ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
A. Sadler, for the Crown
- and -
RICHARD BELBAS
S. Chuckal, for the Accused
Accused
HEARD: October 1, 2025 at Thunder Bay, Ontario
Mr. Justice S.J. Wojciechowski
Decision on Sentencing
Overview
1After three weeks of trial in September 2024, in a decision released on March 17, 2025, Richard Belbas was found guilty of 5 counts of fraud over $5,000, 12 counts of fraud under $5,000, and 1 count of breaching a probation order.
2With respect to the latter finding, amongst the 17 counts of fraud which Mr. Belbas committed, 8 instances of fraud relate to conduct which was committed while Mr. Belbas was subject to the probation order.
3The scope of the frauds committed by Richard Belbas amounts to $82,255, a figure agreed upon by the Crown and Defence Counsel. And while this is what "the math" adds up to, it is beyond dispute that the human toll of the fraudulent acts of Richard Belbas is immeasurable, especially with respect to those individuals whose homes – their personal and private safe spaces – were impacted.
4Based upon the facts of this case, the Crown submits that taking into account all mitigating and aggravating factors, along with totality principles, Richard Belbas should be subject to a penitentiary sentence in the range of 4 to 5 years, plus ancillary orders.
5Defence Counsel, on the other hand, submits that a sentence of 2 years less a day, plus 3 years of probation and some of the ancillary orders requested by the Crown would be appropriate in the circumstances.
Position of the Crown
6Mr. Sadler began his submissions with reference to s. 718 of the Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, which sets out the factors of denunciation, specific and general deterrence, separation of offenders, rehabilitation of offenders, and reparations for harm done in addition to acknowledgment of harm done, as relevant considerations in sentencing.
7In this case, the Crown takes the position that denunciation and deterrence should play a more significant role than rehabilitation. In terms of reparations, restitution should be ordered to compensate the victims for the fraudulent acts of Mr. Belbas.
8In terms of ancillary orders, since fraud over $5,000 can proceed by indictment and where a sentence of 5 years or more is available, as a secondary designated offence, Mr. Belbas should be required to provide a DNA sample.
9A prohibition order is also sought by the Crown in accordance with s. 380.2 of the Code, such that Mr. Belbas be restricted from seeking or obtaining employment or volunteer positions in any capacity where authority over money or property of another person is involved. The Crown's position in this regard is based upon the conduct and long history of related criminal behaviour of Mr. Belbas. Essentially, Mr. Belbas' record for dishonest and fraudulent conduct indicates he is not sufficiently trustworthy to engage in activities involving other people's property or money.
10In terms of restitution, the Crown relies upon s. 738 of the Code, and seeks an amount which represents the value of the monies paid to Mr. Belbas, less the value of any work he actually performed, or goods which he provided, or refunds of monies returned to the victims.
11In sorting through the numbers, the following chart was provided by the Crown which outlined its position on restitution – without being disputed by Defence Counsel – setting out the restitution figure of $81,675 being warranted in the circumstances.
| Category | Victim(s) | Scope | Restitution | Fine in Lieu |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Saunas | Joe and Gloria Dolce | $7,550 | $7,550 | $7,550 |
| Sea Cans | Frank Iazzolino & 1490400 Ontario Ltd | $4,800 | $4,800 | $4,800 |
| Sea Cans | Bryan Heppler | $1,600 | $1,600 | $1,600 |
| Sea Cans | Robert Mattas | $1,600 | $1,600 | $1,600 |
| Construction | Robert Chambers | $800 | $800 | $800 |
| Construction | Tracy Wilson | $14,175 | $14,175 | $14,175 |
| Construction | Patricia Paradis & Jim Einarson | $5,380 | $0 | $0 |
| Construction | Judith Loewen | $4,800 | $4,800 | $4,800 |
| Construction | Dennis Stanchuk and Wendy Marshall | $4,500 | $4,500 | $4,500 |
| Probation | N/A | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| Construction | June Gaw | $1,500 | $1,500 | $1,500 |
| Sea Cans | Robert Bencharski | $13,600 | $13,600 | $13,600 |
| Construction | Alana Stones | $2,000 | $2,000 | $2,000 |
| Construction | Blake Van Winckle | $1,310 | $1,310 | $1,310 |
| Construction | Alina and Robert Gluchowski | $9,760 | $17,560 | $2,560 |
| Saunas | Nikos Mantis | $3,000 | $0 | $0 |
| Construction | Hean Loo Loi | $800 | $800 | $800 |
| Construction | Margaret Lanktree | $5,080 | $5,080 | $5,080 |
| $82,255 | $81,675 | $66,675 |
12The Crown then reviewed its position on a forfeiture order, or a fine in lieu of forfeiture, starting with s. 462.37(1) of the Code.
13In the case of Mr. Belbas, since the monies received by him from the individuals subjected to his fraudulent activities likely no longer exist, i.e., they have been spent, and the fact that the small cash transactions involved will be next to impossible to trace, s. 462.37(3) provides that a fine in lieu of forfeiture is available. The Crown referenced amounts in the chart above to supplement its position – again, the figures are not disputed by Mr. Belbas – and the available fine in lieu of forfeiture was calculated to be in the amount of $66,675.
14In terms of a custodial sentence, Mr. Sadler submitted that the maximum sentence for fraud under $5,000 is 2 years, for fraud over $5,000 is 14 years, and the maximum sentence for breach of probation is 4 years' custody.
15In the case of Mr. Belbas, there is a significant history of past similar criminal conduct to consider. As such, it would be entirely reasonable to look at all of the offences and impose consecutive sentences. However, addressing totality factors, Mr. Sadler agreed that I should impose some concurrent sentences in order to address the issues of totality. Doing so would get the Crown to a sentence of between 4 and 5 years.
Position of Richard Belbas
16It was submitted by Defence Counsel that a sentence of 2 years less a day would sufficiently address the denunciation and deterrence factors which this Court has to consider. In addition, this would promote a sense of responsibility on Richard Belbas for the acts of fraud which he committed.
17In terms of aggravating factors, most of the statutory factors found in s. 718.2 of the Code are not in play.
