R. v. Siganski (J.M.), 2015 SKQB 63

Judge:McMurtry, J.
Court:Court of Queen's Bench for Saskatchewan
Case Date:February 26, 2015
Jurisdiction:Saskatchewan
Citations:2015 SKQB 63;(2015), 470 Sask.R. 1 (QB)
 
FREE EXCERPT

R. v. Siganski (J.M.) (2015), 470 Sask.R. 1 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] Sask.R. TBEd. MR.043

Her Majesty the Queen v. Joseph M. Siganski

(2012 NJ No. 61; 2015 SKQB 63)

Indexed As: R. v. Siganski (J.M.)

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Regina

McMurtry, J.

February 26, 2015.

Summary:

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at [2014] Sask.R. Uned. 80, convicted the accused of one count of fraud over $5,000, two counts of forgery and two counts of using a forged document.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench sentenced the accused to 90 days' imprisonment to be followed by six months of probation.

Criminal Law - Topic 5720.4

Punishments (sentence) - Conditional sentence - When available or appropriate - The accused, who had no criminal record, was convicted of one count of fraud over $5,000, two counts of forgery and two counts of using a forged document - He sought a conditional sentence - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench sentenced the accused to 90 days' imprisonment to be followed by six months of probation - While a conditional sentence was available, it would not bring home to the accused and others the gravity of his actions and the harm caused - The amount of money that the accused sought to realize through his deceit was relatively small (just under $16,000), which put his offences on the less serious end of the spectrum - However, the deceit was "blatant and deliberate" and the accused's moral culpability was high - He had access to documentation and information belonging to borrowers and lenders that put him in a position of trust - While the accused was assessed as a low risk to re-offend, his inability or refusal to recognize the deceitfulness of his actions was concerning - The accused had expressed no real remorse nor had he acknowledged the harm done - A short period of incarceration was the least restrictive sanction appropriate.

Criminal Law - Topic 5831.1

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Offences involving breach of trust - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5720.4 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5847

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Remorse of accused - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5720.4 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5859

Sentence - Fraud - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5720.4 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5876

Sentence - Forgery - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5720.4 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Dwyer (B.) (2013), 301 O.A.C. 191; 296 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 2013 ONCA 34, refd to. [para. 2].

R. v. Bunn (T.A.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 183; 249 N.R. 296; 142 Man.R.(2d) 256; 212 W.A.C. 256; 2000 SCC 9, dist. [para. 19].

R. v. West (D.) (2012), 404 Sask.R. 231; 2012 SKPC 145, agreed with [para. 21].

R. v. Bethke (D.) (2013), 422 Sask.R. 250; 2013 SKPC 135, refd to. [para. 24].

Counsel:

Andrew Davis, for the Crown;

Robert MacKay, for the accused.

This matter was heard by McMurtry, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Regina, who delivered the following sentencing decision on February 26, 2015.

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP