2700 Argentia Road, Suite 101
Mississauga Ontario
L5N 5V4
Re: Settlement agreement
Mr. Mark Androlia
Ms. Beatrice Schikschneit
Mr. Campea,
I would like to take this opportunity to inform you of the board’s decision made earlier this afternoon. I am very pleased to formally advise you and your clients of the decision noted below.
We, the board rule the following. As Ms. Schikschneit endured numerous years of unfair abuses, (not physically), mentally by an employee of Peel Regional Police and being held back from advantageous positions that she was more then qualified for and the outward discrimination towards her and including Mark Androlia, who unfortunately became a victim as well by the same employer we make a settlement agreement in the amount of $1,130,000.00.
We do realize that this does not make up for the pain and suffering that your client must have endured by being treated so poorly by upper management.
I will be making arrangements to sit down with you this Friday and finalizing the agreement with our legal representatives. The target date for the settlement payment, June 6, 2008.
We the board wish to extend our sincere apologies on behalf of the employee in question, we do take into consideration this has been a long and draw out process which has come to a satisfactory conclusion.
Mr. Campea, I would personally like to extend my sincere appreciation to you for your professional and courteous manner when dealing with the board and myself. I trust that you will pass on the news of our settlement to your clients and I look forward to concluding this matter on Tuesday of next week.
The board and I would like to thank you, Ms. Schikschneit and Mr. Androlia for their understanding and trustworthiness when it came to our dealings with them. I trust that they will be very happy with the outcome.
A representative of my office will be in contact with your office on Friday morning to set times for that day and next Tuesday.
I look to next week and the conclusion of this matter.
Emil Kolb Chair
Cc: Mr. Mark Androlia
Ms. Beatrice Schikschneit
Staff Superintendent Roman Boychuk
Mr. Douglas Bowman
Mr. Jack Lancaster (Board Legal Counsel)
Aj:ac
[20] This letter is a forgery.
[21] Another lawyer by the name of Lelland Birenbaum at Birenbaum, Steinberg, Landau, Savino Qotraine LLP, is fictitiously noted as counsel for Beatrice and Mark. This December 10, 2008 letter is a forgery at the hands of Beatrice, and it states as follows:
Dear Mr. Androlia and Ms. Schikschneit
As you are aware, I attended court on December 9, 2008 at which time the defendants were present and a judgment was pronounced awarding you both the settlement, which will be honored by the Region of Peel.
With this said, I will advise you that the judge in the matter has made a ruling advising that both plaintiffs appear before the courts on December 19, 2008 in courtroom 6, at 10:00 am to receive their award.
I did convey my concern over the initial date stated of December 10, 2008 however the judge informed me that this date was established by his honor as he has jurisdiction over the case and that there would be no further delay in the judicial matter.
I am very happy that the case was resolved before the end of the calendar year. I look forward to seeing you both before our last appearance.
Sincerely,
Lelland Birenbaum B.A. L.L. B. (typed as entered)
[22] I will now address the evidence with respect to Mark’s involvement in this scheme.
[23] The following correspondence from Mark to his brother Brian demonstrates that Mark was deceiving his brother with respect to this lawsuit:
November 26, 2008 email from Mark Androlia to Brian Androlia:
Hi Brian,
Attended Court his morning, Roman’s wife still ill. Have to go back at 10:00 in the morning (Wednesday to complete. No Trial. Now where have I heard that before
I am informed that it will all be over by 11:00 or shortly thereafter. We still have trial time held.
[24] Mark testified that he consulted with his brother with respect to this lawsuit for the sole purpose of showing his brother, who he admired and respected, that he had things under control and could manage the courts, the lawyers, and the legal system.
[25] November 2, 2008 email Mark to Brian:
Hi Brian, Just returned from a lawyers meeting your email was very helpful, there was not a lot of difference from their game plan, but this was quite necessary.
The only thing of note is that the Region and “us” have been advised to meet on “THE STEPS OF THE COURT” at 9:30 am in the morning. Now is that significant. I don’t know! But we have been down this path before.
I just know that if they come asking for one day delay, the answer is no, if they need time to get the cheques certified I will say “while you are getting the cheques, we will start the trial.”
I think the Region should get an “A-plus” for devious tricks but who are they fooling?
They are not preventing the outcome just delaying it.
Speak soon.
[26] In an earlier email from Mark to Brian, Mark also provides Brian with fake information about this lawsuit:
July 17, 2008 email, in part:
Hi Brian,
Hope you can read this latest in this fiasco.
Before reading we have no intention of attending and want this to go to court. At present our lawyer has selected 10 of the 12 jurors in this case.
[27] Over the next several years Beatrice continued to forge letters from retired Justice Morris Fish and Ontario Court of Justice Ian Cowan. Brian Androlia was kept informed about the lawsuit, the settlement negotiations, the delay in achieving the settlement and the involvement of Morris Fish and Justice Cowan in finalizing the settlement. The number of pages of this forged correspondence is in the hundreds and hundreds and I will not review each of them in these reasons.
[28] Brian Androlia testified that he trusted his brother and believed that the information he was being provided was true.
[29] Again, it is not possible nor is it necessary to review all of this correspondence in these reasons, however, examples of what is being said by Beatrice and Mark in these forged documents is necessary. I will only set out portions of the emails.
[30] January 22, 2011 email Mark to Brian
Hi Brian Well here we go again with a new twist.
Yesterday I spoke with Ian Cowan, who was given permission to speak to me. He says the SCC meeting in Ottawa went well. There was himself, and Justice MacKenzie, the Region sent three or four lawyers.
[31] At no time did Mark speak to Justice Ian Cowan and at no time was there a meeting with the Supreme Court of Canada in Ottawa.
[32] March 27, 2011 email from Ian Cowan to Mark:
Hello Mark
Received your last communique you sound extremely cynical when you talk about the conclusion of the case.
I have been informed that the Supreme Court has sent out via courier to your attention the documents in question, draft of a gag order, signature release forms for your cheques, documents relating to previous attendance by myself and dossier for the past weeks proceedings.
I am not at all displeased with what transpired this past week, it was extremely satisfying for all around, myself included. The trust will be released on April 15, 11 as previously arranged, the signature documentation has already been taken care of.
The settlement cheques which are with the courts at the present time will be handed over within the next ten days, thus, the gag order needs approval, the signature released have to be back in Supreme Court Jurisdiction no later tan April 4th, 2011, I suggest sending back via courier as well, signature is always vital.
I have made arrangements to meet with you on Wednesday of this coming week, I am certain by then you will have all necessary paperwork in hand, have had a chance to peruse the same and jot down any pertinent questions, amendments jointly you have.
We worked diligently to come to a fair conclusion as far as the settlement and trust are concerned. I am quite pleased with myself and the entire process in question.
There were representatives (legal) from the Regional Municipality however no one who was named in the actual lawsuit were present. They had very competent and experienced lawyers however we presented ourselves on your behalf with dignity and had all our paperwork up to date and when asked for detailed information quickly came forth with documentation. That’s so much for what you sent, it was very helpful and it showed the Justices that there are incredibly detailed notes and documents being kept behind the scenes. This shocked the other side as well.
I will expect an e-mail tomorrow or Tuesday from you advising the receipt of the package, if there are any problems or concerns you have once you open it and read through just get in touch with me, Beatrice has my private number she has ben authorized to go it to you.
I do extend an apology for not sending anything out to you sooner, I was a bit tired and frayed, it was an exciting week but also a very tiring one, you now how it is dinner every nigh, then back to the grind during the day.
I will be in touch. Hope some of this is helpful to you, the settlement so that you are aware is $603,000.00 to you both.
That figure is a bit staggering when you first look at it I fought for considerably more however Lelland made an agreement with Regional Municipality which was tightly sewn up. I believe that the two of you should have received upwards of a million dollars each that is in my estimation.
Be in touch
Ian
[33] A fictitious settlement agreement, dated March 28, 2011, is signed by Emil Kolb but not signed by Beatrice or Mark. The settlement awards $603,000 to each of the Plaintiffs.
[34] April 13, 2012 forged letter from The Honourable Mr. Justice Morris Fish on Supreme Court of Canada letterhead (Beatrice testified that she obtained the letterhead off the internet):
In reference to your letter dated, Tuesday, April 10th, 2012, my response below.
This writer and the Supreme Court Panel that has been chosen to hear the civil case is aware of the victimization and suffering that both plaintiffs have endured over the past ten years. We are also painfully aware that this is because of individuals and a corporation that as you so eloquently state intimidate, manipulate and influence others in order to ascertain their goals.
You state that for ten years Ms. Schikschneit suffered under the influence of Mr. Douglas Bowman and aided and abetted and supported by Chief Metcalf and Mr. Kolb. This writer understands all of these facts and sympathizes with Ms. Schikschneit and her plight. It is our understanding of the case that Ms. Schikschneit as well as Mark Androlia has suffered hardship financially and economically throughout this ordeal and that Ms. Schikschneit has received financial assistance from outside sources mainly Mark Androlia’s family.
At this time, the Supreme Court and this writer would like to address the matter of the trust. In your letter quoted above you have asked for ten percent of the trust up front equaling to approximately seventy thousand, ($70,000.00) and then a monthly deposit of four thousand ($4,000.00). The Supreme Court retained possession of the trust from Ms. Schikschneit voluntarily as it was suggested by Judge Mackenzie (Zisman) who advised Ms. Schikschneit that by having the courts secure her trust the civil case would come to a speedier conclusion. Obviously this has not been the case and we understand that the trust being returned to Ms. Schikschneit would alleviate all financial struggles. With the later stated this writer would feel far more comfortable allowing for Ms. Schikschneit to receive four thousand ($4,000.00) on a monthly basis until such time the civil case is heard that being October 17th, 2012.
[35] October 15, 2012 letter from Morris Fish to Beatrice, Mark and Brian:
I hope I have addressed your concerns. I am confident that the case will go forward on Wednesday January 16th, 2013 and I am confident that I will be one of the Justices who will hear the case to its conclusion.
I must reiterate one of many extremely important points, I will make one guarantee to both Brian Androlia and Beatrice Schikschneit. If there are any changes to the Wednesday, January 16th, 2013 date then I will personally guarantee all funds are given back directly to Mr. Brian Androlia; and Ms. Beatrice Schikschneit will receive the entire amount in her trust. I feel so strongly with respect to this case that Justice Cowan and I will secure the funds personally.
[36] June 10, 2015 Letter from Morris Fish to Beatrice, Mark, and Brian, in part:
For your information and your eyes only the writer will provide you with the final financial amounts you will be receiving; this is provided strictly by the writer and figures provided by Attorney General’s Office.
Mr. Brian Androlia $ 750,000.00
Mr. Mark Androlia 1,650,000.00 (settlement as per Region of Peel)
Ms. Beatrice Schikschneit 1,650,000.00 (settlement as per Region of Peel)
827,000.00 (monies held in trust by Supreme
Court)
Mr. Justin Schikschneit 1,245,000.00 (monies held in trust by Supreme
Court)
The writer realizes that these amounts are staggering and in some cases will be life changing and by this statement the writer means in a very positive way, the writer trusts these amounts are in accordance with your financial figures. Your long and endured struggle will finally be completed and although in the beginning the quest was for law enactment and the rights of the Canadian People the supreme Court and this writer have absolutely no qualms about the settlements made. If a court of law in any province in Canada would have been in charge of this case the consensus was that the settlements or pain and suffering alone would be in the millions. Maybe in hindsight that would have been the course to take however this writer is honored that you chose to take the case to Ottawa and bring your plight and the plight of many Canadians to the forefront. The writer trusts these amounts are in accordance with your figures.
The writer stands by all that has been written above.
The Script Tab 55 Exhibit 1
[37] Tab 55 of Exhibit I is what has been referred to in the trial as the Script. This document is dated April 13, 2015. It was prepared by Brian Androlia from all of the information, emails, correspondence and hundreds and hundreds of pages of the forged documents prepared and created by Beatrice.
[38] Brian Androlia sent it to Beatrice and Mark. Mark read and signed each page. Beatrice read and initialled each page. The document was read on video by Beatrice, in the presence of Mark. The document is in the name of Beatrice. The document was prepared in order to preserve the evidence produced by Beatrice. Paragraph two of the script sets out the following:
I am 55 years old and due to appear in the Supreme Court of Canada from June 22nd – 25th his year, as a witness in a case that will expose the corruption that has occurred including the personal intimidation, cruelty and victimisation that I have suffered at the hands of the Region of Peel, the Peel Police and individuals in high office in the Police, the Brampton Superior Court, and the Police Services Board. This intimidation and victimisation began in 1998, and to this date, justice has not been served in any way, shape or form.
[39] Paragraph three states:
I am fully aware of my thoughts and wishes and I am providing this information in the event that I may be unwell, unable or prevented for any reason to be present at the Supreme Court on the above-mentioned dates, or if the case is postponed again. My reasoning for this is that I wish to provide an indisputable record of the suffering that I have endured, along with my friend, Brampton Police Officer Mark Androlia. My other concern for my possible failure to give evidence directly is that I have been treated for cancer for the last 15 years and attend treatment daily at the Credit Valley Hospital in Mississauga. Also at the present time I am awaiting a quadruple heart bypass operation, the damage having been caused by the drugs administered in an attempt to hold the cancer at bay.
[40] On page two of the Script, first paragraph, Beatrice repeats the falsehood regarding the trust fund as a result of the death of her husband. Beatrice, in her trial testimony, confirmed that this was a lie. The paragraph reads as follows:
In 1984, at the age of 24, and having been married for 4 years, I became widowed by the death of my husband Joe, who was killed by an impaired driver, when our son Justin was just 8 months old. As a result I received a financial award, some I invested for my son, who was due to receive this trust fund at the age of 30 years (due in February 2014, but illegally frozen by the Superior Court of Brampton, under the fraudulent instruction of Peel Police). Justin has still not received the proceeds of the trust which is currently held by the Supreme Court as a precaution. The remainder I invested in order to earn a monthly return.