18By way of background, as was confirmed in the Pre-Sentence Report, Defence Counsel confirmed that Richard Belbas is 49 years old, and has lived in Thunder Bay, Ontario, his entire life. The education he received was in Thunder Bay, and after high school he entered the workforce at a local transportation production plant. When he was 22 years old, Richard Belbas obtained work in road construction which he did for approximately 12 years, stopping only after being in a serious motor vehicle accident. Once he got back on his feet, Richard Belbas was self employed, doing jobs for others, which included some of the work involving fraudulent activities discussed during the course of this trial.
19His recent employment activities involve the operation of skidders, under the supervision of others, at Buchanan Forest Products. In addition, he works on a hobby farm with his father, taking care of goats, pigs, chickens, and rabbits.
20Richard Belbas has two adult sons, aged 21 and 29, plus two twin boys who are 8 years old and a daughter who is a teenager. The youngest three children are as a result of his relationship with his common law spouse, who works part time as a hair dresser. Richard Belbas is finally close with his parents, aged 73 and 75, who are supportive of him, with his father attending the sentencing hearing.
21Ms. Chuckal acknowledged her client's criminal record which she categorized as unenviable. Despite this, it was submitted that Mr. Belbas was a good candidate for rehabilitation given the support of his family.
22Defence Counsel also brought to my attention the fact that a previous sentence imposed by Newton R.S.J. on June 20, 2022 for 18 months has not yet been fully served because of a pending appeal. However, Mr. Belbas agreed to abandon his appeal and serve the remainder of this past sentence, with the Crown agreeing any sentence I impose should run concurrent to the sentence of Newton R.S.J.
23Mr. Belbas submits that he realizes the convictions in this case span a significant number of complainants and victims, and that his actions have clearly impacted the community which is apparent from reading the victim impact statements. Having said that, Ms. Chuckal asked me to consider that the offences and quantum of frauds committed were not part of elaborate schemes nor involved large amounts of money. Mr. Belbas was not a sophisticated fraudster, and clearly placed himself smack in the middle of the cycle of the fraudulent activities he was perpetuating.
24Mr. Belbas is hoping that upon release from custody, he can obtain a job working for someone else as a cook or a chef – definitely not something in the construction industry – and has plans to start training for such a role while in custody.
25Accordingly, Ms. Chuckal suggests that an appropriate sentence would be 2 years less a day, followed by 3 years of probation.
26In terms of ancillary orders, Mr. Belbas does not take any issue with the DNA order which the Crown has requested. However, because it would not cover the type of activities at issue, Ms. Chuckal submitted that the s. 380.2(1) prohibition order was not necessary.
27With respect to the restitution numbers, and the fine in lieu calculations provided by the Crown, Ms. Chuckal confirmed that she took no issue with respect to the figures which were presented. She simply requested that if an order for restitution is made, that Mr. Belbas be provided with 10 years following the date he is released from custody to pay the amounts ordered.
Victim Impact Statements
28Six victim impact statements were filed, some of which were delivered orally to the Court by their authors.
29Bryan Heppler paid Mr. Belbas for a sea can which was never delivered. The deal was made at the home of Mr. Belbas, in his front yard with Mr. Belbas' daughter at his side. Mr. Heppler recounted how this situation invoked an atmosphere of trust, especially with the little girl present, the outcome of which has left Mr. Heppler skeptical and distrustful of others whom he encounters, always second guessing motives, and not wanting anything like this to happen again. The trusting person Mr. Heppler once was is no more, causing him to lose sleep and be angry with himself for not being more diligent in his dealings with Mr. Belbas.
30Patricia Paradis explained the impact Mr. Belbas' fraud has had upon her and her husband, Jim Einarson, who are neighbours with Mr. Belbas and were promised services and goods which were prepaid but never delivered. They have experienced disappointment, frustration and anger, in addition to over 5 years of stress and anxiety.
31Blake Van Winckle provided a victim impact statement which detailed a roof repair and appliance purchase which never materialized. As a result, he has experienced a significant loss of confidence in hiring individuals for work and has generally become more distrustful of others, creating a lasting impact upon his sense of security.
32Alina Gluchowski stated her and her husband, Robert, were duped by Mr. Belbas' friendly and trustworthy manner, learning a very hard lesson after they were defrauded of their hard earned savings.
33Hean Loo Loi has become skeptical of other contractors, feeling angry, betrayed, and cheated by Mr. Belbas. This in turn has caused him stress which affects his work, and he now loses his temper with other people for no apparent reason. Also, the physical toll upon Hean Loo Loi has resulted in his blood pressure medication being increased.
34Tracey Wilson, in her victim impact statement, spoke of the distress Mr. Belbas caused her, no longer having confidence or trust in hiring contractors.
Richard Belbas
35When asked if he had anything to say, Mr. Belbas first thanked the Court for the opportunity. He told me that he learned a lot through this process, and wanted to apologize to everyone that he hurt. Mr. Belbas said that if restitution is ordered, he will do everything he can to get it paid. And finally, with him submitting himself to custody in order to complete the sentence of Newton R.S.J., Mr. Belbas advised that he was committed to taking steps to improve himself and the choices he makes in the future.
36I also note that in the Pre-Sentence Report, reference to the expression of remorse by Mr. Belbas is made, acknowledging he took money from the victims with the expectation he could complete a construction project, but failed to follow through. The same document also mentions Mr. Belbas' desire for the opportunity to pay restitution to the victims.
Circumstances of the Offender
37Mr. Belbas has an extensive criminal record for similar offences.
38He was convicted in 2001 of seven charges of obtaining goods or services under false pretenses, one charge of fraud over $5,000 and 14 charges of fraud under $5,000 for which he received a 1 year conditional sentence with 3 years of probation.
39In 2004, Mr. Belbas was convicted of 2 charges of failing to comply with a probation order, resulting in a suspended sentence and probation for 1 year.
40A conviction of fraud over $5,000 was entered in 2006 such that Mr. Belbas was fined $5,000.
