R. v. Babbar, 2017 ONCJ 862

ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE CITATION: R. v. Babbar , 2017 ONCJ 862 DATE: 2017-12-13 COURT FILE No.: 14-12340 BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN — AND — GURINDERPAL SINGH BABBAR Before Justice J.M. Copeland Heard on February 13-17, July 5-7, September 5-6, September 12, and September 14, 2017 Reasons for Judgment released on December 13, 2017 Mr. R. Morin..................................................................................................... counsel for the Crown Mr. L. Lebovits.............................................................................................. counsel for Mr.

Babbar COPELAND J.: [ 1 ] Gurinderpal Singh Babbar is charged with multiple counts of participating in the making of a statement or document that he knew to be false or misleading under the Employment Insurance Act or regulations. There were originally 31 counts. Prosecution counsel withdrew four counts at the start of the trial (counts #7, #8, #13, and #29), five more at the close of the prosecution case (counts #12, #14, #17, #18, #20), and two more during closing submissions (counts #11 and #22).

This leaves 20 counts to be decided (counts #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #9, #10, #15, #16, #19, #21, #23, #24, #25, #26, #27, #28, #30 and #31). [ 2 ] 18 of the remaining counts relate to Records of Employment (“ROEs”) containing allegedly false or misleading statements. An ROE is a document that an employer must provide to a former employee at the time the individual’s employment ends.

The ROE contains information about the person’s employment, including the name of the company they worked for, the reason for termination, insurable hours worked in the relevant time period, and insurable earnings in the relevant time period.

The ROE is a document which an employer is required to prepare under the Employment Insurance Act and regulations, and which a former employee is required to file when he or she applies for Employment Insurance benefits (“EI benefits”). [ 3 ] 17 of the false ROE counts involve situations where the prosecution alleges that the individual named in the ROE never worked for the employer named in the ROE, and thus had no insurable earnings (these are counts # 1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #9, #15, #16, #19, #21, #23, #24, #25, #26, #27, #28). [ 4 ] One count, count #10, involves a situation where the individual did work for the employer named in the ROE, but was the spouse of employer.

The prosecution takes the position in relation to that count that the issuing of an ROE stating that the individual had a certain number of “insurable hours”, and a certain amount of “insurable earnings” for the particular business is a false statement. The prosecution argues that this is so because the provisions of the Employment Insurance Act that define “insurable employment” exclude work that done for an employer who is non-arm’s length, and in particular work for a spouse, from being “insurable employment”. Thus, the prosecution argues that work done by an employer’s spouse is not “insurable employment”.

[5] The remaining two counts (#30 and #31) relate to an allegation that Mr. Babbar helped two of the individuals who allegedlyreceived false ROEs to prepare their online EI applications. The allegedly false statements for these two counts are statements in theonline EI applications that each individual worked for a particular business that the prosecution alleges they never worked for.

Positions of the parties and issues in dispute [6] The prosecution theory is that the defendant knowingly provided ROEs to individuals so that they could obtain EI benefits,knowing that the individuals did not in fact work for the business named in the ROE (with the exception of count #10, which asexplained above, involves a different situation).

The prosecution alleges that in many cases the defendant was paid for providing theROE. [7] The prosecution case consists of the allegedly false ROEs, and related online EI application forms, as well as variouswitnesses who fall in the category either of business owner, or individual who was issued the ROE (who I also refer to as the “putativeemployees”). For some counts only the business owner was called as a witness. For some counts the business owner and one or moreindividuals who received the ROEs were called as witnesses.

For one count (count #28) only the individual who received the ROEtestified, and not the business owner. [8] In general, the business owners testified that various named individuals who were issued ROEs never worked for them. They testified that the defendant did various accounting work for their business.

And they testified that they did not prepare the ROEs atissue or know anything about them. [9] In general, the individuals who testified that they had received ROEs from the defendant testified that they did not in factwork for the business named in the ROE, and that they had paid the defendant to prepare the ROE, so they could obtain EI benefits. [10] The prosecution also brought an application to have the evidence on each count considered as similar fact evidence in relationto the other counts.

I will explain my ruling on that issue in the course of my reasons. [11] The defendant testified and was the only defence witness. The defendant testified that he worked, first as an employee, andlater as a subcontractor, for a man named Jaspal Singh, who operated a firm called H and B Accounting. The defendant testified that hewas not an accountant and did not do accounting work or tax returns. He testified that he only did data entry. [12] The defendant testified that he prepared the ROEs on the instructions of Jaspal Singh and with information provided by JaspalSingh.

He testified that although he filled out the ROEs at issue, he did not sign them, and he then returned them to Jaspal Singh. Hedenied that he knew that the contents of the ROEs were false. He denied that he took money to prepare ROEs. He denied that he knewmost of the business owners who testified, and that he had ever met most of the individuals who testified that he prepared ROEs for themin exchange for money. [13] The gravamen of the offences before the court is an allegation that the defendant participated in making false statements indocuments required under the EI Act.

This requires that the prosecution prove four things: (1) that the defendant participated in makingthe documents; (2) that the documents contain information that is required under the EI Act or regulations; (3) that the documents containfalse or misleading statements; and (4) that the defendant knew that the documents contained false or misleading statements. [14] It is not in dispute that the defendant participated in making the ROEs. He testified that he prepared them, but did not signthem.

This satisfies the first element of the offences for all of the counts except counts #30 and #31, which relate to alleged falsestatements in online EI applications. For counts #30 and #31, whether this element of the offence is satisfied turns on my assessment onthe reasonable doubt standard of the evidence of Nadia Wadood, Amritpal Grewal, and the defendant. [15] The defence conceded during the course of the trial that the ROEs and EI applications for benefits at issue containinformation that is required under the Act.

This satisfies the second element of the offences. [16] This leaves two main factual issues in dispute for all of the counts, except count #10 (which raises a different legal issue). First, has the prosecution proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the individuals named in the ROEs did not work at the businesses listedin the ROEs?

If the prosecution has not proven this for any individual count, then the prosecution would be unable to prove that thestatements in the ROEs and the two EI applications are false or misleading (i.e., the assertion that the person worked at a particularbusiness and had particular insurable earnings). [17] Second, if the prosecution has proven that any of the named individuals did not in fact work at the businesses as asserted inthe ROEs, was Mr. Babbar aware that the information in the ROEs was false? Mr. Babbar in his own evidence admitted that he preparedthe body of each ROE, but denied that he signed them.