[41] The Script outlines in detail key events that occurred from 2007 to 2015. All of this information and supporting documents and correspondence had been provided to Brian by Beatrice and Mark. The fake lawsuit and the settlement of that lawsuit and steps taken to enforce the settlement were all fabrications.
[42] Brian Androlia testified that he trusted his brother and believed everything that he was being told and shown.
[43] Again, it is not necessary to review the details of this Script in these reasons, but it is informative to set out portions of it to give context to the extensive, detailed and far reaching fabrications that Beatrice created for Brian Androlia.
Key events during 2007:
- Settlement of $750,000 was offered to Mark Androlia and me, providing that I resign from Peel. Further increased offers were made, and each was refused until May 2008 when Peel dropped the resign condition.
Key events during 2008:
Over 40 meetings were scheduled, including court dates to hold over the settlements and my trust to finalize the case, with countless cancellations…
Our lawyer (Albert Campea) left the case for “personal reasons” (we found that the Region offered to pay him) – replaced by Leland Birenbaum.
Key events during 2009:
- Over 32 meetings and court dates arranged, all changed and delayed
Key events during 2010:
- Once again there were a large number (26) of changes of dates and canceled meetings. The January 8th Court date was changed many times and promises of reimbursement of my trust and our settlement cheques were promised many times but never occurred. Significant Events/points:
a) I tried to draw funds from my bank on 12th July – withdrawal blocked by Justice Mackenzie?
b) On July 19th I tried to sell my shares in “Tim Horton” – this was blocked, and I discovered that all my assets were frozen by the Court on February 10th. This was a result of false statements by Douglas Bowman and other members of his department. I was not informed, nor was my lawyer at that time – it was a complete shock.
c) October – Justice Mackenzie steps down from the case – she just gave up!
d) October – informed that the case would be going to the Supreme Court in December.
e) December – informed by Supreme Court (Honourable Justice Marie Deschamps) that the Court date will be changed again, to January 2011.
f) Honourable Justice Ian Cowan, a previous acquaintance, agrees to help – he was due to retire at the time.
Key events during 2011:
- January 21st – Supreme Court decides to take over the case, quoting: “Peel Region are pulling strings and getting their own way”. Supreme Court Justice Morris J. Fish to take over the case.
Key events during 2012:
- Though the Supreme Court were taking over the case, progress remained slow and nothing positive ever happened in my favour – just constant delays and tricks by the defendants and their lawyers to try to derail the case. I remember reflecting at the time that it was 5 years since Mark and I had agreed to the settlement with the Region of Peel. Clearly the strategy was to try to starve me out, deprive me of my assets and delay in the knowledge that I was not well and still having intensive treatment for my cancer. Kolb and others were expecting that I would pass away, being unable to afford the huge medical bills for the drugs I required. Significant events/Points:
a) The defendants and their crooked lawyers bullied and persisted in trying to get me to admit the falsifying of medical records in early 2013, offering the following:
Plead guilty or go to Jail for ten years – declined
Pay $19,000 to the Region and Charges will be withdrawn – declined
Pay half $19,000 now and the other half later and charges will be withdrawn – declined
Pay any compensation and charges will be withdrawn – declined
Accept conditional discharge and charges will be withdrawn – declined
Accept absolute discharge and charges will be withdrawn – declined
Promise not to sue the Region of Peel or apply for your job with Peel Police back and charges will be withdrawn – declined
Attorney Iris Copeland was removed from the case, because of her clear bias against me, and on January 4th, 2013, I attended Brampton Court with Honourable Justice Ian Cowan and all that was said to me by the presiding Judge was ‘You are free to go.’
I believe that this was the worst case of abuse of authority that has ever happened. This caused me to lose my job, my pension, my heath cover, self-esteem and the whole case against me was based upon deliberate deceit, fraud and collusive intimidation by the Region of Peel, the Peel Police and members of the Brampton Court – taking 17 months to come to a conclusion.
b) June 27th – the defendants petitioned for Supreme Court Justice Fish to be removed from the case.
c) June 2012 – The Supreme Court were unable or unwilling for fear of objections by the defendants to allow me access to any of my monies.
d) In July 2012 it was reported to me by the Supreme Court through Justice Cowan that there is “obvious corruption within the Brampton Court System” and “People will be held accountable”.
e) The Supreme Court quote (through Justice Cowan) that “the Region of Peel and Peel Police obviously hate Beatrice, and it is amazing as to what lengths they will go to in order to disgrace her” We have concluded that “there is absolutely no evidence against Beatrice and it has all been fabricated – this is a blatant travesty of justice”
f) October 5, 2012 – Region of Peel are complaining about the relationship between Supreme Court Justice Fish and Honourable Justice Ian Cowan, also the relationship between me and Justice Cowan – claiming bias and want a 2 month delay of the Supreme Court case until January 2013.
Key events during 2013:
On January 25th it was discovered that the assistant at the Supreme Court to Supreme Court Justice Fish (Karen) deliberately withheld the sending out of subpoenas to the defendants and other required witnesses. The Court had no choice but defer the case until April. Karen admits she was approached to delay the sending of these documents.
On April 12th Mark sent a 720-page dossier to the Supreme Court, with all evidence and copies of letters and minuted meetings in Brampton, with details of failed meetings due to delays by Peel Region, the Police and others.
The Federal Watchdog was called in to review the case, SCJ Fish was due to retire in August 2013, and permission was given to him by the Prime Minister to see the case to conclusion – the case was deferred again until September 16th 2013.
Key events during 2014:
Following all of the above – we were advised in early January that the Supreme Court panel were being summoned to the Prime Minister’s office. They met with Prime Minister Stephen Harper and His Chief of Staff, Mr. Novak. This was because Mr. Hudak (Ontario head of Conservative Party) and Susan Fennell (disgraced Mayor of Brampton) had written to the Prime Minister to say that Emil Kolb and been mistreated and biased against by the Supreme Court, and denied his human rights because Justice Abella appointed a lawyer for him.
March 25th was the date we discovered that Douglas Bowman was instrumental in the freezing (illegally) of Justin’s Trust – and would not provide release until it “went to court” – these are the sort of criminal that get protected by our laws!
On March 25th I met with Legacy Trust, Mr. Matthew Bird and Mr. James Love. I saw a document that had been also sent to my creditors, advising that Justin’s trust and my assets were frozen because I had “funnelled between $500,000 and $1 million CND” from Peel Regional Police, the Records Search Unit. I have never worked in that unit and this fraudulent document was given to the Court, signed and sealed by Douglas Bowman, Police Chief Michael Metcalf and Ms. Karen Vandervault, a Supervisor in the Records Unit. Why are these criminals continually allowed to commit fraud, endorsed by Judges in the Court of Brampton?
Key events during 2015:
We all expected that the case would go forward on January 12th, even though the Supreme Court’s authority has been undermined by various parties in conjunction with the defendants, and once again this occurred.
On January 5th we were advised that a settlement offer to Mark and I was being made by Douglas Bowman, Emil Kolb and Iris Copeland to Mark and I, the condition of which would mean that these criminals would face no further action and we would have to sign a gag order preventing any knowledge of the case being released in the Public Domain.
I have suffered for over 15 years, been deprived of income, had my assets illegally frozen, been accused of misdeeds and had to be funded by friends to pay for hundreds of thousands of dollars of medical treatment. I, along with Mark refused this out of hand, but of course, once again – a delay in the case was the result, for the 8th cancellation since October 2012.
a) We heard on January 5th 2015 that the Supreme Court case was being rescheduled for March 23rd.
b) On January 22nd – we had planned to give video evidence in case my health continued to deteriorate, though this was cancelled.
c) On February 27th – one year after it should have been released, the Attorney General Peter Mackay, agreed to release Justin’s trust but changed his mind – we have no knowledge of why.
d) On March 13th we were advised that the case would now be put over until June 22nd, 2015.
I wish to confirm that all the matters I have raised and reported in this brief video have been given honestly with many pages of evidence in correspondence, minutes, reports and letters over the last 17 years, and are available to anyone who wishes to read the deliberate and orchestrated abuse, injustice, cruelty and intimidation that I have faced, along with Constable Mark Androlia since he provided his friendship and support, together with the signed and witnessed “script”, to which I have referred throughout.
In concluding this provision of information, I would draw your attention to a list which contains the names of over 60 people that have been involved with me for these many years. Many of these people have declined to help, abused their positions of trust, lied, falsified documents, intimidated others and in the main colluded or been coerced into breaking the laws. I only mention below the key perpetrators in the awful and long funning saga, so that views of this information may see the depths to which certain individuals will go in the furtherance of intimidation and protection of their ill-deserved public profile and reputations.
[44] As I indicated, this Script was written by Brian Androlia based on the information he had received from Beatrice and Mark. Brian confirmed in his trial testimony that he wrote it, sent it to them, and if they approved, they were to initial each page and have their signatures witnessed at the conclusion of the document.
[45] The video of Beatrice reading the script was played in court, in part, and during that reading Mark could be seen in the video.
The Cancer Scam:
[46] Beatrice, directly and through Mark, advised Brian that Beatrice had cancer. The money being requested from Brian was needed for her living expenses and for her medical expenses relating to her cancer treatment. Brian was led to believe that Beatrice was required to pay for these cancer treatment drugs out of her own pocket.
[47] Brian Androlia testified that he believed that by providing the funds he was helping Beatrice with her precarious financial situation and dire health issues. The following testimony is relevant on this point:
Q. Yes. Now, I wish to direct your attention to the loans of money…
A. Yes.
Q. …that you made and I understand that they began in and around August 2011.
A. Yes, they did.
Q. And on August 17th, 2011, you sent a money transfer to your brother Mark Androlia?
A. I did.
Q. And I understand that the sum of that money transfer was 2,000 Great Britain pounds.
A. It was.
Q. Who was it intended for?
A. It was intended for Beatrice.
Q. And tell us the circumstances of how this came about, you sending her 2,000 pounds?
A. Well, Mark and I had discussed the situation and I – I was told that she got share frozen, money frozen, no bank account, fired from her job, kicked out of the Peel Medicare scheme and therefore she needed help and I felt I was helping her and my brother. So I said, “I can help for a period of time,” and I was confident I was going to get it back.
[48] Brian confirmed that the payments to Beatrice began on August 17, 2011 and continued on a fairly regular basis throughout the years 2012 to 2017. Mark confirmed in his testimony that all funds passed through his hands before he gave them to Beatrice. The following testimony from Brian relates to his conversations with Mark (in cross-examination by Mark):
Q. Okay. And we’ve already established that the amount of money being sent, I was never consulted about what it was being sent for. It was just you and Beatrice deciding – discussed it.
A. I….
Q. I know I was basically informed it was for medical expenses.
A. You – you told me it was for medical expenses.
Q. Yes.
A. So – and that was the impression I have had though – from July the 23rd, which I’ll never forget, 2008, when you told me that she’d been battling ovarian cancer for – well sorry, battling cancer for six years and it looked like it’s progressing worse.
Q. Yes.
A. Many correspondence from you explained to me Beatrice is not well, Beatrice may have to miss four days, this and that.
Q. Yes.
A. So you know that is my answer to that question.
Las Vegas Trips
[49] The Script states the following at page 1, para 3:
My other concern for my possible failure to give evidence directly is that I have been treated for cancer for the last 15 years and attend treatment daily at the Credit Valley Hospital in Mississauga.
[50] Beatrice and Mark took 13 trips to Las Vegas together. At no time was Brian advised of these trips. During this time period Brian continued to send funds to Beatrice through Mark, on the understanding that Beatrice’s health continued to be of concern.
[51] The money transfers show that during the period from on or about March 9, 2015 to August 6, 2015, Beatrice received a total of 61,500 GBP, which equals $110,700 with an exchange rate of 1.80 CAD/1.00 GBP.
[52] Brian Androlia testified that he had no idea that while he was sending funds to Beatrice for her precarious health, she and Mark were traveling to Las Vegas. The following trial testimony is relevant and informative on these issues:
Q. Yes. So at any time when you were sending money to Beatrice Schikschneit did you know that Beatrice and Mark went on trips to Las Vegas, Nevada together?
A. No. No idea.
Q. Specifically, on January 20, 2017 and including January 21, 22, and 23 of 2017, did either Beatrice or Mark indicate to you that they were going to Las Vegas Nevada together?
A. No, sir.
Q. So if you turn to tab 83. So if you turn to tab 83…
A. Yes.
Q. …you recognize that email? It’s one from Beatrice to you and it’s dated January 20, 2017. That’s the time when our records and the evidence before this court show that two of them were in Las Vegas together.
A. Yes.
Q. But you didn’t know?
A. I had no idea.
Q. So the email says,
“Hi Brian, It seems like a long time since we have had a good long chat. My cough is so much worse and I am tiring so much more quickly during the day. The cough is really bothersome but I’m managing. I wrote a couple of days ago, asking if you could help me, but I got no response, so I feel awkward writing again. They want me to do home oxygen so I can breathe easier. I went to the financial office and tried to see if they would put the cost of it on bill until the end of January, beginning of February, but she won’t do it.
I know you sent a final reconciliation but could you assist me? It will be approximately $1,500 Canadian. That will give me the home oxygen for a total of two weeks, which would help a lot.
I sound pathetic, don’t I? I have so many more medications. It’s just overwhelming at the moment, so I’m down and feel completely at a loss. I’m trying to stay positive regarding my health, but it seems to overtake me at the moment.