41In 2012, Mr. Belbas was convicted of 1 charge of fraud over $5,000, 9 charges of fraud under $5,000, theft under $5,000, and failing to comply with an undertaking. This resulted in a conditional sentence order for 18 months and 3 years probation for the fraud over $5,000, plus a 6 month concurrent conditional sentence for the remaining charges.
42Mr. Belbas was then convicted in 2013 of 2 counts of fraud over $5,000 and 3 counts of fraud under $5,000, for which he received a three months' conditional sentence to be served concurrently.
43In 2015, he was convicted of 2 counts of fraud and received 45 days and 90 days consecutive plus probation. A conviction was also entered for breach of a probation order. In 2017 he again failed to comply with a probation order, and received a suspended sentence with 2 years of probation.
44In 2022, Mr. Belbas pleaded guilty to 5 counts of fraud over $5,000, 5 counts of fraud under $5,000, and two breaches of a probation order. Newton R.S.J. sentenced him to 18 months in custody, followed by 3 years of probation. A restitution order was also made in the amount of $86,179.54, with 9.5 years to pay.
Legal Principles and Analysis
Authorities
45Both the Crown and Defence Counsel presented me with case law to consider in this sentencing decision.
46In R. v. Cunsolo, 2014 ONCA 364, the accused was convicted of fraud over $5,000 as a result of his participation in a mortgage scheme involving 23 residential mortgages and approximately $4 million. He proceeded to trial and was convicted, receiving a sentence of 18 months in addition to making restitution in the amount of $250,000.
47In R. v. Fiorilli, 2015 ONCA 328, the accused was found guilty of 2 counts of fraud over $5,000, and was sentenced to 12 months in jail, plus a restitution order of $213,084.61, with a fine in lieu of forfeiture of $110,000 and six years to pay. The Court of Appeal was asked to find an error in the trial judge not considering a conditional sentence order, as well as the amount of the restitution order and the time provided to make payment, but the trial decision was not overturned.
48In R. v. Saucier, 2019 ONSC 3611, the accused was sentenced for 10 counts of fraud over $5,000, 4 counts of uttering forged documents, and 1 count of forgery. While the accused made restitution to his victims before he was sentenced, he ultimately received 15 months in jail, as well as a s. 380.2 prohibition order for life.
49R. v. Waxman, 2014 ONCA 256, is a case where an accused was found guilty of four counts of fraud over $5,000, which defrauded a company of over $17 million. He was sentenced to 8 years, plus restitution of $17,990,741 and a fine of $15,514,644 in lieu of forfeiture.
50In the case of R. v. Gliddon, 2017 ABPC 38, the accused pleaded guilty to 2 counts of fraud over $5,000 and one count under $5,000. The frauds were committed against vulnerable elderly victims, with the first fraud being in the amount of $22,493, and the second being $8,630. The trial judge assessed the appropriate sentence on the first count to be 12 months, another 12 months on the second count, and 6 months on the third, all of which were primarily governed by the objectives of deterrence and denunciation. Taking totality principles into account, the 12 month sentences were ordered to be consecutive, with the third being concurrent, making the total sentence to be 2 years.
51The Court in R. v. Kralik, 2006 BCSC 1322, sentenced an accused to 4.5 years in prison for a fraud over $5,000 in which the accused took over $200,000 from an elderly woman. This was based, in part, on the fact that previous serious convictions for unrelated offences and one almost identical to this fraud case existed, making deterrence the primary objective without much weight given to rehabilitation.
52R. v. Mastromonaco, [2002] O.J. No. 4612, is a case involving one count of fraud which cost the victims $70,000. Mr. Mastromonaco was convicted, and sentenced to 21 months plus a restitution order in the amount of $70,000.
53In R. v. Nichols, 2001 5680 (ON CA), [2001] O.J. No. 3220, Mr. Nichols perpetrated a fraud on Ms. Aden which cost her $209,500. Because some restitution had been made, the trial judge reduced the term of imprisonment, which was further reduced by the Court of Appeal to 4 years.
54After being convicted of 1 count of fraud over $5,000, the fraudulent renovation case of R. v. Singer, 2013 ONSC 4035, resulted in a sentence of two years less a day, plus a restitution order in the amount of $215,773.
General Sentencing Conclusions
55From a review of the case law presented, convictions for fraud over $5,000 generally attract a sentence in the neighbourhood of 18 to 24 months. More than 2 years appears to be the case when the fraud perpetrated amounts to $100,000 or more, warranting a consideration of imprisonment of 4 to 8 years.
56In the case of Mr. Belbas, with his extensive criminal history involving similar acts of fraud, some of which being undertaken in the present case when previous charges were before the court, there is not much to gain in attempting to propose a sentence which focuses upon the rehabilitative potential of Mr. Belbas. Front and center are denunciation and deterrence, as is reflected in the cases referenced above, which will be of primary consideration in this sentencing decision: see R. v. Davatgar-Jafarpour, 2019 ONCA 353, at paras. 34-35.
57Aggravating factors which go to sentencing will include the fact that in most cases, no restitution was made, nor was there any attempt to complete the work which Mr. Belbas originally undertook. I also note that in several instances, Mr. Belbas further misled his victims by creating a false persona to take the blame for the delays in his performance of the work.
58In addition, based upon the submissions of the Crown and Defence Counsel, the circumstances of fraudulent activities committed by Mr. Belbas support an approach ordering restitution as well as a fine in lieu of forfeiture. In this regard, any payments made towards restitution can be deducted from the fine, and it would be appropriate to provide Mr. Belbas with time to pay.
59The DNA order requested by the Crown is also appropriate.
60The challenge in crafting an appropriate sentence in this case is assigning an appropriate period of custody commensurate with the frauds committed, and then adjusting the global sentence to account for totality in light of the number of incidents involved.
Totality Principles
61Section 718.2 of the Code sets out additional considerations which must go into sentencing decisions, with subsection 718.2(c) making it clear that in the event consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh.