Whether or not Mr. Babbar signed the ROEs, given his admission that heprepared the body of the ROEs, if the prosecution can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that for any count he had knowledge that theinformation in the ROE was false, then the count is proven. [18] As I have noted above, the defendant testified in his own defence. As a result, I approach issues of credibility using theframework set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. W.D., (SCC), [1991], 1 S.C.R. 742, and in particular, that thereasonable doubt standard applies to issues of credibility. If I believe the defendant’s evidence, I must acquit.

If I do not believe thedefendant’s evidence, but his evidence leaves me with a reasonable doubt, I must acquit. Finally, even if I do not believe the defendant’sevidence, and it does not leave me with a reasonable doubt, I can only find the defendant guilty if I am satisfied that the prosecution’scase proves the charges (or particular counts) beyond a reasonable doubt. I further instruct myself that I must consider the evidence as awhole. In particular, as credibility is a central issue in this case, I must consider the credibility of each witness’ evidence in the context ofthe evidence as a whole.

In considering the credibility of the evidence of any witness, I instruct myself that I may accept some, none, orall of the evidence of any witness.

[ 19 ] My reasons for judgment are structured as follows. First, as there was a large body of evidence, I will summarize the evidence of the prosecution case and the defendant. In the case of the prosecution witnesses, I have organized the witnesses by grouping them with the business they are connected to. Second, I consider some issues particular to the documentary evidence, in particular the ROEs. These relate to handwriting comparison and arguments about comparison of ink colour.

Third, I consider the Crown’s application that the evidence on each count be admissible on the other counts as similar fact evidence. Fourth, I explain my findings of credibility and my ultimate conclusions on whether the Crown has proven the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. The Evidence Evidence of Crown witnesses and documentary evidence Josie Martin [ 20 ] Josie Martin is a Service Canada investigator who was involved in the investigation of the charges against Mr. Babbar, including the collection of documentary evidence, and the interviewing of witnesses. Ms Martin’s evidence spans all of the counts.

The documentary exhibits, in particular the ROEs and the online EI application forms, and some business records were entered into evidence through Ms Martin. No issue was taken by the defence regarding the authenticity of these records obtained from Service Canada’s records, and in the case of the corporate documents, from business record searches. [ 21 ] The defence did not challenge the credibility of Ms Martin’s evidence.

However, the defence did raise through her cross- examination some issues with the investigation that are relevant to the assessment of the reliability and credibility of some of the other prosecution witness. [ 22 ] I agree that Ms Martin was a credible witness. At this stage, I will flag some issues arising out of her evidence that may have an impact on the assessment of the evidence of other prosecution witness.

I will deal with these issues in more detail as I deal with the civilian witnesses to whom they apply, and in my consideration of the count to count similar fact evidence application. [ 23 ] Ms Martin testified that in a number of cases witnesses were interviewed together by her or by another investigator, Gary Whalen (Mr. Whalen also testified and his evidence was to the same effect on this issue. I will not summarize it). For example, Ms Martin interviewed the owners of Pearson Dry Cleaning, Asif (Muhammad) and Khalid Mahmood together.

Although Ms Martins was not specifically questioned about all of the groups of witnesses who were interviewed together, there were others, which became clear during the testimony of some of the civilian witness. For example, Ujjal Dhawan (Extreme Computing) testified that he was interviewed together with Varinder Sharma (Evans Biotech), and his father, Ranjit Dhawan, who was a friend of Varinder Sharma. [ 24 ] I start by saying that interviewing witnesses together is a process that should be avoided.

Credibility is a central issue in this case, and the fact that witnesses were interviewed together creates the need to assess whether a particular witness’ or witnesses’ evidence was affected by hearing the story of another witness during the interview process. This is relevant both to the ultimate assessment of the credibility and reliability of witnesses’ evidence, and to the issue of the possibility of collusion as it relates to the similar fact application. I will address these issues in due course.

But I think it is important to say that the problem of possible contamination of a witness’ independent evidence by the process of interviewing witnesses together is easily avoided. Service Canada would do best avoid its investigators interviewing witnesses together in future investigations. [ 25 ] Ms Martin gave evidence of the general process by which blank ROEs can be obtained by an employer or their representative from Service Canada, and the use Service Canada makes of the completed ROE. Service Canada will provide a blank ROE to an employer or a representative of the employer.

Each blank ROE has a unique serial number. The unique serial number is tied to a particular employer or business at the time the blank ROE is given out by Service Canada. The employer or their representative then fills out the ROE. An employer is required to provide an employee with an ROE when the person stops working for the business, within 7 days after the person stops working.

The ROE includes information such as the reason that the individual stopped working, the name and address of the employer and employee, the SIN number of the employee, the first and last date worked by the employee, the total insurable hours worked and total insurable earnings within a certain time frame, information about any severance or vacation pay, and a

section for contact information in the event Service Canada has inquiries. [ 26 ] The ROE is then submitted to Service Canada when the employee applies for EI benefits. The system for processing EI benefits applications is a trust system. Unless there is something abnormal that leads to an investigation, then an individual’s online application for EI benefits will be processed. [ 27 ] In cross-examination Ms Martin testified that an employer or a person authorized by an employer can request blank ROEs from Service Canada.

She testified that sometimes a bookkeeper or accountant will be given authorization by a company to request blanks ROEs on the company’s behalf. She testified that Service Canada would keep a record of who was authorized to request blank ROEs for a particular employer or business. [ 28 ] I note that Ms Martin did not give any evidence of who in particular obtained the blank ROEs from Service Canada that were used to prepare the ROEs at issue in this case.

She agreed that she had not obtained any documentary evidence (i.e. from Service Canada records) that the defendant requested the blank ROEs at issue from Service Canada. Nor did she provide any evidence of who the particular companies in whose name the ROEs at issue were issued had authorized to obtain blank ROEs on their behalf. I note that each ROE has a unique serial number that is pre-printed on the form when it is blank at the time it is provided to the employer or the employer’s representative.

Ms Martin testified that she did not investigate who was authorized (according to Service Canada records) by the companies at issue to request ROEs on their behalf because, in her view, who obtained the blank ROEs was irrelevant. All that was relevant from her perspective was who completed the ROEs and whether the purported employees really worked at the companies. [ 29 ] I note as well that Ms Martin agreed in cross-examination that Service Canada did not at any stage seek to obtain search warrants to obtain business records in relation to any of the companies in whose name the ROEs at issue were issued.

Pearson Dry Cleaning & Laundry Services Inc. Counts [ 30 ] Counts #6, #15, #19, #21, #26, and #27 relate to ROEs issued in the name of Pearson Dry Cleaning. Count #31 relates to the EI application supported by the ROE in count #15.

