R. v. Brander, 2026 ONSC 3604

CITATION: R. v. Brander, 2026 ONSC 3604

COURT FILE NO.: CR-22-70000562-0000 DATE: 20260714

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

– and –

JOHN BRANDER

Defendant

Thomas Surmanski, for the Crown

Unrepresented, appearing in person

HEARD: June 16, 2026

MOLLOY J.:

REASONS FOR judgment

A. INTRODUCTION

1John Brander is charged under Count 1 on the indictment with one count of fraud, which is alleged to have occurred in Toronto between November 1, 2016 and July 23, 2018. The charge is based on monies paid to Mr. Brander by Irene McKie on four occasions over that period of time in the amounts of: $40,000 USD; $25,000 USD; $37,000 CAD; and $20,000 CAD. He is further charged under Count 2 with possession of proceeds of crime, being the same money that is the subject of Count 1.

2This was a one day, two-witness trial. When it concluded, I found Mr. Brander guilty on Count 1, but stayed the charges under Count 2 as being duplicative, pursuant to R. v. Kienapple.¹ I advised that I would provide reasons in writing and adjourned the matter to July 14, 2026 to deal with changes in the terms of Mr. Brander’s release, and if possible, to deliver my reasons and set a further date for sentencing. My reasons are set out below.

B. THE EVIDENCE AT TRIAL

3The Crown filed bank records from the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (“CIBC”) and the Toronto Dominion Bank (“TD Bank”). These were filed in the appropriate form, supported by affidavit evidence, and are admissible under s. 29 of the Canada Evidence Act.² The only Crown witness was Irene McKie. Mr. Brander, who was not represented by counsel, testified in his own defence.

Testimony of Irene McKie

4Ms. McKie testified that she was first introduced to John Brander by mutual friends (David and Shirley Lawrason), about 30 years ago. She said Mr. Brander and Mr. Lawrason were close friends going back a long way, possibly when they were both still in school. At the time, Ms. McKie was aware that Mr. Brander was newly married and was planning to move to the Turks and Caicos. Ms. McKie testified that Mr. Brander told her and Mr. Lawrason that there was a lot of development going on in the Turks and Caicos at that time, and that he was intending to invest there. He offered the Lawrasons and Ms. McKie the opportunity to invest $10,000, which he said would bring a 10% return. Mr. Lawrason held Mr. Brander in high regard and told Ms. McKie that Mr. Brander was very experienced, with a background in banking. Ms. McKie said Mr. Lawrason commented to her that he “completely trusted” Mr. Brander and that if he had the $10,000, he would have invested it with him. However, neither the Lawrasons nor Ms. McKie had the available funds to invest at that time. Ms. McKie said that the last time she saw Mr. Brander was at the Canadian National Exhibition in Toronto on Labour Day 1997, a date she specifically remembered because it was the day Princess Diana died.

5In 1998, Ms. McKie moved to the Bahamas. She worked there for about ten years on a series of one-year renewable work permits. She testified that sometimes there would be a delay in renewing her permit, with the result that her bank in the Bahamas would put a temporary freeze on her bank account. When this happened, she would keep cash in a safety deposit box, which started to accumulate over time. She was trying to save these funds for her retirement, but was earning no money from funds in a safety deposit box. Accordingly, in 2016, she reached out to Mr. Brander, through his wife, in the Turks and Caicos.

6Ms. McKie testified that Mr. Brander told her that he wasn’t directly involved in anything at that time, but that he had some connections and would let her know if anything came up. Two days later he called her and told her that he had an opportunity for her that would generate interest at 9%. She sent him $40,000 USD, by way of an international transfer from her Royal Bank of Canada branch in the Bahamas to his Royal Bank of Canada branch in the Turks and Caicos. She said that the staff at her bank pointed out that this was a large sum of money and asked if she was sure she wanted to do this. She testified that she was offended at the time and said that she would trust Mr. Brander with her life. Later in 2016, she sent Mr. Brander a further sum of $25,000 USD in the same manner, which he told her would yield interest at 8.5%. Ms. McKie testified that Mr. Brander told her he would invest the money for her and that when she asked him for a receipt, he said, “I don’t work like that.”

7In 2018, Mr. Brander contacted Ms. McKie and told her he had moved back to Toronto. He also said he had another investment opportunity for her but asked that she send it to his bank in Toronto by Interac transfer in Canadian dollars. She said he told her he expected the US dollar was going to be devalued. She sent him a total of $37,000 in small transfers of $2000 or less, because that was all she could send at a time by Interac. She testified that he told her the return rate would be 7 to 7.5 % because it was in Canadian dollars.

