Reasons for Judgment

Court File No.: CR-23-0004
Date: 2025-05-23
Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Between:
His Majesty the King
– and –
Ananthie Alex, Defendant

Appearances:
S. Malik, for the Crown
A. Furgiuele and K. Sajid, for the Defendant

Heard: April 1, 2, and 3, 2025

Judge: Joseph Di Luca

A. Overview

[1] Ananthie (“Anna”) Alex is charged with two offences, the particulars of which are as follows:

That between the 23rd day of March, 2021 and the 12th day of April, 2021, she did conspire together with Hans Lauro and persons unknown to commit the indictable offence of utter forged documents contrary to section 368(1)(b) of the Criminal Code by using forged documents, including employment income, as if they were genuine for the purpose of obtaining a mortgage in the name of Helene Lauro contrary to section 465(1)(c) of the Criminal Code.

And further that, between the 23rd day of March, 2021 and the 12th day of April, 2021, she did knowingly make directly a false statement in writing with the intent that it should be relied upon to wit, a personal financial statement, respecting his [sic] financial position for the purpose of procuring from MCC Mortgage Holdings Inc. own benefit [sic], the grant of credit to the value of $1,250,000 pursuant to section 362(1)(c) of the Criminal Code.

[2] Ms. Alex elected to be tried judge alone and her trial lasted approximately two days in total.[1] The bulk of the evidence at trial was admitted either by way of Agreed Statement of Fact or documentary exhibit filed on consent. A number of intercepted communications were filed along with transcripts.[2] A police witness, Det. Troy Beavis, testified in relation to the intercepted communications. Two additional officers involved in the arrest of Ms. Alex and related searches of her home and office were also called.

[3] As is her right, Ms. Alex did not testify or call any evidence.

[4] In what follows, I will review the applicable legal principles, the rules of evidence and the elements of the offences that the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt. I will then assess the evidence presented and make findings.

B. The Applicable Legal Principles

[5] Ms. Alex is presumed innocent of each count in the indictment. As in all criminal cases, the onus rests entirely on the Crown to prove each count beyond a reasonable doubt. Ms. Alex has no onus to prove anything and is not required to testify or call any defence evidence.

[6] Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is a very high legal standard. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary or frivolous doubt. It is not a doubt based upon sympathy or prejudice. Rather, it is a doubt based on reason and common sense. It is logically derived from the evidence or absence of evidence.

[7] Proof of likely or even probable guilt is not enough to sustain a criminal conviction. Conversely, proof to a level of absolute certainty is also not required as that standard is impossibly high. Ultimately, in order to convict Ms. Alex of an offence, I must be sure that she committed the offence. If I am not sure, I must acquit her.

[8] Where the evidence in relation to an offence or an essential element of an offence is circumstantial, the Crown must prove that the defendant’s guilt is the only reasonable inference available, see R. v. Villaroman, 2016 SCC 33. The consideration of circumstantial evidence requires the drawing of reasonable inferences based on logic, experience and common sense. Speculation and conjecture are impermissible, but the line between speculation and reasonable inference may be, at times, difficult to draw. However, the ease of drawing the inference is not the standard. The standard is whether the inference is based in logic and reason. The analysis must be based on the totality of the evidence before the court, see R. v. Aslami, 2021 ONCA 249 and R. v. Smith, 2016 ONCA 25, para 81.

[9] If, after all the evidence is considered, a reasonable inference inconsistent with guilt on any essential element of the offence exists, the accused is entitled to an acquittal or a conviction on a lesser and included offence, as the case may be. An inference inconsistent with guilt must be reasonable, not simply possible. The Crown is not required to negative every possible conceivable inference. However, an inference inconsistent with guilt does not need to arise from “proven facts”, see Villaroman, supra, at para. 35 and R. v. Robert, para 17. It can arise as a matter of logic and experience based on a consideration of all the evidence and/or the absence of evidence.

C. Co-conspirator’s Exception to Hearsay Rule

[10] The Crown has filed a volume of intercepted communications in support of both offences. Ms. Alex is a party to many, though not all of these calls. The Crown argues that the calls are all substantively admissible against Ms. Alex under the co-conspirator’s exception to the hearsay rule. I will address the particulars of the Crown’s position on the various hearsay calls later in these reasons.

[11] In terms of the admissibility of the hearsay intercepted communications, it has been long accepted that statements made by persons engaged in a common unlawful design are admissible for the truth of their contents against all persons acting in concert, so long as the statements were made while the common unlawful design was ongoing and were made in furtherance of the common unlawful design. The traditional rationale for the exception is that each member of a common unlawful design has implied authority to speak or act on behalf of the others, see R. v. Bogiatzis, 2010 ONCA 902, para 34.

[12] The three-stage test for admissibility is set out in R. v. Carter. At the first stage, the court is to determine whether the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that a conspiracy or common unlawful design exists. All of the evidence is considered at this stage including the alleged hearsay utterances. At this stage, the hearsay utterances are provisionally admitted as circumstantial evidence proving the existence of the conspiracy, see R. v. Puddicombe, 2013 ONCA 506, para 112.

[13] At the second stage, the court must consider only the evidence directly admissible against the defendant to determine whether the defendant is a probable member of the conspiracy or common unlawful plan. Where there is no evidence, apart from the hearsay statements connecting the defendant with conspiracy, this part of test will not be satisfied, see R. v. Baron and Wertman. While the hearsay utterances are not considered substantively at this stage of the analysis, the acts and statements of the defendant are considered in context with hearsay utterances only to the very limited extent necessary to permit a contextual assessment of the defendant’s acts and statements, see R. v. Gagnon, para 62 and R. v. Wang, 2013 BCCA 311, paras 51-65. In doing so, caution must be exercised so as to prevent collapsing the first stage of the analysis with the second stage.

