Sentencing Decision

Court File No.: CR-24-10000548-0000
Date: 2025-02-12
Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Between:
His Majesty the King – and – Ronald Joseph

Counsel:
Mitchell Flagg, for the Crown
Angelo Veneziano, for Ronald Joseph

Heard: December 12, 2024
Judge: Giuseppe Pinto

Overview

[1] On October 16, 2024, Ronald Joseph pleaded guilty to four offences arising from his involvement in an attempt to defraud insurance companies. Mr. Joseph, a police officer with the Toronto Police Service (TPS), claimed damages for alleged vehicle thefts or accidents that, in reality, he had staged. The fraud scheme was ultimately foiled by insurance companies, who conducted their own extensive internal investigations that identified his illegal activities, and generally resulted in pay-outs not being made.

[2] The Crown seeks a conditional sentence of two years less a day with appropriately punitive terms. The Defence seeks a conditional discharge and probation for two years. The parties agree on the ancillary terms.

[3] I find that Mr. Joseph was the lynchpin of a fraudulent scheme and motivated entirely by greed. He broke the very laws that, as a police officer, he was entrusted to enforce; this conduct represents a breach of public trust. For the reasons that follow, I conclude that a conditional sentence of two years less a day is appropriate.

The Guilty Plea

[4] Mr. Joseph was charged with eight offences and the matter was set for an 8-week trial commencing on October 16, 2024. On the first day of trial, just before the Crown’s opening address, Mr. Joseph pleaded guilty to three counts of attempted fraud over $5,000, and one count of public mischief.

[5] The four counts that Mr. Joseph plead to read as follows:

Count 4 (Public Mischief)
RONALD JOSEPH stands charged that he, on or about the first day of February, 2020 at the City of Toronto in the Toronto Region, did commit public mischief in that, with intent to mislead, caused Police Constable Jacqueline Onyskiewicz, a peace officer for the City of Toronto to enter upon an investigation that the offence of Theft Over $5000 had been committed when it had not been committed, contrary to section 140(1)(c) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

Count 5 (Attempt Fraud over $5000)
RONALD JOSEPH stands charged that he, on or about the 21st day of March, 2020 and the 12th day of June, 2020 at the City of Barrie in the Central East Region and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario, did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, attempt to defraud Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Company of Canada (aka RSA Canada) of monies of a value exceeding five thousand dollars, contrary to sections 380(1) and 463(b) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

Count 6 (Attempt Fraud Over $5000)
RONALD JOSEPH stands charged that he, on or between the first day of April, 2020 and the 18th day of June, 2020 at the City of Brampton in the Central West Region and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario, did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, attempt to defraud CAA Insurance Company of monies of a value exceeding five thousand dollars, contrary to sections 380(1) and 463(b) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

Count 8 (Attempt Fraud Over $5000)
RONALD JOSEPH stands charged that he, on or between the 22nd day of April, 2020 and the 18th day of June, 2020 at the City of Toronto in the Toronto Region, did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, attempt to defraud TD Insurance of monies of a value exceeding five thousand dollars, contrary to sections 380(1) and 463(b) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

The Circumstances of the Offences

[6] The parties entered into four separate Agreed Statements of Facts (ASFs) that detail admissions regarding Mr. Joseph’s criminal conduct.

Public Mischief (Count 4)

[7] Mr. Joseph pleaded guilty to public mischief in circumstances where one of his associates, Roger Tigree, called 911 three times on February 1, 2020 to report that a Mercedes Benz that he rented from Mr. Joseph had been stolen from a parking lot in Toronto. Subsequently, the same vehicle was involved in a “minor collision” with a Ford Focus. The occupants of the Mercedes failed to remain on scene. The two occupants of the Ford Focus were taken by ambulance to a local hospital after complaining about neck and body pain. In reality, Mr. Tigree’s calls were part of a scheme among Mr. Joseph, Mr. Tigree, Kevin Lima, Markus Dookie, and Kris Kattick to stage an accident and make a fraudulent insurance claim.