The prosecution relies on the documents (ROEs and EI applications), and the evidence of Muhammad Mahmood and Khalid Mahmood, the owners of Pearson Dry Cleaning & Laundry Services Inc., Amritpal Grewal, the individual named in the ROE involved in count #15 and the EI application in count #31, and Mandeep Kaur Baidwan (previously Mandeep Kaur Chohan), the individual named in the ROE involved in count #19, to support these counts.

I note that for counts #6, #21, #26, and #27 the individuals named in the ROEs were not called as witnesses by the prosecution. [ 31 ] Muhammad Mahmood testified that he was the owner of Pearson Dry Cleaning from 2010 to 2015, when he sold the company. His father, Khalid Mahmood, ran the company day to day. Muhammad Mahmood asserted that as the owner of the company, he was familiar with the employees who worked at the company. He testified that the individuals named in counts #6, #15, #19, #21, #26, and #27 did not work for Pearson Dry Cleaning. He testified that he did not know any of them.

He testified that he did not prepare the ROEs at issue in those counts. He testified that the name at the bottom of some of the ROEs, Mahmood Asif, was his name, but that the signature was not his signature. He testified that he had met the defendant two or three times when he visited the Pearson Dry Cleaning store. His father introduced him to the defendant. He testified that the defendant did accounting work for Pearson Dry Cleaning, including GST, PST, and records for employees. [ 32 ] Muhammad Mahmood testified that he was asked by Service Canada to provide documents for the investigation.

He testified that he provided whatever was available. But he testified that at some point he was summonsed and charged. He retained a lawyer. He testified that the charge was ultimately “discharged”, but he did not know the details because his lawyer dealt with it. He provided an interview to Service Canada, but could not recall if he did so before or after he was charged. [ 33 ] In cross-examination, Muhammad Mahmood denied that he used a different accountant from the defendant when Pearson Dry Cleaning was first opened. He maintained that the defendant was always the accountant used by Pearson Dry Cleaning.

But he said he did not know a lot about the details because his father (Khalid Mahmood) was running Pearson Dry Cleaning. Muhammad testified that he would sign paycheques sometimes, or legal documents related to Pearson Dry Cleaning, but not very often. He would visit the Pearson store when he was needed, but otherwise he would not do so. When asked if he paid people in cash from Pearson, he said that he did not know. He said he did not know the details about which employees had to be paid and how much they had to be paid.

He said his father took care of amounts of cheques (i.e., Muhammad would just sign), and that he (Muhammad) only visited the Pearson store once or twice a month. [ 34 ] In cross-examination, Muhammad Mahmood agreed that several family members worked at Pearson Dry Cleaning at times. When asked if they were paid in cash, he said he did not know, because his father took care of paying employees. [ 35 ] In cross-examinations, Muhammad Mahmood testified that he did not know exactly how many employees worked at Pearson, and said roughly 9 or 10.

When asked if employees changed frequently, he said that he did not know who joined and left, because his father dealt with this. [ 36 ] In cross-examination, Muhammad Mahmood denied that he ever ordered blank ROEs from Service Canada. He said he did not do so, because the business was being run by his father. He testified that his father was authorized to obtain blank ROEs from Service Canada. [ 37 ] Khalid Mahmood testified that he was the manager of Pearson Dry Cleaning.

He testified that the license for the business was in his son’s name, but that he (Khalid) owned it, ran the business, and the investment for the business was his. He said his son had no

part in the administration and running of the business. [ 38 ] Khalid Mahmood testified that he hired all of the employees of Pearson Dry Cleaning, and knew them all. He testified that the individuals named in the ROEs in counts #6, #15, #19, #21, #26, and #27 did not work at Pearson Dry Cleaning. He testified that he did not know any of them. He testified that he did not prepare the ROEs at issue. He said the name at the bottom of the ROEs was his son’s, but that his son did not prepare them. He testified that the defendant was the accountant for Pearson Dry Cleaning.

The defendant did all of the accounting for the business, except for the initial registration of the business. The defendant would do accounting for Pearson Dry Cleaning in relation to the Canada Revenue Agency, employment records, payroll and taxes. Khalid Mahmood testified that if he laid off an employee from Pearson Dry Cleaning, the defendant would prepare the ROE. [ 39 ] Khalid Mahmood testified that at some point he was asked to provide records to Service Canada for the investigation. He said he gave them the records he had available to him, but the rest of the paperwork was with the defendant.

He provided an interview to Service Canada. [ 40 ] In cross-examination, Khalid Mahmood testified that Pearson Dry Cleaning had different numbers of employees at different times. They started with one employee, and at times had as many as 12 employees. He agreed that there was often turnover in who the particular employees were. In cross-examination Khalid Mahmood testified that the defendant was the only accountant he used for Pearson Dry Cleaning’s accounting work.

He denied that he ever used H and B Accounting. [ 41 ] In cross-examination, Khalid Mahmood testified that he met with Service Canada investigators two or three times. [ 42 ] In cross-examination, Khalid Mahmood testified that he paid employees with cheques, but would sometimes pay casual labour with cash. He also testified that a family member, Shahnaz Kausar worked for the company. He testified that she was paid by cheque at the beginning, but then was paid in cash. However, he agreed that he had told Service Canada investigators in one of his interviews that no cheques were given to Ms Kausar.

He testified that Ms Kausar was given a ROE when she was laid off, with his knowledge (Ms Kausar is named in count #7, one of the withdrawn counts). He agreed that he did not initially tell the Service Canada investigators that Ms Kausar was a family member.

[ 43 ] In cross-examination, Khalid Mahmood testified that Mumtaz Qurban was initially paid by cheque, but then paid in cash (Mumtaz Qurban is named in count #8, one of the withdrawn counts). However, he agreed that he told Service Canada investigators that no cheques were issued to Ms Qurban. Ms Qurban was also given a ROE when she was laid off, with his knowledge. Mumtaz Qurban was also a family member of Mr. Mahmood. [ 44 ] In cross-examination, Khalid Mahmood agreed that Nurgas Qurban was paid in cash (Nurgas Qurban is named in count #13, one of the withdrawn counts).

He testified that Ms Qurban was also given a ROE when she was laid off, with his knowledge. Nurgas Qurban was a family member of Mr. Mahmood’s. [ 45 ] Khalid Mahmood denied that some of Pearson Dry Cleaning’s customers paid him in cash. He said it was a wholesale dry cleaning business, and customers would pay monthly or bi-monthly. [ 46 ] Khalid Mahmood denied in cross-examination that the employees listed in the ROEs at issue worked for Pearson and were paid in cash to avoid taxes. [ 47 ] In cross-examination, Khalid Mahmood initially testified that the defendant would obtain blank ROEs from Service Canada.