[14] At the third stage of the analysis, the court, in deciding whether the defendant’s guilt has been established beyond a reasonable doubt, is permitted to consider the acts and declarations of any co-conspirators to the extent that any such acts or declarations were made “in furtherance” of the conspiracy or common unlawful enterprise.

[15] There is no requirement that the conspiracy that underpins the application of the co-conspirators exception be the same as the conspiracy that is charged in the indictment or be a conspiracy to commit the specific substantive offence charged in the indictment, see R. v. Sauve, paras 115-119. So long as the requirements of the rule are met and so long as the utterances are relevant to an issue at trial, they are admissible.

D. The Elements of the Offences

(i) Conspiracy

[16] The offence of conspiracy is an inchoate offence focussed on proof of an agreement to commit a criminal offence arrived at between members of the conspiracy, see R. v. Papalia; R. v. Cotroni. The elements of a conspiracy are (i) an intention to agree, (ii) the completion of an agreement, and (iii) a common design to do something unlawful, see United States v. Dynar and R. v. Alexander and Blake.

[17] Where the goal of a conspiracy involves the commission of a substantive offence which includes as an element knowledge of certain circumstances, the mental element is belief. For example, where the conspiracy relates to the offence of money laundering, the subjective state of mind of anyone who conspires with others to launder the money is a belief that the money has illegitimate origins, see R. v. Root, 2008 ONCA 869, para 70 citing Dynar at para. 108.

[18] Conspirators do not need to agree on every detail of a plan to commit a criminal offence. It is sufficient if they agree to substantially commit the elements of the offence that is the subject of the conspiracy, see R. v. Lessard.

[19] An overt act done in furtherance of the conspiracy is not a required element of the offence, though overt acts may be circumstantial evidence of the existence of an agreement to commit a criminal offence, see R. v. J.F., 2013 SCC 12, para 44, Root, at para. 67, R. v. Douglas and R. v. Gassyt.

[20] A conspiracy that is contingent on the occurrence of some event, may nonetheless be a criminal conspiracy. However, negotiations alone will not amount to a conspiracy. The line between a mere negotiation and a completed conspiracy is sometimes very difficult to determine, see Root at para. 70.

[21] While the Carter test is focussed on the admissibility of hearsay utterances under the co-conspirators exception, the test more generally applies to assessing evidence on a charge of conspiracy. As Fairburn A.C.J.O. explains in R. v. Dawkins, 2021 ONCA 113, paras 54-55:

[54] Contrary to the trial Crown's suggestion, which is further advanced by the respondent on appeal, the purpose of the Carter test is not simply to ward off the use of hearsay evidence until such time as the accused's probable membership in the conspiracy has been established. While it undoubtedly achieves that goal, the purpose of the Carter test is properly characterized as a much broader one. It is rooted in the concept of relevance.

[55] It bears repeating what Doherty J.A. said in Puddicombe, at para. 85: "Generally, a declaration is admissible only against its maker and an act is admissible only against the doer of that act." Stated the other way, the declarations and acts of others are not generally admissible against an accused. Therefore, this is more than a hearsay rule. It is a rule that ensures that before we allow evidence that would not otherwise be admissible against an accused to become a tool in the prosecutor's case against him, there must be proof of the accused's probable membership in the [page125] conspiracy, based only on evidence that is "directly admissible against the accused": Carter, at p. 947 S.C.R.; R. v. Lucas, 2014 ONCA 561, para 208; Puddicombe, at para. 99; Yumnu (ONCA), at para. 340. At its core, this is a rule of fairness.

(ii) Knowingly Make a False Statement in Writing

[22] Section 362(1)(c) of the Criminal Code makes it an offence to, inter alia, make a false statement in writing with respect to the financial condition or means or ability to pay of a person with the intent that it be relied on for the purpose of procuring the granting of credit.

[23] The elements of this offence require (i) the making of a false statement in writing relating to financial condition or means or ability to pay of the defendant or of any person or organization that the defendant is interested in or acts for; and, (ii) proof that the false statement was made with the intent that it be relied on for the purpose of obtaining credit whether for the defendant’s benefit or the benefit of a person or organization that the defendant is interested in or acts for.

E. Analysis of the Evidence and Findings

[24] By way of factual backdrop, Ms. Alex is an agent involved in the mortgage industry. Part of her work involves finding lenders for prospective mortgagors. The Crown alleges that Ms. Alex conspired principally with Hans Lauro, who was introduced to her through a mutual acquaintance, Greg Kesminas. At the time, Mr. Lauro was looking for a mortgage to finance the purchase of a new build home that was scheduled to close fairly imminently.

[25] In relation to Count #1, the Crown argues that in a series of calls, but particularly in the call found at tab 22 of Exhibit 6(b), it is clear that Ms. Alex and Mr. Lauro agreed or conspired to utter forged documents, including employment income, for the purpose of obtaining a mortgage in the name of Helene Lauro, who is Hans Lauro’s mother. In short, the Crown argues that Mr. Lauro was unable to get financing for his home in his name and as a result, he and Ms. Alex agreed to apply for financing in his mother’s name using forged documents “including employment income” as if they were genuine.

[26] In relation to Count #2, the Crown argues that Ms. Alex ultimately did in fact make a false statement in writing respecting Hans Lauro’s financial position for the purpose of procuring the funding from MCC Mortgage Holdings Inc. On this count, there is no issue that on April 15, 2021, MCC Mortgage Holdings Inc. took a mortgage on Mr. Lauro’s home and advanced $1,250,000 in funds in exchange. There is also no issue that the home and mortgage were registered in Mr. Lauro’s name and not Helene Lauro’s name. Lastly, there is also no direct evidence that in advancing those funds, MCC Mortgage Holdings Inc. was the victim of fraud or false pretences in any way.