[8] PC Jacqueline Onyskiewicz and another officer were dispatched to the parking lot where the Mercedes was allegedly stolen. They saw a different white Mercedes in the lot. Mr. Tigree got out of the passenger side and another male, who turned out to be Mr. Joseph, remained seated and initially refused PC Onyskiewicz’s request to step out and provide a statement. Eventually, when Mr. Joseph got out he asked the officer who she was, and then identified himself as a police officer at 22 Division. As PC Onyskiewicz could smell the odour of an alcoholic beverage, she called for an on-duty supervisor to assist. Mr. Joseph was prevented from driving home in the Mercedes. Mr. Joseph ended up providing a false statement to PC Onyskiewicz about his Mercedes being stolen from the parking lot. Following extensive insurance and police investigations, Tigree, Kattick, and Dookie pleaded guilty to various charges associated with the fraudulent scheme. Location Based Services (LBS) tracking data demonstrated that Mr. Joseph met his associates before the alleged theft and minor collision.

Attempt Fraud – Dodge Ram Tow Truck – Count 5

[9] On March 1, 2020, Kevin Lima called the Toronto police to report a 2018 Dodge Ram 3500 tow truck stolen from near 100 Emmett Avenue in Toronto. In reality, the tow truck had never been parked in or stolen from the area and Mr. Lima and Mr. Joseph planned in advance to make a knowingly fraudulent insurance claim over its theft. In the course of the deception, Mr. Joseph provided a voluntary videotaped statement to an insurance adjuster claiming that he believed the tow truck was stolen and outstanding.

Attempt Fraud – Cadillac – Count 6

[10] Aditya Persaud and Kevin Lima pleaded guilty to attempted fraud of CAA Insurance by manufacturing damage to Persaud’s Cadillac that was involved in a minor collision with a Staples delivery truck. On April 3, 2020, telephone intercepts and text messages captured Persaud calling Mr. Joseph to advise that his Cadillac had been struck by the delivery truck. Despite Persaud stating the vehicle was drivable, Mr. Joseph told Persaud not to drive it and to call for a tow truck and to state (falsely) that there were fumes coming into the car’s cabin. An insurance investigation subsequently revealed a very minor collision between the Cadillac and the Staples delivery truck. Instead, police video surveillance caught Mr. Lima deliberately backing the Cadillac into another vehicle three times, causing further damage to the rear of the car.

Attempt Fraud – 2017 Ford Escape – Count 8

[11] On April 29, 2020, Arnold Jaglal and Mr. Lima went to a collision reporting centre and reported that a Ford Escape vehicle that he rented had been struck by another vehicle in the St. Clair and Dufferin area of Toronto. He claimed that the collision caused extensive front-end damage. The vehicle is owned by a numbered company where Mr. Joseph is the sole director. A TD Insurance investigation and police investigation revealed that Mr. Joseph, Mr. Lima and Mr. Jaglal together concocted the story about the collision. In fact, the Ford Escape had suffered extensive damage from an August 2019 accident involving a chain of collisions with a TTC bus.

The Circumstances of the Offender

[12] Mr. Joseph has no criminal record or outstanding charges and is currently 52 years old.

[13] He was born in Trinidad, immigrated to Canada in 2007, and became a Canadian citizen. He is married and has one child who is presently in high school. His wife works at a factory and earns minimum wage.

[14] Mr. Joseph comes from a large family. He has four surviving sisters and two surviving brothers. He financially supports his mother in Trinidad.

[15] He has been employed with the TPS since 2008 and is currently ranked as a First-Class Police Constable.

[16] Defence counsel provided three letters of support from Mr. Joseph’s Hindu mandir (temple) and other religious organizations. The letters describe Mr. Joseph’s volunteerism at the mandir where he assists congregants and has made a $4,000 financial contribution.

[17] I accept that Mr. Joseph has made a positive contribution to his community through his involvement in religious and spiritual organizations. The letters of support were written shortly after Mr. Joseph’s conviction and, save for one exception, do not clarify whether the authors are aware of the charges or conviction. To be fair, one letter states, “he came to me and told me about this case which he is charged in.” However, the next sentence, somewhat incongruently states, “Ronald has shown to be honorable and thoughtful towards others, especially the less fortunate people in society.” Another letter makes no reference whatsoever to Mr. Joseph’s charges and states, “In my experience, he has always been an honest, hardworking, and responsible individual.” Notwithstanding the lack of clarity, I accept that the letters demonstrate some pro-social conduct by Mr. Joseph.