I will not expect anything if you can’t do it, you can’t and that’s fine. You have already done so much. I have to get going. I hope you have a great day and hope to speak to you very soon.”
Q. You received that email and read it?
A. I did. And I think I commented on a text or an email, to say I was surprised that she was – surprised that she – surprised from January the 1st that she seemed to be able to speak on the phone or phone...
Q. Yes.
A. ...and communicate, having just had a major operation. And I don’t know how long people stay in hospital, but it just seemed strange. But this clearly was an email saying, “I’m at home in” wherever, “Mississauga”.
Q. Asking for money for home oxygen.
A. Yeah.
Q. Would you have been surprised at that time, having regard to the content of that letter to know that it was composed by Beatrice, not from home, but form some place in Las Vegas?
A. I would have been furious, because basically she supposedly couldn’t fly.
Q. And did you send that money as requested?
A. I did.
[53] Tab 84 of Exhibit Book Vol 2 is an email from Mark to Brian which states:
Hi Brian,
Funds arrived $1992.00 Will work on getting it to Bea.
All fine here.
Still no letter, so starting to get a bit jittery. I know I am a pain, but if there is a delay then we have a Chief of Police, a head of a Police Service Board, and two Mayors who we can prove look like total idiots
Will call in next day or two.
Will meet flight on Friday. Helen moving on Saturday. We leave for Ottawa on Sunday.
Mark.
[54] Brian testified that had he known that the two of them were in Las Vegas together he would not have sent the money to Beatrice. Instead he would have confronted them and probably would have called the police.
[55] In cross-examination by his brother Mark, Brian testified to the following (Mark was self-represented at this time):
MR. ANDROLIA: Q. When I went to Vegas where did you think I was going? Did you think I was – sometimes you believed I was going to Vegas?
A. Well….
Q. For what purpose?
A. On – I’ve looked up the 13 occasions and states that you supposedly went to Vegas.
Q. M’mmm.
A. On at least five of those occasions I received emails from you and/or texts and WhatsApp’s...
Q. M’mmm.
A. ...explaining – asking me things which indicated that you were not in Vegas…
Q. Yes.
A. ...therefore, you deceived me. You sent other emails that said you were going and you were staying with Tom.
Q. M’mmm.
A. And you sent emails saying, “I know you will be annoyed with me, Brian, but I’m going to Vegas again,” and my annoyance was how can you be going to Vegas when your best friend is in hospital, recovering from an operation?
Q. M’mmm.
A. And I asked you why you didn’t visit her and you always said, “We keep in touch by text.
Q. Yeah.
A. I had no clue that you were in Vegas and therefore having found that out, I absolutely assumed that you benefitted from money given to Beatrice Schikschneit by being taken to Vegas unless, of course, you paid for the trip yourself.
Q. M’hmm. I see. The – okay – okay, I’m not going to pursue that, sir, because as I say, there are questions I can think of, but as I say – and over a period of time when did you first become aware that I was in Vegas, that I wen to Vegas at all.
A. After the police investigation began.
Q. You – well what about when I was emailing you I was going to work with Todd?
A. Oh, I did – oh, sorry, I beg your pardon. I thought you were asking me a question about whether I suspected….
Q. Yeah.
A. I got an – I think I said a few moments ago, on at least five occasions I can remember you saying you’re going to Vegas with Todd.
Q. M’mmm.
A. But I, having found out that you were sneaking off to Vegas with Beatrice Schikschneit, I had two things on my mind; firstly, she was supposed, from both of you, not to be able to fly…
Q. Yeah.
A. …second of all, some of the dates on these trips were within – within weeks of a major operation, thirdly, you were saying things like, “I’ll try an get the money to Beatrice,” when you were obviously with her.
The Citizen Complaint
[56] This document is at Tab 81 of Volume 2. The complainant is Beatrice Schikschneit. The Subject Officer is Detective David Bartlett, Fraud Bureau, 22 Division, Metro Toronto Police.
[57] The complaint is sent to the Chief of Police of the Metro Toronto Police Services. The letter Is not dated, however, on page 5 it makes the following reference:
To this day June 2008.
[58] A reasonable inference is that it is written in June 2008.
[59] Again, I will not review this lengthy and detailed letter in these reasons, but it is informative to set out brief portions:
I am writing to make a complaint about of Toronto Police Officer Detective David Bartlett from 22 Division, Fraud Bureau. This Officer has just put me through the worst eighteen months of my life. This has cost me over $40,000. The outcome being that the case was completed in June 2008. The substance of the complaint is that if the officer had done an efficient investigation in October 2006 he would have realised that he did not have reasonable and probable grounds to lay charges against me.
In July 2005 I was contacted by Detective Bartlett and was informed that he was investigating my mother for theft of nine cheques from the Dental Office and the subsequent, ‘passing’ of those cheques through my account. He advised that the Fraud was in excess of $500,000.00.
To this day June 2008 I am still without my funds and still without a vehicle.
At this time all my Bank Accounts had been frozen; this was on the direction of Detective Bartlett. This included, apart from normal bank accounts, a Trust Account in my name. This was from an award made to me in 1984 when my husband was killed by an impaired driver. The amount frozen in this account is apprx. $790,000.00. Again I have been given no explanation why the whole amount has been frozen. The whole amount of the alleged Fraud is less than $5,000.
The Fake Trust Fund:
[60] It is conceded that there is no trust fund and that Beatrice was not married to a “Joe”.
[61] Beatrice’s son, Justin, was born in February 1984. Mark and Beatrice became friends in or about 1998. Mark regularly attended Beatrice’s residence after they became friends and at that time Justin would have been about 14 years of age. Justin testified that it was likely that Mark knew his father was Sergio, who was still alive.
The Fraud Comes to an End With the Trip to Ottawa in May 2017
[62] The trial testimony of Brian’s daughter, Debbie Androlia sets out the circumstances of how this elaborate scheme finally became unravelled.
[63] In July 2016, Debbie accompanied her father to Canada, and she explained the purpose of this trip as follows:
A. Um, so it seems a bit ridiculous now to say, but at the time there had been some letters from Justice Fish and Dad and Uncle Mark and Beatrice were all to receive some kind of civilian awards, like different awards, for the fact that this case had been going on for a long time. And Dad was allowed to bring a guest and Mom doesn’t like to fly or travel really and so I – so I went with him and we had decided we would travel to do that, but then that event was cancelled some weeks before the trip, in July – I think it was some time in June the event was cancelled. But we had already booked our flights and they were sort of non-changeable, non-refundable. So we decided to go to Canada anyway and to sort of I guess make a holiday of it and to see Beatrice and to see Uncle Mark, see my aunt and my cousins. So we made the trip anyway.
[64] Debbie testified that she accompanied her father Brian on a second trip to Canada in May 2017. She explained the purpose of this trip as follows:
Q. Why did you accompany your dad on this trip?
A. Well this trip was – there was to be the hearing at the Supreme Court on the 23rd of May, 2017 and by this point obviously, as I said earlier, I’d been looking through some of the documents over the previous few months and sort of had growing suspicions that everything was not well. I was also concerned about Dad. He was very stressed. I was concerned about his health and I also was worried that he’d stretched himself like way beyond his means by helping Beatrice.
[65] The following points from Debbie’s testimony are relevant to the Ottawa trip:
Debbie, Brian, Mark and Beatrice would all travel together to Ottawa on May 21st
The hotel rooms had been booked by Justice Cowan and paid for by the Supreme Court of Canada
Justice Cowan was sending emails changing his travel plans to Ottawa and changing the meeting dates.
Debbie was suspicious about the Ian Cowan emails. In that regard she stated:
Q. Was there anything that struck you about these Ian Cowan emails?
A. Um, I wasn’t’ actually convinced at this stage that it was – Ian Cowan was the person corresponding or that he was where he claimed he was. I’d seen – this is basically due to an email I’d seen several months earlier where he was supposedly in Arizona but when you looked at the metadata of the email, so sort of the time and date and where it was sent from, the timestamp showed a time zone five hour behind the UK, so consistent with a Toronto time zone, not consistent with an Arizona time zone.
May 18, 2017 meeting with Beatrice and Mark – they were upset and very flustered and they told her and Brian that they received letters from Justice Fish stating that Norton Rose, a Toronto law firm, had requested to be removed as lawyer of record on the case.
Debbie at this point was very suspicious about what was gong on as it related to Fish, Cowan, and Linda Fuerst at Norton Rose.
The plan was that Cowan was going to meet with the four of them, and Justice Fish, in Ottawa on May 22, 2017.
At this point, Debbie concluded in her mind that Beatrice was the person writing the Justice Cowan emails.
When checking into the Chateau Laurier in Ottawa, the hotel knew nothing about the rooms being booked by Justice Cowan, and paid for by the Supreme Court of Canada.
A meeting was supposed to take place May 22, 2017, at 10:45 a.m. with Justice Cowan and Morris Fish.
At 8:30 a.m. Justice Cowan had emailed Brian to cancel the meeting and that instead they would meet on May 23.
May 23rd events
Justice Cowan sent Brian, Beatrice and Mark an email stating that the court hearing was cancelled. The RCMP had a search warrant for the envelopes.
Debbie described what the envelopes were as follows:
Q. So we can all read that email and did either you or your dad know what was meant by the envelopes?
A. Yes, the envelopes were – really was one envelope containing other envelopes which had come into Uncle Mark’s possession via Beatrice, I think, several years before and they had – we had been led to believe that they were sealed by a court order and won’t be opened under any circumstances. And to the best of our knowledge – well, we’d been told that they contained RRSP forms, some cash, a letter between Mr. Emil Kolb and Mr. Douglas Bowan, both of the Peel Region or Peel Regional Police which had sort of a racist exchange about Beatrice Schikschneit, another letter from one of the supposed lawyers in the Peel Police case, and then I think some other documents, which I don’t know what they were. In any case, it was – it had been intended that the envelopes would be brought to the Supreme Court on that day and I don’t know whether they were to be opened there, but they certainly were to be handed over.
Debbie and Brian decided to go to the Supreme Court of Canada to try and find out what was going on. Debbie felt like she had to take control at this point.
Beatrice and Mark travelled back to Toronto.
At 9:24 a.m. another email came from Justice Cowan to Brian, Beatrice and Mark. The email sets out the following:
“Hello again.
This is mainly directed at Beatrice. Please be advised that the SC has deferred all to Superior Court. You are the primary individual. It doesn’t matter that I, Morris, have written privately to Brian and Mark. This is on your shoulders and yours alone. What we do personally has nothing to do with the case.
What I am saying is that you must instruct all to abide by what I am telling you at this very minute. It is not a threat. Do not for one minute think that everyone will not protect themselves. The RCMP will get the envelopes. Beatrice, Brian and Mark will look after themselves. Now you must retain a lawyer. I am not well and I have mishandled everything for the last year.
My last suggestion to you do not antagonize the RCMP. It can only make matters worse for you. I know we are no longer friends from this moment on. Brian and Mark are not as well. They need to protect themselves as well.
Ian.”
Mark gave the envelopes to Debbie and Brian. She fed-exed it to herself at her sister’s home in Los Angeles.
Brian and Debbie checked out of the hotel and walked to the SCC building. Debbie described what happened there as follows:
Q. Okay. And tell us about your visit to the Supreme Court of Canada?
A. So, we initially, when we got there, obviously you had to go to the security section and we spoke to a security guard. He was called Fred. And we told him about the letters and emails received from Justice Fish. Fred was actually quite surprised and confused by this because he said Justice Fish had retired some years earlier.
We then spoke to a Royal Canadian Mounted Police officer, called Mario, who was stationed at the Supreme Court, and showed him – I showed him some of the emails on my phone and some copies of some of he letters and he immediately doubted the authenticity of the letters and he said, kindly, that he would take us through court security to the court registry so that we could speak to the staff there.
Q. Did you speak to people at the court registry at the S.C.C.?
A. Yes, we did. We spoke to a lady called Jill and some of her colleagues and we showed them the letters and they checked – they looked on their internal system and had no record of any case or anything to do with the name Schikschneit or Androlia and Jill also said that, you know, she didn’t – she doubted the authenticity of the letters.
Debbie described her father’s reaction as “completely shell shocked”, he could not believe what was happening
Brian and Debbie retained Mr. Henein at Cassels Brock to deal with the matter. The matter was subsequently provided to and investigated by police.
[66] A search warrant was executed on October 24, 2017 at Beatrice’s home. Following the execution of the search warrant, Mark corresponds with Mr. Campea and Mr. Kolb. He also sends text messages to Brian in which he talks about Justin’s Trust. The texts to Brian are from August 3, 2017 to October 17, 2017. Mark references the law firm of Siskins in London, Ontario, who is assisting with Justin’s trust fund. Although Brian is seeking to obtain the address of the bank involved in the matter, Mark does not provide it.
[67] Mark also advises Brian that he will obtain the receipts from the hospital to establish that his money was used for Beatrice’s medical treatment and that the most important thing was for Brian to get his money back. Mark assured Brian that if it turned out that Beatrice was a criminal, he would give evidence against her.
[68] Following this text exchange with Brian, Mark and Beatrice go to Las Vegas from October 31 to November 7, 2017.
Position of the Crown:
[69] The Crown submits that the total body of evidence called at this trial establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that Mark Androlia and Beatrice Schikschneit worked in tandem in the common purpose of defrauding Mark’s brother, Brian Androlia, over the period commencing in 2008 to the fraud’s completion in 2017.
[70] The Crown argues that the evidence establishes that Brian was consistently lied to by both Mark and Beatrice, whose common purpose was to have him believe that Beatrice was a poor, sick widow, who was being tormented by the powerful and had had all of her sources of income frozen and removed from her, such that she required Brian’s financial assistance for living expenses and to pay for her expensive cancer treatment drugs.