8Ms. McKie testified that in July 2018, Mr. Brander again contacted her and suggested she send more money, but this time through a wire transfer to his CIBC bank in a small town in British Columbia. She did this, in a total amount of $20,000 CAD.

9She testified that on one occasion, she had told Mr. Brander to be careful with her money as she needed it for her retirement. Another time she had mentioned to him that she was studying options trading on the internet and he told her that you need a lot of experience to get into options trading and said, “Your money is safe with me.” He also told her that any time she needed the money, he would deposit it into her RBC account.

10In 2020, when the COVID pandemic hit, Ms. McKie’s workplace in the Bahamas closed. She decided to retire. She was 77 years old at that time. She returned to Toronto. She had been trying to reach Mr. Brander without success towards the end of her time in the Bahamas. Upon returning to Canada, she continued those efforts, again to no avail. He did not return any of her calls or messages. She tried to track him down through his ex-wife and other family members but was unsuccessful. That is when she went to the police, which led to these charges being laid.

11In cross-examination, Ms. McKie was asked if she had labelled the last $20,000 wire transfer as a “gift.” She recalled at some point trying to send a transfer with the description of “investment”, which was rejected by the bank, and that Mr. Brander told her she could label it as “gift” if she trusted him. She did not think this was for as much as $20,000, but could not remember exactly. She confirmed in re-examination that this money was always intended to be an investment, and it was never understood by either of them to be a gift to him.

Testimony of John Brander

12Mr. Brander started his testimony by setting out his credentials in business and finance. In 1978, he graduated from Western University with a Bachelor of Science in Biology. Then, in 1981, he obtained a Bachelor of Economics degree from McMaster University and in 1982, and MBA in Investment Finance also from McMaster. He testified that he was a Chartered Financial Analyst with a specialty in investment, having obtained that “worldwide designation” in 1992. He worked in finance for various companies after completing his education, including 10 years (from 1987-1997) in the Finance Department at the head office of the Bank of Nova Scotia.

13He said he then moved to the Turks and Caicos, working first for a company there, and then set up his own “finance business.” He was vague about what his company did, but when pressed he said: helping people get bank loans; facilitating mortgages; investing funds for people; and investing in securities and investment markets. He testified that his marriage “was in trouble” in 2018 and that he therefore returned to Canada, although he planned to eventually return to the Turks and Caicos. He and his wife divorced in 2022, and he now lives on a pension in Wasaga.

14Mr. Brander could not remember meeting Irene McKie as she had described. He thought she had been referred to him by Shirley Lawrason to invest money for her in the Turks and Caicos.

15He acknowledged receiving all the money Ms. McKie testified she sent to him. A total of $65,000 USD was transferred from the Bahamas to the Turks and Caicos, which he asserted was “extra-territorial” and beyond the jurisdiction of the court. He also acknowledged receiving $37,000 CAD in small increments, from the Bahamas to his bank in Canada. He said he sent this money (along with other money) to another client of his named Candy Barrotti, who was in the Turks and Caicos. He described this action as “myopic” and said he intended at the time to return to the Turks and Caicos himself. However, his relationship with his ex-wife worsened and he said this made it impossible for him to return to the Turks and Caicos. His business there went bankrupt. He volunteered that he has never been charged with anything in the Turks and Caicos.

16He testified that he did not “intentionally want” to deprive Ms. McKie of her money, but he could not return it to her after his business went bankrupt. He explained, “I never intended to be dishonest. My business just collapsed.”

17In cross-examination he acknowledged being a Canadian citizen throughout this time, but said his only property in Canada was a cottage and that he was not “domiciled” there when he was living in the Turks and Caicos. Also in cross-examination, he admitted that he is knowledgeable about the ethical requirements for managing the investments of other people. He denied that he received the money from Ms. McKie for purposes of investment, and then failed to invest it. He said he invested the money in his own business, but acknowledged that he never told Ms. McKie that this was what he was doing. He agreed that between November 2016 and December 2018, he was holding himself out to be an investment analyst.

18With respect to the $65,000 transferred to him in the Turks and Caicos (and which he put directly into his own business) he denied telling Ms. McKie that he was investing this for her in the stock market. He said it was a “fixed return” investment and did not dispute the rate of return Ms. McKie stated. He also said he did not have any discussion with Ms. McKie about where he was investing her money.