When defence counsel suggested to him that the defendant would not have been authorized to do so, Mr. Mahmood said that the defendant would prepare a written request for blank ROEs, and his son would sign it, and the defendant would keep the forms when they arrived. He agreed that the blank ROEs would be sent to the place of business, but he said he would give them to the defendant. Mr. Mahmood denied the suggestion that any ROEs prepared by the defendant in relation to Pearson Dry Cleaning were prepared at his direction.

He said he was aware of some ROEs (not the ones at issue in the remaining counts), but not aware of others. [ 48 ] Amritpal Grewal is the individual named in counts #15 and #31, related to the ROE and EI applications found in Exhibit #1, tabs 8 and 33. Ms Grewal testified that she had no relationship to Pearson Dry Cleaning and that she never worked there. She testified that she did not know Asif Mehmood, who is listed as the issuer. She testified that the ROE was given to her by the defendant, who was her accountant. She testified that the defendant filed her taxes.

She testified that she never told the defendant that she worked for Pearson Dry Cleaning. She testified that she paid the defendant $3,000 for the ROE. She testified that he told her that the money would be given to the government, and she would get maternity benefits. She testified that the defendant filled out the EI application at Exhibit #1, tab 33 for her. [ 49 ] She testified that when Service Canada called her as part of their investigation, she called the defendant to tell him.

He told her that the government was calling to check on maternity benefits, and there was nothing to worry about. [ 50 ] In cross-examination, Ms Grewal denied that she had worked for Pearson Dry Cleaning, but was paid cash. However, she admitted that in the Service Canada interview she initially provided the name of the owner-manager of Pearson to the Service Canada investigators and gave the name Khalid. Although she initially said in cross-examination that she gave the name on the ROE, the ROE does not have the name Khalid anywhere on it.

She also testified that in her first interview with Service Canada, she described Pearson Dry Cleaning (i.e., the physical location). She testified that she was able to do this because when Service Canada contacted her and she told the defendant, and the defendant told her certain things she had to remember and to tell Service Canada.

In re-examination, Ms Grewal testified that in her first interview with Service Canada, she told the investigator that she had worked at Pearson Dry Cleaning, but that in her second interview she told the investigator that she had not worked there, and she had lied in the first interview. [ 51 ] In cross-examination, Ms Grewal testified that she paid the $3,000 to the defendant in cash, and did not have any records to show she had taken the money out of the bank. [ 52 ] Mandeep Kaur Baidwan (previously Mandeep Kaur Chohan) testified that she did not work for Pearson Dry Cleaning and Laundry Services and did not know Asif Mahmood.

She testified that the defendant was her and her husband’s accountant. She testified that she was not familiar with the ROE at issue in count #19 (Exhibit #1, tab 16), but believed the defendant prepared it because “he does all of our paperwork”. She testified that the defendant did paperwork for her in relation to her obtaining maternity benefits. She testified that she paid the defendant $1,500 to do the paperwork for her to get maternity benefits. She testified that she had not seen the online EI application in her name (Exhibit #1, tab 41).

She believed that the defendant completed it because he completed “all our papers”. Ms Baidwan testified that she cooperated with the Service Canada investigation because she “felt that it’s wrong to get the money this way”. [ 53 ] In cross-examination, Ms Baidwan denied the suggestion that she worked at Pearson Dry Cleaning from May 2011 to September 9, 2011. She denied the suggestion that she worked there and was paid cash and did not pay taxes on the income. In cross- examination, she agreed that she did not see the defendant fill out the ROE at issue (Exhibit #1, tab 16).

In cross-examination, Ms Baidwan agreed that the defendant did tax returns for her and her husband. [ 54 ] However, towards the end of Ms Baidwan’s cross-examination, and in re-examination, it became clear that Ms Baidwan did not deal directly with the defendant regarding the maternity benefits, but rather, that her husband dealt with the defendant, and then told her about it. Thus, I find that the portions of her evidence relating to the defendant’s involvement in her obtaining maternity benefits and the ROE at issue is hearsay.

Only her evidence that she did not work at Pearson Dry Cleaning (and Holland Truck Training Centre), and not knowing the principal there, is non-hearsay. Extreme Computing Inc. Counts [ 55 ] Counts #3, #4, #23, #24, and #25 relate to ROEs issued in the name of Extreme Computing Inc. The prosecution relies on the documents (ROEs and EI applications), and the evidence of Ujjal Dhawan, the owner of Extreme Computing.

I note that for the Extreme Computing counts the prosecution did not call as witnesses any of the individuals who are named in the ROEs. [ 56 ] Ujjal Dhawan testified that Extreme Computing Inc. is his company and he started it in 2010. But he testified that he never did any business through Extreme Computing because soon after he started it he got a job at Finetech Computers repairing computers.

He testified that he intended Extreme Computing to be a business doing computer repair. But he only ever registered the business. He testified that he also had business cards printed, and he would hand them out to people he saw at malls or bus stops. He testified that Extreme Computing never had any employees, and never did any sales. [ 57 ] Mr. Dhawan testified that the individuals named in counts #3, #4, #23, #24, and #25 did not work at Extreme Computing. He testified that he did not know the individuals named in the ROEs.

He testified that he did not prepare the ROEs in relation to those counts, and had seen them for the first time during the Service Canada investigation (the ROEs relevant to the Extreme Computing Counts are found in Exhibit #1, at tabs 11, 22, 9, 14, and 4). He testified that his name was at the bottom of the ROEs, but it was not his handwriting or his signature. [ 58 ] Mr. Dhawan testified that the defendant was both his personal accountant, and his accountant for Extreme Computing. He testified that he met the defendant through a common friend (Varinder Sharma – also a witness in the trial). Mr.

Dhawan testified that the defendant registered Extreme Computing for him as a company. He said when he got the job at Finetech Computing, he asked the defendant to close Extreme Computing. He said the defendant told him not to close it, but to keep it active, and the defendant would keep filing his corporate returns. Mr. Dhawan testified that he gave the defendant the cheque book for the Extreme Computing bank account at TD Canada Trust. He also testified that because he trusted the defendant he gave him blank signed cheques on the Extreme Computing banks account. [ 59 ] Mr.

Dhawan testified that he saw the defendant once or twice a month, at the defendant’s home office. The purpose of the visits was sometimes for Mr. Dhawan to assist the defendant with his computer equipment, and sometimes just to chat. [ 60 ] Mr. Dhawan testified that at some point he was asked by Service Canada to provide documents in relation to the ROEs for Extreme Computing (i.e., pay stubs or other details of the employment). He testified that since Extreme Computing was not doing any business, he spoke to the defendant about the request for Service Canada.