[18] Defence counsel also provided a letter from Dr. Minella de Souza, Mr. Joseph’s neuropsychiatrist. Dr. de Souza indicates that Mr. Joseph has been his patient since September 15, 2022 and that he typically sees him once a month. The letter states that when Dr. de Souza first saw Mr. Joseph, he met the criteria of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) – a condition that arose from a work-related incident in February 2016. The letter proceeds to opine about how decision-making skills may be altered in patients with PTSD. The letter also mentions that Mr. Joseph’s trust with his police colleagues was altered as he felt he was falsely accused. The letter does not clarify the circumstances in which this statement was made. I place minimal weight on Dr. de Souza’s letter because the language in the letter is very unclear. In any event, Defence counsel expressly agreed that Mr. Joseph was motivated by greed and did not suggest that Mr. Joseph’s criminal conduct was related to his PTSD, or his feelings of being falsely accused by fellow officers.

[19] At the conclusion of the sentencing hearing, Mr. Joseph apologized for his criminal conduct and stated that it will never happen again. I accept that Mr. Joseph has expressed some remorse for his conduct.

Community Impact Statements

[20] The Crown forwarded four Community Impact Statements provided by TD Insurance, Co-Operators Insurance, CAA Insurance, and SGI Canada Insurance Services Ltd. Collectively, the letters state that insurance fraud significantly impacts all Canadians by driving up costs and leading to higher insurance premiums. Fraud and the associated investigations consume resources that could otherwise be devoted to supporting customers with legitimate claims. Many fraudulent schemes jeopardize the safety of innocent parties – particularly staged accidents that occur on public roadways. One insurance company described the experience of having a police officer implicated in fraud as “extremely bewildering.” Another explained that it had retained an engineering firm, private investigators, and independent adjusters to investigate the circumstances of the claim. It also incurred legal fees in excess of $12,000 and recovered $2,500 from the insured.

Sentencing Position of the Crown

[21] The Crown’s takes a global position on sentence and seeks a Conditional Sentence Order (CSO) of two years less a day, allocated as follows:

• 18 months for attempted fraud x 3 (Counts 5, 6, 8) (all served concurrently)
• 6 months less a day for public mischief (Count 4) (consecutive)

[22] The Crown proposes that Mr. Joseph is confined to house arrest with GPS monitoring for the first 12 months. For the following 6 months, the Crown submits that a curfew (10 p.m. to 7 a.m. daily) with GPS monitoring is appropriate, and that during the final 6 months less a day, he is subject to statutory terms (pursuant to s. 742.3(1)) with no GPS monitoring.

[23] The house arrest and curfew terms would be subject to certain exceptions to permit Mr. Joseph to purchase personal necessities and attend medical, religious, and other appointments as permitted by his conditional sentence supervisor.

[24] Additionally, the Crown seeks:

(a) A DNA order under s. 487.04(a) and 487.051(3)(b) of the Criminal Code in respect of the offences of attempt fraud and public mischief which are secondary designated offences.

(b) A non-communication order that Mr. Joseph abstain from communicating with certain individuals associated with his criminal conduct.

[25] The Crown acknowledges that, in terms of mitigating factors, Mr. Joseph is a first-time offender and that he pleaded guilty – thereby saving the necessity of a trial. However, the Crown emphasizes that Mr. Joseph was the architect of an elaborate fraudulent scheme that necessitated the insurance companies and police to conduct multiple investigations. These investigations were resource intensive and entailed accident reconstruction and engineering reports, wiretap, and surveillance efforts. As a police officer, Mr. Joseph breached the public trust and actively misled another police officer about his true activities.

[26] The Crown submitted that none of the jurisprudence was directly on point, but relied upon several authorities to suggest that a CSO of 2 years less a day is an appropriate sentence in the circumstances of this case.

Sentencing Position of the Defence

[27] The Defence submits that the appropriate sentence for Mr. Joseph is a conditional discharge and two years of probation. The Defence proposes that the sentence is broken down as follows: 18 months for the attempted fraud charges, and 6 months less a day on the public mischief charge. In the alternative, the Defence proposes a suspended sentence and a two-year term of probation with terms that mirror the conditions requested by the Crown.