Count #1 – Conspiracy – Summary of Evidence

[27] I will start with a brief review of the relevant intercepted calls. I will refer to the calls by Tab # in Exhibit 6(b). I note that the transcript of each call is not the evidence. The recorded call is the evidence, and the transcript merely acts as an aid.

[28] The calls found at Tabs 1, 2, and 4 are calls involving Mr. Lauro but not Ms. Alex. They relate to the impending closing of his new home purchase. There is no suggestion that these calls fall within the co-conspirators exception to the hearsay rule. That said, they are non-contentious and merely provide the narrative that Mr. Lauro was expecting to imminently close on the deal and therefore needed to obtain financing.

[29] The call at Tab 5 is the first call where Mr. Lauro is introduced to Ms. Alex, through a mutual acquaintance, Greg Kesminas. In this call, Ms. Alex tells Mr. Kesminas that she will “immediately take care” of Mr. Lauro. Mr. Kesminas tells the defendant that he can provide documents to make it look like Mr. Lauro was on Mr. Kesminas’ payroll for the last year. Mr. Kesminas states, “Okay so whatever is necessary we’re gonna get him letters.” Ms. Alex replies, “I will take care of it and if any help needed (unintelligible) to do the mortgage I will call you.”

[30] The call at Tab 6 immediately follows and it is a call between Mr. Lauro and the defendant. In this call, Ms. Alex asks Mr. Lauro about his financial situation. Mr. Lauro states that he works “for Greg” and has a “couple businesses.” Ms. Alex replies: “So let me (laugh) work for somebody cannot make so much money so I like the um your businesses…” She asks Mr. Lauro about his business and he explains that he has a personal training business and a construction business both operating under one corporation and one bank account. The following exchange then takes place:

Anna Alex: And Greg okay I want you to give me what’s realist okay because I like to work with the real to make it happen and when I need help at that point in time I will tell you.
Hans Lauro: Kay
Anna Alex: Okay so I will be uh sending you a quick email with a checklist of documents that you have to give it to me.
Hans Lauro: Kay
Anna Alex: And uh I will be only able to send it to you tonight just because I was just about to step out and uh once I come back I will be able to send it to you.
Hans Lauro: Okay
Anna Alex: And give me everything that’s real and then I will look into it and I will take care of it wherever it’s required.
Hans Lauro: Yeah I have my um I think we did my 2019 taxes um we haven’t done the 20 yet I don’t know if that’s a problem.
Anna Alex: Don’t worry about it those things I can always take care of it where the when the bank needs it.
Hans Lauro: Okay okay so yeah so I I have my 19 if that’s what you’re gonna ask for.
Anna Alex: You understand (unintelligible) you understand what I need what I will be doing right.
Hans Lauro: Yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah so… [emphasis added]

[31] In the call at Tab 8 and the texts found at Tab 9 and Tab 10, it appears that Mr. Lauro is following up with the defendant and confirming that he has sent her the documents she needs for the mortgage application.

[32] In the call at Tab 11, Mr. Lauro and the defendant have a lengthy discussion about Mr. Lauro’s mortgage application. Part of the discussion deals with how much money Mr. Lauro has in his various bank accounts. At one point in this call, the following exchange occurs:

Hans Lauro: And then I have cash that I can slowly get you know get or Greg to give me some cheques to put it in if need be
Anna Alex: Okay and how much is in that one
Hans Lauro: I could add another hundred I could add another forty thousand fifty thousand if I needed to
Anna Alex: Okay so I’m just putting the maximum whatever you are saying because I need money because that’s not enough so that’s why I’m putting the maximum.
Hans Lauro: Yeah uh cash wise (unintelligible) um (unintelligible) it’s eighty like I don’t I don’t know if it makes a difference but it probably you could probably say that I could add another eighty thousand there ninety
Anna Alex: Eighty ninety
Hans Lauro: Yeah
Anna Alex: So I’m gonna put ninety thousand still I guess I (unintelligible)
Hans Lauro: Yeah I don’t wanna I don’t wanna I don’t wanna I don’t wanna put it down and leave myself broke but I I have that available
Anna Alex: Yeah yeah then I will play around again…

And further on:

Anna Alex: And when is the closing date
Hans Lauro: Uh the 14th of April I believe
Anna Alex: Oh my God okay
Hans Lauro: Yeah
Anna Alex: Oh God okay okay now let’s go to the most important part the income okay I need an over two hundred thousand income
Hans Lauro: Kay
Anna Alex: Okay and all I got from you (unintelligible) to open the server give me a second (unintelligible) I got one bank statement that is a Life Body (unintelligible) when I looked at the bank statement in the month of October November December January February so September bank statement was not there so that’s the March based on five months
Hans Lauro: (Unintelligible)
Anna Alex: The deposits were only forty-four thousand dollars
Hans Lauro: Yeah
Anna Alex: That’s not enough
Hans Lauro: But that’s what I’m saying so so I have my like I said I have my personal accounts that will also show deposits into my personal accounts
Anna Alex: Okay
Hans Lauro: Uh with with bigger with like I said with bigger amounts
Anna Alex: Okay
Hans Lauro: And also there’s the one where I had my Bank of Montreal personal account where again there was a deposit of like I said forty-two thousand I believe it was um into that personal account as well where our friend could would say that that was from the business or whatnot from his business as a
Anna Alex: Okay what are the businesses you have I know that you have this um uh Body Works do you have any other business
Hans Lauro: I have one other corporation but I haven’t put any money into it in over a year
Anna Alex: Oh shoot okay
Hans Lauro: So it would just be uh Greg working with us that I work at the clinic and whatnot and me like I said my other accounts um I have a lot of like nine thousand eight thousand cheque two thousand I have I have a lot of money going through my personal accounts as deposits um and like my one other B that’s my CIBC the same as I said my business I also have my BMO again where I put a large deposit in that one again of forty in 2020 uh into that account um
Anna Alex: Um
Hans Lauro: So there is there there there is a decent amount and then I don’t know if our if our friend could help us out and give you whatever he needs from his end
Anna Alex: Uh okay what do you do with uh Greg
Hans Lauro: The what sorry
Anna Alex: What do you do with Greg
Hans Lauro: Uh well we can say that I do consultations I’ve done work around his building uh
Anna Alex: Okay
Hans Lauro: We can say any any contracting uh nutritional consultations uh any anything
Anna Alex: Okay okay okay
Hans Lauro: We can say whatever
Anna Alex: How quickly you can send me those two bank statements because let me tell you one thing you have until tomorrow to make some deposit if required for me to get this deal done okay because
Hans Lauro: (Unintelligible)
Anna Alex: If you deposit tomorrow it’s still before month end it will reflect in the bank statement and when I’m talking about tomorrow I’m even talking about before the end of the day tomorrow not after the hour
Hans Lauro: What okay deposit of what
Anna Alex: Um some money if required so that way that I can show that it is um it is an income okay that’s one but before you do that what I would like to do is I would like to see your last the two other bank statement
Hans Lauro: How many do you want of each
Anna Alex: I want six months so October to March [emphasis added]

[33] In the call at Tab 12, Mr. Lauro and the defendant discuss the fact that Mr. Lauro initially “took the deal” to another mortgage broker. The following exchange occurs:

Hans Lauro: I took it to another guy and then he kept pushing me to do private
Anna Alex: Oh God
Hans Lauro: Yeah and I didn’t you know it doesn’t make sense to me to to basically waste you know five thousand dollars 20 a month on just interest
Anna Alex: Yeah I hope he didn’t apply anywhere either right
Hans Lauro: Not no not any normal banks I think he just went just strictly private
Anna Alex: Okay
Hans Lauro: Like we’re gonna have to go B lenders I know that the A lend A lenders won’t work so
Anna Alex: No no this is like a hundred percent B lender
Hans Lauro: Yeah
Anna Alex: (Unintelligible) with a B lender I’m going to be creative you understand that just because you are coming (unintelligible) from Greg right
Hans Lauro: Yeah
Anna Alex: I trust him
Hans Lauro: Yeah yeah
Anna Alex: Uh because if I don’t know you it will you understand what I’m trying to put it (unintelligible)
Hans Lauro: Yeah
Anna Alex: Yeah uh so
Hans Lauro: And then again remember what whatever you need from him uh he’ll do so
Anna Alex: Yes yes yes yes yes (unintelligible) we know each other yeah
Hans Lauro: Yeah
Anna Alex: Yeah
Hans Lauro: No he’s my business partner so that’s why so uh whatever he told me to come to you and whatever you need from him just to make sure that uh just to get this done he doesn’t wanna see me get screwed over and have to waste money right [emphasis added]

[34] In the call at Tab 18, Mr. Lauro and Ms. Alex discuss the movement of funds into various accounts. In text messages found at Tab 19, 20, and 21, Ms. Alex provides a schedule for the deposits they discussed. Mr. Lauro confirms that some of the funds have been deposited as requested by Ms. Alex.

[35] The call at Tab 22 is the central call in the Crown’s case against Ms. Alex on Count #1. At the outset of this call, Ms. Alex advises Mr. Lauro that the proposed lenders have learned of his “criminal record” and have not approved the mortgage deal. Mr. Lauro explains that his charges were withdrawn but acknowledges that there are articles about him and the alleged criminal activities online. Ms. Alex then asks whether there is anyone else whose name they can put the deal in. The following exchange then occurs:

Hans Lauro: (sighs) Okay and what about the next one you’re gonna send it to
Anna Alex: That I only hope that they don’t do a check you don’t have any other people to put the house under
Hans Lauro: Nope
Anna Alex: Like father mother
Hans Lauro: My mother doesn’t show enough income to do it
Anna Alex: No that’s fine I can how old is your mom
Hans Lauro: Sixty
Anna Alex: Okay so that’s fine and your mother didn’t show income okay um what does she do for living
Hans Lauro: School bus driver
Anna Alex: Bus driver okay so is she willing to put the house on your name on on her name
Hans Lauro: Yep
Anna Alex: Okay because I rather not try it okay hold on yours is a corporation right
Hans Lauro: Yeah
Anna Alex: Or master business okay it’s a corporation or master business (unintelligible) no yours is not a corp no yours is sub corporation
Hans Lauro: Yeah
Anna Alex: But you are getting your money into the corporation account am I right
Hans Lauro: Yeah
Anna Alex: Okay Alive Bodyworks
Hans Lauro: If I
Anna Alex: What if I change
Hans Lauro: Sorry go ahead
Anna Alex: Okay what if I change the corporation to your mom and put that property on your mom’s name
Hans Lauro: (Unintelligible) whatever it takes doesn’t matter
Anna Alex: Because if I go to one more lender and mom has another property or no
Hans Lauro: Uh the my condo’s under her name I had to switch my condo to her name
Anna Alex: Okay does it have a mortgage
Hans Lauro: Uh it’s about two hundred and fifty thousand
Anna Alex: Okay okay can you speak to your mom ask her whether it’s okay to put it in her name
Hans Lauro: Yeah it’s fine she she was assuming that I was gonna put it into her name anyways
Anna Alex: It’s better no matter what Hans just being a well wisher I’m telling you I don’t know you
Hans Lauro: Yeah
Anna Alex: But I can tell you looking at what it is what I’m seeing on the media don’t put it under your name all the efforts are it’s not easy
Hans Lauro: Yeah
Anna Alex: Uh so I need your mom’s application I’m gonna send you an application for you for your mom to uh just don’t put any income or anything like that everything else just fill it up and sign the privacy form as well and send it back to me immediately
Hans Lauro: Okay
Anna Alex: So I can pull the credit and do the good things
Hans Lauro: Okay so you’ll be able to switch it and put it under her name
Anna Alex: Uh that’s what I have to do
Hans Lauro: Okay well if you can get yeah if you if you can get if you can get the loan for her
Anna Alex: Okay let’s put it this way let’s let’s put it this way okay if I am getting the loan for you it will be around five and a half percent interest rate
Hans Lauro: Okay

