R. v. Nason (D.A.), [2015] A.R. TBEd. NO.032

• Judge: Fraser, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: October 21, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Alberta
• Citations: [2015] A.R. TBEd. NO.032;2015 ABPC 220

R. v. Nason (D.A.), [2015] A.R. TBEd. NO.032

MLB being edited

Currently being edited for A.R. - judgment temporarily in rough form.

Temp. Cite: [2015] A.R. TBEd. NO.032

Her Majesty the Queen v. Donald Addison Nason

(130430499P1; 2015 ABPC 220)

Indexed As: R. v. Nason (D.A.)

Alberta Provincial Court

Fraser, P.C.J.

October 21, 2015.

Summary:

The offender was found guilty of five counts of trading in securities in breach of an Alberta Securities Commission Order; five counts of distributing securities without a filed prospectus; and 10 counts of making prohibited representations that he either knew were misleading or untrue or with intent to sell securities (see [2015] A.R. TBEd. OC.014). Werenka and Van Lent invested $290,000 as a result of these representations and received nothing in return. The offender had committed the same offences of illegal trades and misrepresentations in relation to the same company (Locate Technologies Inc.) in New Brunswick and was sanctioned by their Securities Commission and barred from trading in any securities as well as handed an administrative penalty of $100,000 (which had never been paid). There was no show of remorse by the offender. He had no criminal record and he did not profit from his misrepresentations since he gave the money to Drever and from there it disappeared. He was not the operating mind of Locate and was more in the position of a salesman under the direction of Drever.

The Alberta Provincial Court determined fit sentences for the offences which totalled nine months' imprisonment. In an attempt to achieve some parity with Drever (who was not tried in a criminal court but dealt with administratively by a Securities Commission panel) and take into account the prejudice suffered as a result of an adjournment because of late disclosure, the court found that a conditional sentence order was appropriate. The court stated that a conditional sentence order was generally lengthier than the appropriate custodial sentence, which it had determined would be nine months. Therefore, the conditional sentence order would be for 18 months. That would be followed by one year of probation. The court also imposed an order pursuant to s. 194(6)(b) of the Alberta Securities Act permanently banning the offender from trading in or purchasing securities.

Criminal Law - Topic 82

General principles - Res judicata (multiple convictions for same subject matter precluded) - Bars to raising defence - See paragraphs 17 to 19.

Criminal Law - Topic 5720.4

Punishments (sentence) - Conditional sentence - When available or appropriate - See paragraphs 23 to 27.

Criminal Law - Topic 5806

Sentencing - General - Co-accused - Sentence parity - See paragraphs 13 to 16 and 24 to 26.

Securities Regulation - Topic 5335

Trading in securities - Offences - Penalties and punishments - Consecutive or concurrent sentences - See paragraph 19.

Counsel:

Tom McCartney and P.A. Verschoote, for the Crown;

Craig L. Leggatt, for the Defence.

This matter was heard before Fraser, P.C.J., of the Alberta Provincial Court, who delivered the following judgment on October 21, 2015.