[28] The Defence advises the court that the imposition of a CSO would automatically disqualify Mr. Joseph from his profession as a police officer. However, a conditional discharge would give him the opportunity to advocate for his continued employment through the police professional discipline process.

[29] The Defence submits that the most important sentencing principle in this case is parity and emphasizes the fact that Mr. Joseph did not commit his crimes while on duty. The principle of parity would suggest that since Mr. Lima received a conditional discharge, Mr. Joseph should receive a similar sentence for essentially the same conduct.

[30] The Defence does not take issue with the ancillary orders requested by the Crown.

[31] The Defence distinguished the cases relied upon by the Crown in support of its conditional discharge sentence.

Discussion

Applicable Sentencing Provisions and Principles

[32] I am guided by the principles of sentencing that are set out in ss. 718, 718.1, and 718.2 of the Criminal Code. The sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and degree of responsibility of the offender. An appropriate sentence is one that reflects a realistic appraisal of the offender’s prospects for rehabilitation, his individual and family circumstances, and the principle of restraint.

[33] Mr. Joseph pleaded guilty to attempted fraud on Counts 5, 6 and 8 under ss. 380(1) and 463(b) of the Code.

380(1) Every one who, by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, whether or not it is a false pretence within the meaning of this Act, defrauds the public or any person, whether ascertained or not, of any property, money or valuable security or any service,

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding fourteen years, where the subject-matter of the offence is a testamentary instrument or the value of the subject-matter of the offence exceeds five thousand dollars; or

463 Except where otherwise expressly provided by law, the following provisions apply in respect of persons who attempt to commit or are accessories after the fact to the commission of offences:

(b) every one who attempts to commit or is an accessory after the fact to the commission of an indictable offence for which, on conviction, an accused is liable to imprisonment for fourteen years or less is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term that is one-half of the longest term to which a person who is guilty of that offence is liable;

[34] The Criminal Code does not explicitly refer to the offence of “attempted fraud.” Rather, s. 380 refers to fraud “whether ascertained or not” and s. 463 is the section on attempts and accessories.

[35] The other applicable sentencing provisions are ss. 380.1(1), 380.1(2), and 380.1(3):

Sentencing — aggravating circumstances

380.1 (1) Without limiting the generality of section 718.2, where a court imposes a sentence for an offence referred to in section 380, 382, 382.1 or 400, it shall consider the following as aggravating circumstances:

(a) the magnitude, complexity, duration or degree of planning of the fraud committed was significant;

(b) the offence adversely affected, or had the potential to adversely affect, the stability of the Canadian economy or financial system or any financial market in Canada or investor confidence in such a financial market;

(c) the offence involved a large number of victims;

(c.1) the offence had a significant impact on the victims given their personal circumstances including their age, health and financial situation;

(d) in committing the offence, the offender took advantage of the high regard in which the offender was held in the community;

(e) the offender did not comply with a licensing requirement, or professional standard, that is normally applicable to the activity or conduct that forms the subject-matter of the offence; and

(f) the offender concealed or destroyed records related to the fraud or to the disbursement of the proceeds of the fraud.

Aggravating circumstance — value of the fraud

(1.1) Without limiting the generality of section 718.2, when a court imposes a sentence for an offence referred to in section 382, 382.1 or 400, it shall also consider as an aggravating circumstance the fact that the value of the fraud committed exceeded one million dollars.

Non-mitigating factors

(2) When a court imposes a sentence for an offence referred to in section 380, 382, 382.1 or 400, it shall not consider as mitigating circumstances the offender’s employment, employment skills or status or reputation in the community if those circumstances were relevant to, contributed to, or were used in the commission of the offence.

Record of proceedings

(3) The court shall cause to be stated in the record the aggravating and mitigating circumstances it took into account when determining the sentence.

[36] If Mr. Joseph used his status or circumstances as a police officer in the commission of his offences, s. 380.1(2) prohibits the court from considering his employment or reputation as a police officer as a mitigating factor in his sentencing.

Applicable Caselaw

[37] It is not disputed that Mr. Joseph meets the statutory criteria to be considered for a conditional sentence.