And further on:

Hans Lauro: Holy moly okay well then yeah I guess that makes more sense try to put it in her name
Anna Alex: Yep
Hans Lauro: Okay
Anna Alex: So all you want is talk to your mom and call me back
Hans Lauro: She’s no she it she’s fine with it uh just uh we gotta do what we gotta do right
Anna Alex: Okay
Hans Lauro: Would that be for a year or two year or what is it
Anna Alex: That’s for one year probably I’ll try to get you a three-year rate because your mom is not get going to get
Hans Lauro: Okay
Anna Alex: Younger
Hans Lauro: What sorry
Anna Alex: Your mom is not going to get younger so it’s not easy to get mortgages after certain years
Hans Lauro: Yeah so yeah we’ll do we’ll do one year to start and then after the first year then we’ll try and if anything maybe (unintelligible) change it and clean up my stuff and then maybe switch it to me after a year would that be okay

And the call concludes with the following:

Anna Alex: Get that one (unintelligible) done right now and send it back to me
Hans Lauro: So everything but no income
Anna Alex: Don’t put the income that I will take care of it I need two pieces of her ID as well
Hans Lauro: No problem okay
Anna Alex: Yeah
Hans Lauro: I will send that to me and I will have it back to you tonight
Anna Alex: Okay it’s coming (unintelligible) right now okay thank thanks okay bye
Hans Lauro: Okay bye [emphasis added]

[36] The text messages found at Tabs 23–26 show that Mr. Lauro sent Ms. Alex photographs of his mother’s identification along with a signed Privacy and Consent Agreement. He also sent a text message confirming that Ms. Alex told him not to fill in the “income” on the mortgage application in his mother’s name. Lastly, Mr. Lauro sent a partially complete Mortgage Application form in his mother’s name. The form is filled out in handwriting and lists Helene Keller-Lauro as the primary applicant on the mortgage. The employer information and annual income is blank.

[37] In the call at Tab 27, Ms. Alex advises Mr. Lauro that she is expecting a response on “mom’s deal” tomorrow. She also indicates that she obtained a commitment for Mr. Lauro with the “MIC Company” and that this commitment will serve as a “back-up plan” in case “mom’s deal” falls through. During this call, the following exchange takes place:

Hans Lauro: What are we waiting on uh what did you hand in for her
Anna Alex: Uh the same information
Hans Lauro: Yeah
Anna Alex: But in mom’s name
Hans Lauro: Okay so did they do you think it would work for her or would there be issues
Anna Alex: The only issue is they might cut it down just because (signal loss)
Hans Lauro: Sorry you cut out
Anna Alex: Amortization because they might cut down the uh the years of uh amortization … [emphasis added]

[38] In the call at Tab 29, Ms. Alex advises Mr. Lauro that the “bank” is “reluctant with your mom’s name because the type of business that she is in.” She states further “They’re not believing it you know what I mean.” She then explains that she needs to rush to close the deal in Mr. Lauro’s name.

[39] I note for completeness that there are various other calls included in Exhibit 6(b) which I have not summarized in any detail. These calls include the call at Tab 3 which is between Mr. Lauro and two individuals, Jim and Monty, who appear to be mortgage brokers of some sort. This call is not relevant to the alleged conspiracy other than perhaps providing some narrative. I place no reliance on it.

[40] I also place no reliance on the call at Tab 14 between Hans Lauro and a woman identified as “Ashley” who appears to be Mr. Lauro’s girlfriend. The call is at best only admissible at the first stage of the Carter analysis as circumstantial evidence of the existence of a conspiracy. Similarly, I place no reliance on the call found at Tab 28 between Hans Lauro and an unknown male wherein Mr. Lauro tells the unknown male that the defendant has managed to get his deal approved and also mentions that he is waiting to hear back in relation to his mom’s deal. The unknown male suggests that he can possibly connect Mr. Lauro with a mortgage broker he knows who is willing to falsify documents. This call is also at best admissible only at the first stage of the Carter analysis.

Count #1 – Conspiracy – Analysis and Findings

[41] Against this summary of the evidence, I turn to my analysis and findings. The indictment alleges that defendant conspired with Mr. Lauro and others to utter forged documents by using forged documents, including employment income, as if they were genuine for the purpose of obtaining a mortgage in the name of Helene Lauro.

[42] Simply stated, if the Crown has proven that the only reasonable inference based on all the evidence is that Ms. Alex agreed with Mr. Lauro, and others, to tender false documents, including employment income, in order to obtain a mortgage in the name of Helene Lauro, Ms. Alex is guilty of the offence as charged. If there is a reasonable doubt on this issue, she must be acquitted.

