R. v. Yaremkevich (G.N.), (2002) 328 A.R. 180 (PC)

• Judge: Allen, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: Thursday November 07, 2002
• Citations: (2002), 328 A.R. 180 (PC);2002 ABPC 174

R. v. Yaremkevich (G.N.) (2002), 328 A.R. 180 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2002] A.R. TBEd. NO.102

Her Majesty The Queen v. George Nicholas Yaremkevich

(006704464P101; 2002 ABPC 174)

Indexed As: R. v. Yaremkevich (G.N.)

Alberta Provincial Court

Allen, P.C.J.

November 7, 2002.

Summary:

A bankrupt, who failed to disclose to the bankruptcy trustee the receipt of $84,232 from the Workers' Compensation Board, pleaded guilty to (1) concealing documents (Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, s. 198(1)(d)); (2) failing to deliver documents to the trustee (ss. 158(b) and 198(2)); and (3) failing to disclose to the trustee receipt of the funds (s. 158(f)). The Crown sought a sentence of one year's imprisonment (maximum sentence when proceeding by way of summary conviction) and a compensation order for the full amount of the Board payment.

The Alberta Provincial Court declined to impose a custodial term or make a compensation order, but fined the bankrupt a total of $1,000.

Bankruptcy - Topic 8304

Offences - Sentence - Failure to deliver documents to trustee - A bankrupt pleaded guilty to three nondisclosure offences under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act for failing to disclose to the trustee the receipt of $84,232 in pension benefits from the Workers' Compensation Board - The Alberta Provincial Court held that the Crown failed to prove that the funds would have been divisible amongst creditors (i.e., any prejudice stemming from the failure to disclose was negligible, since the funds were likely exempt from seizure) - The court rejected the submission that a bankrupt abused a position of trust in committing an offence under the Act - The bankrupt suffered from a grave heart condition, requiring medication, and was of modest means - The court held that general deterrence and denunciation for the bankrupt's failure to perform his statutory duties were adequately met by the imposition of a total fine of $1,000 - See paragraphs 23 to 101.

Criminal Law - Topic 5720.4

Punishments (sentence) - Conditional sentence - When available or appropriate - The Alberta Provincial Court rejected the submission that a conditional sentence was precluded for offences involving a serious breach of trust - See paragraph 95.

Criminal Law - Topic 5849.10

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - When maximum sentence available - The Alberta Provincial Court stated that the belief that the maximum sentence was reserved for the worst offence and worst offender was "somewhat overstated and outdated" - The maximum sentence was reserved for very serious offences, not for the most serious circumstances imaginable - If, after considering the circumstances of the offence and the offender, and all the relevant sentencing considerations, the sentencing judge determined that the maximum sentence was appropriate, then the maximum sentence was available - See paragraphs 13 to 22.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Dosangh (1977), 35 C.C.C.(2d) 309 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. F.H.M. (1984), 30 Man.R.(2d) 190; 14 C.C.C.(3d) 227 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Mitchell (J.) (1997), 105 O.A.C. 381; 121 C.C.C.(3d) 139 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Head (1970), 1 C.C.C.(2d) 436 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Hill (1974), 15 C.C.C.(2d) 145 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Hill (No. 2) (1975), 7 N.R. 373; 25 C.C.C.(2d) 6 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Horvath (1982), 2 C.C.C.(3d) 196 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Hastings (1985), 58 A.R. 108; 19 C.C.C.(3d) 86 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Nienhuis (1991), 117 A.R. 253; 2 W.A.C. 253 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Lapointe (D.E.) (1999), 244 A.R. 358; 209 W.A.C. 358 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Gardiner, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 368; 43 N.R. 361; 68 C.C.C.(2d) 477; 30 C.R.(3d) 289; 140 D.L.R.(3d) 612, refd to. [para. 28].

Poulin v. Morency (Serge) et Associés Inc., [1999] 3 S.C.R. 351; 245 N.R. 312; 177 D.L.R.(4th) 283, refd to. [para. 34].

Perron-Malenfant v. Poliquin, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 375; 244 N.R. 350, refd to. [para. 34].

Guerin v. Canada, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 335; 55 N.R. 161; 13 D.L.R.(4th) 321, refd to. [para. 42].

Frame v. Smith and Smith, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 99; 78 N.R. 40; 23 O.A.C. 84; 42 D.L.R.(4th) 81; 9 R.F.L.(3d) 225, refd to. [para. 42].

Links v. Robinson et al. (1970), 16 C.B.R. 180 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 43].

Slattery (Bankrupt) v. Slattery, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 430; 158 N.R. 341; 139 N.B.R.(2d) 246; 357 A.P.R. 246, refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. John (R.C.) (1995), 162 A.R. 238; 83 W.A.C. 238 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Wyffels (M.) and Oliphant (L.L.) (1995), 178 A.R. 132; 110 W.A.C. 132 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. McIvor (C.M.) (1996), 181 A.R. 397; 116 W.A.C. 397 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. MacEachern (1978), 42 C.C.C.(2d) 189 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. Hashem (H.) (1997), 200 A.R. 312; 146 W.A.C. 312 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 54].

R. v. Holmes (P.D.) (1999), 237 A.R. 145; 197 W.A.C. 145 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 54].

R. v. Pierce (M.) (1997), 97 O.A.C. 253; 114 C.C.C.(3d) 23; 32 O.R.(3d) 321 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 54].

R. v. McDermand (N.G.) (2000), 261 A.R. 185; 225 W.A.C. 185 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 55].

R. v. Proulx (J.K.D.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 61; 249 N.R. 201; 142 Man.R.(2d) 161; 212 W.A.C. 161; 140 C.C.C.(3d) 449, refd to. [para. 56].

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; 140 C.C.C.(3d) 505, refd to. [para. 56].

Melnitzer, Re, [1993] O.J. No. 744 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 75].

R. v. Minden, [1935] O.R. 486 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 79].

R. v. McNally (1984), 13 W.C.B. 214 (Ont. Co. Ct.), refd to. [para. 81].

R. v. Langille (1986), 73 N.S.R.(2d) 262; 176 A.P.R. 262; 60 C.B.R.(N.S.) 55 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 82].

R. v. Laschuk, [1988] B.C.J. No. 99 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 83].

R. v. Sonntag (1989), 8 W.C.B.(2d) 32 (Ont. Dist. Ct.), refd to. [para. 84].

R. v. Baines, [1989] B.C.J. No. 372 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 85].

R. v. Levac-Barton, [2001] O.J. No. 5200 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 88].

Statutes Noticed:

Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. B-3, sect. 67(1)(b) [para. 29]; sect. 158(b), sect. 158(f), sect. 198(1)(d), sect. 198(2), sect. 204.3(1) [para. 6].

Workers' Compensation Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. W-15, sect. 1(1)(u) [para. 31]; sect. 141 [para. 3].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Gillese, Eileen E., The Law of Trusts (1997), part 1, c. 1 [para. 42].

Houlden, L.W., and Morawetz, C.H., Bankruptcy and Insolvency Law of Canada (3rd Ed. 1993) (looseleaf), generally [para. 44].

Counsel:

E. Bottcher, for the Crown;

G. Fontaine, for the accused.

This matter was heard before Allen, P.C.J., of the Alberta Provincial Court, who delivered the following reasons for sentence on November 7, 2002.