[71] The Crown submits that the co-conspirator’s exception to the hearsay rule applies in this case. The declarations were made while the conspiracy was ongoing and were made towards the accomplishment of this common objective.
[72] The Crown submits that Mark’s position that what Beatrice did was done without his knowledge and that his participation was innocent is untenable and without merit.
[73] The Crown’s position is that, at best, Mark was wilfully blind to what Beatrice was doing and saying.
[74] The Crown submits that the testimony of Mark cannot be accepted by the court. He lied numerous times to his brother, especially as it related to the lawsuit and the trips to Las Vegas. Mark lied to deceive Brian and to stay in line with the narrative that he, Mark, and Beatrice were feeding Brian, that is that Beatrice was a poor sick widow who had her trust funds frozen by the Region of Peel, Mr. Bowan and Mr. Kolb. The lies to his brother while he was in Las Vegas with Beatrice are significant.
[75] The Crown submits as well that the testimony of Beatrice is not credible and is designed for the sole purpose of assisting Mark.
[76] The numerous inconsistencies and totally unreasonable responses in cross-examination undermine any ring of truth to her evidence.
[77] The Crown also submits that the testimony of Sergeant David Plant does not assist Mark in his defence. Under cross-examination, David Plant made it plain that he took all of what Mark told him about what was going on at face value as a result of his longstanding friendship with him.
Position of the Defence:
[78] The theory of the defence is advanced on the following grounds:
That Beatrice initiated the fraudulent scheme for the purpose of sustaining an extramarital relationship with Mark. Initially, the target of the deception was Mark. Beatrice did not start communicating with Brian until 2011, several years after the fictitious lawsuit was put in place.
Beatrice was deeply insecure about her appearance and she looked to Mark to compliment her and be kind to her.
Mark was purposely left in the dark about what was going no. At most, Mark is an innocent agent lacking in the mens rea required for fraud.
Once Beatrice was terminated from the Region of Peel in 2011 for alleged impropriety with respect to submitting fraudulent medical notes for an extended sick leave, she had no further recourse to income and as such targeted Brian to fraudulent secure payments of funds to her.
The defence argues that at no time did Mark conspire with Beatrice to defraud his brother.
Mark subjectively believed that the lawsuit and communications with Albert Campea and Emil Kolb were legitimate.
Both Mark and Brian were equally deceived and duped by Beatrice.
[79] In sum, the position of the defence rests on the testimony of Mark that he had no reason to disbelieve anything that Beatrice was saying or doing. Further, Beatrice herself testified that Mark was not responsible for any of her fraudulent actions and bears no responsibility to the fraud perpetrated on his brother, Brian.
Analysis and Conclusion
Elements of Fraud:
[80] Mark Androlia is charged with one count of fraud over $5,000. The Crown must prove the following essential elements:
i. That Mark Androlia deprived Brian Androlia of something of value;
ii. That Mark Androlia’s deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means caused the deprivation;
iii. That Mark Androlia intended to defraud Brian Androlia; and
iv. That the value of the property exceeded $5,000;
Deceit
[81] Deceit is an untrue statement made by a person who knows that it is untrue, or has reason to believe that it is untrue, but makes it despite the risk, to induce another person to act on it, as if it was true, to that other person’s detriment. Falsehood is a deliberate lie. Other fraudulent means is a term that covers more ground than either deceit or falsehood. It includes any other means properly regarded as dishonest according to the standards of reasonable people.
(See R. v. Zlatic, 1993 CanLII 135 (SCC), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 29)
[82] The external circumstances of fraud by “other fraudulent means” is determined objectively by reference to what a reasonable person would consider to be a dishonest act. (See R. v. Theroux, 1993 CanLII 134 (SCC), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 5)
[83] The falsehood may consist of a positive act, or an omission, through silence about a fundamental and essential matter. The omission must be of such a nature, however, that it would mislead a reasonable person. (See R. v. Emond (1997), 1997 CanLII 10605 (QC CA), 117 C.C.C. (3d) 275 (QC. C.A.)
Joint Principles
[84] The Crown submits that the evidence established that Mark and Beatrice worked in tandem in the common purpose of defrauding Brian of $750,000 over the period 2011 to 2017 but beginning in 2008.
[85] The case for the Crown is that Mark and Beatrice committed this offence together. Where a criminal offence is committed by two or more persons, each may play a different part. If they are acting together, as part of a joint plan or agreement to commit the offence, each may be found guilty of it.
[86] In R. v. Theroux 1993 CanLII 134 (SCC), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 5, the Court established that the mental element of fraud is established by proof of subjective knowledge:
i. Of the prohibited act; and
ii. That performance of the prohibited act could have, as a consequence, the deprivation of another, including putting the pecuniary interests of another at risk.
Presumption of Innocence: Burden of Proof
[87] Although these general principles are well known in the prosecution of criminal cases, it is important to reiterate the principles at the outset of my analysis.
[88] Every person charged with an offence is presumed to be innocent unless and until Crown counsel proves his or her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
[89] The obligation to prove that an accused is guilty of an offence rests with the Crown and that obligation never shifts to the accused. The accused does not have to present evidence or prove anything. The Crown must prove each and every essential element of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt. This requirement applies to each and every essential element of the offence charged, but not to individual items of evidence introduced at trial.
Reasonable Doubt
[90] A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, far etched or frivolous doubt. It is not a doubt based on sympathy for or prejudice against anyone involved in this trial. It is a doubt based on reason and common sense. It is a doubt that logically arises from the evidence or lack of evidence.
[91] It is not enough to find that an accused is probably or likely guilty, that is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. At the same time, the Crown does not have to prove the charge to an absolute certainty. Reasonable doubt is, however, much closer to absolute certainty than it is to probable or likely guilt.
[92] At the end of the case, after considering all of the evidence, the court must be sure that the accused committed the offence. However, if at the end of the case, after considering all of the evidence or the absence of evidence or the credibility or reliability of one or more witnesses the court is not sure that the accused committed an offence then he or she must be found not guilty.
Testimony of Mark Androlia:
The W.D. Instruction
[93] In this case, Mark gave evidence that he did not commit the offence charged. Beatrice also testified that Mark had no responsibility in the commission of this fraud, and she accepts full liability for this fraud as evidenced by her pleas of guilt and admissions before Justice Durno on February 13, 2020.
[94] If I believe Mark and/or Beatrice that Mark did not commit the offence, then I must find him not guilty.
[95] If a careful consideration of all of the evidence, I am unable to decide whom to believe then I must find the accused not guilty because the Crown has not met his onus to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.
[96] Even if I do not believe Mark’s and/or Beatrice’s testimony, but it leaves me with a reasonable doubt about Mark’s guilt or about an essential element of the offence, then I must find him not guilty.
[97] Finally, even if Mark and/or Beatrice’s testimony does not leave me with a reasonable doubt about his guilt or an essential element of the offence, I may convict him only if the rest of the evidence that I do accept proves his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Co-Conspirators Exception to the Hearing Rule
[98] The test to be applied under the co-conspirators exception to the hearsay rule was set out in R. v. Carter, 1982 CanLII 35 (SCC), [1982] 1 S.C.R. 938, as follows:
The Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there is a conspiracy;
The Crown must prove on a balance of probabilities upon all the evidence directly admissible against the accused, whether the accused is a member of the conspiracy. This requires the trier of fact to consider the accused’s own words and conduct – this is the evidence directly admissible against him or her as viewed against the proper context;
If the accused is found to be a member of the conspiracy in step two, then the trier of fact goes on to consider whether the accused’s membership in the conspiracy has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. This third step converts probable membership into full membership and actual participation in the conspiracy. (See: R. v. Yumnu, 2010 ONCA 637). At this stage, if it is reached, the trier of fact will consider all of the evidence, including the acts and declarations of other alleged co-conspirators done and made in furtherance of the conspiracy while the conspiracy was ongoing in nature. (See Carter at p.p. 946-47; R. v. Barrow, 1987 CanLII 11 (SCC), [1987] 2 SCR 694, at p. 740; R. v. Dawkins, 2021 ONCA 113)
[99] In Dawkins, the Court of Appeal set out the following at paras. 7 and 8:
[7] The essence of a criminal conspiracy is an agreement to pursue an unlawful object. It is a preliminary crime where the Crown has to prove that there was a meeting of the minds between at least two people -- the co-conspirators' minds -- to pursue an unlawful object: United States of America v. Dynar, 1997 CanLII 359 (SCC), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 462, [1997] S.C.J. No. 64, at para. 87; Criminal Code, s. 465(1). As Dickson J. (as he then was) helpfully explained over 40 years ago now in R. v. Papalia, 1979 CanLII 38 (SCC), [1979] 2 S.C.R. 256, [1979] S.C.J. No. 47, at p. 276 S.C.R., the crime of conspiracy is well named, deriving as it does from the Latin words con and spirare, meaning "to breathe together".
[8] Therefore, proof of a conspiracy involves three essential components: (a) there was an agreement between two or more persons; (b) the purpose of that agreement was to pursue a common unlawful object; and (c) the accused was a member of that conspiracy, meaning that he or she had knowledge of the unlawful nature of the agreement and made a voluntary and intentional decision to join in the agreement to achieve the common unlawful object. [page116]
Plea of Guilt of Beatrice
[100] In Dawkins, the Court noted that a “co-actor’s guilty plea is proof of nothing other than that the pleader was arraigned, pled guilty of the offence and that there was some evidence to support that plea: R. v. Caesar, 2016 ONCA 599, 339 C.C.C. (3d) 354, at paras. 55, 59.
“It is an actual admission of guilt against the pleader only. To be clear, it establishes nothing in relation to alleged co-actors.”
[101] At para. 14, the Court states:
The crime of conspiracy is not exempt from this rule. It is well established that the guilty plea of one alleged co-conspirator cannot be used to establish the guilt of another. In a comment [page117] particularly apposite to this case, Watt J.A. said in Tsekouras: "The pleas of guilty or convictions of other alleged co-conspirators are not admissible to prove the existence or fact of the conspiracy in the trial of another or other alleged co-conspirators": R. v. Tsekouras, [2017] O.J. No. 1768, 2017 ONCA 290, 353 C.C.C. (3d) 349, at para. 177, leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused [2017] S.C.C.A. No. 225. See also R. v. Desgroseilliers, [1986] O.J. No. 112, 13 O.A.C. 225 (C.A.), at para. 29, leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused (1986), 74 N.R. 320n, 21 O.A.C. 236n.
[102] In this case, the defence relies on the guilty plea of Beatrice and her acceptance of full responsibility for this fraud. In R. v. Caesar, 2016 ONCA 599, the Court noted the following at paras. 54-60:
[54] The Crown argues that proof of the guilty plea is simply inadmissible, relying for that proposition on such authorities as: R. v. Berry (1957), 1957 CanLII 505 (ON CA), 118 C.C.C. 55 (Ont. C.A.), at p. 60; R. v. P.C., 2015 ONCA 30, 321 C.C.C. (3d) 49, at paras. 44-46; R. v. Simpson, 1988 CanLII 89 (SCC), [1988] 1 S.C.R. 3, at pp. 18-19; and R. v. MacGregor (1981), 1981 CanLII 3351 (ON CA), 64 C.C.C. (2d) 353 (Ont. C.A.), aff’d [1982] S.C.C.A. No. 246. I agree that these authorities stand for the proposition that the Crown is generally not entitled to lead such evidence. It does not follow that the defence (or even the Crown) may never be entitled to do so, however.
[55] The reason for the general proscription against the Crown tendering such evidence is that the guilty plea of the first co-accused – an admission against his or her own interest only – is just an admission of guilt to the offence charged and that there is some evidence to support the finding, but it is not an admission of the truth of the contents stated in the facts underlying the plea. The first guilty plea is therefore generally irrelevant to the guilt of the second co-accused from that point of view and may be severely prejudicial to that co-accused: Berry, at p. 60; R. v. Vinette, 1974 CanLII 165 (SCC), [1975] 2 S.C.R. 222.
[56] Cases such as Duong demonstrate, however, that such a plea is not always irrelevant,[1] and an accused is entitled to wide latitude in crafting his or her defence. Different considerations are in play when it is the second co-accused accused (the appellant here) who seeks to enter the guilty plea of the first co-accused – most notably the presumption of innocence and the right to make full answer and defence. The concerns about unfairly trammeling the accused’s fair trial rights that arise when it is the Crown seeking to admit the evidence do not necessarily arise where it is the accused seeking to do so.
[57] For these reasons, I do not accept that the authorities relied upon by the Crown preclude the admission of the guilty plea into evidence on the basis of the public documents/judicial records analysis.
[58] The authorities recognize – as did the trial judge – that the court always retains a discretion to exclude even admissible evidence where its admission would render the trial unfair: see C. (W.B.), at para. 45. However, no considerations of trial fairness or prejudice to the appellant weigh against the admission of the indictment recording the guilty plea here.
[59] The existence of the guilty plea is not contentious nor is it open to competing inferences as to its meaning. Mr. Anderson was arraigned. He pled guilty. This means there is some evidence to support his conviction. That is all.
[60] Even though the plea does not constitute an admission of guilt to the offence charged on which the appellant can rely – it is an admission of guilt against Mr. Anderson’s interest only – and even though the plea does not in law constitute an admission of the truth of the facts underlying the plea for any other purpose (see Berry, at p. 60), the appellant argues that proof of the fact that Mr. Anderson pled guilty and that there is some evidence to support the plea is relevant and important to her case, as outlined above. She submits this evidence supports one of the intermediate inferences necessary to establish that Mr. Anderson used her as a blind courier, namely that he was actually involved in the drug smuggling. In the absence of any explanation as to what happened to Mr. Anderson, she submits, the jury may have been led to exactly the contrary conclusion, namely that she was the perpetrator and he the blind courier.
