Court File and Parties

Court File No.:

CR-25-00000001-0000
CR-25-00000002-0000
CR-25-00000003-0000
CR-23-00000041-0000

Date: July 25, 2025

Superior Court of Justice

His Majesty the King v. Rafael Layton

Proceedings

Before the Honourable Justice C. Conlan

on June 30, 2025, at Milton, Ontario

Appearances

N. Chiera – Counsel for the Crown

D. Sarikaya – Counsel for Rafael Layton

Reasons for Sentence

CONLAN, J: (Orally):

I'm going to begin by outlining the sentence itself in its various components, and then I will give some oral reasons as to why I think this is a fit sentence for this offender.

Custodial Sentence

In terms of the custodial aspect of the sentence, the Court accepts that Mr. Layton has spent 57 actual days in pre-sentence custody. The Court will give Mr. Layton the maximum Summers credit permissible under the Criminal Code for that and gross the 57 days up to 86 days of pre-sentence custody.

Before consideration of Duncan credit for overly harsh conditions experienced in pre-sentence custody, the sentence that I would have imposed on Mr. Layton is 10 months' imprisonment. The Duncan consideration is a mitigating factor on sentence. The Court does not have to quantify the Duncan credit, but in this particular case, in order to make the sentence more understandable to the victims and to Mr. Layton, the offender, I will quantify the Duncan credit, which brings the 10-month sentence down to nine months, less four days in custody.

I will then deduct the maximum Summers credit, the 86 days, which is the equivalent of three months less four days in custody for a total net sentence of imprisonment from today of six months in jail.

So to repeat the calculation: the sentence would have been 10 months in custody. After considering Duncan credit, it is reduced to nine months less four days imprisonment. The 86 days is deducted from that, 86 days being the equivalent of three months less four days, and it results in a net sentence in jail from today of six months in custody.

Ancillary Orders

DNA Order

The following ancillary orders are made: There is a secondary DNA order imposed on Mr. Layton. The order is not on consent. I think that the order is appropriate in this case because Mr. Layton has shown a proclivity to defraud people on a habitual basis, and I see some real interest for investigative purposes in having Mr. Layton's DNA taken and stored in the databank, although there may be some relatively minor intrusion on Mr. Layton's privacy in coercing the DNA sample from him. I'm not concerned about that.

In this case, Mr. Layton engaged in repeated fraudulent conduct wherein he victimized no less than 15 people for a very sizable total amount of money, and Mr. Layton is not a first offender. He has a criminal record which includes four prior convictions. They are dated from 2009 and they are not related to fraudulent activity, but the record still exists and thus balancing Mr. Layton's privacy interest against the potential benefit of having his DNA taken and stored, I think that the DNA order is appropriate.

Fine in Lieu of Forfeiture

This Court makes the order requested by the Crown under section 462.37(3) of the Criminal Code. It is hereby ordered that Mr. Layton, pursuant to that subsection, shall pay to His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario, a fine in lieu of forfeiture of proceeds of crime in the amount of $178,573 within five years of Mr. Layton's release from incarceration on the charges that he's being sentenced on today.

So I repeat, the time period that I have inserted is five years from Mr. Layton's release from incarceration on the charges that he's being sentenced for today. The Defence suggested 10 years, I think that gives too much of an indulgence to Mr. Layton. These victims deserve to have something held over Mr. Layton's head that will force him to pay back the victims sooner rather than later. This is a tool in the overall sentencing process, and I think that the shorter period of five years upon Mr. Layton's release from incarceration is more appropriate.

Disposition of Property

The order for disposition of property has been signed as presented, and so the following property is forfeited to the Crown:

Two Ontario license plates: C-X-F-L-8-9-5
Vehicle ownership for serial number: M-8-7-5-6-8-8-4

Financial Activities Prohibition Order

This Court grants the Crown's request for the Financial Activities Prohibition order under section 380.2 of the Criminal Code. It is hereby ordered that Mr. Layton shall be prohibited from seeking, obtaining or continuing any employment or volunteer position that involves having authority over the real property, money, or valuable security of another person in any capacity relating to the purchase, sale, or rental of automobiles.

Further, Mr. Layton shall be prohibited from seeking, obtaining or continuing any employment or volunteer position that involves acting in the role of an accountant or account holder, bookkeeper, auditor, comptroller or treasurer.

Mr. Layton is the subject of this prohibition order, both components of it, for a period of 10 years commencing on today's date. I have signed the order.