62A cumulative sentence should not exceed the offender's overall culpability, and should not be crushing to a particular accused when considering his or her age, circumstances, and future prospects. Future prospects should also be viewed in the context of the rehabilitative potential of an individual being sentenced, ensuring that the term of imprisonment does not stifle the prospect of returning as a productive member of society.
63A judge involved in the sentencing of an accused must look at all the offences and fix appropriate individual sentences to then arrive at a total sentence. That total sentence should then be adjusted, if necessary, to ensure it does not exceed a just and appropriate sentence given the culpability and prospects of the offender. By setting out what the initial appropriate sentence would have been with respect to each count, and what change in that sentence or its consecutive nature is necessary to address the totality principle, the public will be able to understand how the sentence relates to the offence and the offender.
64As the Court said in Mill v. The Queen (1988), 166 C.L.R. 59, at 63:
The effect of the totality principle is to require a sentencer who has passed a series of sentences, each properly calculated in relation to the offence for which it is imposed and each properly made consecutive in accordance with the principles governing consecutive sentences, to review the aggregate sentence and consider whether the aggregate sentence is "just and appropriate".
65And in R. v. M. (C.A.), 1996 230 (SCC), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 500, at para. 42:
The totality principle, in short, requires a sentencing judge who orders an offender to serve consecutive sentences for multiple offences to ensure that the cumulative sentence rendered does not exceed the overall culpability of the offender.
66My approach to the application of the totality principle is set out later in these reasons.
Prohibition Order
67Section 380.2(1) of the Code provides:
When an offender is convicted, or is discharged on the conditions prescribed in a probation order under section 730, of an offence referred to in subsection 380(1), the court that sentences or discharges the offender, in addition to any other punishment that may be imposed for that offence or any other condition prescribed in the order of discharge, may make, subject to the conditions or exemptions that the court directs, an order prohibiting the offender from seeking, obtaining or continuing any employment, or becoming or being a volunteer in any capacity, that involves having authority over the real property, money or valuable security of another person.
68While reference to this section is generally relevant to issues of fraud, and issues of fraud were at the core of Mr. Belbas' trial, I agree with Ms. Chuckal that restricting Mr. Belbas from being employed or volunteering in a capacity in which he has authority over the real property or money of a person will not address the specific circumstance of Mr. Belbas' fraudulent conduct.
69Specifically, the evidence led during the trial of Mr. Belbas did not involve any instances where the fraud was related to his place of employment, nor were the frauds committed during the course of any volunteer activities of Mr. Belbas. Finally, while the frauds involved Mr. Belbas convincing victims to pay him monies for which services or goods were not delivered, at no time did he exercise control or authority over a person's money and/or real property.
70Accordingly, I decline to make such a prohibition order in these circumstances.
Specific Sentencing Considerations
71Let me now turn to the specific circumstances and considerations of the fraudulent acts and the victims of Mr. Belbas. In doing so, I will place each of the frauds into one of three categories: Sea Cans, Construction, and Saunas. I do this in order to address issues of consecutive and concurrent sentencing options, and to enable a comprehensive and transparent application of the totality principles which I address later in these reasons.
72Section 718.3(4)(a) of the Code indicates that the Court shall consider directing sentences involving a term of imprisonment to run consecutively to existing custodial sentences.
73Section 718.3(4)(b)(i) of the Code confirms that the Court shall also consider consecutive sentences where the offences do not arise out of the same event or series of events.
74I recognize that the instances of fraud involving Mr. Belbas taking money in exchange for the unfulfilled promise of supplying sea cans arguably arises out of a similar series of events. Similarly, the fraudulent acts which involved the supply of saunas, and the acts which resulted in Mr. Belbas not completing the construction projects for which he received advance payments, each arise out of another similar series of events.
75Accordingly, along the lines of the reasoning in R. v. Haines, [1975] O.J. No. 251 (C.A.), which was suggested by the Crown during submissions, I will group each of the incidents of fraud by subject matter, with concurrent sentences applying within the same category, and with each category's sentence to run consecutive to the sentence in the other categories.
76In considering the appropriate sentence in each of the cases, the primary considerations will be deterrence and denunciation based upon the extensive criminal background of Mr. Belbas involving other fraudulent activities for which he has been sentenced. In light of these past criminal convictions, which in no way deterred Mr. Belbas from continuing to prey on other victims by taking their money without intending to provide the agreed upon services or products, rehabilitation must take a back seat to the principles of deterrence and denunciation.
Sea Cans
77The cases involving a promise to deliver sea cans which never materialized involve Frank Iazzolino, Bryan Heppler, Robert Mattas, and Robert Bencharski.
Frank Iazzolino and 1490400 Ontario Ltd.
78Mr. Iazzolino and his partner, who ran a business through 1490400 Ontario Ltd., provided a cheque from 1490400 Ontario Ltd. in the amount of $4,800 to Mr. Belbas on March 7, 2017 for the purchase of three sea cans which were to be delivered in two weeks' time.
79Throughout the spring and summer of 2017, discussions occurred between Mr. Iazzolino and Mr. Belbas regarding the delivery of the sea cans, which never happened. Excuses for the later than anticipated delivery date were provided by Mr. Belbas, and by the end of the summer of 2017 when the sea cans were still on their way, additional promises for a refund were made.
80At no time were the sea cans delivered, and at no time was a refund provided by Mr. Belbas.
81This value of this fraud is $4,800, and commenced on March 7, 2017 with the payment to Mr. Belbas by Mr. Iazzolino, and then perpetrated through the summer months with unfulfilled promises to deliver and then to refund the monies. There were never any sea cans to deliver, and Mr. Belbas took the money knowing the game he was going to play with Mr. Iazzolino in order to continually address his expectations that sea cans would be delivered.
82Considering the principles of deterrence and denunciation, and recognizing the stress which Mr. Belbas must have known was inflicted upon Mr. Iazzolino, this became personal with the efforts of Mr. Belbas to create false narratives in his attempts to address the expectations of Mr. Iazzolino.
83Based upon the case law submitted by counsel, I sentence Mr. Belbas to 6 months, plus restitution in the amount of $4,800 and a fine of $4,800 in lieu of forfeiture for this offence.