19Mr. Brander acknowledged knowing that Ms. McKie was trying to reach him and said that he did not respond to her on the advice of a lawyer. I then cautioned him about solicitor and client privilege. He said he never spoke to her after she asked for her money back and has never returned any of the money.

20I asked Mr. Brander about the money he gave to Candy Barrotti (which came directly from Ms. McKie). He said that he had a “business relationship” with Candy Barrotti and that she had invested money in his business. He said he used the money from Ms. McKie to pay back Candy Barrotti.

21On further cross-examination by the Crown, Mr. Brander was asked if he had been “reckless” with Ms. McKie’s money and he said that he perhaps had been, looking at it in retrospect, but that he did not realize that at the time. He denied this was a Ponzi scheme. He admitted it had some similarities, but said he did not intend it that way.

22He said he could not go back to the Turks and Caicos after his marriage failed because it was a small place and he no longer had anywhere to live there.

23Through the whole of his dealings with Ms. McKie, he never once sent her a statement about what was happening with the funds she had invested with him.

The Bank Records

24Two sets of bank records were filed as exhibits at trial:

• Exhibit 1- 76 pages of records, from April 30, 2018 to December 21, 2018, for a Toronto CIBC personal account registered to Candy Gigi Barrotti,

• Exhibit 2 – 286 pages of records, for May and June 2018, for Mr. Brander’s personal account with the CIBC in Lillooet, British Columbia.

25Exhibit 2 confirms the Interac transfer of $37,000 from Ms. McKie in the Bahamas to Mr. Brander’s CIBC account in British Columbia, in increments of between $500 and $2000. Those accounts also show those amounts then being transferred from Mr. Brander’s account to Candy Barrotti’s TD account in Toronto.

26Exhibit 1 demonstrates the receipt of those funds from Mr. Brander, and the use of those funds by Ms. Barrotti for things like rent, cash withdrawals, and ordinary living expenses.

27Exhibit 2 also confirms the receipt by Mr. Brander on July 23, 2018 of a transfer of $20,000 Canadian in his CIBC account, from which the sum of $15.00 was deducted as a transfer fee. This is the money sent by Ms. McKie from the Bahamas. Prior to that transfer, the balance in Mr. Brander’s account was $109.05. By October 4, 2018, the balance was back at $20.75. There were no deposits or credits between those two dates, and no large transfers out of the account equivalent to, or even approaching, the $20,000 Ms. McKie had sent to the account.

C. ANALYSIS

The Funds Received in Canada

28I will deal first with the last two amounts Ms. McKie sent to Mr. Brander after he returned to Canada. Both were sent from the Bahamas to Canada. The total amount is $57,000 CAD.

29Mr. Brander admitted that during this period of time he was holding himself out to be an investment analyst. He was well-qualified to describe himself as such and fully aware from his earlier career what the professional and ethical expectations were for such a position. He was in a fiduciary position and he knew Ms. McKie trusted him completely. He also knew that she was planning to use the money invested with him for her retirement.

30Mr. Brander contacted Ms. McKie and told her he had an investment opportunity for her which would yield a guaranteed return of 7 to 7.5%. He did not document this in any way. I find as a fact that at the time he solicited and received these funds, he had no intention of “investing” the money anywhere on Ms. McKie’s behalf. Instead, he immediately transferred the money to another woman who had “invested” her money in his business in the Turks and Caicos purportedly to repay her for the money she had invested with him. He was quite literally, “robbing Peter to pay Paul.” He took Ms. McKie’s money by deceit and used it to pay off another client. He may have hoped that he would later find a way to repay Ms. McKie, but he had no real plan for how he would do that, nor could he have had any reasonable expectation of being able to do so.

31He put the money he received from Ms. McKie in his personal bank account from which he dispersed money to Ms. Barrotti and paid his own living expenses. He provided no accounting whatsoever for the money he received. Ms. McKie lost the entire amount she gave him.