Restitution Order

The restitution order includes a provision that Mr. Layton pay restitution at a minimum rate of $1,000 a month, and it starts on January 1, 2026. By then he will be out of custody. The reason why I amended it from the prior wording that says things like "the entire amount to be paid in full by the end", is because really, it's the finding lieu of forfeiture order that will cover the total payment. This is the incentive on the part of Mr. Layton to not wait. Once he's out on probation, he has to start paying back the victims immediately. And $1,000 a month may seem like a lot of money to Mr. Layton, he has probably no income right now, but he's going to have to find some income or borrow money from somebody because I'm more concerned about the welfare of the victims.

Probation Order

I agree with Mr. Chiera that Mr. Layton ought to be the subject of the maximum permissible length of probation, three years. The probation order will commence upon Mr. Layton's release from custody. The maximum length is appropriate because the public needs to be protected against any risk of reoffending on the part of Mr. Layton.

With regard to the probation order, which is for three years, all of the compulsory terms apply as set out in subsection 732.1(2) of the Criminal Code. As well, the following optional conditions apply for the entire duration of the three years:

Mr. Layton shall report to a probation officer within two working days of the commencement of the period of probation and thereafter as directed by the probation officer.
Mr. Layton shall reside at an address approved of by the probation officer and not change that address without the prior written approval of the probation officer.
Mr. Layton shall remain within the jurisdiction of the Court unless written permission to go outside the jurisdiction is obtained from the Court or the probation officer in advance in writing.
Mr. Layton shall abstain from owning, possessing or carrying any firearm or weapon as defined by the Criminal Code.
Mr. Layton shall attend and actively participate in any counselling or therapy or treatment program that is recommended to him by the probation officer, and Mr. Layton shall not leave that counselling or therapy or treatment program without the prior written approval of the probation officer.
In order to monitor Mr. Layton's progress with the counselling or therapy or treatment program or programs, Mr. Layton shall sign any releases of information demanded of him.
Mr. Layton shall not have any contact or communication, directly or indirectly, with any of the victims of his fraudulent activity. These victims' names will be inserted into the probation order, and they are found at schedule one of the restitution order. The names are as follows:
- Muizz Mahamad
- Ross Benner
- Sandra Chin
- Michael Williams
- Felix Nwaobilor
- Kulwinder Dhillon
- Ekaterina Schevchenko
- Rachelle Risling
- Nileshkumar Bhavsar
- Bin Xu
- Hatim Sabuwala
- Rosario Paglia
- Idris Kheftan
- Glenn Baker
- Mineshbhai Patel
The only exception to the no contact or communication, directly or indirectly with any of those named victims is for the purpose of complying with restitution and for civil court proceedings.
Mr. Layton shall not attend at any place where he knows any of the named victims to live, work, go to school or frequent, and Mr. Layton shall not attend within 100 metres of the person of any of the named victims. The only exception to the keep away term is for required court attendances, in the event that there is a civil suit and Mr. Layton is required to attend court along with a victim or victims.
Mr. Layton shall not attend or take part in any vehicle purchase or sale transaction without the prior written approval of the probation officer.
Mr. Layton shall not attend any vehicle dealership or location where vehicles are sold without the prior written approval of the probation officer.
Mr. Layton shall not advertise the sale of any motor vehicle in any capacity.
Mr. Layton shall not possess any bank card, credit card, cheque, bank instrument or negotiable instrument not lawfully issued to him in his own name.
Mr. Layton shall not possess any identity document not lawfully issued to him in his own name.
Mr. Layton shall comply with the conditions of the restitution order made on this date.

Non-Communication Order While in Custody

While Mr. Layton is serving his six-month jail sentence, there is a non-communication order while he is in custody with all of the same persons who are listed in the no contact provision of the probation order. All those names outlined earlier, in addition to being prohibited from contacting them upon your release from custody, you are prohibited from contacting them while you are serving your jail sentence. There is an exception for civil court proceedings.

Sentencing Reasons

Summary of Sentence

To summarize where we are thus far, the custodial sentence is six months in jail from today. It will be followed by a period of probation for three years on the terms outlined. There is a secondary DNA order imposed, a restitution order, and a fine in lieu of forfeiture order imposed, a forfeiture of property order, and the section 380.2 Criminal Code, Financial Activities Prohibition Order, all with the details that I outlined earlier in these oral reasons.