Bryan Heppler
84On April 24, 2017, Mr. Heppler and Mr. Belbas met at Mr. Belbas' residence in order to firm up the deal to purchase a sea can for $1,600 in cash. Mr. Belbas did not deliver the sea can in May, June or July of that year, despite promises, discussions, and text messages to the contrary, the last of which was exchanged on September 2, 2017 which included yet another offer to deliver the sea can. By September 29, 2017, after numerous promises for delivery were made, discussions then turned to refunding Mr. Heppler's money.
85The last text was sent on September 2, 2017, and included another offer to finally deliver the sea can. Further texts are then exchanged in an effort to coordinate the delivery of the sea can. By September 29, 2017, after a number of promises are made by Mr. Belbas which he does not follow through, the discussion turns to providing a refund which, not surprisingly, does not happen either.
86Similar to the situation with Mr. Iazzolino, while this fraud was only worth $1,600, the ongoing efforts of Mr. Belbas over a period of 5 months to deceive Mr. Heppler regarding the sea can, and then a refund, are aggravating factors.
87Based upon the case law submitted by counsel, I sentence Mr. Belbas to 7 months, plus restitution in the amount of $1,600 and a fine of $1,600 in lieu of forfeiture for this offence.
Robert Mattas
88Robert Mattas entered into an agreement with Mr. Belbas to purchase a sea can on May 17, 2017 for $1,600, which was to be delivered to his property in Stanley, Ontario. At the time, Mr. Belbas identified himself as "Rich Ellas" in an obvious attempt to disguise his true identity.
89The text messages introduced in court demonstrated a number of times when Mr. Belbas represented the scheduled delivery of the sea can, requiring Mr. Mattas to take time off work and make the long drive to his property in Stanley to receive the storage unit. But each time Mr. Belbas promised delivery, nothing showed up in Stanley, resulting in Mr. Mattas attempting to make sense of what had gotten in the way of Mr. Belbas' assuring messages that delivery was imminent.
90Ultimately by the month of September, Mr. Mattas no longer needed the sea can – realizing that it was likely he was being scammed – and then engaged in further unsuccessful attempts to obtain a refund from Mr. Belbas. As was the pattern with the sea can, several times Mr. Belbas promised that the money was being delivered, but that never happens. Mr. Belbas further perpetrated this fraud by telling Mr. Mattas that the sea can was coming from someone named "Claude" from Ontario Hydro who, it was continually alleged, was inexplicably failing to follow through with his promises for delivery. And since Claude was paid by Mr. Belbas, Mr. Belbas advised Mr. Mattas that ultimately, he did not have the cash to return to him.
91At no time was the sea can delivered to Mr. Mattas, and at no time was the money which was initially paid to Mr. Belbas returned to Mr. Mattas.
92While this fraud is only worth $1,600, the efforts of Mr. Belbas to deceive Mr. Mattas are relentless over a period of almost 5 months. From the act of providing a false name, to taking money when no sea can existed for delivery, to making Mr. Mattas take time off work several times and drive the 30 minute plus distance to his property and wait for a sea can which was never to be delivered, and then blaming it all on a non-existent Claude from Ontario Hydro, speaks to the extensive efforts of Mr. Belbas to do anything to perpetrate this fraud.
93Based upon the case law submitted by counsel, I sentence Mr. Belbas to 7 months, plus $1,600 restitution and a $1,600 fine in lieu of forfeiture for this offence.
Robert Bencharski
94Between April 10, 2019 and May 10, 2019, discussions between Mr. Bencharski and Mr. Belbas resulted in $13,600 cash being paid to Mr. Belbas for the purchase and delivery of 12 sea cans. Mr. Bencharski understood from Mr. Belbas that some of the sea cans were located two hours away in Atikokan and simply had to be loaded and driven to Thunder Bay. As such, Mr. Belbas agreed that Mr. Bencharski could make the two and a half hours trip with two flat-bed trucks to Atikokan to pick them up. But when Mr. Bencharski arrived in Atikokan, and went to the location on Hydro Road to which he was instructed to attend by Mr. Belbas, there were no sea cans.
95Despite many phone calls to Mr. Belbas, with just as many assurances that the sea cans would be delivered as promised, no sea cans were ever delivered to Mr. Bencharski, and Mr. Belbas at no time refunded the monies paid by Mr. Bencharski.
96This fraud is much more significant in that it was worth $13,600, and involved promises to deliver 12 sea cans which never existed nor were available for delivery. In addition, Mr. Belbas convinced Mr. Bencharski to use his own vehicles and drive to Atikokan, more than 2 hours away from Thunder Bay, in order to attend an alleged site where the sea cans were supposedly stored.
97Based upon the case law submitted by counsel, I sentence Mr. Belbas to 12 months, plus restitution in the amount of $13,600 and an equivalent fine of $13,600 in lieu of forfeiture for the circumstances of this offence.
Construction
98The counts involving fraudulent construction practices include Robert Chambers, Tracy Wilson, Patricia Paradis and Jim Einarson, Judith Loewen, Dennis Stanchuk and Wendy Marshall, June Gaw, Alana Stones, Blake Van Winckle, Alina and Robert Gluchowski, Hean Loo Loi, and Margaret Lanktree.
Robert Chambers
99While Mr. Chambers was renovating a residential property, Mr. Belbas did a cold call and offered to do some of the reno work for Mr. Chambers, bringing with him a book of pictures which had been taken of the work Mr. Belbas had done on other projects. He also told Mr. Chambers that his Toronto supplier could provide windows and doors at a great price, which eventually led to Mr. Chambers hiring Mr. Belbas for the supply, installation and capping of windows, as well as the installation of two garage doors: $1,700 would be paid for materials, and $1,000 for the installation, with a deposit of $800 being paid by Mr. Chambers.
100The supplier of the materials – which were expected to arrive within two weeks – was supposed to be Dennis, an acquaintance of Mr. Belbas. But over the course of several months, no materials arrived, no one by the name of Dennis showed up, and ultimately the deposit was never returned to Mr. Chambers.
101Based upon the case law submitted by counsel, I sentence Mr. Belbas to 4 months, plus $800 in restitution and a fine of $800 in lieu of forfeiture for the circumstances of this offence.
Tracy Wilson
102Ms. Wilson oversaw and directed the renovation project of her nephew's residence while he was incarcerated. After Ms. Wilson's sister ran out of money on her own reno project, Ms. Wilson began paying Mr. Belbas out of her own pocket. The interactions between Ms. Wilson and Mr. Belbas spanned throughout the fall of 2017 and into early 2018, by which time Ms. Wilson had spent $14,175 for materials which were never delivered and work which was not completed.
103Included in the fraudulent activities was the creation of "Dennis" by Mr. Belbas as an individual responsible to procure and supply building materials. In addition, based upon representations of Mr. Belbas, Ms. Wilson travelled to Duluth, Minnesota – more than a 3 hour drive from Thunder Bay, Ontario, one way – in order to pick up construction materials which did not exist. This demonstrates the depth of Mr. Belbas' deception, and the effort he went to in order to convince Ms. Wilson to part with her money.
104Based upon the case law submitted by counsel, I sentence Mr. Belbas to 14 months, plus restitution in the amount of $14,175 and a fine of $14,175 in lieu of forfeiture for the circumstances of this offence.
Patricia Paradis and Jim Einarson
105Mr. Belbas lived in the same neighbourhood where Patricia Paradis and her husband, Jim Einarson, resided. An agreement between these neighbours was reached whereby Mr. Belbas would build and deliver sheds to a camp property owned by Ms. Paradis and Mr. Einarson, in addition to providing reno construction services with respect to buildings on their camp property.
106While some services were performed by Mr. Belbas, at the end of his business relationship with his neighbours, he took monies in the amount of $5,380 from Mr. Einarson and Ms. Paradis for services and materials which were never supplied, and this was the basis for finding Mr. Belbas guilty of fraud over $5,000.
107However, I also determined that additional services were provided, including body work performed on a vehicle owned by Mr. Einarson, the value of which was estimated by Mr. Belbas to be more than $5,380.
108Based upon the case law submitted by counsel, including the aggravating factor of Mr. Belbas taking advantage of the neighbour relationship with his victims, and including the mitigating factor of Mr. Belbas' attempts to provide additional services to make up for his acts of fraud, I sentence Mr. Belbas to 3 months. Given that I found Mr. Belbas provided services in amounts which exceed the cost of the frauds committed, there is no order for restitution and no fine in lieu of forfeiture.
Judith Loewen
109Ms. Loewen had a fence project she wanted done at her home. Mr. Belbas told her it would cost $5,600, to which she agreed and provided a $3,000 deposit on September 4, 2013. A few days later she also gave another $1,800 to Mr. Belbas based upon his promise to travel to Duluth, Minnesota to obtain supplies at a cheaper price.
110No work was undertaken on the project by Mr. Belbas, no materials or supplies were provided, and ultimately he kept and did not return the monies which Ms. Loewen paid up front in the amount of $4,800.
111Based upon the case law submitted by counsel, I sentence Mr. Belbas to 10 months, plus $4,800 in restitution and a fine of $4,800 in lieu of forfeiture for the circumstances of this offence.
Dennis Stanchuk and Wendy Marshall
112Mr. Belbas' interaction with Mr. Stanchuk and Ms. Marshall was not all fraudulent. In fact, over the course of their 12 month relationship, Mr. Belbas did competent reno work on a flip property which was owned by Mr. Stanchuk and Ms. Marshall for which he was paid. However, other aspects of the work which was contemplated and paid for were not completed by Mr. Belbas. At the end of the day, he used the goodwill which was generated by the work he properly undertook and completed in order to be paid $4,500 for materials and work he never ended up supplying.
113Based upon the case law submitted by counsel, I sentence Mr. Belbas to 10 months, plus $4,500 in restitution and a fine of $4,500 in lieu of forfeiture for the circumstances of this offence.
June Gaw
114In March of 2017, Roger Gaw – married to June Gaw – was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer and given six to eight months to live. In order for Mr. Gaw to enjoy what turned out to be his last summer, June Gaw wanted an overhang to be constructed which would provide shade over the back yard deck. So she connected with Mr. Belbas and provided him with a deposit of $1,500 for a job which was promised to be completed by the end of May 2017.
115By October 2017, Mr. Belbas had not started anything, despite representations that he was planning to do so, which turned into unfilled promises of getting Ms. Gaw her money back.
116Mr. Belbas met with the Gaws and made promises he never intended to keep, taking their money with the full knowledge that Roger Gaw would never get to enjoy a pergola.
117Based upon the case law submitted by counsel, I sentence Mr. Belbas to 6 months, plus $1,500 in restitution and a fine of $1,500 in lieu of forfeiture for the circumstances of this offence.
Alana Stones
118Text messages exchanged in May 2019 led Ms. Stones to hire Mr. Belbas to asphalt her driveway and install a retaining wall for $3,500, and on May 21, 2019 a cash deposit of $2,000 was paid.
119After Mr. Belbas did nothing for a few months, by July 22, 2019 Ms. Stones asked for her money back, which Mr. Belbas told her he would return.
120Mr. Belbas never returned to Ms. Stones' property, never fixed up her front yard, and never paid back the deposit of $2,000.
121Based upon the case law submitted by counsel, I sentence Mr. Belbas to 7 months, plus $2,000 restitution and a fine of $2,000 in lieu of forfeiture for the circumstances of this offence.
Blake Van Winckle
122Mr. Van Winckle hired Mr. Belbas to repair a roof leak and supply a washing machine for $2,310 which was paid up front in cash. While the initial agreement was to do the roof repair for $1,000, once a need for a washing machine was identified, Mr. Belbas told Mr. Van Winckle that he could pick one up, at a great price, in Duluth, Minnesota if he paid him $1,310 up front.
123After Mr. Van Winckle paid the monies to Mr. Belbas, repair work to address structural water damages worth $1,000 was performed. But the washing machine was never delivered, and Mr. Belbas did not return any of the monies paid for the appliance, despite text messages promising to do so.