32To constitute fraud under s. 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code³, the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that: (1) Mr. Brander obtained the funds from Ms. McKie by “deceit, falsehood, or other fraudulent means”; (2) as a result, Ms. McKie suffered a deprivation; and (3) by obtaining and dealing with the funds as he did, Mr. Brander knew that he was thereby causing a deprivation, or putting Ms. McKie at risk of losing her money.⁴ If these elements are proven, it does not matter that Mr. Brander may not have deliberately intended for Ms. McKie to lose her money or that he hoped that he would be able to return it to her with interest in the future. It is sufficient that he was reckless as to whether this consequence would occur.⁵

33I find that Mr. Brander deceived Ms. McKie into believing he was investing her money for her and that she would receive a guaranteed return. He did not invest the money, nor did he intend to do so. He might have hoped that he could get the money back in some manner before she asked for its return, but he had no realistic expectation of being able to do so. He took the money fraudulently, and she lost everything. Given his education and professional background, he would have been well aware of the risk and the impropriety of handling his client’s money in the manner he did. I am satisfied that each element of the offence has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Mr. Brander is guilty of fraud as charged under s. 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

34There is a real and substantial connection to Canada with respect to this fraud.⁶ Mr. Brander was in Toronto when he initially met Ms. McKie and when he contacted Ms. McKie about the first of these two “investments,” the money was sent to him in Canada in Canadian funds as he directed, and he disbursed a substantial portion of the money to his “client” Ms. Barrotti in Toronto.

The Funds Transferred from the Bahamas to Turks and Caicos

35The Crown submits that I also have jurisdiction over the two transfers of funds sent by Ms. McKie from her Bahamas bank to Mr. Brander’s bank in the Turks and Caicos. There is only one count on the indictment, but the position of the Crown is that all four “investments” made by Ms. McKie are part of the fraud.

36The Crown relies in this regard on a several binding authorities, stemming from the Supreme Court of Canada’s landmark decision in R. v. Libman.⁷ In that case, Libman was charged with seven counts of fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit fraud arising out of the sales solicitations by telephone calls from a “boiler room” located in Toronto. The sales personnel in Toronto solicited residents in the United States to purchase shares in gold mining companies located in Costa Rica. Those who were interested were sent written materials from Panama City, Panama and San Jose, Costa Rica. Those who agreed to purchase shares sent money to either Panama City or Costa Rica. At least some of that money found its way back to Canada by wire transfer to Libman in Toronto and through payment of the boiler room staff in Toronto. The Court reviewed the various ways in which courts have historically considered which country has jurisdiction to prosecute crimes committed transnationally. In that case, the initial misrepresentation was made in Canada, but was received by victims in the United States. The subject matter of the fraud was in Costa Rica. Substantial misleading written material was sent to the United States from Panama and Costa Rica and the funds obtained were transmitted from the United States to either Panama or Costa Rica. The deprivation was suffered by the victims in the United States. The Supreme Court concluded that Canada had jurisdiction to prosecute the offences based on there being a “real and substantial link” to this country.⁸

37In coming to that conclusion, the Court held that there were “ample links” in that case, and declined to expand the test beyond a real and substantial link, while recognizing that the “outer limits” of the test might generate a different result. The Court noted that “a significant portion of the activities constituting the offence took place in Canada”. The fraudulent plan was devised in Canada and the whole operation that made it function (the directing minds and the boiler room) were situated in Canada. Also, the ultimate delivery of the fruits of the transaction to persons in Canada was not accidental, but part of the overall scheme.⁹

38In R. v. Barra, the Court of Appeal for Ontario considered the application of the principles in Libman to a situation where both accused were convicted of agreeing to bribe a foreign public official in India in order to obtain a favourable contract for a Canadian company to sell its technology for facial recognition to Air India. The Court summarized the applicable principles from Libman as follows:

. . .First, where the statute is silent on its territorial reach, there must be a substantial link between the offence and Canada for a Canadian court to have territorial jurisdiction. This requires a significant portion of the activities constituting the offence to have taken place in Canada. Second, the assessment of these activities considers all relevant facts that took place in Canada that give this country an interest in prosecuting the offence, including facts that are not strictly part of the offence, such as the location where the fruits of the offence are obtained. Third, the law would be “lame” if it could be “avoided by the simple artifice of going outside the country to obtain the fruits of a scheme that was hatched and largely put into effect in Canada.”¹⁰

39The two appellants in Barra had argued that: they were both foreign nationals; their participation in the alleged bribery scheme took place outside Canada; the bribery scheme was approved by the Chief Operating Officer of the Canadian company at a meeting in the United States; the Canadian company was a subsidiary of an American company; and the $500,000 bribe was paid from accounts in the United States.

40The Court of Appeal in Barra upheld the trial judge’s ruling that there was a sufficient link between Canada and the circumstances of the offence to provide jurisdiction. A key factor was the fact that the benefits of the bribe would be received in Canada. The Court also noted that it is appropriate to consider all relevant facts that take place in Canada and that may legitimately give this country an interest in prosecuting the offence, including facts that are not necessarily elements of the offence.