[43] The body of evidence tendered by the Crown arguably supports the existence of two conspiracies. The first conspiracy relates to obtaining a mortgage in Mr. Lauro’s name using falsified financial information and documents. The second conspiracy relates to obtaining a mortgage in Helene Lauro’s name using falsified documents. The second conspiracy factually arises when the initial plan to obtain a mortgage in Mr. Lauro’s name appears to have failed. To state the obvious, Ms. Alex is only charged with the latter conspiracy and not the former.

[44] The Crown argued in submissions that the conspiracy as particularized was essentially proven in the call at Tab 22 of Exhibit 6(b). That said, evidence in relation to the initial conspiracy would be admissible in relation to the second conspiracy if two conditions were satisfied: (1) the calls meet the test for admissibility under the co-conspirators exception and (2) the calls are relevant to an issue or issues in relation to the second conspiracy.

[45] I turn next to assessing the evidence in accordance with the Carter analysis.

Was there a Conspiracy To Commit a Criminal Offence Between Two or More People?

[46] At this stage of the analysis, the issue is whether the Crown has proven the existence of a conspiracy. All of the evidence is admissible, assuming it is relevant. The evidence of alleged co-conspirators does not pose a hearsay problem at this stage as it is treated as circumstantial evidence from which the existence of an agreement can be inferred, see R. v. Cargioli, 2023 ONCA 612, para 74. As well, statements by an alleged co-conspirator about the existence of a conspiracy are admissible without the necessity of proving an “in furtherance” requirement, see R. v. Cargioli, 2023 ONCA 612, para 74 and R. v. Bogiatzis, 2010 ONCA 902, para 25.

[47] Given the fact that this is essentially a two-person conspiracy, I am mindful of the need to avoid collapsing the stage three analysis into the stage one findings, see R. v. Puddicombe, 2013 ONCA 506, paras 91-93. The questions asked at stage one and stage three are different, despite the challenges presented when the conspiracy alleged involves only two persons.

[48] Based on the calls as summarized above, I am readily satisfied that the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a conspiracy to obtain a mortgage in Hans Lauro’s name under false pretences and a further conspiracy to utter forged documents, including employment income, for the purpose of obtaining a mortgage in Helene Lauro’s name.

[49] When the evidence is viewed as a whole, the only reasonable inference is that Hans Lauro needed to quickly obtain a mortgage for the imminent closing of his new home purchase and was prepared to do so by plainly and openly dishonest means. The evidence clearly supports a finding that Mr. Kesminas introduced Ms. Alex to Mr. Lauro for this purpose and further offered to provide false financial documents in support of the application if needed. Greg Kesminas initially offered to provide employment records to make it appear as though Mr. Lauro was on payroll for the last year. In later calls, Mr. Lauro suggests that he can obtain further records from Mr. Kesminas as required. Viewed in context, the proposed records are obviously false.

[50] Mr. Lauro and Ms. Alex have a number of discussions wherein they openly discuss the movement of money necessary to show “income” on the part of Mr. Lauro and thereby make the mortgage application viable. When viewed in context, these calls amply support a finding that Mr. Lauro was prepared to do “whatever it takes” to get the mortgage, including presenting an obviously false financial picture.

[51] I am also satisfied that once the initial plan to obtain a mortgage in Mr. Lauro’s own name fell through, a second plan or conspiracy was devised. This conspiracy was between Ms. Alex and Mr. Lauro and it involved using Helene Lauro as a nominee on the mortgage. The contents of the calls, particularly the calls at Tab 22 and 27, suggests that the plan was to seek a mortgage in Ms. Lauro’s name using falsified income information.

Was Ms. Alex a Probable Member of the Conspiracy?

[52] At this stage, the issue is whether the Crown has proven on a balance of probabilities that Ms. Alex was a member of the conspiracy based only on the evidence directly admissible against her.

[53] The answer to this question poses no challenge in the circumstances of this case. Ms. Alex’s own utterances in the various calls in which she is a participant manifestly support a finding that she is probably a member of the conspiracy charged as well as the earlier conspiracy. To put it bluntly, Ms. Alex is the directing mind behind the conspiracies. She is the one who comes up with and directs both the initial plan to obtain a mortgage in Mr. Lauro’s name using false income information and the second plan to try to obtain the mortgage in Ms. Lauro’s name using false income information.

Has Ms. Alex’s Membership in the Alleged Conspiracy Been Proven on the Criminal Standard?

[54] At this stage of the analysis, the utterances of other members of the conspiracy are admissible against Ms. Alex so long as any such utterances were made in furtherance of the conspiracy while the conspiracy was ongoing, see R. v. Dawkins, 2021 ONCA 113, para 42. The issue to be determined is whether the defendant’s actual membership or participation in the conspiracy has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

[55] In this case, I am satisfied that the Crown has proven Ms. Alex’s actual membership or participation in the conspiracy alleged in Count 1 beyond a reasonable doubt. I reach this conclusion for the following reasons:

a. There is no dispute that Mr. Lauro was in relatively urgent need of a mortgage given a fast-approaching closing date on a new home purchase. There is also no dispute that Ms. Alex was introduced to Mr. Lauro through Mr. Kesminas during the call at Tab 5. Mr. Kesminas makes it clear in this call that he is willing to make it look like Mr. Lauro was on payroll “last year” and he then states “whatever is necessary we’re gonna get him letters.”