124Based upon the case law submitted by counsel, I sentence Mr. Belbas to 6 months, plus restitution in the amount of $1,310, with a fine in lieu of forfeiture of $1,310 for the circumstances of this offence.
Alina and Robert Gluchowski
125Alina Gluchowski told the court that she and her spouse, Robert Gluchowski, had a rental home property that they wanted to renovate in early 2019 after tenants had vacated. They wanted cladding and electrical work to be completed, and new kitchen cabinets and flooring installed.
126Mr. Belbas agreed to purchase and install kitchen cabinets and a countertop, as well as flooring, and told Alina and Robert Gluchowski that the materials would be purchased at a discount in Duluth, Minnesota.
127Mr. Belbas was paid $9,760 for the reno work, and only ended up doing work valued at $2,000. Mr. Belbas then provided snow clearing services worth $1,400, and refunded $3,000 in cash, leaving a short fall of $3,360 which was further reduced by $800 to $2,560 after helping Mr. Gluchowski install some paneling.
128Once Alina and Robert Gluchowski inspected the work which was done, they identified deficiencies and had to pay other contractors another $15,000 to remediate and complete the construction which Mr. Belbas had agreed to perform.
129Based upon the case law submitted by counsel, I sentence Mr. Belbas to 8 months, plus $17,560 in restitution, and $2,560 as a fine in lieu of forfeiture for the circumstances of this offence.
Hean Loo Loi
130Mr. Loi hired Mr. Belbas to install a gate and a fence as soon as possible which would create a parking lot for use by occupants of a residential tenancy building that fronted on 721 Simpson Street, Thunder Bay.
131After discussing the project, $800 was paid by Mr. Loi in May 2019, and by July 2019 no work had been completed, no refund had been provided, and Mr. Loi reported Mr. Belbas to the police.
132Based upon the case law submitted by counsel, I sentence Mr. Belbas to 4 months, plus $800 as restitution and a fine in lieu of forfeiture in the amount of $800 for the circumstances of this offence.
Margaret Lanktree
133Ms. Lanktree hired Mr. Belbas to build a sunroom attached to the back of her home, and agreed to pay him $3,500 for the project. In providing her a Sales Order on July 18, 2019, he used the business name of "RNB Contracting" and noted his name as Rick Ellis. A deposit was provided to Mr. Belbas at that time in the amount of $1,600.
134Changes to the work were discussed on July 22, 2019, increasing the project cost to $4,500, and resulting in Ms. Lanktree paying an additional deposit of $1,200.
135The following week, more work was discussed for which another $680 was paid to Mr. Belbas on July 29, 2019. On August 14, 2019, additional improvements to a kitchen area were agreed upon, with Mr. Belbas offering to save Ms. Lanktree money by picking up materials in Duluth, Minnesota. This resulted in another $1,600 being paid by Ms. Lanktree to Mr. Belbas so that he would have the cash to pay for the materials.
136Following this, many phone calls were made by Ms. Lanktree to inquire as to the timeline for completion of the project, and the whereabouts of materials which Mr. Belbas said he had purchased. In response, Mr. Belbas attended Ms. Lanktree's home on August 14, 2019, and in early September 2019, but no work was done, and no materials were delivered.
137Ms. Lanktree reported Mr. Belbas to the police in January 2020. At no time did Mr. Belbas perform any work to her home, and Ms. Lanktree was never refunded the $5,080 which she paid to Mr. Belbas.
138Mr. Belbas preyed on Ms. Lanktree as a single woman who trusted the person who identified himself as Rick Ellis. Engaging with Ms. Lanktree with a false name speaks volumes to the intentions of Mr. Belbas who never carried out his promises and never saw the need to pay her back the monies he took from her. Instead, by promising Ms. Lanktree that he was interested in saving her money by purchasing materials in the US, he managed to liberate more funds from Ms. Lanktree which he never intended to return.
139Based upon the case law submitted by counsel, I sentence Mr. Belbas to 11 months, plus $5,080 in restitution and a $5,080 fine in lieu of forfeiture for the circumstances of this offence.
Saunas
140Finally, the incidents involving promises to construct and deliver saunas involved Joe and Gloria Dolce and Nikos Mantis.
Joe and Gloria Dolce
141Discussions with Mr. Belbas began in April 2014 when Joe and Gloria Dolce were looking for a sauna to be built and set up on their camp property. Over the course of a year and a half, by July 2015 this project had expanded to include a second sauna and an outhouse.
142The price for the first sauna was $3,700, with the second sauna quoted at $2,400. The cost of the outhouse was agreed upon at $1,200. Mr. Belbas said he could obtain cheaper stain for the saunas if he purchased it in Duluth, Minnesota, for $250. Joe and Gloria Dolce trusted Mr. Belbas, and paid these monies up front, totaling $7,550.
143During his discussions with Mr. Belbas, Mr. Dolce said that he always provided details – blow by blow – on how the projects were going, and that the sauna would be finished in no time. However, it turns out that at no time were the saunas nor the outhouse delivered, and no monies were returned by Mr. Belbas.
144Mr. Belbas worked on Joe and Gloria Dolce for over a year, making a promise here to secure payment of monies, and then another promise there to get more monies out of his victims, eventually talking them out of over $7,500. Mr. Belbas also engaged with Joe and Gloria Dolce with details of how well the projects were going, without any intention of actually delivering on any of his promises.
145Based upon the case law submitted by counsel, I sentence Mr. Belbas to 8 months, plus $7,550 restitution, with a fine in lieu of forfeiture in the same amount of $7,550 for the circumstances of this offence.
Nikos Mantis
146In 2019, Mr. Mantis wanted to surprise his wife with a tenth anniversary present and put a sauna on their camp property located on Mackenzie Lake which was a three hour drive from Thunder Bay. The project price was agreed upon at $5,500, and Mr. Mantis paid a deposit of $1,000.
