CITATION: R. v. Canlas, 2026 ONSC 3583

COURT FILE NO.: CR -19-90000362-0000

DATE: 20260625

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

– and –

VANESSA JANE CANLAS

Wendy Levant, for the Crown

The Defendant Vanessa Jane Canlas, appearing in person

HEARD: June 11, 2026

RULING ON DEFENCE APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION TO PAY THE FINE

SPIES J.

Overview

1On June 5, 2020, the Defendant, Vanessa Jane Canlas, pleaded guilty and was convicted of the following offences of unlawfully defrauding the Government of Canada (“Government”), by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, of monies owing to the Government, contrary to s. 380 (1)(a) of the Criminal Code:

a) Personal income tax owing in excess of $5,000 between December 31, 2011 and May 4, 2015 (Count 1);

b) As an officer, director, or agent of Jane General Services Ltd. of GST/HST owing in excess of $5,000, between April 30, 2011 and February 11, 2015 (Count 2);

c) As an officer, director, or agent of Jane General Services Ltd. of corporate income tax owing in excess of $5,000, between December 31, 2012 and March 4, 2015 (Count 3);

d) As an officer, director, or agent of 2322944 Ontario Ltd. operating as Tri-Han Staffing Solution of corporate income tax owing in excess of $5,000, between March 30, 2012 and June 3, 2015 (Count 4);

e) As an officer, director, or agent of 2322944 Ontario Ltd. operating as Tri-Han Staffing Solution of GST/HST owing in excess of $5,000, between March 30, 2012 and December 1, 2013 (Count 5).

2I accepted a joint submission on sentence and on September 30, 2020, I sentenced Ms. Canlas to two and one-half years in custody on Count 1, and two and one-half years in custody on the other Counts to run concurrently to the sentence on Count 1.

3In addition, pursuant to s. 734(1)(b) of the Criminal Code I ordered that Ms. Canlas pay a fine in the amount of $833,238 (the “Fine”) broken down over the five Counts as follows:

(a) Count 1 - $312,099;

(b) Count 2 - $262,524;

(c) Count 3 - $65,302.50;

(d) Count 4 - $69,226;

(e) Count 5 - $124,086.50.

4I also ordered that pursuant to s. 734.4(1) of the Criminal Code, the Fine be made payable to the Minister of Finance and pursuant to s. 734.1 of the Criminal Code, that Ms. Canlas pay one third of the total Fine of $833,238.00 before October 1, 2024, and that she pay the total amount of the Fine by April 1, 2026; see my Reasons for Sentence, R. v. Canlas, 2020 ONSC 5879. No interest accrues on amount owing on the Fine.

5Ms. Canlas’ appeal of her sentence was dismissed by the Court of Appeal; see R. v. Canlas, 2021 ONCA 708.

The Application

6To date, Ms. Canlas has only paid $13,950 of the Fine; a tiny fraction of the amount owed She has been paying $250 per month since September 2022. As of June 9, 2026, the balance owing is $819,288.

7Ms. Canlas has applied for a 10 year extension to pay the balance of the Fine. The application is opposed by the Crown. Ms. Levant seeks an order that Ms. Canlas is in default of paying the Fine so that the Crown can pursue civil recovery of Ms. Canlas’ assets.

8Ms. Canlas provided some financial records in support of her application and at my suggestion she testified before me. The Crown filed an affidavit sworn by Ming Yeung Siu, an Investigations Public Officer with the Criminal Investigations Division of the Canada Revenue Agency ("CRA"). Her affidavit consists of the results of some searches she did within CRA databases, and other relevant publicly available databases to obtain some information on Ms. Canlas’ current financial status. That evidence is not in dispute.

The Facts

Circumstances of the Offences

9My Reasons for Sentence set out the details of the offences. In summary, when Ms. Canlas pleaded guilty to each of the Counts, she admitted the necessary facts to support the convictions but only admitted that the amount of the fraud for each Count was over $5,000. She did not admit the amount that she had personally defrauded from the Government. After hearing evidence and the submissions of counsel I found that the total tax defrauded by Ms. Canlas was $1,666,476 and that Ms. Canlas personally profited from this fraud. The Fine was fixed at half that amount.