[38] A conditional sentence is a “meaningful alternative to incarceration for less serious and non-dangerous offenders”: R. v. Proulx, 2000 SCC 5, para 21.

[39] Conditional sentences can provide a significant amount of denunciation, particularly when onerous conditions are imposed, and the term of the sentence is longer than would have been imposed as a jail sentence. Generally, the more serious the offence, the longer and more onerous the conditional sentence should be: Proulx, paras 99-106.

[40] While aggravating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender increase the need for denunciation and deterrence, a conditional sentence may be imposed even if such factors are present: Proulx, paras 114-115.

[41] In R. v. Pitman, 2014 ONSC 5091, the accused drove his vehicle to a remote location. Two friends accompanied him in a separate car. He deliberately caused his unoccupied vehicle to crash and it rolled down a hill and struck a bridge. He falsely reported to police and his insurer that his vehicle had been stolen. The scam was uncovered and following a jury trial, he was convicted of public mischief, attempted fraud over, and obstruct police. The accused was 21 and a first-time offender. At the time, a conditional sentence was not available. The judge gave the offender a sentence of 30 days in jail plus one year of probation. I find that Mr. Joseph’s criminal conduct was considerably more serious than Mr. Pitman’s. It involved more planning, deliberation, and involvement of associates in the deceptive scheme. Pitman was also much younger and did not occupy a position of public trust.

[42] In R. v. Wisniewski, 2002 MBCA 93, the Manitoba Court of Appeal reversed a trial judge’s sentence of a conditional discharge in a case of public mischief and attempted fraud. The offender was 25 and had no criminal record. He falsely reported that his car had been stolen after he pushed it into a river. The Manitoba Court of Appeal concluded that a substantial fine was appropriate rather than a discharge, notwithstanding the collateral consequence that a conviction might have had on the offender’s immigration status. In Mr. Joseph’s case, I do not consider a fine to be a meaningful sentence for Mr. Joseph’s criminal conduct. The imposition of a fine may improperly suggest that restitution is sufficient in the face of an attempted fraud with a number of aggravating factors.

[43] Another case provided by the Crown – R. v. Akinyemi, 2014 ONCJ 278 – is of limited assistance. The offender was convicted after a five-day trial of public mischief, attempted fraud over $5,000, and perjury. He falsely reported the theft of his motor vehicle for the purpose of defrauding an insurance company. The sentencing judge found that, due to the perjury, the principles of denunciation and deterrence required a jail sentence of 90 days. The sentence for the remaining counts was suspended, so it is difficult to extrapolate the sentence in Akinyemi to Mr. Joseph’s case.

[44] In R. v. MacNeil, 2017 NSPC 57, the accused pleaded guilty to public mischief and the Crown and Defence jointly submitted that an 18-month conditional sentence was appropriate. The accused had lied about who was driving at the time of the collision and a passenger had gotten trapped and died in the incident. The accused repeatedly claimed that one of the other occupants was driving. After a two-month police investigation, the accused admitted that he was the driver. In Mr. Joseph’s case, defence counsel argued that there were a number of co-accused involved in the insurance fraud scheme but Mr. Joseph did not try to implicate anyone else. While that is true, Mr. Joseph appears to have strung the authorities along for far longer than the offender in MacNeil. Mr. Joseph created and executed several different fictitious scenarios to generate false insurance claims. He was simply motivated by greed. This caused multiple insurance companies and the police to undertake complex investigations to unearth what actually transpired. In my view, these aggravating circumstances suggest that Mr. Joseph should receive a longer sentence than the 18-month CSO imposed in MacNeil.

[45] In R. v. Mohebtash, 2006 BCSC 944, para 35, the offender received a jail sentence of eight months for attempting to defraud a bank and uttering a forged document using a forged Power of Attorney document, aff’d 2007 BCCA 427. The offender was attempting to commit a $400,000 fraud. The offender was 59 years old and a permanent resident. He had previously been convicted under the Tobacco Act. The court rejected the Defence request for a conditional sentence. The sentencing judge held that “[t]hose who embark on schemes to defraud large sums of money must know they face significant consequences, regardless of whether their scheme succeeds”: at para. 34. Since the Crown in this case is not seeking a custodial sentence, the sentence in Mohebtash is not particularly instructive, but I agree that significant consequences should follow regardless of whether a fraudulent scheme is successful.