b. In the call at Tab 6, which is the first call between Ms. Alex and Mr. Lauro, Ms. Alex asks him what he does for a living. Mr. Lauro says he works with Greg Kesminas and also has his own businesses. Ms. Alex replies, “work for somebody cannot make so much money, so I like the um your businesses, what type of businesses that you have.” Ms. Alex also states “I like to work with the real to make it happen and when I need help at that point in time I will tell you” and continues “…give me everything that’s real and then I will look into it and I will take care of it wherever it's required.” She then states, “You understand (unintelligible) you understand what I need what I will be doing right.” Mr. Lauro confirms that he understands. When viewed in context, I find that in this call Ms. Alex is telling Mr. Lauro that she wants the “real” information to start and then she will tell him when she needs help. Her comment “you know what I will be doing” implies a readiness to go beyond the “real” information if required.

c. In the call at Tab 11, Ms. Alex directly tells Mr. Lauro that she needs “over two hundred thousand income” and then explains that the documents he provided do not show enough income. In the discussion that follows, Ms. Alex and Mr. Lauro discuss his business and the amounts of money he has deposited. When Ms. Alex asks what Mr. Lauro does for Greg Kesminas, he replies, “uh well we can say that I do consultations I’ve done work around the building” and “we can say any any contracting uh nutritional consultations uh any anything” and finally “we can say whatever.” Later in this same call, Ms. Alex tells Mr. Lauro that he has “until tomorrow” to make deposits so that they will be reflected in the bank statements. Towards the end of the call, Ms. Alex states “technically you have one day to play around with these things.” She confirms that he needs to show two hundred thousand in income and then adds “and no a little more because then you have to show the expenses too.” When viewed in context, this conversation easily supports an inference that Ms. Alex and Mr. Lauro are devising a plan to falsely show his income as $200,000 net of expenses and also discussing the potential of having Mr. Kesminas offer a false letter of employment in support.

d. In the call at Tab 12, Ms. Alex and Mr. Lauro discuss going to “B” lenders for his mortgage. Ms. Alex tells Mr. Lauro, “(unintelligible) with a B lender I’m going to be creative you understand that just because you are coming (unintelligible) from Greg right…I trust him” and further on, “Uh because if I don’t know you it will you understand what I’m trying to put it.” Mr. Lauro confirms his understanding and then adds “and then again remember what whatever you need from him uh he’ll do so.” The conversation continues with a discussion about various bank accounts and balances. When this call is viewed in context, Ms. Alex makes it clear that she is going to be “creative” with the mortgage application and further suggests that she is doing this because Mr. Lauro came to her through Mr. Kesminas whom she trusts. The inescapable inference from this communication is that Ms. Alex is telling Mr. Lauro that she is prepared to present a falsified mortgage application. For his part, Mr. Lauro agrees and reminds Ms. Alex that Mr. Kesminas is prepared to provide whatever documents are necessary.

e. The text messages found at Tab 19–21 suggest that Mr. Lauro has made or will be making various deposits. When these texts are viewed in context with the earlier calls, it is clear that Mr. Lauro is taking steps, as suggested by Ms. Alex, to move money into certain accounts to make it look like income. It is also clear from the context of the texts that this is not actually real income, but rather money placed into an account to give the appearance of income.

f. When the foregoing is taken together and viewed in context, I am satisfied that Ms. Alex conspired with Mr. Lauro and Mr. Kesminas to obtain a mortgage in his name using false financial information relating to Mr. Lauro’s income and employment. While I am satisfied that the utterances made by Mr. Lauro and Mr. Kesminas meet the co-conspirators exception to the hearsay rule and are admissible against Ms. Alex, the bulk of the evidence on this conspiracy actually comes directly from Ms. Alex’s own utterances.

g. I find that the initial conspiracy to obtain a mortgage in Mr. Lauro’s name is relevant to the conspiracy alleged in Count 1 in three ways. First, it provides the narrative for why a back-up plan was needed. Second, it reveals an intention on Mr. Lauro’s part to obtain a mortgage by whatever means available, including fraudulent means. Third, it reveals an intention on Ms. Alex’s part to undertake fraudulent means in order to obtain the mortgage for Mr. Lauro, who is a referral from Ms. Kesminas, a person she trusts.

h. I turn next to the key call in relation to the conspiracy as set out in Count 1. In the call at Tab 22 of Exhibit 6(b), Ms. Alex initially advises Mr. Lauro that as a result of his criminal record, he does not qualify for a mortgage. Ms. Alex then essentially suggests resort to a plan “B” when she asks whether there is anyone else in whose name the house can be placed. Mr. Lauro suggests his mother but states “My mother doesn’t show enough income to do it.” Ms. Alex replies, “No that’s fine…” Mr. Lauro tells Ms. Alex that his mother is a bus driver. They then discuss changing Mr. Lauro’s corporation into his mother name and also putting the house in her name. Crucially, Ms. Alex tells Mr. Lauro to fill out an application in his mother’s name but leave the income blank, which is telling given his comment that she does not have enough income. She then instructs him to fill out the privacy form as well and send it back to her immediately so she “can pull the credit and do the good things.” The direction to leave the income blank coupled with the comment “do the good things” supports a clear and obvious inference that Ms. Alex is planning on falsifying Helene Lauro’s income. This inference is all the more compelling when considered in context with the final comment during the call where Ms. Alex states “Don’t put the income that I will take care of it…” When viewed in the context of the discussions as a whole, there would be no legitimate reason for Ms. Alex to repeatedly instruct Mr. Lauro to leave the income information blank.

i. The inference that Ms. Alex has agreed to falsify Helene Lauro’s income is all but admitted by Ms. Alex in the call at Tab 27 wherein Mr. Lauro specifically asks what information was used for the mortgage application in Helene Lauro’s name. Ms. Alex replies, “Uh the same information….but in mom’s name.” When viewed in context with the earlier calls, the obvious inference is that Ms. Alex, by her own admission, simply used the financial information that had been submitted for Mr. Lauro’s earlier application and submitted it in support of Helene Lauro’s application. This inference is not undermined by the fact that Crown has not tendered the actual forged or falsified financial document or completed mortgage application.