Circumstances of Ms. Canlas at the Time of Sentencing.

10At the time of sentencing Ms. Canlas was 40 years old. She was born in the Philippines and has been a Canadian citizen since 2017. She is divorced and has two children, a daughter who she said was 20 and a son she said was 18 at the time of sentencing. Ms. Canlas testified that she supported her children by paying their tuition and they lived with her without paying any rent or money for groceries.

11Ms. Canlas had been working as a Personal Support Worker (“PSW”) for Extendicare, which is a long-term care facility in Oshawa, for two years. She advised that with a criminal record she would be fired from this job because she could not work as a PSW with a criminal record. I accepted that as correct at the time, but as I will come to, Ms. Canlas has been able to continue to work as a PSW.

12As for what happened to the money she defrauded, in cross-examination at the sentencing hearing Ms. Canlas testified that she did not have “all the money” and then denied that she had even some of it. I found that Ms. Canlas lied to this court a number of times during the sentencing hearing as to what happened to the money she defrauded from the Government. In fact, I concluded that in light of these significant lies, it was very difficult to believe anything Ms. Canlas testified to.

Findings of Fact from my Reasons for Sentence

13After hearing evidence, including the evidence of Ms. Canlas, in considering whether to order the Fine, I made the following findings of fact which are relevant to my determination of her application:

a) Although Ms. Canlas was an undischarged bankrupt, I concluded that this fact alone did not allow her to avoid imposition of a fine.

b) I accepted the Crown’s submission that Ms. Canlas had the mindset of entitlement and used a significant amount of the money for her own personal purposes.

c) Although six to eight years had passed from when the frauds were committed, given there was no evidence that Ms. Canlas was living a lavish lifestyle or that she had dissipated the cash versus hiding it somewhere, given that she received a very large sum of cash that had not accounted for, given there was no evidence that it was spent or transferred to anyone and there was no credible explanation for what happened to it, I concluded that the only reasonable inference was that Ms. Canlas still had the money hidden somewhere – possibly in the Philippines where she could access it later.

d) I found this inference was also consistent with the fact that when her company Jane General Services Ltd. was audited by the CRA in 2015, Ms. Canlas chose to simply shut it down even though it was a profitable business bringing in a great deal of income. Instead, she chose to work at a low hourly rate as a PSW. I found that it seemed that she would rather do this than pay income taxes owing and turn over all GST/HST collected from clients to the Government.

e) The fact Ms. Canlas was working as a PSW and put herself at risk by working during COVID-19 was also consistent with the fact that she wanted to hide the fact that she had the money she defrauded from the Government. If she were living a lavish lifestyle and not working, the fact she misappropriated money would be obvious. I found that Ms. Canlas is far too astute to make that mistake.

f) Ms. Canlas had no personal debt to speak of, beyond the mortgage on her home, and no reason to declare bankruptcy.

g) Ms. Canlas’ home had equity and could be sold to generate some money that could be used to pay part of a fine. I agreed with Ms. Levant that Ms. Canlas is likely the beneficial owner of the other 50% interest in the home but that is something the Crown could pursue as a civil remedy.

h) As Ms. Canlas had no other personal debt, and her children were grown, I found Ms. Canlas would be able to prioritize paying a criminal fine.

i) If as I expected Ms. Canlas had hidden cash, I found that she could pay a fine, likely all at once given the amount of money she misappropriated. Furthermore, looking ahead over a period of time, Ms. Canlas was still relatively young – she had at least another 25 years of her working life. She had shown in the past that she is capable of running three businesses with over 400 employees. She only shut down her businesses because she was caught. There was no reason to think that she could not generate significant income as she demonstrated in the past. I expected that Ms. Canlas could start another business and given her willingness to work hard, she would be able to earn money to be used to pay down a fine.

