Circumstances of cheating horse trainer & ICBC exam scam made use of as precedent in Robert Saunders fraud scenario – Kelowna Information
Image: Nicholas Johansen
Robert Riley Saunders leaving the Kelowna courthouse very last week..
What do a dishonest horse trainer in Ontario and a Richmond interpreter who helped folks cheat on ICBC’s driver’s licence test have to do with the sentencing of Robert Riley Saunders?
Over the earlier two weeks, the fraudulent previous social worker was in Kelowna court for his Gardiner Hearing, wherever his defence counsel and Crown argued about regardless of whether Saunders’ admitted fraud from the Ministry of Children and Loved ones Enhancement actually deprived the youth in his treatment of funds they would have gained. The listening to wrapped up Thursday.
Even though Saunders has pleaded responsible to 3 of his 13 prices, this disputed aggravating variable of his fraud will affect the duration of his sentence.
The two key court decisions Crown prosecutor Heather Magnin relied on in her submissions Thursday was the 2015 Supreme Court of Canada decision R. v. Riesberry and the B.C. Court of Attraction final decision from before this calendar year, R. v. Jamo.
Each prior decisions deal with fraud situations, and offer precedent all-around how the courts can deal with scenarios where a fraud brings about a chance of monetary deprivation to a 3rd celebration.
The Riesberry choice stems from an Ontario horse coach, Derek Riesberry, who was caught offering his horse efficiency enhancing prescription drugs prior to a race, and he was convicted of defrauding the betting public.
The more current Jamo situation concerned Amjed Jamo, who was convicted of fraud less than $5,000 for helping his purchasers, who he presented translation providers for, cheat on the ICBC driver’s licensing examination.
“The intention of both equally offenders was to enrich themselves through a fraudulent act Mr. Reisberry by making sure his horse gained the race, Mr. Jamo to get payment from individuals who would not in any other case move their driving take a look at,” Magnin discussed during her submissions Thursday.
“The effects arising from the offenders’ steps resulted in a economic deprivation to a third party who have been not immediately concerned in the original dishonest act. In the situation of Mr. Riesberry, this was the betting public, who if mindful of the fraud may possibly have preferred not to place a wager, and in the case of Mr. Jamo, this was ICBC, who would normally have motive to problem whether incidents involving individual who he helped cheat was triggered by their lack of competency to move a driving exam.
“The Crown claims the details in this article are analogous below Mr. Saunders’ obvious intention was to steal cash from the Ministry. Like the offenders in Riesberry and Jamo, he did not care what impact his actions could have on other people.”
In the Jamo circumstance, the accused argued on attraction that the hazard of money deprivation to ICBC was also distant, but citing the Supreme Court of Canada’s Riesberry case, the B.C. courtroom of charm disagreed.
When the court docket agreed “a amount of factors would have to occur” for ICBC to sustain actual loss, the danger of that reduction was even now existing and was even now relevant.
The take a look at the Appeals court docket relied on is: “Did the dishonest act bring about a threat of prejudice to the victim’s economic passions?”
Magnin explained a comparable application can be utilised in the Saunders circumstance, as it truly is now not doable to ascertain the genuine deprivation all 24 youth the Crown has discovered in the scenario confronted.
“For this cause, in most cases the Crown is not able to assert precise deprivation,” Magnin explained. “What is very clear is that all 24 of the susceptible youth will always have explanations to concern whether they had been delivered the support and providers mandated by laws and will often have causes to consider Mr. Saunders stole funds they had been meant to receive and at all occasions he place his interests to start with.”
Saunders’ defence counsel Bryan Fitzpatrick conceded that past courtroom choices display the chance of deprivation in fraud scenarios “casts a huge web,” but he maintained the Crown was unable to establish over and above a acceptable doubt that Saunders’ fraud experienced true concrete effect on any of the youth’s money interests.
Though Magnin laid out a handful of examples wherever Saunders stole cash that had been authorized for the youth in his care, no matter if by means of Impartial Living Agreements or aging-out-of-care “start-up cash,” Saunders preserved these youth would not have been entitled to the dollars he stole.
It’s not clear when Justice Steven Wilson will make a choice on the Gardiner hearing, nor how these probable aggravating components will effects Saunders’ eventual sentence. Crown prosecutor Magnin has not mentioned what size of sentence she’ll be trying to get in the subject.
The final two-working day sentencing listening to is envisioned to arise in late May possibly or early June.