[46] With respect to the impact of a guilty plea, I accept the parties’ submission that it is always a mitigating factor. However, a guilty plea that arrives on the eve of trial, after the trial has begun, or in circumstances where the Crown’s case is overwhelming, will be treated differently than an early guilty plea, or a guilty plea in the face of a weak Crown case: R. c. Barrett, 2013 QCCA 1351, paras 19-22; R. v. Martineau, 2021 ABCA 401, paras 28-29; R. v. Cassanova-Alman, 2023 ONSC 1470, paras 46-48.

[47] Mr. Joseph was charged on February 19, 2021. A trial that was set to last 8 weeks commenced on October 16, 2024. Mr. Joseph pleaded guilty to a subset of charges just prior to the Crown’s opening and calling of its first witness. In my view, the Crown’s case against Mr. Joseph was very strong. Two of Mr. Joseph’s associates who had participated in the fraudulent scheme were prepared to testify on behalf of the Crown; in particular, Roger Tigree provided a statutory declaration stating that Mr. Joseph planned the story of a theft and a collision, neither of which actually took place. The Crown’s case against Mr. Joseph included wiretap, surveillance, and location-based-service data culled from Mr. Joseph’s phone that contradicted his explanations. Various insurance companies had also undertaken extensive investigations that determined that Mr. Joseph was implicated and central to the fraudulent scheme. In these circumstances, Mr. Joseph’s guilty plea is a mitigating factor, but the degree of mitigation is weak.

[48] The parties discussed the relevance and impact of Mr. Joseph’s status as a police officer but disagree on whether Mr. Joseph committed a crime while engaged in his duties as an officer.

[49] The ASFs contain an admission that Mr. Joseph knowingly made a false report to PC Onyskiewicz, knowing that she was a police officer, about his activities on the evening of February 1, 2020. He intended to mislead her so she would commence an investigation into the theft of a motor vehicle that he knew at the time had never occurred. He knew that the entire event was staged to look like a theft. However, it does not appear that, during the incident with PC Onyskiewicz, Mr. Joseph was engaged in his official duties.

[50] However, on another occasion in connection with Count 8 when Arnold Jaglal reported damage to a 2017 Ford Escape, Mr. Joseph was on police duty. ASF Exhibit #4 states that:

On the afternoon of April 22, 2020, while Ronald Joseph was guarding a crime scene on Royal York Road as part of his official police duties, Kevin Lima called him on the cell phone number that Ronald Joseph regularly used to manage his vehicle repair and rental business, to discuss their business together. At one point in the call, Ronald Joseph asked Kevin Lima to “do him a favour” by picking up the Ford Escape SUV referred to above from Kevin Lima’s tow pound and asking Lima to ‘come and see me today” (i.e. at the crime scene). Ronald Joesph told his friend to “bring that car forward right now for me, so, and because we have to get it clean carpet lookin’ like it’s been parked, you know, to bring it out.” This conversation was lawfully intercepted pursuant to a Part VI Authorization that had been issued by Hon. Justice S. Akhtar on March 10, 2020.

[51] In R. v. Quinn, 2024 ONSC 1073, paras 23-25, Penman J. explained that:

Police officers are sworn to uphold the law and as such, “Powers conferred on police require that they be held to a high standard of accountability.”: see R. v. Doering, 2020 ONSC 5618, para 24. Flowing from this is the recognition that crimes committed by police officers represent a breach of the public trust.

In cases where a police officer is being sentenced, the sentence imposed must be more severe than the ordinary person who commits the same offence. It is well established that:

The commission of offences by police has been considered on numerous occasions by the Courts, and the unanimous finding has been that their sentence should be more severe than that of an ordinary person who commits the same crime, because of the position of public trust which they held at the time of the offence, and their knowledge of the consequences of its perpetration: R. v. Schertzer, 2015 ONCA 259, para 133 quoting R. v. Cusack (1978) 41 C.C.C. (2d) (289) (N.S.S.C.)