j) I rejected defence counsel’s request for a restitution order instead of a fine given my belief that Ms. Canlas was hiding a significant amount of cash and given the Crown did not know what she had done with the cash she misappropriated or where to find it and that there was no reason to believe the Crown would have any better chance of finding her assets with a restitution order.

k) I found that the Crown had satisfied me on a balance of probabilities, that Ms. Canlas had the ability to pay the Fine.

l) Although I believed Ms. Canlas has hidden sufficient funds to pay the Fine, I gave her time to pay the Fine. I considered R. v. Mahmood, [2016] O.J. 3259, 2016 ONCA 75, and concluded that Ms. Canlas would likely be paroled in 18-20 months, and that giving her 5 ½ years to pay the fine from the date of sentencing would bring it in line with Mahmood.

Circumstances of Ms. Canlas Now

14In support of her application, Ms. Canlas provided a completed “Taxpayer Relief Request: Statement of Income and Expenses and Assets and Liabilities for Individuals” form. She records her monthly employment income at $5,800 and that she receives “children support” in the amount of $1,100 monthly for total monthly income of $6,900. She sets out her expenses, including the mortgage and property taxes of $2,277.29 and credit card payments of $1,116.72. She was not asked about this, but I presume this includes the $1,000 payment she testified to of a $30,000 loan to replace the furnace which would mean she is paying the minimum amount per month on the amount owing on her credit cards. Ms. Canlas states her liabilities now total almost $250,000.

15Ms. Canlas denied having assets in the Philippines. She testified that she only sends $100 to her mother who still lives there every three months. Ms. Canlas testified that her children are now 25 and 22, that they were both living with her until “now” and that they are now both working.

16Since she completed her sentence, Ms. Canlas testified that she took a Health and Safety course, but she has not been able to use that education to find employment. Ms. Canlas admitted that she has experience in operating a business and managing a lot of staff and that there is nothing preventing her from seeking higher paying work. Nevertheless, she has continued to work as a PSW at two different care homes.

17Based on the copies of T1 General personal income tax returns filed by Ms. Canlas for the 2021 through 2024 taxation years her income was as follows:

a) In 2021, her total income was $23,076, her taxable income was $21,844. Her monthly income was $20,806.52 divided by 12 = $1,733.88.

b) In 2022, her total income was $74,283, her taxable income was $71,504. Her monthly income was $58,487.30 divided by 12 = $4,873.94.

c) In 2023, her total income was $66,567, her taxable income was $62,621. Her monthly income was $53,949.52 divided by 12 = $4,495.79.

d) In 2024, her total income was $74,104, her taxable income was $69,488. Her monthly income was $58,867.79 divided by 12 = $4,905.65.

18For the 2025 taxation year, copies of Ms. Canlas’ T4 Statements of Remuneration Paid and issued to Ms. Canlas show a total income of $118,752.00, which Ms. Siu estimates meant a monthly income of $7,659.53. For 2026 to April 17^th, Ms. Canlas has received net pay totalling almost $81,500. Clearly Ms. Canlas is working many hours.

19Ms. Siu obtained searches of publicly available land registry records relating to Ms. Canlas’ home at 78 Bergen Road, Toronto, Ontario. This search confirms that the registered owners are Sheila Marco and Ms. Canlas. The property was purchased on August 31, 2011, for $290,000. Ms. Canlas obtained an insured mortgage for over the sale price of $293,629. The mortgage is renewable on September 1, 2026, with a projected balance owing of $185,540.68.

20Ms. Marco is Ms. Canlas’ sister-in-law, but Ms. Canlas testified that she has separated from her brother. According to Ms. Canlas, Ms. Marco moved out some time ago-Ms. Canlas tied it to three months after she was granted full parole-the date is not clear but according to Ms. Canlas, Ms. Marco is no longer paying her share of the mortgage although she is still on the mortgage. Later in her evidence Ms. Canlas testified that her brother, who is married to Ms. Marco also lived in her home with Ms. Marco for eight years, but she said this was from 2018 to 2023 which is only five years. She has no records but testified that they did pay half the mortgage when they were living in the house.