Fit Sentence Analysis

With regard to why I think this is a fit sentence for this offender on these facts. The Crown cannot be faulted for asking for a custodial sentence longer than six months in jail from today. However, I take into account the mitigating factors in this case, primarily the value of the guilty plea to the rolled-up fraud count. And I also take into consideration the potential immigration consequences, given that Mr. Layton is not a Canadian citizen.

The case law is clear that one cannot consider immigration consequences to move what would otherwise be a fit sentence into the realm of being an unfit sentence. But I do not think that six months in jail from today is an unfit sentence. It is at the low end of the range. I will confess that it is at the low end of the range for Mr. Layton in terms of the length of the custody. The rest of the sentence is quite severe — the probation order and the ancillary orders — but the six months itself is relatively lenient for Mr. Layton. I think it is justified, given the immigration consequences and the mitigating effect of his guilty pleas.

Sentencing Principles

I agree with the Crown that the primary principles of sentencing in this case are denunciation, general deterrence, and specific deterrence. I think overall, the sentence including the ancillary orders and the strict maximum length probation order are sufficient to achieve those objectives. Rehabilitation is also important for Mr. Layton. It is less important than denunciation and deterrence, but it is a relevant factor.

Guilty Plea

The guilty plea, rather, for the rolled-up fraud charge I agree with the Crown, was not entered early, but it still has substantial mitigating effect in this case because of the complexities involved in prosecuting fraud charges. They are not easy to prove. And this trial would have taken at least a couple of weeks. The trial would have necessitated every one of the victims to come to court and testify, which is not a pleasant experience, particularly being cross-examined by Defence counsel is not pleasant, and there would have been no guarantee of the result after trial.

So Mr. Layton has saved the victims from having to come to court and testify, and he has brought finality to the proceeding. He has brought by his guilty plea a guaranteed result, which is that he's now a convicted criminal for fraud.

Impact on Victims

What happened here to these victims is a very serious thing, as illustrated in the victim impact statements. I'm not surprised that the victims have been significantly, and perhaps permanently impacted by Mr. Layton's fraudulent activity. I read the victim impact statements very carefully before we began today, and what struck me is that although they are all different because we have more than a dozen victims writing these statements, they have common themes to them.

The common themes are that fraud sometimes causes somebody to lose self-confidence in their own abilities to engage in commercial transactions, self-doubt on the part of the victim, a sense that perhaps they were careless themselves and allowed themselves to be duped by somebody. The victims described this conduct as being something they would not wish on anybody else. Feelings of depression, anger, betrayal, anxiety, fear of dealing with others in business or commercial transactions. A sense of paranoia that perhaps the victims are going to be revictimized by somebody else.

Financial costs, feeling physically drained, emotionally distressed, economically burdened, a lack of emotional and financial security experienced by the victims. Embarrassment in explaining what happened to them to others, whether family members or friends because they feel that perhaps those they disclosed this to will look upon them as having done something that brought it upon themselves, which of course is not the case. None of the victims brought it upon him or herself. They were taken advantage of by Mr. Layton.

Feeling emotionally distanced from loved ones and family members and friends. Feeling that they have been betrayed by someone that they had faith in and took at his word. A feeling of being overwhelmed by the stress of the entire situation. Difficulty sleeping. Difficulty with relationships in their own lives, in the victims' own lives, whether with a partner or a child or another family member or a friend or a neighbour.

Other financial repercussions, so not just the loss of money, but collateral financial repercussions such as adverse impact on one's credit rating and credit score. The inability to obtain credit from other financial institutions or other lenders.

I read this, I am not picking out one statement, I'm trying to summarize the statements, but there was one of the statements that, I will not name the person, that has this paragraph in it, which I highlighted in advance:

Overall, this scam has left me feeling completely violated and disillusioned. The dishonesty of just one person has altered my sense of security and my trust in others, and the emotional weight of this situation continues to impact my daily life, my relationships, and my overall well-being long after the fact.

These are the types of sentiments illustrated in the victim impact statements. This is what you did, Mr. Layton, to the people that you victimized. And this is why the Court is imposing what is overall quite a severe sentence, when one considers it in its totality, along with the ancillary orders.

Confirmation of Understanding

THE COURT: So, Mr. Layton, stand up please. I need to ask you some questions to ensure that you understand all aspects of the sentence.

So first of all, I made an order that you provide a sample of your DNA to the authorities. Do you understand that order?