Wilful Blindness
[103] In R. v. Briscoe, 2010 SCC 13 [2010] S.C.R. 411, the court set out the following in paras 21 and 24:
[21] Wilful blindness does not define the mens rea required for particular offences. Rather, it can substitute for actual knowledge whenever knowledge is a component of the mens rea. The doctrine of wilful blindness imputes knowledge to an accused whose suspicion is aroused to the point where he or she sees the need for further inquiries, but deliberately chooses not to make those inquiries. See Sansregret v. The Queen, 1985 CanLII 79 (SCC), [1985] 1 S.C.R. 570, and R. v. Jorgensen, 1995 CanLII 85 (SCC), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 55. As Sopinka J. succinctly put it in Jorgensen (at para. 103), “[a] finding of wilful blindness involves an affirmative answer to the question: Did the accused shut his eyes because he knew or strongly suspected that looking would fix him with knowledge?”
[24] Professor Don Stuart makes the useful observation that the expression “deliberate ignorance” seems more descriptive than “wilful blindness”, as it connotes “an actual process of suppressing a suspicion”. Properly understood in this way, “the concept of wilful blindness is of narrow scope and involves no departure from the subjective focus on the workings of the accused’s mind” (Canadian Criminal Law: A Treatise (5th ed. 2007), at p. 241). While a failure to inquire may be evidence of recklessness or criminal negligence, as for example, where a failure to inquire is a marked departure from the conduct expected of a reasonable person, wilful blindness is not simply a failure to inquire but, to repeat Professor Stuart’s words, “deliberate ignorance”.
[104] In R. v. Jorgenson 1995 CanLII 85 (SCC), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 55, the Court stated the following at para. 103:
103 A finding of wilful blindness involves an affirmative answer to the question: Did the accused shut his eyes because he knew or strongly suspected that looking would fix him with knowledge? Retailers who suspect that the materials are obscene but refrain from making the necessary inquiry in order to avoid being contaminated by knowledge may be found to have been wilfully blind. The determination must be made in light of all the circumstances. In Sansregret v. The Queen, 1985 CanLII 79 (SCC), [1985] 1 S.C.R. 570, this Court held that the circumstances were not restricted to those immediately surrounding the particular offense but could be more broadly defined to encompass, for example, past events. See also R. v. Blondin (1970), 1970 CanLII 1006 (BC CA), 2 C.C.C. (2d) 118 (B.C.C.A.), at p. 122. It would seem, therefore, that a relevant circumstance would include assurances from others who are presumed to know and in particular public officials such as the OFRB.
[105] In my analysis, I will be referring to additional evidence not reviewed earlier.
Fake Lawsuit
[106] There is no dispute that the Statement of Claim prepared by Beatrice was a fabrication. Mark had indicated to Brian that he and Beatrice were suing the Region of Peel, Regional Council, the Chief of Police, and the Director of Human Resources, Douglas Bowman.
[107] Mark provided Brian with the particulars of this lawsuit, including the fact Beatrice’s trust funds had been frozen and that she was now in a precarious financial situation.
[108] Brian testified about this initial communication with Mark as follows:
Q. Before 2008, let’s say around – before early March of 2008, would you describe for us what type of contact you would have had with your brother Mark.
A. Fairly spasmodic contact over the eyras, but we would often speak at Christmas or around birthday times, his birthday March 29th, and mind April the 9th, and occasional jokes over internet type.
Q. Did something change about the frequency of your contact in 2008?
A. My recollection is that around our birthdays we were talking and I was asking, you know, how was he, and he said he’d got some problems with his – within the police force that he worked, the police. And I asked him, well, you know, what was going on.
Q. And did he give you a synopsis of what was going on?
A. He said that friend of his had been victimized by the police. I can’t remember exactly what about, but generally the impression was monies being sequestered or other things.
Q. Did he say what he and his friend were doing about this?
A. They said they were taking the police to court, had an action.
Q. On the birthday telephone call in 2008 did he mention his friend’s name?
A. Yes, he said her name was Beatrice Schikschneit.
Q. Did he tell you how he knew this person?
A. Um, he said that, um, they had worked together in the police and I think in 1998 he explained that she was a data entry clerk and he was her review officer.
Q. Following this telephone call, you began receiving regular emails from Mark?
A. I did.
Q. And what did these emails concern?
A. They concerned the victimization of Beatrice Schikschneit, money being held back from her, problems with not – the police not wanting to pay um for sick notes, that type of thing. And the other thing I recall is that most of the disputes seemed to be between Beatrice Schikschneit and Mr. Douglas Bowman, who I believe was the director of Human Resources at the Peel Region.
[109] Mark’s position is that he had no reason to disbelieve anything that Beatrice was saying to him about this lawsuit. He was being duped and victimized as much as his brother was with respect to the veracity of this lawsuit.
[110] I cannot and do not accept Mark’s testimony as it relates to this fake lawsuit.
[111] I agree with the Crown that Mark was an active participant in the lawsuit and kept Brian informed of the progress or lack of progress relating to the lawsuit. Mark was not simply taking his marching orders from Beatrice.
[112] The following emails provide ample support to demonstrate the clear and blatant lies that Mark told his brother:
- Email December 9, 2008 22:01 Mark to Brian
Hi Brian,
It’s now 5 pm on Tuesday 9th, got home from Court bearing this document. Apparently our lawyer, who has been very quiet, pulled a legal trick on the Region.
The Region, as we know has been delay-delay-delay, and getting away with murder. Two trial dates ago they delayed, by saying that they would pay half in cash, and half into pension fund. That was declined.
Last Trial date they threw in the Resignation again, causing a delay to today’s date. On that date the Judge ruled that the Region will deposit the money, with the Court.
Our lawyer went to the Judge and made a motion, that as the Region has already accepted liability, in one form or another, that ‘we’ would accept the Judges ruling if he would read over the Case. This was on the 28th. November
Late yesterday the judge came out with the below ruling. The Judge will be speaking with the Region today and with us tomorrow, when all things being equal, the Judge will hand over the cheques.
So I will be back in Court at 11am on 10th December 2008 (our time)
Saw picture of mothers Xmas do, looked very nice, hope Karl and Lynn are Ok.
Write tomorrow
Mark xx
- Email July 17, 2008, Mark to Brian:
Hi Brian
Hope you can read this latest in this fiasco.
If you can read who they want to attend this meeting I will give a brief introduction.
Before reading we have no intention of attending and want this to go to Court. At present our lawyer has selected 1`0 of the 12 jurors in this case
Staff Superintendent Boychuk – good guy, I trained, without him I would not have obtained any of the letters/documents that are the real killer for us that is making the case.
Douglas Bowman – need I say more, he is the whole reason for this case, that the Police Services Board and senior Officer are protecting because he is the ‘hit-man’ for the force and does all the dirty work
Me
Beatrice – co plaintiff, the girl they want to resign
Harold Solinger – Regions lawyer, never met him, but he is as confused as our lawyer
Marilyn Dutka – works in Human Resources, does everything Bowman wants. When Beatrice would apply for another position she would be one of the board of three. Requires unanimous vote to transfer, and Beatrice never got a transfer after applying for approx. 10 different positions over a number of years.
Sergeant McKenna – was my Sergeant when I worked in records was looking for ‘something on me’ after he and Bowman interviewed Beatrice and said ‘if you don’t resign Mark hits the road’ A few weeks alter He caught me in a minor incident and five days later I was driving a cruiser. Aged 58 and being of the road for years. I don’t mind being tabbed (sic) in the chest but this guy stabbed me in the back on the direction of the head of Human Resources. This one I would really like to see in the witness box.
Emil Kolb – Head of the Police Services Board and the big cheese. No idea who the other two are.
As I said at the beginning we are not going. I smell a trap and let’s see them try and cover this one-up.
Brian, I resent the idea that they believe people can be bought, maybe its form Dad, but I keep saying ‘if its wrong its wrong’
Our lawyer thinks they might try to convert me with ‘gifts’ but that will not get them anywhere. Anyway, thanks for listening Mark
- Email July 23, 2008 Mark to Brian
Anyway today, all was set to go when we discovered that Beatrice had spent the night in hospital. She has cancer and has been fighting it for six years, and they think it is progressing for the worse.
The lawyer says the Region really wants to settle.
- Email January 22, 2011 Mark to Brian
Hi Brian,
Well here we go again with a new twist.
Yesterday I spoke with Ian Cowan, who was given permission to speak to me. He says the SCC meeting in Ottawa went really well. There was himself and Justice Mackenzie, and the Region sent three or four lawyers.
[113] All of these emails are being sent to Brian by Mark. At this point in time, Beatrice has not had direct communication with Brian. Mark alone is providing Brian with all of this fake information.
[114] At no time did Mark retain Albert Campea to file a lawsuit on his behalf with Beatrice. At no time did Mark ever meet with or speak to Albert Campea to provide him with instructions.
[115] At no time did Mark retain, instruct or ever speak to Leland Birenbaum.
[116] At no time did he see Beatrice meet with Albert Campea or Leland Birnbaum.
[117] In the emails I just reviewed, Mark was telling Brian he met with lawyers, attended court, spoke to Ian Cowan, and these were all lies.
[118] Mark testified that the reason he advised Brian of all of these falsehoods was for the sole purpose of showing his brother, who he respected and admired, that he had things under control and could manage the courts, the lawyers and the legal system. He wanted Brian to view him as a competent person. I do not accept Mark’s evidence on this point.
[119] Mark, through his lies and deception of these circumstances of the fake lawsuit gave significant details of the problems facing Beatrice and Mark himself that Brian was now becoming invested in his brother’s life. It makes no sense to lie to a brother he admired and respected with such an elaborate deception. Mark and Beatrice were acting together for the common purpose of deceiving Brian.
[120] The deception with this fake lawsuit continued to gain momentum.
- Email March 27, 2011, Mark to Brian
Enclosing Ian Cowan’s email to Mark reads as follows in part:
The settlement cheques which are with the courts at the present time will be handed over within the next ten days…
We worked diligently to come to a fair conclusion as far as the settlement of trust are concerned. I am quite pleased with myself and the entire process in question.
I will be in touch. Hope some of this is helpful to you, the settlement so that you are aware is $603,000.000 to you both.
[121] It is common ground as evidenced by the admissions by Beatrice at her plea of guilty and in her trial testimony and in the Agreed Statement of Facts filed, that all of the Ian Cowan emails and letters are in her hand, all forgeries. This email is clearly another fabrication and Mark sends it to Brian.
[122] At no time did Mark have any input and provide any instructions to Ian Cowan about the amount of the settlement.
[123] At this time I do wish to comment on the fact that Ian Cowan was a sitting judge during this time. He was not a lawyer and could not represent anyone as his duties as a judicial officer of course preclude him from doing so.
[124] Mark’s position that he was unaware of the fact that a sitting judge could not also act as a lawyer is rejected. As a police officer for over 30 years he is not a complete stranger to the law or its process and procedures.
[125] I cannot accept his evidence that he simply accepted what Beatrice told him that Ian Cowan, a sitting judge, could act as their lawyer in this lawsuit.
- Email April 4, 2011 Mark to Brian enclosing attachments
One of the attachments is a letter dated March 28, 2011 from Justice Marie Deschamps dealing with the settlement of the case. The second attachment purported to be a Settlement Agreement and Release, ostensibly signed by Emil Kolb.
[126] At the time Mark sent this email to Brian all the details set out in the Justice Deschamps letter and the settlement agreement were fabrications. Mark was aware of this. Mark had never spoken to or instructed Albert Campea to file a Statement of Claim on his behalf. Mark had never spoken to Ian Cowan. Mark had never spoken to or instructed Leland Birenbaum to negotiate a $603,000 settlement of the lawsuit on his behalf. Emil Kolb was never involved in this fictitious lawsuit.
[127] The fake lawsuit continues to gain momentum as Brian becomes more invested with what is going on as he is being inundated with emails and correspondence from Mark. The extraordinary and sophisticated nature of the deception grows once Beatrice commences communicating directly with Brian in and around late 2011. It is at this time that Brian feels that it is necessary to assist Beatrice financially.
[128] Throughout the next several years, Brian forwards Beatrice funds. Every dollar passes through Mark’s hands and he passes the money on to Beatrice, in cash.
[129] Brian trusted his brother Mark when Mark told him that Beatrice had her trust funds frozen and that she was without income to live on or pay for her experimental cancer treatment drugs.
[130] Also during this time, Beatrice is continuing to forge letters from Morris Fish with respect to the settlement of this lawsuit. Brian is kept informed and is comforted by the assurances of Beatrice and Morris Fish that he will be repaid the funds he has sent to Beatrice.
[131] The fictitious lawsuit comes crashing down on May 23, 2017, when Brian, his daughter Debbie, Mark and Beatrice travel to Ottawa for the Supreme Court of Canada hearing, again a complete fiction.
[132] Mark again stated that he had no reason to disbelieve any of the forged documents prepared by Beatrice. I disagree. Mark at no time talked to Beatrice about how it was that a Supreme Court of Canada Justice could act as their counsel or how it was that the Supreme Court of Canada could hear the trial of this matter.
[133] The Settlement Agreement was initially set at $603,000 for each of them and then by June 10, 2015 in a letter received from Morris Fish, Brian Mark and Beatrice are advised that the settlement has ballooned to the following:
Mr. Brian Androlia $750,000
Mr. Mark Androlia Settlement Region of Peel $1,650,000
Ms. Beatrice Schikschneit Settlement as per Region of Peel Monies held in trust by Supreme Court $1,650.00 $827,000
Mr. Justin Schikschneit Monies held in trust by the Supreme Court $1,245,000
[134] It appears that the Region of Peel negotiated against itself and increased their offer astronomically to arrive at this fictitious settlement. Mark asked no questions or made any inquiries about any of this.