The principles of denunciation and general deterrence become magnified in the sentencing of police officers: see R. v. Forcillo, 2018 ONCA 402, paras 198-199; R. v. Ferguson, 2008 SCC 6, para 28; Doering at para 25.

[52] I recognize that Mr. Joseph was not charged or convicted of breach of trust, but his crime represents a breach of the public trust: R. v. Doering, 2020 ONSC 5618, para 25.

[53] A case that I find relatively on point is R. v. Lam, 2000 BCPC 20. Lam was a 25-year-old RCMP officer who started a side business cashing of cheques. He made a large number of Western Union money orders payable to himself and thereby misappropriated $118,000 from six financial institutions on Vancouver Island. The Crown requested an 18-month jail term and the Defence requested a conditional sentence. He received an 18-month CSO and was ordered to pay $118,000 in restitution.

[54] In terms of aggravating factors, the court noted that: Lam was a police officer when he committed the fraud; he used his status as a member of the RCMP to facilitate the fraud; the scheme, while not particularly sophisticated, was carefully planned and executed; and no reparations for the final loss were made. The mitigating factors included: Lam had no criminal record; he entered an early guilty plea; he did not commit the crimes in the course of his duties as a police officer; he was thoroughly ashamed by his own actions and for disgracing his family and the police force; and he returned to Canada from abroad voluntarily to face his charges.

[55] There are some important distinctions between Lam and Mr. Joseph’s case. First, Lam was convicted for fraud, whereas Mr. Joseph was convicted of attempted fraud. Second, Lam entered an early guilty plea whereas Mr. Joseph entered a late guilty plea, just before the Crown’s evidence commenced. Third, although they are both first time offenders, Mr. Joseph is double Lam’s age. Fourth, whereas Lam used his status as a police officer to facilitate fraud, he did not commit crimes in the course of his police duties – yet, there is at least one instance where Mr. Joseph did. Finally, given that Lam committed fraud, he was ordered to pay restitution. Since the insurance companies did not pay out funds to Mr. Joseph, no restitution is involved. Taking all the circumstances into account, I find that Mr. Joseph’s sentence should be greater than the one Lam received.

Principle of Parity

[56] The principle of parity is codified in section 718.2(b). It provides that “a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances”.

[57] Focusing on Mr. Lima, who received a conditional discharge and two years’ probation, the Defence argues that since Mr. Joseph and Mr. Lima essentially committed the same set of crimes, Mr. Joseph should also receive a similar sentence. I agree with the Crown that parity is but one of the important sentencing objectives. However, even if I were to focus only on parity, I find that Mr. Joseph should receive a greater sentence than Mr. Lima for four reasons: Mr. Joseph is a police officer, Mr. Lima is not; Mr. Joseph did not plead guilty early in the criminal process; Mr. Joseph is 52 and considerably older than Mr. Lima who was 30; and, Mr. Lima made a restitution payment of $12,000 and submitted to a deposition process. These are important differences between the two cases. The principle of parity suggests that Mr. Joseph should receive a harsher sentence than Mr. Lima.

Aggravating Factors and Mitigating Factors

[58] I have already referred to the aggravating factors above, however, I review some of the significant factors here. Mr. Joseph is a police officer who, motivated entirely by greed, concocted a multi-participant scheme to defraud multiple insurance companies. He actively misled PC Onyskiewicz, a colleague from his own police division. While on duty at a crime scene, he took a phone call that furthered his criminal scheme. Some of the staged accidents located on public streets or parking lots posed a risk to public safety. The complexity and degree of planning of the attempted fraud was significant, as it involved multiple vehicles, associates, and insurance companies.

[59] The mitigating factors are that Mr. Joseph comes before the court as a first-time offender. He pleaded guilty thereby saving a lengthy trial. He apologized for his conduct and has shown some remorse. He has engaged in pro-social behaviour through his volunteer work with religious organizations. He is the breadwinner for his family and contributes financially to his mother in Trinidad. If Mr. Joseph receives a CSO, he will face collateral consequences such as being unable to continue as a police officer, a profession that he has enjoyed for 17 years. At 52, he will likely have difficulty finding similarly remunerative employment.