j. While I am satisfied that the false financial information in relation to Mr. Lauro’s income was presented at the direction of Ms. Alex, it ultimately would not matter if the information represented was accurate vis a vis Mr. Lauro. Even if the income information for Mr. Lauro was accurate, it would have been obviously false to suggest that it was Helene Lauro’s actual income.

k. When I consider the evidence as a whole, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Alex conspired with Mr. Lauro to utter a forged or falsified financial document in support of a mortgage application in Helene Lauro’s name. There is no other reasonable inference based on the evidence and the absence of evidence. I also add that the Crown’s burden would have been met based only on the calls at tab 22 and 27 combined, without the added weight of the earlier calls relating to the agreement to falsify Mr. Lauro’s income.

Count #2 – Utter False Document

[56] Turning to count #2 in the indictment, I note that the wording of the count is problematic. The count as particularized alleges that Ms. Alex “did knowingly make directly a false statement in writing with the intent that it should be relied upon to wit, a personal financial statement, respecting his financial position for the purpose of procuring from MCC Mortgage Holdings Inc. own benefit, the grant of credit to the value of $1,250,000” [emphasis added].

[57] In closing submissions, the Crown sought to amend the word “his” to read “Hans Lauro.” The defence fairly noted that it was not prejudiced by this proposed amendment, but it was opposed on the basis that the request came very late in submissions, essentially in reply.

[58] I note that there is a second problem with the indictment. The words “own benefit” are nonsensical as they appear grammatically. This aspect of the indictment escaped mention in the Crown’s request for amendment but also requires amendment as the phrase “own benefit” is not surplusage. It is a reference to the statutory requirement that the conduct of the accused must be “for his or her own benefit” or for the benefit of “a person or organization” that the accused “is interested in” or “acts for”, see s.362(1)(c) of the Code. Arguably, the words “own benefit” should read “for the benefit of Hans Lauro” or perhaps “for the benefit of Ananthie Alex and Hans Lauro” or perhaps “for her own benefit.”

[59] Ultimately, I need not grapple with amending the indictment. Even assuming the indictment was corrected to fix the problems identified, I am not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Alex actually made a false statement in writing with the intent that it should be relied upon for the purpose of procuring from MCC Mortgage Holdings Inc. credit in the value of $1,250,000.

[60] At the outset, I note that there is no issue that MCC Mortgage Holdings Inc. took a mortgage on Mr. Lauro’s property and advanced funds in the amount of $1,250,000. The key issue is whether Ms. Alex knowingly made a false statement in writing, to wit a personal financial statement regarding Hans Lauro, for the purpose of procuring the mortgage funds from MCC Mortgage Holdings Inc.

[61] I start with the absence of direct evidence. On this issue, I note that the Crown has not tendered the specific document it alleges contains the false statement in writing that was made with the intent that it should be relied upon. As well, no witness from MCC Mortgage Holdings Inc. came to testify that any such document was provided to it in support of the mortgage application which resulted in the funds being advanced. To the extent that documents from MCC Mortgage Holdings Inc. were filed as Exhibit 5, none of the documents shed any light on what may have been filed in support. In addition, the documents include a Mortgage Commitment Agreement between Oppono Lending and Mr. Lauro. There is no evidence explaining the connection, if any, between Oppono Lending and MCC Mortgage Holdings Inc. There is also no evidence as to what Oppono Lending considered in arriving at the Commitment Agreement, or by extension whether MCC Mortgage Holdings Inc. advanced funds based on the Commitment Agreement with Oppono Lending or on some other basis.

[62] The Crown acknowledges the absence of evidence, but nonetheless argues that the evidence found in the recorded calls is sufficient to make out the offence. In short, the Crown’s position is that the singular available inference is that Ms. Alex must have presented falsified financial documents in order to obtain the mortgage funds from MCC Mortgage Holdings Inc.

[63] As I have already discussed, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Lauro and Ms. Alex conspired to present a false financial picture of his income in an attempt to secure mortgage financing. Based on this finding, a very strong inference is that whatever was presented to MCC Mortgage Holdings Inc. would have included a false financial picture relating to Mr. Lauro’s income. However, I cannot find that this is the only reasonable inference. The absence of evidence as discussed leaves a large gap in the Crown’s case. I simply do not know what MCC Mortgage Holdings Inc relied on in agreeing to advance funds. Moreover, I am not prepared to simply conclude that it must have reviewed and relied upon Mr. Lauro’s alleged income presented in the form of a financial document of some sort. It probably did. But probably is not enough.

[64] For the sake of completeness, I also note that the call found at Tab 34, which is between Mr. Lauro and an unknown male wherein Mr. Lauro essentially complains about the fees charged by the mortgage brokers and talks about the mortgage broker “fabricating documents”, is not a call in furtherance of any ongoing conspiracy. The call is simply Mr. Lauro telling a friend that he has secured a mortgage for his home and it cost him “an arm and a leg.” This call is hearsay and not substantively admissible against Ms. Alex.

F. Conclusion

[65] Ms. Alex, please stand. On Count 1 in the indictment, I find you guilty. On Count 2, I find you not guilty.

Joseph Di Luca
Released: May 23, 2025

[1] A third count on the indictment alleging a proceeds of crime offence pursuant to s. 462.31(1) of the Code was withdrawn at the start of trial.

[2] The agreed statement of fact filed as Exhibit 1 addresses factual issues relating to the intercepted communications.