The defendant told him he was already aware of this, and it must be a mistake in the filing, and that Service Canada would correct it, and to give him the documents from Service Canada. After that he was charged with an offence by Service Canada. He also testified that the defendant told him that if people visited him from Service Canada, he should tell them that the defendant was taking care of the matter, and that a lawyer named Bobby Singh would take care of everything. [ 61 ] When Service Canada investigators came to his house, Mr.

Dhawan told them he had nothing to say, and to speak to his lawyer, Bobby Singh. After a couple of months Mr. Dhawan received a summons to come to court. He learned he was being charged. He then decided to cooperate with the Service Canada investigation. He gave a recorded interview to Service Canada. After that the charges against him were withdrawn. [ 62 ] In cross-examination, Mr. Dhawan could give no explanation as to why he gave the defendant pre-signed cheques for the Extreme Computing bank account when Extreme Computing was not doing any business.

Nor could he explain why it was necessary to give pre-signed cheques when he attended at the defendant’s office once or twice a month. Mr. Dhawan admitted that there were deposits made into the Extreme Computing bank accounts during this time, but he claimed he was unaware of them at the time, and only became aware of them during the Service Canada investigation. He also said that he had been unaware of cheques being issued on the Extreme Computing bank account. [ 63 ] Mr.

Dhawan denied the suggestion that, in fact, Extreme Computing was doing business, but was doing so in cash to hide the employment in the same field from his employers at Finetech Computing. Mr. Dhawan denied the suggestion that Extreme Computing was an active business, and had several people who worked for it. He denied that the people named in the Extreme Computing ROEs at issue worked for the company. [ 64 ] Mr. Dhawan agreed in cross-examination that at some point, to assist a friend of his, he applied for a work permit for Amal Kumar. It was suggested to Mr.

Dhawan in cross-examination that at that time he declared to Human Resources Development Canada that Extreme Computing had three or four employees. Mr. Dhawan did not deny that that representation had been made, but claimed that he had asked the defendant to assist him with the application, and the defendant handled the application. [ 65 ] Mr.

Dhawan agreed in cross-examination that when he was interviewed by Service Canada investigators it was done in the presence of his father (Ranjit Dhawan – who was the partner of Varinder Sharma in Evans Biotech, according to Varinder Sharma), and Varinder Sharma (also a witness in the trial in relation to Evans Biotech). He agreed that his family was close with the Sharma family, and that his father worked with Varinder Sharma. He denied that he discussed at length with his father or Mr. Sharma the potential of charges from the Service Canada investigation.

He said he just had brief discussions with them. [ 66 ] Mr. Dhawan agreed in cross-examination that he knew Prabhjot Bhullar, the owner of Finetech Computing, and that he worked for her at Finetech for about a year in 2010-2011. Mr. Dhawan testified that he was paid cash for his first few months at Finetech Computers. He said he was the only employee there at the time. [ 67 ] In cross-examination, Mr. Dhawan denied the suggestion that the business card for the defendant that he produced during his testimony did not, in fact, come from the defendant. (Exhibit #5). Fine Tech Computers Inc.

Counts [ 68 ] Counts #9, #10 and #30 relate to ROEs issued in the name of Fine Tech Computers Inc., and in the case of count #30 a related EI application. The prosecution relies on the documents (ROEs and EI applications), and the evidence of Prabhjot Bhullar and Sukhjeet Bhullar, the owner of Fine Tech Computers Inc. and her husband, respectively, and Nadia Wadood, the individual named in the ROE involved in counts #9 and #30 to support these counts.

I note that Sukhjeet Bhullar, in addition to being the husband of the owner of Fine Tech Computers Inc. is also the individual named in the ROE involved in count #10.

[ 69 ] Prabhjot Bhullar was the owner of Fine Tech Computers Inc. She testified that Fine Tech did computer sales and repair. She testified that she did sales at Fine Tech, and that her husband, Sukhjeet Bhullar worked as the manager. [ 70 ] Ms Bhullar testified that she knew the employees of Fine Tech. Ms Bhullar testified that Nadia Wadood was never an employee of Fine Tech, and that she did not know her. She testified that the ROE issued in the name of Nadia Wadood (Exhibit #1, tab 25) was prepared in the defendant’s handwriting, which she recognized from other accounting documents he prepared for her.

She testified that the signature at the bottom was her signature. She testified that the defendant was the accountant for Fine Tech. He did all the business accounting, and was her only accountant. She testified that when she met with the defendant they met at her store. She testified that the defendant had her sign the ROE when it was blank, and it was supposed to be for another employee (Ujjal Dhawan).

She testified that she never saw the ROE again after she signed it (until shown it during the service Canada investigation), but believed that the defendant had filled in the rest, as she recognized his handwriting. [ 71 ] Ms Bhullar testified that she did not have any discussions with the defendant about the ROE issued in the name of her husband, Sukhjeet Bhullar (Exhibit #1, tab 3). She testified that her husband had worked at Fine Tech. She testified that the handwriting in this ROE was the defendant’s handwriting, and that the signature was also his.

She testified that the defendant knew that she and Sukhjeet Bhullar were married because he did their personal taxes as well as the business’ taxes, and the personal tax returns indicate marital status and that they were husband and wife. [ 72 ] Ms Bhullar testified that during the Service Canada investigation, she was asked to provide documents for the investigation about the two ROEs. She testified that she did not have any documents in relation to Nadia Wadood, and she had not known anything about that ROE.

She testified that she spoke to the defendant about the request for documents, and he told her not to worry about it, and that he would look after it. He said he had hired a lawyer. She asked the defendant how he could have given the paper with her signature to someone else (the Wadood ROE). She testified that the defendant said that she was his neighbour. [ 73 ] Ms Bhullar testified that she trusted the defendant and the lawyer he hired. But at the last minute, they said she should plead guilty. She pled guilty and paid a fine.

Sometime after her guilty plea she agreed to be interviewed by Service Canada for the investigation. She testified that she had pled guilty for “a thing I hadn’t done”. [ 74 ] In cross-examination defence counsel challenged Ms Bhullar’s assertion that she was just following the advice of the lawyer and the defendant when she pleaded guilty to failing to provide required documents in the Service Canada investigation. She agreed that she had a law degree.

She agreed that the judge who presided over the guilty plea did a plea inquiry. [ 75 ] In cross-examination, Ms Bhullar denied that she had ever heard of or used H and B Accounting. Ms Bhullar agreed that she had never authorized Service Canada to give blank ROEs to the defendant. In relation to Ms Bhullar identifying the signature on her husband’s ROE as the defendant’s signature, Ms Bhullar agreed that she never gave Service Canada’s investigators examples of the defendant’s signature on other documents that he had prepared so they could be compared to the signature on Exhibit #1, tab 3.