Sentencing Decision

[60] For the following reasons, I find that a conditional sentence of two years less a day to be served in the community is a just sentence.

[61] First, under s. 742.1 of the Criminal Code, the court may impose a jail sentence of less than two years to be served in the community if the offence is not one on the excluded list of offences and does not have an attached minimum sentence.

[62] Mr. Joseph’s offences fit those criteria and a conditional sentence is therefore available.

[63] Second, a conditional sentence must not endanger the safety of the community and it must be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing as set out in ss. 718 to 718.2.

[64] Regarding conditional sentences and the fundamental purpose of sentencing, the Supreme Court stated in Proulx, para 22:

The conditional sentence incorporates some elements of non-custodial measures and some others of incarceration. Because it is served in the community, it will generally be more effective than incarceration at achieving the restorative objectives of rehabilitation, reparations to the victim and community, and the promotion of a sense of responsibility in the offender. However, it is also a punitive sanction capable of achieving the objectives of denunciation and deterrence. [Emphasis in original.]

[65] Mr. Joseph committed attempted fraud and public mischief. Serving his sentence in the community will not endanger its safety. Such a sentence remains consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing.

[66] Focusing on denunciation and deterrence, a two-year less a day CSO is a significant sentence that properly reflects Mr. Joseph’s circumstances – including the fact that he is a police officer who breached the public trust. The collateral consequences raised in this case, namely, that Mr. Joseph would be disentitled from contesting his termination from the police service, are not unjust in light of his conduct. Mr. Joseph’s sentence must be more severe than an ordinary person who commits the same offence: Quinn, para 24. Yet, Mr. Joseph is a first-time offender who did ultimately plead guilty.

[67] A two-year less a day CSO is consistent with the jurisprudence. In Lam, a much younger RCMP officer misappropriated funds. MacNeil involved a driver who had tried to implicate another occupant in a motor vehicle fatality and pleaded guilty early into the police investigation. Both Lam and MacNeil received 18-month CSOs.

[68] Neither party sought any form of pre-sentence credit.

Conclusion

Sentence

[69] In conclusion, Mr. Joseph is sentenced to:

• Count 5 – Attempt Fraud – 18 months;
• Count 6 – Attempt Fraud – 18 months, concurrent to Count 5;
• Count 8 – Attempt Fraud – 18 months, concurrent to Count 5 and 6;
• Count 4 – Public Mischief – 6 months less a day, consecutive to Counts 5, 6 and 8.

[70] Accordingly, I impose a sentence of imprisonment of two years less a day, to be served in the community, as a conditional sentence.

[71] The conditional sentence of two years less a day shall have the following terms: in addition to the statutory conditions in s. 742.3 which I impose, Mr. Joseph shall reside at Unit 1404, 420 Mill Road, in Toronto, or at such address as approved by his supervisor. He shall be under house arrest subject to GPS monitoring. For the first twelve months of the conditional sentence, he shall only be permitted to leave the house to attend appointments with his supervisor, legal appointments, to attend counselling, to attend medical appointments for himself or members of his immediate household, to obtain necessities once each week for 3 hours, and for any other reason that his supervisor approves. After the first 12 months, and for 6 months thereafter, his house arrest is lifted but his GPS monitoring shall continue, and he will be subject to a curfew and be in the house between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. each day for seven days each week. For the final period of 6 months less a day, his curfew and GPS monitoring are lifted, and he shall only be subject to the statutory terms under s.742.3(1).

Probation

[72] I do not order any probationary period to apply.

Ancillary Orders

[73] I also order that Mr. Joseph is subject to:

a) A DNA order under s. 487.04(a) and 487.051(3)(b) of the Criminal Code in respect of the offences of attempt fraud and public mischief which are secondary designated offences.

b) A non-communication order under s. 742.3(2)(a.3) that Mr. Joseph abstain from communicating with the following individuals for the duration of the conditional sentence:

i. Marcus Dookie
ii. Arnold Jaglal
iii. Kris Kattick
iv. Kevin Lima
v. Aditya Persaud
vi. Jinel Salvary
vii. Roger Tigree
viii. Jacqueline Onyskiewicz

c) An order of forfeiture for return of property.

Giuseppe Pinto
Released: February 12, 2025