21Ms. Canlas estimated this home is worth $700,000 now but she provided no evaluation of fair market value of the home.

22In cross-examination Ms. Levant took Ms. Canlas through three insurance policies she owns and established amounts of money that could be redeemed totalling over $21,000. She also has almost $4,000 in a RRSP account that is available to her.

23Ms. Canlas testified that she produced a bank statement for the only bank account she has with the Bank of Montreal for the period from December 9, 2025, to April 2, 2026. She testified that she does not have a business account and there is no bank account held by anyone else on her behalf and that she does not have any cash at home. Ms. Levant asked Ms. Canlas some questions about some of the entries. It appears Ms. Canlas’ employment income is being deposited to this account. She is also receiving money from other sources. For example, on March 31, 2026, she received $2,600 from her daughter. Ms. Canlas testified that other deposits to her account were also from her daughter including a $2,000 deposit and a $5,000 deposit in December 2025. She testified that if she needed money her daughter would give her money and that she would then give it back. Ms. Canlas also received $3,500 on January 9, 2026, and $2,200 on January 19, 2026, that she said was from a friend and were loans. Why she needed this money in addition to her income was not explored.

24In cross-examination Ms. Levant took Ms. Canlas through the credit card statements she produced. She owes over $23,000 to PC Mastercard and Walmart Mastercard. She owes about another $17,000 on two loans and that is without considering the $30,000 loan she took out in July 2023 that Ms. Canlas said that she took out in order to replace the furnace of her home. Monthly payments are $1,000. Ms. Canlas admitted that her brother who is married to Ms. Marco is a guarantor of this loan.

25A bankruptcy search revealed that on April 4, 2016, Ms. Canlas obtained an absolute discharge effective December 16, 2023. Section 178(1) (a) of the Bankruptcy Act provides that an order of discharge does not release the bankrupt from “any fine, penalty, restitution order or other order similar in nature to a fine, penalty or restitution order, imposed by a court in respect of an offence…” and so clearly Ms. Canlas’ obligation to pay the Fine has survived her absolute discharge.

26Ms. Canlas testified that she decided to start making the monthly payments towards the Fine in September 2022 and discussed doing so with her probation officer when she was staying in a halfway house. She admitted that she has not formulated a structured payment plan, nor has she sold any assets or borrowed any money to pay the Fine

The Relevant Law With Respect to the Imposition of a Fine

27Section 734.1 of the Criminal Code provides that any term of the order imposing a fine can be changed save for the amount of the fine. I therefore have authority to give Ms. Canlas more time to pay the Fine.

28I agree with Ms. Levant that in considering Ms. Canlas’ application to extend the time to pay the Fine, the cases that I referred to in my Reasons for Sentence are relevant.

29I imposed the Fine pursuant to s. 734 of the Criminal Code having found that I was satisfied that Ms. Canlas was able to pay the Fine. Section 734(4) provides that if a fine is imposed, a term of imprisonment in accordance with ss. (5) shall be deemed to be imposed in default of payment of the fine. Section 734 (5)(a) sets out a complicated formula for calculating the term of imprisonment depending on the amount of the fine outstanding. In this case, counsel agreed at the time of sentencing that should Ms. Canlas default in paying all of the Fine, she would face a term of imprisonment of 14 years, the maximum term of imprisonment for fraud, pursuant to s. 734(5)(b).

30Since Ms. Canlas has failed to pay all of that fine in the time allowed, the Crown could bring an application for a Warrant of Committal pursuant to s. 734.7 of the Criminal Code. At this time Ms. Levant has not done so. She reserves her right to do so in the future. Should the Crown decide to bring such an application, the judge hearing the application “shall not” issue the Warrant unless Ms. Canlas has “without reasonable excuse, refused to pay the fine”, (emphasis added). As stated in R. v. Wu, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 530, 2003 SCC 73, at para. 23, Parliament did not intend to send the impoverished to jail by reason only of their inability to pay. Furthermore, on this application I should not assume that Ms. Canlas’ circumstances at the date of the sentencing have necessarily continued to the present or into the future, Wu at para. 33.

