R. v. Ellis (T.L.), (2008) 428 A.R. 334 (QB)

• Judge: Verville, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: January 14, 2008
• Citations: (2008), 428 A.R. 334 (QB);2008 ABQB 40

R. v. Ellis (T.L.) (2008), 428 A.R. 334 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2008] A.R. TBEd. JA.151

Her Majesty The Queen v. Terry Lynn Ellis (070391453Q1; 2008 ABQB 40)

Indexed As: R. v. Ellis (T.L.)

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Verville, J.

January 14, 2008.

Summary:

The accused was one of six persons charged with committing fraud for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal organization (Criminal Code, s. 467.12) and conspiracy to commit fraud (s. 465(1)(c)). She was also charged with 24 counts of fraud (s. 380(1)(a)), one count of knowingly using, dealing with or acting on forged documents (s. 368(1)(a)) and one count of possession of a Commissioner of Oath's stamp in the name of another person that was obtained by the commission of an offence (s. 355(b)). The charges related to a fraudulent mortgage scheme masterminded by Pervez where mortgage funds were obtained from lenders on properties were purchased by Pervez and "flipped" to straw buyers. Mortgage funds were then obtained for an inflated property value using falsified and forged documents and material misrepresentations in the mortgage applications. But for the fraud, the mortgages would never have been granted. Over the course of 2001-2005, 280 real estate transactions led to the receipt of over $29,000,000 in mortgage proceeds. The charges respecting the accused involved 125 properties that generated almost $14,500,000 from 19 different institutional lenders. The accused was a legal assistant/conveyancer and the bookkeeper at the law firm used by Pervez for the necessary real estate transactions. The accused's alleged contribution was, inter alia, falsifying and forging documents and misappropriating $2,000,000 in trust account funds for use by Pervez to fund the fraudulent scheme.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a judgment reported 426 A.R. 1, found the accused guilty of (1) committing fraud for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal organization, (2) conspiracy to commit fraud, (3) 12 counts of fraud, (4) knowingly using, dealing with or acting on forged documents, and (5) being in possession of another person's Commissioner of Oaths stamp, which was stolen.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that appropriate individual sentences were five years' imprisonment for conspiracy to commit fraud, one year's imprisonment (consecutive) for the criminal organization conviction, 30 months' imprisonment (consecutive) on the fraud counts, six months' imprisonment (consecutive) for forgery and three months' imprisonment (concurrent) for possession of stolen property, for a total of nine years' imprisonment. However, applying the totality principle, because a total of nine years' imprisonment was excessive, the court sentenced the accused to a total of six years' imprisonment, less 7.5 months' credit for pretrial custody.

Criminal Law - Topic 5804

Sentencing - General - Consecutive sentences - Reduced total term (totality principle) - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5857 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5857

Sentence - Conspiracy - The 61 year old accused was one of six persons charged with committing fraud for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal organization, and conspiracy to commit fraud - She was also charged with 24 counts of fraud, one count of knowingly using, dealing with or acting on forged documents, and one count of possession of a stolen property (Commissioner of Oath's stamp) - The charges related to a scheme masterminded by Pervez where mortgage funds were fraudulently obtained from lenders on properties were purchased by Pervez and "flipped" to "straw buyers" - Mortgage funds were then obtained based on inflated property values, using falsified and forged documents and material misrepresentations in the mortgage applications - Over the course of 2001-2005, 280 real estate transactions led to the receipt of over $29,000,000 in mortgage proceeds - The charges respecting the accused involved 125 properties that generated almost $14,500,000 from 19 different institutional lenders - The accused was a legal assistant/conveyancer and the bookkeeper at the law firm used by Pervez for the necessary real estate transactions - The accused's contribution was, inter alia, falsifying and forging documents and misappropriating $2,000,000 in trust account funds for use by Pervez to fund the fraudulent scheme - The accused was convicted of (1) committing fraud for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal organization, (2) conspiracy to commit fraud, (3) 12 counts of fraud, (4) knowingly using, dealing with or acting on forged documents, and (5) being in possession of property obtained by crime - The accused had no prior criminal record - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that appropriate individual sentences were five years' imprisonment for conspiracy to commit fraud, one year's imprisonment (consecutive) for the criminal organization conviction, 30 months' imprisonment (consecutive) on the fraud counts, six months' imprisonment (consecutive) for forgery and three months' imprisonment (concurrent) for possession of stolen property, for a total of nine years' imprisonment - However, applying the totality principle, because a total of nine years' imprisonment was excessive, the court sentenced the accused to a total of six years' imprisonment, less 7.5 months' credit for pretrial custody.

Criminal Law - Topic 5859

Sentence - Fraud - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5857 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5862

Sentence - Possession of stolen goods or goods obtained by crime - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5857 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5876

Sentence - Forgery - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5857 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5977

Sentence - Criminal organization offence - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5857 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Fulcher (J.J.) (2007), 422 A.R. 329; 415 W.A.C. 329; 2007 ABCA 381, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Kahlon - see R. v. Pervez (G.A.).

R. v. Pervez (G.A.) (2007), 421 A.R. 292 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Jaasma (1976), 1 A.R. 553 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Svidal - see R. v. James and Svidal.