[135] At no time did Mark meet with Ian Cowan or Morris Fish to instruct them or discuss with them the terms of this settlement.
[136] Mark described this settlement as akin to winning a lottery. Once he received this letter from Morris Fish, he simply accepted it and testified that he had no reason to disbelieve anything that Beatrice was doing or telling him. Again, I do not accept his evidence. He would have known that the complaint he was advancing in this lawsuit could not attract such a substantial award.
[137] Mark and Beatrice’s deception continued to gain further momentum and the April 2015 Script is a culmination of the events that led up to this point in time.
The Script
[138] It is common ground that the Script was written by Brian based on all of the information that he had received from Mark and Beatrice. He wrote it and sent it to Mark and Beatrice for their approval. Beatrice then read it on video. The purpose of doing this was to preserve this evidence as Beatrice’s health was very precarious.
[139] The Script sets out the following, in part:
She and Mark retained private counsel to initiate a lawsuit
A settlement was reached but never completed
The trust funds resulting from her husband, Joe, were illegally frozen in the course of the lawsuit
She was forced to resign from the police force
She had no medical coverage and was facing the prospect of paying for her cancer drugs at $80,000 per year
Ian Cowan and Justice Fish assisted them in their lawsuit
She attended for treatment daily at the Credit Valley Hospital cancer centre
[140] By April 2015, the date of the Script, Brian had sent to Beatrice a total of 57 payments for her medical and living expenses. As well, Beatrice and Mark had travelled to Las Vegas. Brian had no idea that Beatrice and Mark had travelled to Las Vegas.
Las Vegas Trips and Beatrice’s Cancer
[141] I am satisfied that Beatrice and Mark lied to Brian about these trips and about Beatrice’s cancer. I am also satisfied that Mark actually knew that Beatrice’s cancer was a fabrication designed to secure funds from his brother. Beatrice and Mark continued the fraud and deception at this time. Brian was clear in his evidence that had he known hat they were going to Las Vegas he probably would have called the police.
[142] Beatrice and Mark’s trips to Las Vegas included the following dates:
On or about March 9-13 2015
On or about May 30-June 5, 2015
On or about August 2 - August 6, 2015
[143] The money transfers from Brian include the following during this relevant time period: from March 9 to August 6, 2015:
March 2, 2015 5,000 GBP
March 25, 2015 6,000 GBP
April 22, 2015 7,000 GBP
May 21, 2015 7,000 GBP
June 5, 2015 7,000 GBP
July 15, 2015 7,000 GBP
July 24, 2015 7,500 GBP
July 24, 2015 7,500 GBP
September 1, 2015 7,500 GBP
Total 61,500 GBP
At an exchange rate of 1.80 CAD/1.00 GBP this equals $110,700.
[144] Within the context of this evidentiary record it is important to note that in the Script both Mark and Beatrice approved this statement:
My other concern for my possible failure to give evidence directly in that I have been treated for cancer for the last 15 years and attend treatment daily at the Credit Valley Hospital in Mississauga. Also at the present time I am awaiting a quadruple heart bypass operation, this damage having been caused by the drugs administered in an attempt to hold the cancer at bay.
[145] This statement in the Script was a lie. It would not have been possible for Beatrice to attend for daily treatments while she was in Las Vegas. Mark was fully aware of this.
[146] I agree with the Crown’s submission on this point that they hid this information from Brian because they knew that these trips to Las Vegas would not fit with the false narrative they had fabricated of this sick, poor widow being victimized and whose trust fund had been frozen. They claimed that they needed Brian’s financial help for medical and living expenses pending the completion of their lawsuit and the unfreezing of her trust fund.
[147] The deception related to Las Vegas trips is disturbing. While in Las Vegas an email sent to Brian from Mark made it appear that Mark was not even with Beatrice; in fact, they were in the same hotel together.
[148] The Crown points to a further example of how the Las Vegas deception was carried out. On January 1st, 2012 Beatrice emails Brian as follows after she has supposedly just came off of significant surgery:
I am still in hospital, I’m not happy about it all. I want to go home but my temperature is still up.
[149] She also asks Brian for $1,800 to cover the cost of her semi-private room in the hospital.
[150] The contents of this email are a lie. At no time was Beatrice in the hospital as she was in Las Vegas.
[151] On January 23, 2017, Mark confirmed receipt of the funds. Mark confirmed in his evidence that on this occasion he heard Beatrice talking to Brian and saying, “I’m tired, I’m receiving treatment and I’m taking tablets.”
[152] This was said while they were in the hotel room together in Las Vegas. I find that Mark knew that Beatrice was not receiving treatment and it was impossible for her to be receiving daily treatment at the Credit Valley Hospital.
[153] I am satisfied that Mark knew that the information being passed on to Brian about Beatrice’s cancer and cancer treatment were lies designed solely for the purpose of inducing Brian to continue to send money to Beatrice.
[154] I also take into account that during this entire lengthy period that Beatrice fabricated her cancer diagnosis and treatment at no time does Mark see Beatrice go to a hospital, nor does he ever drive her to a hospital. Mark never saw her using home oxygen. The only observations Mark testified to were that Beatrice was tired at times and had a stomach-ache.
[155] I do not believe Beatrice’s testimony that Mark had no knowledge of her fabricated cancer diagnosis and cancer treatments. The evidence I have just reviewed points in the opposite direction. Both Mark and Beatrice were deceiving Brian about her cancer and cancer treatments.
[156] I also do not accept Beatrice’s explanation as to where and how the money received from Brian was spent.
[157] The total amount received from Brian is $750,000 from August 2011 to early Spring of 2017. This works out to about $125,000 per year. This is about $10,416 per month.
[158] Beatrice testified that her expenses were as follows:
Rent $1,500
Car Lease $1,600
Groceries $1,000
Meds (Gauze and pills) $1,000
Household Bills $500
Total $4,600.00
The balance left over at the end of the month is $5,816.00
[159] She also indicated she used the funds for Christmas gifts for family and friends.
[160] Beatrice was adamant at her plea of guilt and in her testimony at trial that none of the money sent to her from Brian was used in any way for her Las Vegas trips.
[161] The explanation provided by Beatrice as to where $750,000 was spent over the almost 6-year period is lacking in credibility. There is still no definitive evidence as to where all of the money went. When asked where the money Brian gave her was she really could not say.
[162] Also, it is important to note that Mark received every dollar that was sent by Brian and he passed the funds on to Beatrice. Mark testified that he had no reason to disbelieve that this money was being used by Beatrice for her cancer treatment. I do not accept his evidence in that regard. The evidence I just reviewed with respect to the Las Vegas trips seriously and fatally undermines Mark’s testimony in that regard.
[163] I agree with the Crown that Beatrice is not a credible witness. I am satisfied and I so find that her trial testimony was designed to protect Mark and exculpate him from any liability in this matter. Beatrice knew that Mark was providing Brian with false and fabricated details relating to the fake lawsuit. Beatrice also knew that Mark was providing Brian with false and fabricated details of her cancer diagnosis and cancer treatment. They were both present during the reading of the Script.
[164] Beatrice’s testimony is problematic on many levels. The Crown points to the following and I agree with the Crown on this point:
When confronted with her PACE banking records and her tax records, which confirmed that she did not use her RRSP’s or her pension for her expenses, she pivoted and stated that she paid for her 13 Las Vegas trips from money she earned from selling her jewellery. This testimony only came up in cross-examination.
In her complaint letter, written in June 2008, and written with Mark’s input, Beatrice sets out this it was Detective Bartlett who was responsible for her freezing her trust funds. However, at this time and in the course of the false lawsuit she claims that Bowman and Kolb were responsible for having her trust funds frozen as part of their litigation strategy.
Mark would have noticed this significant inconsistency but made no inquiries of Beatrice to explain this to him. Mark again puts forward his position that he had no reason to disbelieve anything Beatrice did or told him
Beatrice testified that she only asked Brian for money on one occasion, on January 20, 2017, when she requested funds for home oxygen. However, the numerous emails demonstrate that Beatrice had requested funds from Brian on a regular basis during the relevant time period.
Credibility
[165] Mark Androlia is not a credible witness. I cannot and do not accept his evidence that he was simply an innocent agent in this elaborate fraud. I cannot and do not accept his evidence that this entire fraud lies at the feet of Beatrice, the person he says he had no reason to disbelieve anything she did or said to him. Further, Mr. Androlia’s evidence does not leave me with a reasonable doubt.
[166] I will explain why I have made this finding and conclusion as it relates to Mark Androlia.
Mark Androlia’s Employment as a Police Officer
[167] Mark came to Canada from England in 1977. While in England, he was employed as a police officer and when he came to Ontario he was hired as a police officer with the Peel Regional Police. He commenced his employment there in 1977 and was a Constable with the force until his retirement in 2018.
[168] In 1994, he became a Review Officer. Prior to that he was in the Court Bureau. While in the Court Bureau, he would be engaged in training other officers and civilians.
[169] Mark remained a Constable throughout his career and also had duties as a general patrol officer, investigator in the Youth Bureau, preparing court briefs for Bail court.
[170] As a Review Officer, his duties included review of reports submitted by front line police officers.
[171] By 2008, Mark had lived and worked as a police officer in Ontario for over 30 years.
[172] Mark denied that he was familiar with the OHIP system. When asked in cross-examination about whether he was familiar with OHIP, his response was “not overly”. He did confirm, however, that at no time did he ever pay for a doctor’s services. He did say, however, that he did not know at the relevant time that a cancer patient would not have to pay for treatment.
[173] It is difficult to believe that Mark could believe that a sitting judge could also act as a lawyer in his civil lawsuit. It is also difficult to believe that Mark would have such little knowledge of the OHIP system. Mark was employed as a police officer and has lived in Ontario since 1977.
[174] I do not rest my findings on these facts alone, however. As important as they are to my overall assessment of Mark’s credibility, there is more that militates against a finding of credibility with respect to Mark’s testimony.
Mark’s Lies to His Brother, Brian
[175] I am satisfied that the numerous and egregious lies that Mark told to his brother are fatal to his credibility relating to his position that he was an innocent agent for Beatrice.
[176] It is common ground that Mark’s contact with his brother, Brian, up to March/April 2008, was sporadic. After March/April 2008 his contact and communication with Brian become more frequent as he told Brian about the lawsuit and Beatrice’s precarious financial situation.
[177] Mark was advising Brian that he was actively involved in this lawsuit. Although Mark denied this and also denied that he was monitoring the court process and attending court, the documentary evidence filed at the trial contradicted that at every turn and exposed the lies he was feeding his brother. The following emails demonstrate this point:
- December 9, 2008 5:01 p.m.
“…got home from Court…”
“So I will be back in Court at 11 am…”
- July 17, 2008
“Our lawyer has selected 10 of the 12 jurors in the case…”
“…they might try to convert me with gifts…”
[178] These were lies to Brian. Mark had never been to court. He was not present during the selection of jurors.
[179] I pause here to note the following: Mark was a plaintiff in this lawsuit, however:
He never met any of the lawyers involved: Albert Campea, Lelland Birenbaum, and Linda Fuerst
At no time did he speak to them or communicate with them in any way
At no time did he meet with them to instruct them on any settlement discussions or resolution of the lawsuit with the Region
January 22, 2011 email
“Yesterday I spoke to Ian Cowan…”
Vol. 2 Tab 10.
At no time did Mark speak to Ian Cowan.
- April 4, 2001 e-email enclosing Settlement Agreement for $603,000
At no time did Mark sign any documents instructing his layers to accept such a settlement.
- June 22, 2011 – Gag Order and Settlement Agreement sent to Brian
Mark witnesses Beatrice’s signature and Beatrice witnesses Mark’s signature. There are no independent witnesses to this execution of the Settlement Agreement and there is no signature by their lawyer. This was a complete fabrication and I am satisfied Mark knew that.
- Mark lied in the Script dated April 13, 2015. The Script states that Beatrice was attending the Credit Valley Hospital for 15 years, on a daily basis, for cancer treatment. This was a lie. One month before this Script was confirmed and read out on video, Mark and Beatrice were in Las Vegas for one of their 13 trips to Las Vegas. They were in Las Vegas from March 9 to 13, 2015.
Further, a month and a half after the Script is confirmed and read on video, they were back in Las Vegas from May 30 to June 5, 2015.
They were in Las Vegas a total of four times in 2015.
[180] In cross-examination Mark was asked:
So page one paragraph 3 of the Script was not true and he knew that. Mark answered,” Yes”.
- At no time did Mark tell Brian that he was in Las Vegas with Beatrice on 13 occasions.
[181] I find that the admitted lies and deception relating to the Las Vegas trips egregious. It is during these trips that Brian continues to send money to Beatrice for her living expenses and cancer treatment costs, every dollar passing through Mark hands.
January 20, 2017 email
While in Las Vegas Beatrice asks for $1,500 for home oxygen. On January 23, 2017 Mark acknowledges receiving the funds. He told Brian:
“Will work in getting it to Bea”
This was a lie. Mark and Beatrice are in Las Vegas sharing the same room together.
[182] I agree with the position of the Crown that both Mark and Beatrice lied about Las Vegas to deceive Brian and to continue the deception that started in 2008 relating to Beatrice.
[183] At no time did Mark ever see Beatrice go to a hospital. At no time did he ever drive her to a hospital so she could undergo her cancer treatment. At no time did he see home oxygen or have any discussions with her about home oxygen.