31However, given my findings of fact which I will come to, Ms. Canlas should take notice of the fact that to date she has not provided what in my view are reasonable excuses for not paying all of the Fine.

32In R. v. Topp, 2011 SCC 43, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 119, the Supreme Court held as follows:

[7] Past receipt of illegally obtained funds does not impose an evidential burden on offenders to prove they no longer possess their ill-gotten gains. In the absence of a credible explanation, however, it will often be open to the court to infer that the offender is able to pay a fine. But the court is not legally bound to do so. The probative weight of the inference will depend on the circumstances, and therefore vary from case to case.

[27] In the absence of a reasonable explanation to the contrary, past receipt of illegally obtained funds will often ― but not always ― support an inference that the offender still possesses sufficient funds to pay a fine at the time of sentencing [citations omitted].

[28] As stated earlier, the strength of that inference will depend on the circumstances and vary from case to case. None of the cases mentioned have addressed the issue in the precise circumstances of this case. Nor have they fully canvassed the legal issue before us on this appeal: Is a trial judge not only permitted, but bound as a matter of law, to find that an offender still possesses the fruits of his crime, unless the offender explains what happened to the funds?

[29] I would answer that question in the negative, essentially for two reasons.

[30] First, in my view, the weight reasonably attributable to the past receipt of funds will vary with at least two factors: the length of time that has passed between the acquisition of the funds and the imposition of sentence, and the amount of funds acquired. The more time that has passed since the acquisition of the funds, the less likely it is that the offender still possesses the full amount. And the lower the amount of funds acquired, the less likely it is that the offender still possesses much or all of the funds. A small sum is more likely than a large sum to be gone in its entirety.

[31] Sentencing courts must retain their accepted measure of discretion in determining how much weight they should assign to proof of past possession, bearing in mind the variables I have mentioned and other factors they find relevant in the particular circumstances of the case. For example, where much time has passed and little money was stolen, past possession alone may not satisfy the court ― even in the absence of an explanation by the offender ― that the offender can still pay the fine. On the other hand, recent possession of a large sum will generally suffice, in the absence of a credible explanation, to satisfy the court that the offender still controls a significant chunk of the stash. In both cases, the past acquisition of fraudulently obtained funds will have the same probative effect as past possession of legally acquired assets. [Emphasis added]

33I relied on this inference at the time of sentencing, and it still applies now. Ms. Canlas has given no explanation for what she did with all the money she defrauded from the Government.

34R. v. Benlolo, (2006) 2006 CanLII 19284 (ON CA), 81 O.R. (3d) 440 (C.A.) was decided before Topp but does speak to the purpose of imposing a fine, as follows:

[41] One purpose of a fine as part of a sentence for an economic crime is to ensure that the offender does not retain the proceeds from the crime once the sentence is served. Also, a fine must be significant enough that it constitutes more than an effective licence fee or part of the cost of doing business.

Analysis

35The issue before me is whether or not to allow Ms. Canlas to have as much as a further 10 years to pay the Fine or deny her application and find her in default of paying the Fine in which case the National Fine Recovery Program on behalf of the Attorney General of Canada will have the right pursuant to s.734.6 of the Criminal Code, to obtain a judgment in the amount of the Fine still owing and take steps to enforce that judgment like any other civil judgment.

36In assessing Ms. Canlas’ evidence, I have many questions that could be asked if the Crown were in a position to examine her more thoroughly on her income, expenses, assets and liabilities. Based on the evidence I do have, it is clear that Ms. Canlas is still not prepared to provide accurate information to this court. For example, her statement of monthly income of $5,800 is significantly understated, based on her T4 Statements. That is consistent with my finding at the time of sentencing that Ms. Canlas lied to this court and that in light of her significant lies, it was very difficult to believe anything Ms. Canlas testified to.