She said she was never asked to do so. Ms Bhullar testified that the defendant may have met with her husband without her being present, because she was not at the store at all times. She denied that the signature in Exhibit #1, tab 3 was her husband’s signature, because she said she could recognize her husband’s signature. [ 76 ] Ms Bhullar agreed in cross-examination that some sales for Fine Tech were done in cash, as well as other methods of payment such as debit. But she denied that she kept cash payment off the books.

And she denied that she ever paid cash to employees. [ 77 ] Sukhjeet Bhullar is the spouse of Prabhjot Bhullar. He was trained as a mechanical engineer in India, and worked in computer repair in Canada. He testified that he worked at his and his wife’s company, Finetech Computers, which was registered in his wife’s name. He agreed that the ROE at issue in count #10 (Exhibit #1, tab 3) was an ROE issued in his name for work done at Finetech Computers.

He testified that the name of the issuer listed at the bottom of the ROE, Gurinderpal Singh, was the defendant, and that he was the accountant for Finetech Computers. He testified that the defendant did all of their accounting work, including payroll for employees. [ 78 ] Mr. Bhullar testified that the signature next to the name of Gurinderpal Singh on the ROE was the defendant’s signature. He testified that he knew this because he used to see the defendant’s signature on papers related to the Finetech Computers business that required the defendant’s signature.

He testified that the defendant gave him the ROE (Exhibit #1, tab 3). [ 79 ] Mr. Bhullar testified that that the defendant told him that he could get EI benefits for his work at Finetech Computers even though the company was registered in the name of his wife. Mr. Bhullar identified his online EI benefits application (Exhibit #1, tab 28). He agreed that on that application he had answered “no” to the question of whether he was related to any of his employers by blood or marriage. He said he understood that if he had said yes, he would not get EI benefits.

Before he answered “no” to that question, he called the defendant and the defendant told him to say no. He testified that the defendant was aware that he was married to Prabhjot Bhullar. [ 80 ] Mr. Bhullar testified that he cooperated with the Service Canada investigation because he wanted to tell the truth. He testified that initially when he was contacted by Service Canada, he spoke to the defendant, and the defendant told him not to cooperate, and that he had hired a lawyer, Bobby Singh, to take care of it. [ 81 ] In cross-examination, Mr. Bhullar testified that his work at Finetech Computers was as a manager.

Mr. Bhullar agreed that when he filled out his EI application, he knowingly submitted the application with false information when he answered that he was not related to any of his employers. [ 82 ] Mr. Bhullar testified that his wife, Prabhjot Bhullar, ordered the blank ROE for his EI application. [ 83 ] Mr. Bhullar agreed in cross-examination that customers of Finetech Computers sometimes paid in cash. But he denied that employees were ever paid in cash. Mr. Bhullar agreed that Ujjal Dhawan worked for Finetech Computers for a time.

He denied that Ujjal Dhawan was ever paid in cash, and said he was paid by cheque. He denied that Nadia Wadood ever worked for Finetech

Computers. He denied that he knew Nadia Wadood. [ 84 ] Mr. Bhullar agreed that he faced charges for his EI application. He denied that his decision to cooperate with the Service Canada investigation was related to the charges. He testified that he had paid his penalty for the EI benefits prior to speaking to the Service Canada investigators. [ 85 ] As noted above, Ujjal Dhawan, who testified mainly in relation to the Extreme Computing counts, agreed in cross- examination that he knew Prabhjot Bhullar, the owner of Finetech Computing, and that he worked for her at Finetech for about a year in 2010-2011. Mr.

Dhawan testified that he was paid cash for his first few months at Finetech Computers. He said he was the only employee there at the time. [ 86 ] Nadia Wadood testified that she had never worked for Fine Tech Computers Inc. She testified that she did not know Prabhjot Bhullar. She testified that she was referred to the defendant by someone she knew in order to get maternity benefits. She testified that on one occasion she went to see the defendant at his house, with her husband. The defendant had an office in the basement of his house.

She testified that the defendant prepared the ROE (found in Exhibit #1, tab 25) and gave it to her in exchange for her paying him $3,700. She testified that she was not familiar with the online EI application prepared in her name (Exhibit #1, tab 50), and did not know who filled it out. But she testified that the defendant said that in return for the $3,700 he would obtain maternity leave benefits for her. [ 87 ] In cross-examination, Ms Wadood denied the suggestion that she had worked for Fine Tech and been paid in cash, and did not declare it to avoid paying taxes.

She also denied the suggestion that she did not pay the defendant for the ROE. Fountain Plumbing Inc. Count [ 88 ] Count #5 relates to an ROE issued in the name of Fountain Plumbing. The prosecution relies on the documents (ROE and EI application), and the evidence of Satwinder Kaur, the owner of Fountain Plumbing Inc., to support this count. [ 89 ] Satwinder Kaur testified that she and her husband registered Fountain Plumbing Inc. Her husband had done a course in plumbing, and they opened the business together to be self-employed. The business was open for about five years, but never conducted any business.

Her husband was supposed to work for the company, but they never had any work. When asked about the ROE at issue (Exhibit #1, tab 13), Ms Kaur testified that it was shown to her by the investigators during the Service Canada investigation, but that she had never seen it before then. Iqbal Kachhyara, the person to whom the ROE at issue was issued, is her husband. Ms Kaur testified that she was not familiar with the address on the ROE (which there was no dispute at trial is the defendant’s home address).

She testified that the name at the bottom of the ROE as the issuer was hers, but that the signature was not hers. Ms Kaur did not know who prepared the ROE at issue. [ 90 ] Ms Kaur testified that the defendant was the accountant for Fountain Plumbing. They hired the defendant to do the paperwork and accounting related to the business. Ms Kaur testified that because the business had no work, she and her husband spoke to the defendant for advice. He told them that her husband could apply for EI benefits if they gave the defendant some cheques in payment as tax.

She testified that she and her husband met with the defendant at an office. She said she was not present when the paperwork was prepared. She testified that she knew the defendant from “back home”, and had known him since childhood. [ 91 ] Ms Kaur testified that she and her husband gave an interview to Service Canada for the investigation after she was required to attend court in relation to his EI benefits. [ 92 ] In cross-examination, Ms Kaur agreed that the defendant did not end up doing any accounting work for Fountain Plumbing (however, she maintained that he assisted with her husband’s EI application).