[184] In cross-examination when asked about the significant settlement negotiated and confirmed by Morris Fish, Mark said, “it’s like winning the lottery”.
[185] I am satisfied that Mark knew that the lawsuit was a fiction. I am also satisfied that the evidentiary record supports a finding that Mark knew that Beatrice did not have cancer.
[186] I have reviewed testimony from Mark that sets out the numerous lies he told his brother. Mark also lied to his wife, Susan, about his relationship with Beatrice.
[187] Mark also lied to his long-time friend, David Plant. David Plant was called as a defence witness. His evidence, however, was based to a large degree on what Mark had told him and David believed Mark as a result of their longstanding friendship.
[188] David Plant is a retired police officer. He was a police officer in Birmingham England in 1967. In 1976 he joined the Toronto Police Department and in 1977 he joined the Peel Regional Police Department. In 1986, he was promoted from Detective to Sergeant. He is presently retired.
[189] Mark lied to David about his trips to Las Vegas with Beatrice. David understood that Mark had been to Las Vegas with a friend named Todd. David testified that it would surprise him if he knew that Mark went to Las Vegas with Beatrice.
[190] In cross-examination he did acknowledge that it seemed “dodgy” that the money Brian sent was, at times, going to him and then to Mark and then on to Beatrice. The only reason he did not question Mark about that was because of their close friendship.
[191] In further cross-examination by the Crown, he was asked if he had ever heard of a sitting judge stepping down from the bench and acting as a lawyer and he said no, he would have questioned this. He did not because of his close friendship with Mark. He also did not question why Morris Fish at the Supreme Court of Canada would be trying this case as it is an appellate court not a trial court.
[192] In conclusion, with respect to Mark’s credibility, I find that his evidence has no ring of truth to it. I will deal with wilful blindness later in these reasons; however, I am satisfied that he was involved in deceiving his brother from the very start of this elaborate scheme.
[193] Mark and Beatrice concocted a fake civil lawsuit and set out a narrative of frozen trust funds and non-existent cancer treatments to defraud Brian Androlia.
The Credibility of Beatrice
[194] I will now explain why the testimony of Beatrice cannot be accepted nor does it leave me with a reasonable doubt.
[195] Before I do that, it is important to review the testimony of Douglas Bowman.
[196] Douglas Bowman retired from the Peel Regional Police in August 2020. From 1995 to August 2020, he was the Director of Human Resources. He oversaw 45 employees, both civilian and police staff. He dealt with issues relating to labour and employee relationships, compensation and benefits, wellness, Occupational Health and Safety, and short term and long-term disability benefits.
[197] Douglas Bowman testified that the first time he saw the fake statement of claim was on March 22, 2018, when he was first interviewed by Internal Affairs. He was never served with this fake statement of claim.
[198] In September 2002, he became ware of an external application for a job purportedly signed by one of his recruitment clients. The Clerk had no record of this letter. Douglas Bowman ascertained through Internal Affairs that Beatrice had forged the clerk’s name on the letter as a practical joke.
[199] Douglas Bowman viewed this as very serious misconduct on the part of Beatrice, so he recommended her dismissal. Beatrice was not dismissed at that time.
[200] In 2005/06, Douglas Bowman was contacted by Staff Superintendent Boychuk. At this time, Beatrice had been disabled from work and she had received funds from her co-workers for her terminal stress. This was false: Beatrice was not disabled, and her co-workers were livid. A determination was made that this was not a work-related issue, so Beatrice was not disciplined.
[201] In 2011, Beatrice was off work on disability and receiving benefits. In such circumstances, she was required to produce medical notes. The claims specialist advised Beatrice that some of the medical notes she provided were identical and looked suspicious. Internal Affairs was notified.
[202] Internal Affairs determined that the doctor’s notes were a forgery and as such Beatrice was not entitled to short term disability. Beatrice was charged with fraud. Douglas Bowman recommended that she be fired.
[203] The charge was withdrawn on the basis that Beatrice resigned and made restitution in the amount of $20,000.
[204] Douglas Bowman was not aware of any dispute Beatrice had with Peel. He had no knowledge of any dispute regarding Mark Androlia regarding payroll issues. Payroll issues were dealt with by the Region of Peel and not the Peel Police.
[205] The May 7, 2007 letter at Exhibit 20 is a forgery.
[206] The May 17, 2007 letter at Exhibit 21 is also a forgery.
[207] The February 29, 2008 memo at Exhibit 22 is also a forgery.
[208] The bundle of documents at Exhibit 23 are all forgeries, except he cannot say with certainty that the document Article 16.02 is a forgery.
Justin Schikschneit
[209] It is also important to review the testimony of Beatrice’s son, Justin Schikschneit.
[210] Justin testified that his biological father is Sergio Dibenosa, not the fictitious Joe. Justin’s date of birth is February 11, 1984.
[211] The two email addresses attributed to him, namely,
were not created by him and he never composed or received any communications attributed to these emails.
[212] Justin testified that his mother, Beatrice, was never in the hospital for surgery. Beatrice has never had cancer to his knowledge. Beatrice never used home oxygen.
[213] Justin confirmed that he never had cancer on his foot. He did have to have an ingrown toenail removed.
[214] Justin had never met his biological father Sergio Dibenosa.
[215] Justine was never told about a father named Joe, who was killed in a motor vehicle accident resulting in a trust fund being set up for him.
[216] In 2017, his mother was not receiving chemotherapy.
[217] Mark started visiting Beatrice at his home in 1998, when Justin was about 14 or 15 years old. Mark would come to their home pretty frequently and stay for one to two hours. Justin would make small talk with Mark.
[218] With respect to the Las Vegas trips, he knew that Beatrice went to Las Vegas in 2015 to 2017, and he knew Mark went with her. Justin said the 13 times sounded right. On two occasions, Justin and his wife, Jennifer, accompanied them and Beatrice paid for both trips, one in 2015 and one in 2016.
[219] Justin was told by his mother that she was receiving an OMERS Pension and severance package and had investments. Justin had no idea Beatrice was receiving money from Brian Androlia.
[220] I now turn to the credibility assessment of Beatrice.
[221] I will start this analysis by reproducing in its entirety one of the letters sent to Beatrice, Mark and Brian from Morris Fish. This letter is dated Wednesday June 10th, 2015, and it is a forgery created by Beatrice. This one example shows the depth and sophistication of how Beatrice created and then promoted this fraud on Brian.
[222]
Wednesday June 10, 2015
Mr. Brian Androlia
Herbert’s Barn
Hanley Castle
Quay Lane
Worcester WR8 0BS
Mr. Mark Androlia
23 Ferri Crescent
Brampton, ON L6Z 1R8
Ms. Beatrice Schikschneit
3012 Olympus Mews
Mississauga, ON L5N 4V4
Good Morning
It is with great reluctance that the writer writes to you all this grey morning. The writer will let you know that it is also with a very heavy heart as he realizes what he needs to detail in the body of this correspondence to you will no doubt cause much anger, frustration and emotional upheaval.
The writer must be totally honest as he has always been with you that the writer has procrastinated for quite some time as to when this letter should be sent to the three of you and it appears the writer may have left it until the very last moment. You must let the writer shoulder the blame for not advising you sooner, and in Justice Ian Cowan’s defense he was not aware of any of the decisions made below until after the fact as he was no privy to any of the meetings or discussions held, this was not intentional it was a decision made by the three of us.
We have made the decision to not go ahead with the Monday June 22nd, 2015 date as planned and advise the new day of Wednesday August 19th, 2015, for two very specific reasons the first being that here is news that Prime Minister Stephen Harper will not be present on June 22nd and the second reason will be detailed later within this correspondence.
Recently our friend Mr. Peter Mackay, Attorney General made the announcement that he was stepping down from his position and out of the political landscape and arena. This announcement caught everyone by surprise, however, if you recall this piece of very private information was conveyed to the three of you. The writer would like to thank you for not repeating this information as it could have had horrible consequences.
Since his announcement there have ben several meetings and discussion some running far into the night regarding the three of you and of course we include Mr. Justin Schikschneit as well, the case and our friends, the Honourable Justin Trudeau and Mr. Peter Mackay.
Let the writer prefix the following with: there have been times of exasperation on the writer’s behalf as my word and my integrity to the three of you has been my strength and my honesty.
We have been pulled into a political strategy which the writer reluctantly admits has caused a further continuance however, it is only until the middle of August 2015 when The Attorney General Mr. Peter Mackay alongside the Honourable Justin Trudeau finalizes one last order of business: the detailing of the Supreme Court Case, the treatment of Canadian citizens (Beatrice and Mark as well as Justin) the involvement of the Prime Minister of Canada and the manipulative tactics that surround this case along with both men handling over all entitled settlements, awards, trusts and reimbursement.
At the same time Mr. Mackay will announce his allegiance to Justin Trudeau solidifying the union between the two and strengthening the Liberal Party, this of course will have significant impact on the Prime Minister. Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party. This very tactical move will show a compassionate and caring Justin Trudeau and will of course detail the plight that three of you have gone through.
In discussions it came forth that a British Citizen is financially assisting a Canadian Citizen this utterly was astounding to Mr. Peter Mackay as he obviously knew about the reimbursement but truly believed Mr. Brian Androlia resided in Canada and was a Canadian this will be used in the speech given so the writer suggest that Mr. Brian Androlia be ready to be interviewed by the press as well as Mr. Mark Androlia and Ms. Beatrice Schikschneit. We must also include Justin Schikschneit in the process.
Once Wednesday, August 19, 2015 has been dealt with then the case will be dealt with at the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court will be back in session over the summer period just twice this is totally unheard of they will hear a case which is fully published on July 10th, 2015 and then hear a case which due to privacy concerns and political participants will remain unpublished as per request on August 20th, and 21st, 2015. Please keep in mind that the two events are totally separate as the August 19, 2015 event will take place in front of Capitol Hill in Ottawa a press concerned will be called so you can anticipate many people will be in attendance.
The short synopsis of the above due to this writer’s insistence that the Honourable Justin Trudeau review and lend his expertise to the case and then involving Mr. Peter Mackay the four of you and the case have become political nuggets of gold.
The writer apologizes to all of you.
The four of you will be requested to be present at 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, August 19th, 2015 in this writer’s chambers to be briefed on the protocols and procedures that will be taking place. As you are all aware you have all been vetted so there are no security issues to concern yourselves with.
The writer will make arrangements for your hotel stay and will provide you all with a detailed itinerary. There are separate letters that this writer has sent along with this correspondence. There are many questions and requests made in these letters for the four of you and the writer hopes that you will respect his requests and provide your responses as soon as you are able.
For your information and for your eyes only the writer will provide you with the final financial amounts you will be receiving; this is provided strictly by the writer and figures provided by Attorney General’s Office.
Mr. Brian Androlia $ 750,000.00
Mr. Mark Androlia 1,650,000.00 (settlement as per Region of Peel)
Ms. Beatrice Schikschneit 1,650,000.00 (settlement as per Region of Peel)
827,000.00(monies held in trust by Supreme Court)
Mr. Justin Schikschneit 1,245,000.00(monies held in trust by Supreme Court)
The writer realizes that these amounts are staggering and in some cases will be life changing and by this statement the writer means in a very positive way, the writer trusts these amounts are in accordance with your financial figures. Your long and endured struggle will finally be completed and although in the beginning the quest was for law enactment and the rights of the Canadian People the supreme Court and this writer have absolutely no qualms about the settlements made. If a court of law in any province in Canada would have been in charge of this case the consensus was that the settlements for pain and suffering alone would be in the millions. Maybe in hindsight that would have been the course to take however this writer is honored that you chose to take the case to Ottawa and bring your plight and the plight of many Canadians to the forefront. The writer trusts these amounts are in accordance with your figures.
The writer stands by all that has been written above.
Once again, the writer looks forward to any and all responses at your convenience.
The writer looks forward to our meeting in August
Sincerely,
The Honourable Mr. Justice Morris J. Fish
Supreme Court of Canada
[223] Beatrice pleaded guilty to numerous counts on the initial indictment she and Mark were facing together. I reviewed the particulars of the plea earlier in these reasons. She is, therefore, an admitted liar who pleaded guilty to an elaborate fraud that involved lawyers, a sitting judge of the Ontario Court of Justice, and a retired judge of the Supreme Court of Canada and others. The elaborate nature of the deceptions and forgeries knew no boundaries until everything came to an abrupt conclusion in May 2017 when Debbie Androlia took charge of the situation her father had been in for numerous years and exposed the fraud perpetrated by Beatrice and Mark.
[224] The position taken by Beatrice at her plea was that she alone was responsible for this fraud. The position taken by Beatrice at Mark’s trial was that she alone was responsible for this fraud. Mark was also an innocent victim.
[225] At trial, she testified that she proceeded with the fictitious or fake lawsuit because she wanted to hold on to her relationship with Mark.
[226] In her examination-in-chief, she states the following, in part:
She is not sure if she spoke to Mark about court dates relating to the lawsuit
Her intention was to convince Mark that the lawsuit was going ahead and that they would be getting a settlement. Mark trusted her on everything she did and told him
She was not sure or did not know what her intentions were back in 2008 for creating some of the fictitious documents or for example, what her intention was for Albert Campea leaving the case
In the end she had no idea what the end goal was or where and how this would all end
She wrote all of the fictitious letters re: Albert Campea, Ian Cowan, Morris Fish and all of the others. She gave them to Mark and he sent them to Brian.
She cannot remember any conversations with Mark about those communications
The hundreds and hundreds of fictitious emails and letters were drafted n her password protected home computer. Mark never had access to her computer
When asked about the purpose of the Script, she testified that she did not know and she had no idea why she agreed to the video
All of the contents of the Script came from her.
