The Crown appealed a sentence imposed under the Securities Act for unregistered trading, trading without a prospectus, and breaching prohibition orders.
The sentencing judge had imposed an 18‑month sentence to run concurrently with a 27‑month sentence the respondent was already serving for separate securities offences involving a different company.
The Crown argued that the concurrent sentence undermined deterrence and failed to reflect that the offences arose from separate schemes occurring at different times with different victims.
The Superior Court held that the sentencing judge erred by failing to adequately consider the distinct nature of the schemes and the respondent’s repeated breaches of prohibition orders.
The court concluded that the totality principle did not render a 45‑month total sentence disproportionate and ordered the 18‑month term to be served consecutively.