She agreed that her husband was trained as a plumber, but said that he did not end up working as a plumber, because he did not get any work. He later got a factory job. She denied that she requested a blank ROE from Service Canada. In cross-examination, she agreed that the ROE was prepared with a period of employment (i.e., dates), that she provided to the defendant. She also agreed that both she and her husband were charged in relation to her husband’s EI benefits. She agreed that it crossed her mind that the government would go softer on her and her husband if they cooperated with the investigation.

She understood that if they admitted wrongdoing, they had to repay the benefits, and they did so. Holland Truck Training Centre Count [ 93 ] Count #1 relates to an ROE issued in the name of Holland Truck Training. The prosecution relies on the documents (ROE and EI application – found at Exhibit #1, tab 15), and the evidence of Amarjit Chowhan, the owner of Holland Truck Training Centre, and Mandeep Kaur Baidwan (previously Mandeep Kaur Chohan), the individual named in the ROE at issue in count #1, to support this count. [ 94 ] Amarjit Chowhan testified that Holland Truck Training Centre Inc. was his business.

It provided training for people to be truck drivers. He did not have any employees, except that his wife helped him with the business. He testified that he was not familiar with the ROE issued in the name of Holland Truck to Mandeep Kaur Chohan (Exhibit #1, tab 15), and did not know Ms Chohan. He testified that Ms Chohan did not ever work at Holland Truck. He testified that the signature at the bottom listed his name, but was not his signature. He testified that he knew the defendant. The defendant had come to him for truck driver training some years previously.

At some point the defendant said he was not going to drive a truck, but that he was a CA in India, and that he could do accounting work for Mr. Chowhan. He said the defendant prepared his tax returns for him. Mr. Chowhan testified he had no knowledge of who filled out the ROE at issue. [ 95 ] Mr. Chowhan testified that when Service Canada first came to him about the investigation concerning this ROE, he spoke to the defendant. The defendant told him not to talk to Service Canada, and that the defendant and his lawyer would take care of

everything. Later he spoke to a woman who had gone through “the same scam”, who advised him to get his own lawyer. He did so, and then decided to speak to Service Canada. [ 96 ] In cross-examination, Mr. Chowhan denied the suggestion that when the defendant did accounting work for him, the defendant would return the paperwork to Mr. Chowhan afterwards. Mr. Chowhan testified that he would give his paperwork to the defendant, and the defendant would keep it.

He also denied the suggestion that Mandeep Chohan ever worked for him. [ 97 ] Mandeep Kaur Baidwan (previously Mandeep Kaur Chohan) testified that she did not work for Holland Truck Training Centre and did not know Amarjit Singh. She testified that the defendant was her and her husband’s accountant. She testified that she did not know who filled out the ROE at issue in count #1 (Exhibit #1, tab 15). She testified that the defendant did paperwork for her in relation to her obtaining maternity benefits. She testified that she paid the defendant $1,500 to do the paperwork for her to get maternity benefits.

She testified that she had not seen the online EI application in her name (Exhibit #1, tab 40). [ 98 ] In cross-examination, Ms Baidwan denied the suggestion that she was employed by Holland Truck Training Centre from September 2009 to January 15, 2010. She denied the suggestion that she worked there and was paid cash and did not pay taxes on the income. In cross-examination, she agreed that she did not see the defendant fill out the ROE at issue (Exhibit #1, tab 15).

In cross- examination, Ms Baidwan agreed that the defendant did tax returns for her and her husband. [ 99 ] However, towards the end of Ms Baidwan’s cross-examination, and in re-examination, it became clear that Ms Baidwan did not deal directly with the defendant regarding the maternity benefits, but rather, that her husband dealt with the defendant, and then told her about it. Thus, I find that the portions of her evidence relating to the defendant’s involvement in her obtaining maternity benefits and the ROE at issue is hearsay.

Only her evidence that she did not work at Holland Truck Training Centre (and Pearson), and not knowing the principal there, is non-hearsay. Evans Biotech Inc. Count [ 100 ] Count #16 relates to an ROE issued in the name of Evans Biotech Inc. The prosecution relies on the documents (ROE and EI application), and the evidence of Varinder Sharma, the owner of Evans Biotech Inc., to support this count. The individual named in the ROE involved in count #16 was not called as a witness by the prosecution. [ 101 ] Varinder Sharma testified that he owns and manages his own company called Evans Biotech Incorporated.

His business cleans cars and orders janitorial supplies. He is the only employee. He testified that he does not know the person named in the ROE at issue in count #16 (Exhibit #1, tab 2), Aruna Ravi Bhatia. He testified that he had never had any employees at his company. He testified that the name at the bottom of the ROE at issue was his, but that the signature was not his. He did not know who prepared the ROE or who signed it. [ 102 ] Mr. Sharma testified that the defendant was his accountant. He testified that the defendant was recommended to do accounting for him by a family friend.

He testified that the defendant did all of his accounting work, his personal tax, even his business correspondence. The defendant was the only person who did accounting for his business. Mr. Sharma testified that he did not give the defendant any role in preparing ROEs for him. [ 103 ] Mr. Sharma testified that when he was contacted by Service Canada, he spoke to the defendant. The defendant told him it was nothing, and he would look after it. The defendant told him not to cooperate with Service Canada. So he told Service Canada to speak to his lawyer. The lawyer was someone the defendant had told Mr.

Sharma to use. Then he later received a summons from Service Canada, and realized he was in trouble. Then he went and made a police report, and stopped the defendant from being his accountant. Then he cooperated with the Service Canada investigation. [ 104 ] Mr. Sharma testified that he was interviewed by Service Canada with two or three people together (this was corroborated Ujjal Dhawan’s evidence noted at paragraph 65 above, that he was interviewed together with his father, Ranjit Dhawan, and Mr. Sharma). [ 105 ] In cross-examination, Mr.

Sharma agreed that he also worked with Ranjit Dhawan (the father of the witness Ujjal Dhawan). He denied that Mr. Dhawan was an employee, and said rather they were partners, and still were partners at the time of the trial. Mr. Sharma knew Ranjit Dhawan from India, where they had both worked for the same company. Mr. Sharma agreed that he was aware that Ranjit Dhawan had made a claim for EI benefits. Mr. Sharma said that both he and Ranjit Dhawan were responsible for running the business (Evans Biotech).

He testified that whenever there was a shortage of work, he would order one blank ROE form from Service Canada for Ranjit Dhawan. [ 106 ] Mr. Sharma denied in cross-examination that Aruna Bhatia ever worked for Evans Biotech. [ 107 ] Mr. Sharma denied in cross-examination that some clients paid him for work in cash. He said they always paid by cheque. He said only very rarely was he paid in cash. Mr. Sharma said he did not recall ever advising Service Canada that the defendant was authorized to obtain blank ROEs on behalf of Evans Biotech, but he was not sure as it was a long time ago.