R. v. James and Svidal (1991), 120 A.R. 333; 8 W.A.C. 333 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Heiligsetzer (D.E.), [2005] A.R. Uned. 656; 2006 CarswellAlta 4 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Lysyk (N.A.) (2004), 368 A.R. 395; 2004 ABQB 654, refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Montpellier (P.), [2004] O.T.C. 257 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Slobogian (B.W.), [2005] B.C.T.C. 434; 2005 BCSC 434, refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Kerntopf (W.B.) (1999), 232 A.R. 154; 195 W.A.C. 154 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Wuckert (J.D.) (2000), 145 Man.R.(2d) 181; 218 W.A.C. 181; 2000 MBCA 5, refd to. [paras. 37, 38].

R. v. Minnie (T.J.), [2007] B.C.T.C. Uned. 217; 2007 BCSC 433, refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Rusnak (O.) (1992), 135 A.R. 220; 33 W.A.C. 220 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Ryan, [1976] 6 W.W.R. 668; 1 A.R. 355 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Wood (J.D.) (2001), 191 N.S.R.(2d) 201; 596 A.P.R. 201; 2001 NSCA 38, refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Shead (R.G.S.) (1997), 115 Man.R.(2d) 215; 139 W.A.C. 215 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Luciani, [1984] O.J. No. 1344 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Toews (L.A.), [2007] A.R. Uned. 587 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Bracegirdle (S.) (2004), 354 A.R. 313; 329 W.A.C. 313; 2004 ABCA 252, refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. McTighe (J.) (2005), 361 A.R. 315; 339 W.A.C. 315; 2005 ABCA 30, refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. McKinnon (V.A.) (2005), 361 A.R. 271; 339 W.A.C. 271; 2005 ABCA 8, refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Lindsay (S.P.) et al., [2005] O.T.C. 44 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Sahaidak, 1990 CarswellOnt 1548 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. J.H. (1999), 118 O.A.C. 354; 135 C.C.C.(3d) 338 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Lindsay (S.P.) et al., [2004] O.T.C. 224 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Overacker (W.) (2005), 367 A.R. 250; 346 W.A.C. 250; 2005 ABCA 150, refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Accused No. 1 et al., [2005] B.C.T.C. Uned. 789; 2005 BCSC 1727, refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Smith (D.W.) (2006), 278 Sask.R. 4; 2006 SKQB 137, refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Lysyk (N.A.) (2004), 368 A.R. 395; 2004 ABQB 654, refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Tulloch, [2002] O.J. No. 5446 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Williams (B.), [2007] O.T.C. C33 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Wheeler (J.) (2007), 215 Man.R.(2d) 127; 2007 MBPC 12, refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Prokofiew (No. 2), [2004] O.J. No. 5133 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. MacKenzie, [2002] O.J. No. 2512 (C.J.), refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Kirk (A.G.) (2004), 189 O.A.C. 314; 188 C.C.C.(3d) 329 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. St. Fort, [2002] O.J. No. 5570 (C.J.), refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Pierce (M.) (1997), 97 O.A.C. 253 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Holub (P.) et al. (2002), 155 O.A.C. 278; 163 C.C.C.(3d) 166 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Smith (M.A.) (2004), 191 O.A.C. 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Dobis (M.) (2002), 157 O.A.C. 83; 163 C.C.C.(3d) 259 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Bjellebo (E.S.) et al., [2000] O.T.C. 119 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Coffin, [2006] Q.J. No. 3136 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

Zhang v. R., 2006 QCCA 1534, refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Toman, [2005] Q.J. No. 3694 (C.Q.), refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Moulton (K.) (2001), 213 Sask.R. 130; 260 W.A.C. 130; 160 C.C.C.(3d) 407 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Finch (C.E.) (2001), 286 A.R. 355; 253 W.A.C. 355; 2001 ABCA 223, refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Stevenson (R.T.) (2002), 299 A.R. 159; 266 W.A.C. 159; 2002 ABCA 41, refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Papequash (L.C.) (2004), 254 Sask.R. 153; 336 W.A.C. 153; 2004 SKCA 74, refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Sbrolla, 2003 CarswellOnt 6186 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Eizenga, 2007 ONCJ 372, refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. C.A.M., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 500; 194 N.R. 321; 73 B.C.A.C. 81; 120 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 57].

R. v. J.M.F. (1982), 37 A.R. 273; 68 C.C.C.(2d) 367 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 59].

R. v. Great White Holdings Ltd. et al. (2005), 371 A.R. 256; 354 W.A.C. 256; 2005 ABCA 188, refd to. [para. 60].

R. v. Hicks (C.R.) (2007), 268 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 125; 813 A.P.R. 125; 2007 NLCA 41, refd to. [para. 61].

Counsel:

Michelle Doyle, Orest Yereniuk and Cheryl Schlecker (Special Prosecutions), for the Crown;

Paul L. Moreau, for the accused.

This matter was heard on January 14, 2008, before Verville, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following judgment orally on January 14, 2008.