Scott Aird

The defendant was charged with theft over $5,000, fraud over $5,000, and criminal breach of trust arising from her misappropriation of $4,000 belonging to her elderly father, for whom she held a Power of Attorney.

She was found guilty of theft under $5,000, fraud under $5,000, and criminal breach of trust.

The Crown sought a conditional sentence of six months, while defence counsel sought a conditional discharge.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with 18 months probation, finding that neither a conditional discharge nor a conditional sentence was appropriate given the aggravating factor of breach of fiduciary duty, the defendant's lack of remorse, and the principles of sentencing under the Criminal Code.

The accused was charged with theft over $5,000, fraud over $5,000, and criminal breach of trust arising from her use of her father's funds while holding a power of attorney.

The accused used $4,000 of her father's money to pay personal bills while he was in long-term care, causing him to default on facility payments.

The accused claimed colour of right based on a clause in the power of attorney authorizing loans to relatives and her father's prior loans to her.

The court found that the circumstances were materially different from prior loans, as the father was now in care, the funds were insufficient to cover his care costs, and his default on obligations created risk.

The court rejected the colour of right defence and found the accused guilty of theft under $5,000, fraud under $5,000, and criminal breach of trust.

The offender pleaded guilty to one count of gross indecency and one count of indecent assault involving two young male victims in the early 1980s.

The offences involved sexual exploitation of children aged 10 and 13 years old, including oral sex, anal intercourse, coercion, blackmail, and the provision of alcohol.

The court imposed a sentence of 12 months' imprisonment concurrent on both counts, rejecting the defence submission for a conditional sentence despite the offender's exemplary life over the intervening 30 years.

The court found that denunciation and general deterrence required incarceration in a traditional setting.

A DNA order, SOIRA compliance order, and 5-year weapons prohibition were imposed.

A section 161 order was refused on Charter grounds.