Winning Against Theft & Fraud Charges

R v. B (2023, OCJ Orangeville)

Client was charged with a series of offences relating to the theft and dismantling of motor vehicles. The client was co-accused with his ex-girlfriend whose name was on the lease of the premises in question. I was able to convince the Crown Attorney that the evidence against the client was weak as compared to the co-accused, but there was still evidence. The Crown Attorney’s initial position was 18 months in jail but following a judicial pre-trial it was agreed that upon pleading guilty the client would receive a conditional sentence of 12 months with 6 months of house arrest and 6 months of curfew. The client was extremely fortunate to get his guilty plea entered at the time when he did, because publicity was beginning to ramp up regarding the problem with auto theft in Canada.

R v. K (2022, OCJ Brampton)

Client was charged with 3 counts of fraud in relation to her employer. She was a university student who came from an underprivileged background and was desperately trying to improve her situation. She paid the employer back for everything that she had taken and the crown attorney withdrew all 3 charges.

R v. Various Clients

In addition to the summarized files there were 10 additional clients between 2021 and 2022 who had been charged with theft or fraud related offences that received diversion and their charges were withdrawn.

R v. E (2019, OCJ Brampton)

Client was charged with fraud over $5,000 for having cashed 3 fraudulent cheques from a carpet store. It was a scheme that had been set up by other individuals who convinced my client to participate. My client was vulnerable at the time because he was in substantial debt from student loans. My client repaid the full amount that the victims lost even though my client had only received a small portion of the amount that had been defrauded. The judge was sympathetic to that situation and was impressed with my client’s character reference letters, his efforts at rehabilitation and the fact that he was maintaining an important job while financially supporting his parents. He received a conditional discharge and probation for 1 year with no criminal record.

R. v. T. (2018, Newmarket Court)

Ms. T agreed to have money transferred into her bank account and then transferred out of her bank account. Ms. T ought to have known or suspected that these transactions were fraudulent, the overall fraud was in excess of $100,000 but she was in no way aware of the overall scheme, but nonetheless participated. The Crown was originally seeking a sentence of 18 months in jail plus restitution in the amount of $150,000. Ultimately, it was agreed that she did not have knowledge of the full extent of what was happening. She was allowed to plead guilty to money laundering, she received a 6 month house arrest sentence plus eighteen months of probation.

R. v. M. - B&E Tools and Possession of Stolen Property

A neighbour heard a noise outside and saw a group of young men who appeared to be breaking into vehicles, and called the police. Police came and found my client; two other young men took off while police searched a backpack found on my client. In that backpack they found property that appeared to be stolen as well as tools that could be used to break into vehicles.

There was nothing to indicate that the backpack belonged to my client, and there was some evidence that it had been dropped by the other two young men and simply picked up by my client when they ran away. I needed to convince the Crown that they had problems with their case.

I was able to convince the Crown that there was potentially an illegal search by the police and they lacked proof with regards to the ownership of the backpack. The Crown agreed to withdraw all charges upon completion of diversion by my client.

R. v. F. (2016 Bradford) - Counterfeit Money

My client and two of his friends made purchases at two fast food places. An employee at one of these businesses noticed one of the bills appeared to be counterfeit and called the police, providing the police with a description of the vehicle and the three persons inside the vehicle.

I was able to convince the Crown that my client, who was in the backseat, was not involved in the attempt to pass the bills at either fast food restaurant, and that there was no evidence that could prove that he knew the bills were counterfeit. Additionally, none of the counterfeit bills were found on my client's person. The Crown requested further disclosure of the police by way of surveillance video from the two restaurants; however there was no surveillance video.

Crown was forced to agree that there was no case against my client and the charges were withdrawn.