147Initially, it was hoped that the sauna could be installed before the anniversary, but Mr. Belbas could not guarantee this delivery date. However, Mr. Belbas subsequently contacted Mr. Mantis, and offering to make things work, promised a delivery date to coincide with the anniversary if another $2,000 deposit was paid to which Mr. Mantis agreed.
148On the date of his wedding anniversary, friends and family were gathered at the camp property in anticipation of the delivery of the sauna. Mr. Belbas never showed up, and never called Mr. Mantis in advance to advise that delivery would be delayed. Then over the next few months, despite Mr. Belbas assuring delivery was imminent, and Mr. Mantis traveling out to the camp property and waiting for Mr. Belbas to show up, the sauna was never delivered.
149Ultimately, despite the best efforts of Mr. Belbas to avoid Mr. Mantis, Mr. Mantis showed up at the house of Mr. Belbas' parents on November 28, 2019 and refused to leave until Mr. Belbas showed up with a refund of the $3,000 deposit which had been paid.
150Mr. Belbas took advantage of Mr. Mantis and the fact that the sauna in question was designed to surprise his wife on their tenth anniversary. After taking money for a sauna which was never built nor delivered, he doubled down and preyed on Mr. Mantis' desire for an earlier than previously agreed upon delivery date to coincide with the anniversary party that was planned. Then, after non-delivery of the sauna, promises were made which had Mr. Mantis waiting for delivery of a sauna which never arrived, complicated by the fact that the delivery location was hours out of Thunder Bay.
151And then after unfulfilled promises of a refund were repeatedly made, Mr. Mantis had to impose himself upon Mr. Belbas' parents before Mr. Belbas was finally convinced to return his money.
152Based upon the case law submitted by counsel, I sentence Mr. Belbas to 4 months. Because Mr. Mantis was eventually paid back the monies which Mr. Belbas took from him, there is no order for restitution nor fine in lieu of forfeiture warranted in these circumstances.
Decision
153Amongst the 5 counts of fraud over $5,000, and the 12 counts of fraud under $5,000, are 4 involving sea cans, 2 involving saunas, and 11 involving construction or renovation activities.
154The custodial sentences applicable to the 4 counts involving sea cans shall run concurrently.
155The custodial sentences imposed with respect to the 11 construction or renovation frauds shall run concurrently.
156The custodial sentences which I have determined apply to the sauna cases shall run concurrently.
157The custodial sentences imposed in each of the three categories shall run consecutively in order to address issues of totality.
158In order to succinctly describe the impact of my sentencing decision, reference to the following chart provides a summary, including the length of each custodial sentence imposed, the amount of restitution which Mr. Belbas shall be required to make, and the amount of the fine in lieu of making that restitution:
| Category | Victim | Custodial Sentence | Restitution | Fine in Lieu |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Saunas | Joe and Gloria Dolce | 8 months | $7,550 | $7,550 |
| Saunas | Nikos Mantis | 4 months | $0 | $0 |
| Sea Cans | Frank Iazzolino and 1490499 Ontario Ltd. | 6 months | $4,800 | $4,800 |
| Sea Cans | Bryan Heppler | 7 months | $1,600 | $1,600 |
| Sea Cans | Robert Mattas | 7 months | $1,600 | $1,600 |
| Sea Cans | Robert Bencharski | 12 months | $13,600 | $13,600 |
| Construction | Robert Chambers | 4 months | $800 | $800 |
| Construction | Tracy Wilson | 14 months | $14,175 | $14,175 |
| Construction | Patricia Paradis and Jim Einarson | 3 months | $0 | $0 |
| Construction | Judith Loewen | 10 months | $4,800 | $4,800 |
| Construction | Dennis Stanchuk and Wendy Marshall | 10 months | $4,500 | $4,500 |
| Construction | June Gaw | 6 months | $1,500 | $1,500 |
| Construction | Alana Stones | 7 months | $2,000 | $2,000 |
| Construction | Blake Van Winckle | 6 months | $1,310 | $1,310 |
| Construction | Alina and Robert Gluchowski | 8 months | $17,560 | $2,560 |
| Construction | Hean Loo Loi | 4 months | $800 | $800 |
| Construction | Margaret Lanktree | 11 months | $5,080 | $5,080 |
| TOTALS | $81,675 | $66,675 |
159In order to consider the total custodial sentence imposed upon Mr. Belbas, taking the high water marks from each of the three categories, i.e., sea cans, saunas and construction, this totals 34 months.
160To be clear, I find that the total sentence for Mr. Belbas to serve is arrived at taking the 8 months found to be appropriate in the sauna fraud case of Joe and Gloria Dolce, the 12 months found to be appropriate in the sea can fraud case of Robert Bencharski, and the 14 months found to be appropriate in the construction fraud case of Tracy Wilson, and then adding them together to get a global consecutive sentence of 34 months in total in custody for the counts of fraud.
161In addition, Mr. Belbas shall be sentenced to 2 months, consecutive to the 34 months, for the count relating to the breach of probation.
162Mr. Belbas is ordered to pay $81,675 in restitution, and a fine in lieu of forfeiture in the amount of $66,675. The restitution order shall take priority over payment of the fine in lieu of forfeiture which I have ordered, and the fine in lieu of forfeiture shall be reduced by any amount paid pursuant to the restitution order.
163With respect to the restitution orders, clearly by the time that Mr. Belbas has performed his custodial sentence, he will have been unemployed for a significant amount of time. As such, I am prepared to provide him with 11 years from today to pay, which is effectively 8 years from the end of his sentence.
164On the basis that fraud over $5,000 can proceed by indictment and be subject to a sentence of 5 years or more, Mr. Belbas is required to provide a DNA sample within 60 days of this decision on a secondary designated offence basis.
165Finally, as agreed upon by the Crown and Defence Counsel, and in line with the case cited earlier in these reasons of R. v. Haines, [1975] O.J. No. 251 (C.A.), I accept that the sentences which I am imposing, globally totalling 36 months, shall run concurrently with the sentence imposed by Newton R.S.J. of 18 months' imprisonment in his decision of June 20, 2022.
The Hon. Mr. Justice S.J. Wojciechowski
Released: February 11, 2026