37What is also striking is that at the time of sentencing Ms. Canlas had no personal debt to speak of, beyond the mortgage on her home, and no reason to declare bankruptcy. I found Ms. Canlas would be able to prioritize paying a criminal fine. Nevertheless, she proceeded with the bankruptcy and obtained an absolute discharge and at this time has run up significant debt she estimates at $250,000. She has voluntarily accumulated a lot of other consumer debt that is inconsistent with someone who is serious about paying off this Fine. She did so without regard to her obligation to pay the Fine. As Ms. Levant put it, Ms. Canlas is choosing to prefer unsecure consumer debt instead of the Fine. As she did at the time of sentencing, Ms. Canlas continues to have the mindset of entitlement and has used a significant amount of money, not only from the fraud, but now also from borrowed fund, for her own personal purposes.

38For these reasons I find that Ms. Canlas has not taken her obligation to pay this Fine in the time allowed seriously. Setting aside my finding that Ms. Canlas had hidden the money she defrauded from the Government, she has been earning a very good income as a PSW since 2022 increasing to almost $92,000 after deductions in 2025. For 2026 to April 17^th, she has received a net pay totalling almost $81,500. Clearly, Ms. Canlas could have been paying significantly more money each month towards the Fine than $250 per month and in fact at the end of her evidence in chief Ms. Canlas offered to pay $1,000 per month towards the Fine. In my view that is too little too late.

39Ms. Canlas also has assets that she has not sold but could be realized by the Crown. Without a valuation it can’t be determined if her estimate of the value of her home of $700,000 is correct, but clearly there is significant equity in the home that could be used to pay a significant portion of the Fine. In addition, there are funds available from her three insurance policies and her RRSP. Ms. Canlas is not likely to take steps to use these assets to pay the Fine voluntarily.

40Ms. Canlas has not presented a concrete or realistic plan to pay off the Fine. Her last minute suggestion to pay $1,000 per month is totally inadequate because if her application is granted it would mean the Fine would only be reduced by $120,000. Furthermore, there would be no way for the Crown to even enforce this offer to make monthly payments of $1,000 or any other amount for the next 10 years. Ms. Canlas’ suggestion that she could prepare a will for her estate to be used to pay the Fine is obviously not feasible.

41I am satisfied that Ms. Canlas could have paid all of the Fine by now or at least have made serious efforts to do so. Although at the time of sentencing I believed Ms. Canlas has hidden sufficient funds to pay the Fine, I gave her time to pay the Fine. There is still no evidence as to what Ms. Canlas did with the $1,666,476 that she personally profited from this fraud.

42Nothing material has changed since Ms. Canlas’ sentencing when I granted her five and one half years term to pay the Fine that I ordered after hearing submissions from Ms. Levant and Ms. Canlas’ counsel at the time. This application is essentially an attempt to relitigate that issue. In my view all of the findings of fact I made at the time of sentencing still apply save that Ms. Canlas is no longer debt free but that is a matter of her own choosing. I concluded in all the circumstances that giving Ms. Canlas five and one half years to pay the Fine from the date of sentencing would bring it in line with Mahmood. Just as the court said in Mahmood at para. 24, a further 10-year period to pay the Fine is completely antithetical to the purpose of s. 734 of the Criminal Code and unreasonable in all of the circumstances.

43As I said in my Reasons for Sentence, Ms. Canlas received the benefit of a sentence that was below the range set by the Court of Appeal for this large scale fraud. Furthermore, the Fine I imposed represents only half of the amount she defrauded from the Government. To grant Ms. Canlas’ application in these circumstances and give her an additional 10 years to pay the Fine would in my view send the wrong message to Ms. Canlas and likeminded individuals.

Conclusion

44For these reasons the application to extend the time to pay the Fine is dismissed. I find that Ms. Canlas is in default of paying the Fine. The National Fine Recovery Program on behalf of the Attorney General of Canada is entitled pursuant to s.734.6 of the Criminal Code, to obtain a judgment in the amount of the Fine still owing and take steps to enforce that judgment like any other civil judgment.

Spies J.

Spies, J