R. v. S.S. - Theft Over $5000 x2; Possession of Property Obtained by Crime

Mr. S was alleged to have stolen automobile parts from his workplace over a period of 1 month, a total value which accumulated to approximately $48000

Crown originally alleging much more than $48000 because the owner attempted to blame bad business decisions onto what Mr. S had taken; also another man involved; had to convince the Crown that yes he was guilty but he only took $4800 worth. Make sure he ended up with a conviction that was not an indictable offence and sentence had to be less than 6 months or he would have been deported.

probation for 2 years, $4800 restitution to be paid in $200 sums every month, 90 day intermittent sentence to be served on weekends, counselling as directed

R. v. A.H. - Theft Over $5000

was working for an employer where he would collect cash from a series of locations and he over the span of about 9 months took $18,000

get full restitution made up front and have a pre-trial with a judge explaining that there was favourable background information; Crown was originally seeking 18 months in jail

ultimately the Crown ended up agreeing to a 6 month conditional sentence to be served at home

R. v. A.M. - Fraud Under $5000

Probation for 1 year, community service, pay $750 restitution following a trial in which the client testified but was not believed - it was theft from his employer

R. v. N.M. - Theft and Fraud Under from his employer

Charges were withdrawn - restitution, community service, counselling

R. v. Z.A. - Theft Under

Charges withdrawn

R. v. A.Y. - Theft Under

Charges were withdrawn

R. v. R.C. - Theft Under

Charges withdrawn

R. v. J.M. - Theft Under

Military reservist

Diverted charges withdrawn

R. v. L.H. - Fraud Under from her employer

Plea to theft under

R. v. M.P. - Break and Enter and Commit an Indictable Offence x2

Crown initially seeking a criminal record with probation but was able to explain and show reports regarding a learning disability

Client paid restitution, charges withdrawn

R. v. S.A. and J.A. - Theft Under

Charges withdrawn

R. v. K.S. - Theft Under

Charges were withdrawn

R. v. Y.A. and E.C. - Theft Under

Charges were withdrawn

R. v. H.S. - Theft Under

Charges were withdrawn

R. v. H.P. - Theft Under

Charges withdrawn

R. v. P. (Brampton Court, March 2013)

Client was charged with theft under $5,000 after stolen cell phones from his place of work were found in his bag by his manager.

To provide the Crown and judge with a report from a doctor outlining my patient's cognitive issues which affected his decision making in this incident.

All charges were withdrawn.

R. v. A. (Brampton Court, September 2012)

Client was observed by loss-prevention officers at her work for concealing merchandise on her person during her shift, and then exiting the store making no attempt to pay for the merchandise. She was charged with three counts of theft under $5,000.

To provide letters of reference and to prove client was seeking counseling, and to demonstrate how her actions were a result of unfortunate personal circumstances, and have the client pay back for the merchandise up front. The amounts were not small and the incidents were happening over a period of several months. Client had lost her job.

Client was given a conditional discharge even though the Crown was seeking 6-9 months in jail. Letters from her therapist and from her volunteering efforts were particularly helpful to the judge.

R. v. G. (Finch Court, July 2012)

Client was charged with theft under $5,000 after being viewed on store security cameras allegedly taking merchandise.

To show the Crown that the client was suffering from some medical issues that contributed to his poor decision-making.

All charges were withdrawn.

R. v. N. (Newmarket Court, June 2012)

Client was observed my store security concealing makeup brushes in her bag with no attempt to pay for them. She was charged with theft under $5,000 and possession of stolen property.

To prove this was an out-of-character incident for my client, and that she was extremely remorseful of her actions. Did so by having her reimburse the store for stolen goods, make a donation to a charity, and do community service upfront.

All charges were withdrawn.

R. v. A & H. (Brampton Court, March 2012)

Both clients were shopping at a local No Frills grocery store, with a grocery cart and baby stroller. After filling their cart with groceries, they transferred the items into the stroller, at which point they left the store without paying for any of the items. The police were called, and both were charged with theft under $5,000.

To convince the Crown it was out of character for my clients and that this should not be seen as a joint criminal enterprise.

Crown agreed to defer my clients out of the criminal process.

R. v. R. (Brampton Court, January 2012)

Client was accused of stealing two cheques from the student union at which she worked and depositing them into her own personal bank account. Client was charged with two counts of theft under $5,000 and two counts of fraud under $5,000.

To delay the case long enough that my client was able to get the money together to pay back the students' union, and once she had that money, to indicate to the judge that the money was in a trust account. Also, to have the client complete volunteer work. The client was in a very strict family and was feeling unbearable pressure from her parents regarding her "unsatisfactory" grades.

Client pled guilty and was given a conditional discharge, with probation for 12 months, restitution within 30 days, and 100 hours of volunteer work.