41In this case, the Crown argued that there were significant links between Canada and the funds transferred directly to the Turks and Caicos from the Bahamas, including that the scheme was hatched in Canada and the complainant met the accused in Canada and was offered an opportunity to invest then. After the two transfers to the Turks and Caicos, there were further transfers of funds directly to Mr. Brander in Toronto. I accept that there is a substantial connection to Canada in respect of those transactions transferred to Canada. The Crown argues that the transfers outside Canada are also part of a continuum of fraudulent conduct that started in Canada and finished in Canada and the accused should not obtain immunity merely because some of the fraudulent acts were carried out elsewhere.

42I disagree. There is no evidence as to when or where the fraudulent scheme was “hatched”, as suggested by the Crown. Based on the evidence of Ms. McKie, she met Mr. Brander in something like 1996 or 1997, about a decade before she ever invested any money with him. When she met him, he had not yet moved to the Turks and Caicos. Although he offered her the opportunity to invest $10,000, there is no evidence as to what he was going to do with those funds if she provided them. Mr. Brander testified that ultimately when Ms. McKie sent the money to him in 2016 and 2017, he invested those funds in his own company. I have no basis to dispute that. Also based on his evidence, that company did not even exist when he first moved to the Turks and Caicos, and I have no information as to when it was formed. In any event, there is a 10-year gap between when the initial offer to invest was made and when Ms. McKie sent the first funds to Mr. Brander. I consider this to be sufficiently significant to break the chain or pattern of conduct. I have very little evidence about the transfers from Ms. McKie in the Bahamas directly to Mr. Brander in the Turks and Caicos. I have no way of knowing whether any of the benefits of the money received have any connection to Canada. Had the fraud perpetrated through these two transfers been the only counts on the indictment, there would clearly be no jurisdiction to prosecute them in Canada. I do not see that lumping them into transactions that occurred subsequently changes the circumstances in terms of the territorial jurisdiction of this court.

43Accordingly, my guilty finding under Count 1 relates only to the funds transferred to Canada.

44As a question of fact, however, I am satisfied on the evidence that these monies were fraudulently and deceitfully obtained by Mr. Brander from Ms. McKie and resulted in her losing every cent she invested. In my view, his level of knowledge of the risk is demonstrated by his complete lack of disclosure or accounting for the monies received. If there was jurisdiction to prosecute the offences here, I would have convicted him.

D. CONCLUSION

45Mr. Brander is guilty of fraud as charged under Count 1 on the indictment. The subject matter of that charge will be taken to be the total sum of $57,000 CAD.

46The prior fraud perpetrated by Mr. Brander in a very similar manner (but outside the jurisdiction of this court) is an aggravating factor on sentencing here. Mr. Brander knew from his prior dealing with Ms. McKie when he took the $57,000 CAD that she was also highly exposed to lose the $65,000 USD which she had already given to him. I am satisfied of those facts beyond a reasonable doubt. His conduct shows a pattern of behaviour of dishonesty and utter disregard for the financial interests of Ms. McKie and her vulnerability.

47Although not raised by Mr. Brander, in fairness to him as he is not represented by counsel, I have considered whether my taking the Turks and Caicos fraud into account in sentencing exposes him to being prosecuted there for the same offence for which he is being punished here. In my view, the rules of international comity are not offended given that it is the same victim, the same accused, and a similar scam. The courts in the foreign jurisdiction can be made aware of the fact that some of the facts underlying the fraud in the Turks and Caicos have already been considered as an aggravating factor on sentencing in Canada.¹¹

MOLLOY J.

Released: July 14, 2026

CITATION: R. v. Brander, 2026 ONSC 3604

Footnotes

1. 1R. v. Kienapple, 1974 CanLII 14 (SCC), [1975] 1 S.C.R. 729 (S.C.C.).
2. 2Canada Evidence Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-5, at s. 29.
3. 3Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46.
4. 4R. v. Zlatic, 1993 CanLII 135 (SCC), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 29 (S.C.C.), at p. 43.
5. 5R. v. Zlatic, at p. 43; R. v. Theroux, 1993 CanLII 134 (SCC), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 5 (S.C.C.), at pp. 15-17 and 19-21.
6. 6R. v. Libman, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 178 (S.C.C), at para. 76.
7. 7R. v. Libman.
8. 8Ibid, at para. 76.
9. 9Ibid, at paras. 71-76.
10. 10R. v. Barra, 2021 ONCA 568, 157 O.R. (3d) 196, at para. 46.
11. 11See R. v. Libman, at paras. 73-78