I pause here to say that her evidence with respect to those matters and in particular the Script is not believable. Mark testified, and it is clear in the contents of the Script, that it was prepared to preserve the narrative and details of what had been happening throughout this case from the start. The purpose of the video was to preserve the information as Beatrice’s health was so precarious she might die and not be available to testify. To imply to the court that she did not know why it was being videotaped or that she had no idea of the purpose of the Script because Brian wrote it is disingenuous to Brian. I reject her evidence on this point without reservation.
I cannot and do not believe Beatrice’s testimony in this regard. She knew full well in her discussions with Mark why they asked Brian to draft the Script from all the information they had provided to him and both Beatrice and Mark knew full well why Beatrice read it on video. To suggest otherwise is not believable.
With respect to the Las Vegas trips she testified that she paid for them from her RRSP’s and tax returns.
She never told Brian about her trips to Las Vegas
[227] Before I proceed to review the cross-examination of Beatrice by the Crown, I wish to refer to Tab 3A of Volume 1, what has been referred to as the Dossier. This was prepared by Mark and sent to Brian as documentation of the chronology of events.
[228] I do not propose to review the contents of the Dossier in these reasons, but I will reproduce the Index as it demonstrates the nature of the information contained in it:
INDEX
First seven pages is a copy of the Original complaint laid against the Defendants
Section 1 Log from August 2007 till February 2011 briefly explaining all the delays, fuller explanation can be provided form Files in Mark Androlia’s possession.
Section 2 List of all persons involved in case.
Section 3 Summary of complaint sent to Ombudsman.
Section 4 Log of events sent to, with original complaint, Ombudsman. Mainly referring to and complaining about money being held from wages in 2008.
Section 5 Copies of documents where referred to in Section 4 where said ‘see C1, etc.
Section 6 Continuation of log from August 2009 till May 2011 where Ms. Schikschneit discovered that $10,000 had been paid into her pension fund, without her permission and her fruitless efforts to get her money returned to her.
Section 7 Log from March till May 2011 where Ms. Schikschneit laid an official complaint with Peel Police Professional Standards regarding her money not being returned to her and showing that this was all caused by Mr. Douglas Bowman.
Section 8 Log from August 2011 till present regarding Ms. Schikschneits arrest by Peel Police Professional Standards showing how badly the whole case was handled.
Section 9 Copies of e-mails in 2008 between Ms. Schikschneit and Peel Police Human resources.
Section 10 Copy of garnishee against Ms. Schikschneit sent to Peel Regional Police that she only discovered about when her pay was stopped. A family member had taken out a credit card in her name and ran up the bill. She declined to prosecute.
Section 11 In 2006 Mark Androlia’s pay was also garnisheed, similar circumstances, he was not responsible. Was never informed till his pay was stopped. When situation was cleared up Mr. Androlia was owed $1,200.00. Mr. Bowman actively obstructed this even when requested by a Staff Superintendent to I quote ‘stop playing childish games’. Memos between the Staff Superintendent and Memos from Bowman attached.
Section 12 In 2006 Ms. Schickschneit was charged with Fraud by Metro Police. Was suspended by Peel Police. Eventually eighteen months later charges were withdrawn. During that time the Detective was in contact with Mr. Bowman and refused to withdraw case. Letter of complaint to Metro explaining the whole situation. Complaint never filed.
Section 13 Memos from the Region of Peel signed by Mr. Kolb shows how Region kept changing its mind.
Section 14 1) Copy of Bowman’s letter sent her on the 21st September
Letter explaining all the problems with Bowman’s letter
Letter of resignation
Copy of e-mails sent to Chief Metcalfe requesting her Separation papers, no reply either.
Copy of all Doctors Notes, including from Dr. Heisler
Section 15 Documents that can be referred to if required: -
Letter to Peel Regional Police Association requesting assistance, letter dated the 15th December 2010. Other letters were c.c.’d to the Association. Noted at bottom of memo.
Extra copy of memos to and from Mr. Bowman concerning $10,000.00 from O.M.E.R.S.
Letters to Ombudsman. Original complaint was sent and filed at the end of January 2009. Three more letters were sent with copy of log attached. Letters dated 24th March 2009; 16th April 2020; 17th February 2011.
Copy of receipt for $2000.00 given to Mr. Adam Bernstein at Brampton Court at 9:0 am on 29th August 2011 as retainer
copy of Authorisation faxed to Company of Hicks Adams LLP signed by Beatrice authorising that company to act on her behalf at Brampton Court for the charges against her. Dated the 29th September 2011.
Log of dates of Criminal/Civil case, majority of meetings/Court appearances were cancelled or delayed. Ninety three dates beginning the 14th January 2010 to present.
Cross-examination of Beatrice
[229] In her cross-examination by the Crown, Beatrice confirmed or acknowledged the following:
She was aware of the Dossier that Mark was keeping and compiling that was eventually sent to Brian
The medical notes fraud charge was in fact stayed on the condition that she resign and pay $19,649 in restitution
She and Mark were friends since she started at Peel in 1998, but became close friends after
She used Mark’s car every day because she did not have a car. She would drive him to work and keep the car for the day
In late summer of 2011, she began her lies to Brian and she admitted all of this in her pleas of guilt
Mark had no idea all of the letters and emails were forgeries
At no time was the money received from Brian used for the Las Vegas trips or while they were in Las Vegas
Some of the money for her Las Vegas trips came from jewelry she sold, RRSP’s or her severance
[230] I pause here to set out that at Exhibit 94, the Income Tax Records, her income is noted as follows:
2011 $36,294
2012 Income – nil
EI $9,360
2013 nil
2014 nil
2015 nil
2016 nil
2017 RRSP withdrawal for hardship purposes
The $750,000 provided to her by Brian was used by her over a period of about six years
Mark did not have his own bank account initially, so the funds were sent to a Mr. Somner, David Plant, Susan Androlia, and then Mark as he opened up an account
In her pre-sentence report she told the Probation Officer that she used this money Brian sent her for necessities of life, groceries, rent, bills and medical supplies (gauze and pills)
There was no mention to the Probation Officer of expenses for cancer treatment of experimental drugs
She does not own a house, yet she referred to a house in her will. She has no idea why she did that
With respect to the emails Mark sent Brian about attending court and speaking to Ian Cowan, all lies, she testified that she had no idea he was sending these emails and never saw them
She had no idea why Mark sent such emails to Brian
At Tab 9, email July 23, 2008 Mark to Brian, it states:
We discovered that Beatrice had spent the night in hospital. She has cancer and has been fighting it for 6 years
This is what she told Mark
Mark did not know about the home oxygen email she sent to Brian while they were in Las Vegas
Mark would know if she had significant scars as a result of quadruple heart surgery, but he did not see significant scarring on her body
She was inconsistent about who froze her fictitious trust funds. In her Citizen Complaint she said it was Det. Bartlett. She had told Brian the Trust Fund was frozen by Kolb and Bowan in the process of defending the fictitious lawsuit.
She denies she ever engaged in crowd funding at work, contrary to what Douglas Bowman said in his testimony
She denied living an extravagant lifestyle and only used Brian’s money for necessities of life. She could not explain, however, where the almost $125,000 per year that came from Brian was spent.
At no time did Mark ever question anything
[231] Beatrice testified at trial having been convicted of fraud. I set out earlier in these reasons the admissions made by her at her pleas of guilt before Justice Durno.
[232] I knowledge and recognize that Beatrice’s guilty plea has absolutely no bearing on whether Mark is guilty, and I cannot find and conclude that because Beatrice pleaded guilty that Mark must be guilty as well.
[233] As I indicated earlier in my W.D. analysis I must consider whether I accept Beatrice’s evidence that she alone perpetrated this fraud or whether that evidence leaves me in reasonable doubt relating to Mark’s guilt. I have reviewed the reasons why I do not find the testimony of Beatrice credible. With respect to her convictions as a result of her pleas of guilt before Justice Durno I have serious and significant concerns about her trial testimony. Those convictions involve dishonesty and as such are important in deciding how much or little I will believe and rely upon her evidence. Again, I acknowledge and recognize that a previous conviction alone does not necessarily mean that I cannot or should not believe or rely upon Beatrice’s testimony. It is one factor to consider within the evidentiary record as a whole.
[234] I do find that her admissions of guilt and her conduct that led to the charges and ultimate disposition of her charges seriously undermine the veracity of her trial testimony. This factor combined with the concerns I have reviewed about her trial testimony lead me to the conclusion that her testimony is not credible.
Wilful Blindness
[235] Both the Crown and the defence set out their positions as it relates to wilful blindness.
[236] Although I find and conclude that Mark was actually fully aware in this fraud from the start in 2008 with the filing of the fictitious lawsuit, I will deal with the issue of wilful blindness.
[237] The jurisprudence I have reviewed earlier sets out the following principles:
The fault in wilful blindness lies in deliberately failing to inquire when he knows there is a reason for inquiring.
The court must consider Mark’s state of mind and the facts he was aware of.
The test is not what someone else would have done or believed or even what a reasonable person would have done or believed, but what Mark believed.
The court asks whether in all of the circumstances Mark had an honest belief that the lawsuit was real, and that there was a trust fund and that Beatrice did have cancer.
Mere negligence or recklessness is not enough. Wilful blindness is a higher standard then either negligence or recklessness.
The person must be aware of the need to make an inquiry but decides not to because they do not wish to know the truth and prefer to remain ignorant.
[238] I am satisfied that at the very least Mark was wilfully blind with respect to the three pillars that anchors this fraud.
[239] In his email to Brian, Exhibit 81, Mark states, in part:
P.S. heard a great quote the other day,
“When ignorance is bliss, tis folly to be wise.
[240] The single quote captures Mark’s mindset throughout this entire period of the fraud as it relates to wilful blindness.
Re: The Fictitious Lawsuit
[241] The following facts point to the need for Mark to have made inquiries:
Although he is a plaintiff in the fictitious Statement of Claim filed by Albert Campea at no time did he meet with Albert Campea to sign a retainer and give him instructions.
At no time did he meet or speak to any lawyer involved in the case.
At no time did he speak to Ian Cowan or Morris Fish.
At no time did he make inquiries or ask any question of Beatrice or anyone as to whether sitting judges can act as his lawyer.
The settlement offers from the Region went from $603,000 to $1.2 million, to $1.4 million to the last letter from Morris Fish with an amount of $1.6 million. At no time was he involved in any settlement discussions with his lawyer. At no time did he make any inquires of anyone about how it was that the Region simply continued to negotiate against itself and keep increasing the amount of the settlement.
At no time did he make any inquiries about how Morris Fish and Ian Cowan could personally guarantee that the settlement funds would be forthcoming.
At no time did he make any inquires about how it was that an appellate court, like the Supreme Court of Canada, could hear a trial case or would have the authority to pass legislation.
[242] The numbers and extent of the forged letters, emails and all fictitious documentation was staggering. Mark was aware of most of it and was the person who compiled the Dossier and with Beatrice confirmed the accuracy of the contents of the Script. He was also aware of the Citizen Complaint.
[243] At no time did he make any inquires of Beatrice, or independently, of the information contained in the documents.
[244] For example, he knew that Beatrice was not attending daily treatment for cancer as set out in the Script.
[245] Another example relates to who froze the trust funds. Beatrice initially stated it was Kolb and Bowman, however, in her Citizen Complaint she said it was Detective Bartlett. At no time did Mark make any inquiries on this issue.
Re: Trust Fund
[246] Not only did Mark fail to inquire about the inconsistency as it related to the freezing of the trust funds he never made any inquiries about documentation to verify that such freezing orders were in fact made by this court.
[247] With respect to how the trust funds came about, the death of a fictitious Joe, at no time did Mark make any independent inquiries about the existence of his trust funds. During all the time that Mark would have attended at Beatrice’s home and spoken to Justin, the topic of his fictitious father, Joe, killed in a motor vehicle accident never came up.
[248] In light of the numerous lies Mark told to Brian about the lawsuit and considering that Beatrice’s precarious financial situation was seriously impacted by the freezing of the trust funds, it is inconceivable that Mark would not make inquires to satisfy himself of the veracity of these trust funds.
Re: Cancer Scam
[249] I have reviewed evidence relating to this issue earlier, but it bears repeating with respect to the issue of wilful blindness. The following factors are relevant:
Mark knew that it was a lie in the Script that Beatrice had been engaged in daily treatment for cancer.
At no time did he ever see her go to a hospital for cancer treatment and at no time did he ever take Beatrice for a hospital treatment. Considering the intimate partner relationship that they had it is unreasonable to suggest to the court that he took no interest or active role in assisting Beatrice with her cancer treatments.
At no time did he observe any side effects with respect to her treatments. The only two observations he made were that he noticed at times that she was tired or had a sore stomach.
At no time did he see her taking $80,000 worth of experimental drugs nor did he make any inquiries about that or ask Beatrice about it.
At no time did he see her on home oxygen or ask her why she needed money from Brian for this.
I do not believe either Mark or Beatrice when they say they did not know what the other person was emailing to Brian and cannot recall conversations about some of them. Beatrice and Mark were together all the time. They did not act independently from each other. They were a team from the start. I am satisfied that she knew what he was doing and saying to Brian and he knew what she was doing and saying to Brian. They worked together on the Dossier and the Script. At no time did Mark ever question Beatrice or anyone or make inquiries. He did not want to know the truth.
[250] In summary, therefore, I find that the red flags throughout this case were everywhere and Mark was fully aware of the need to make inquires. He chose not to because he did not want to know the truth. By not making the inquires he should have, he cost his brother $750,000.
DISPOSITION
[251] I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mark Androlia is guilty of fraud over $5,000.00.
Fragomeni J.
Released: February 18, 2022