R. v. N. (Brampton Court, January 2012)

After stealing several items from the back of pickup trucks, my client was charged with theft under $5,000 and possession of stolen property.

To get the Crown to agree that it was out of character for my client by demonstrating how he had completed upfront volunteer work.

Although the Crown was originally asking for a criminal conviction, all charges were withdrawn and he was diverted out of the criminal process.

R. v. D. (Brampton Court, December 2011)

Client, who was a Canada Post employee, was taking a phone call at a Canada Post depot. Her employer had set up video cameras in order to catch the person who had been stealing used cell-phones that were being collected at the center. After viewing the footage, the Canada Post and police believed my client had taken one of the cellphones, and she was charged with Theft From Mail.

To convince the Crown and later, the judge, that this was truly out of character and that she had completed 50 hours of volunteer work following the charge, and that these were recycled phones that she did not set out to steal, it simply became a spur-of-the-moment decision. Because it was theft from mail, the Crown position was 90 days in jail.

After hearing my submissions, client was given an absolute discharge.

R. v. P. (Brampton Court, October 2011)

After being observed by a store security guard of stealing several video games from a Costco store, client was charged with theft under $5,000.

To convince the Crown that this was an out-of-character act. Client has a disabled son and limited sources of income. Had the client write a letter of apology, and make a charitable donation.

Charges were withdrawn.

R. v. G. (Brampton Court, November 2010)

Client was charged with theft under $5,000 after admitting to loss prevention officers he had stolen several items from the store The Bay and one item from the store Sephora. Client was immediately remorseful.

To have the client do some community service and make a donation to a Canadian charity up front, and to pay back for the merchandise. This proved that my client was remorseful of his actions and it was an out-of-character occurrence.

Charges were withdrawn.

R. v. R. (Brampton Court, October 2010)

Client stole merchandise from his employer on his last day of work.

Convince the Crown that this was totally out of character; client was hard-working, religious, and deeply remorseful. His employer had treated him very badly prior to firing him for no good reason.

Breaches of trust often result in jail sentences but I was able to convince the Crown to give my client diversion. He was not found guilty of any offence and maintained a completely clean record.

R. v. S. (Milton Court, February 2010)

The client was an employee of Winners and during a two month period he ran through several fraudulent transactions that resulted in him getting property for free. He did similar transactions for friends and family members although his family members did not know that he was doing this.

The client was just barely 18 years old at the time when these offences took place. He had enrolled in a College course for Travel & Tourism following his arrest on these charges. A criminal record would make travel, which was required for his course, very difficult. I instructed him to complete volunteer hours, a letter of apology, and to save up the $8,000.00 that he needed to repay to Winners.

The Crown asked the Judge to impose a 6 month jail sentence to be served at home under house arrest with electronic monitoring. I convinced the judge that given his age, his need to travel, and his efforts since his arrest at making amends, he should receive a Conditional Discharge and no criminal record. The Judge agreed.

R. v. M. (Brampton Court, November 2009)

Client was charged with shoplifting at two different stores and was charged with an Assault with Intent to Resist Arrest. While leaving the store after the second shoplifting, the client was caught by security but he pushed the security officer down and took off in his vehicle. There was a surveillance video showing the client stealing power tools and using the baby stroller as a way to hide the items. His wife was also present with the baby but she was not involved.

The client was initially claiming his innocence but when confronted with the video he was prepared to admit to his actions. The Crown wanted 30 days in jail because of the client’s previous record for related offences. I obtained a report from the client’s doctor showing he was getting counselling for some personal issues in his life and showed that to the Crown.

As a result of the counselling that he was receiving, the Crown agreed to probation for the client with a term that he continue with his counselling and the Judge agreed.

R. v. P. (Brampton Court, October 2009)

The client was arrested for breaking and entering a house. The police found him in a car that was not his in the area of the break-in; he did not have a good explanation for why he was there and in possession of a wallet that was not his.

The client’s presence near the house in question was suspicious but the wallet he was found with was not related to any of the break and enters. I wanted to convince the Crown that they did not have any real evidence to link my client to the break-in. There were finger prints that were found at the house in question but they did not belong to my client.

The Crown Attorney ultimately agreed that while my client was probably guilty, it could not be proven and the charges were withdrawn.

R. v. G. (Brampton Court, 2008 – credit card fraud)