He denied that Ranjit Dhawan could have authorized the defendant to get ROEs from Service Canada, because he and Mr. Dhawan made all decisions about the business jointly. He said they would only make minor decisions individually. Shiva Indian Cuisine Count [ 108 ] Count #28 relates to an ROE issued in the name of Shiva Indian Cuisine to Ramandeep Kaur Bains. The prosecution relies on the documents (ROE and EI application), and the evidence of Ramandeep Kaur Narwal (previously named Ramandeep Bains), the individual named in count #28, to support this count.

The owner of Shiva Indian Cuisine was not called as a witness, although a

corporate profile report showing the registration of the business was filed. [ 109 ] Ms Narwal testified that she never worked at Shiva Indian Cuisine and was not familiar with the business. She testified that she had never seen the ROE at issue in her name (Exhibit #1, tab1). She did not know Neeraj Gupta. She testified that when she was pregnant, and uncle told her the defendant could help her get maternity benefits. She met with the defendant, and he told her there was a way to get maternity benefits for someone with low income.

He told her he could get her maternity benefits if she gave him $3,000 in cash, which she did. He never told her how he was going to do it. He just told her she was eligible, and he took care of applying for it for her. He also told her she would get a four-digit pin number, and she should give it to him when she got it, which she did. She met with the defendant in his office in the basement of his home.

Ms Narwal testified that she was not familiar with the online EI application in her name (Exhibit #1, tab 26). [ 110 ] Ms Narwal testified that she cooperated with the Service Canada investigation when she came to realize that what she did was wrong. She wanted to pay back the money she received in benefits. [ 111 ] In cross-examination, Ms Narwal denied that she worked for Shiva Indian Cuisine and was paid cash, and did not declare the income on her taxes.

She agreed that when she received the EI maternity benefits, she accepted the money and did not immediately go to Service Canada and say she should not be receiving them. She maintained that she did not know she was not eligible for benefits at that time. She agreed that when Service Canada investigators contacted her, she was concerned she could be charged with an offence. But she denied the suggestion that she “would do anything to avoid a prosecution”.

She said she wanted to tell her said of the story, to tell the truth. [ 112 ] In cross-examination, Ms Narwal maintained that she had paid the defendant $3,000 to get maternity benefits, but said she could not recall if she had attended to pay the money, or if her husband had attended (or both of them). She also could not remember if the $3,000 was paid all at once or in more than one payment. In re-examination, after refreshing her memory from her statement, Ms Narwal testified that she paid the $3,000 to the defendant herself, in two installments, $1,000 first, and later another $2,000. Babbar Accounting Inc.

Count [ 113 ] Count #2 relates to an ROE issued in the name of Babbar Accounting Inc. The prosecution relies on the documents (ROE, EI applications, and a corporate profile report showing the company is owned by Mr. Babbar), and the evidence of Rupinder Kaur Chohan, the individual named in the ROE involved in count #2 (found at Exhibit #1, tab 17), to support this count. [ 114 ] Rupinder Kaur Chohan testified that she did not work for Babbar Accounting Corporation and that she had no relationship with the company. She testified that she knew the defendant because she once had her taxes completed by him.

She testified that when she got the defendant to do her taxes, she had found out about him from a flyer she saw at her Sikh temple that said he did tax returns. She testified that the defendant prepared and gave her the ROE at issue in count #2 (Exhibit #1, tab 17). She testified that she paid him $2,400 for the ROE. Ms Chohan testified that she was not familiar with the EI application in her name found at Exhibit #1, tab 42.

However, she testified that it was completed by the defendant. [ 115 ] She testified that she cooperated with the Service Canada investigation when she was contacted because she found out that what had occurred was wrong, and accepted her mistake. She returned the money (benefits) back to the government. [ 116 ] In cross-examination, Ms Chohan denied the suggestion that she had, in fact, worked for the defendant from February 2010 to May 14, 2010. She agreed in cross-examination that Mandeep Chohan (now Mandeep Baidwan – a witness in relation to counts #1 and 19) was her sister-in-law.

She denied that she knew Amarjit Chowhan or Amandeep Chohan. In cross-examination, Ms Chohan denied that she was introduced to the defendant by her sister-in-law Mandeep Chohan. She denied that the defendant was a friend of the family and that he had given her a job to help her. Ms Chohan testified that she did not recall how she had paid the defendant for doing her taxes, but it could have been cash. She denied that the defendant did other accounting services for her and her husband, and maintained that he only did their taxes, and only for one year.

She maintained that the $2,400 she paid the defendant was for the ROE, and was not for taxes. She testified that the amount she paid the defendant to do taxes was less. Defendant’s evidence [ 117 ] The substance of Mr. Babbar’s evidence was that he had no knowledge that the content of the ROEs was false, and that he was a dupe of Jaspal Singh. He testified that he prepared the ROEs based on instructions and information provided by Jaspal Singh. He testified that he did not sign the ROEs. He testified that Mr. Singh collected the ROEs and any instructions after Mr. Babbar had completed them.

He testified that he did not know who signed the ROEs, but suggested that it might be Jaspal Singh, or his own partner Baljinder Bhullar. Mr. Babbar denied that he ever took money from anyone to prepare an ROE. He denied that he ever assisted anyone to prepare an EI application. [ 118 ] Mr. Babbar testified that he is originally from India, and came to Canada in 2004. He testified that he graduated from university in India with a business degree in 1989. He testified that he is not an accountant.

He testified that in India he worked doing bookkeeping, handwritten books and ledger accounts for a manufacturing company. When he came to Canada he worked in a factory until he had a back injury. [ 119 ] In 2008, he began working for Jaspal Singh at H and B Accounting. The office was at Airport Road and Derry Road. He testified that he did data entry work there. He entered sales and purchases for small businesses using software called QuickBooks. [ 120 ] Mr. Babbar testified that from 2008 to 2010 he was employed by Jaspal Singh.

He testified that in 2010 Jaspal Singh opened a company in the name of the defendant, and the defendant did work for Mr. Singh as a subcontractor (Babbar Accounting Inc.). Mr.

Singh gave Mr. Babbar a room to use in the offices of H and B Accounting. Once Mr. Babbar was operating his own business, he had a partner (Baljinder Singh Bhullar), and two or three employees. Mr. Babbar testified that he did not have any clients of his own, but rather that he did all his work for H and B Accounting, as a subcontractor to Jaspal Singh. [ 121 ] Mr. Babbar testified that he never interacted with any of the clients at H and B Accounting. He testified that he never did any tax returns. He testified that he never gave accounting advice. He testified that he never did payroll work or records for Mr.

Singh or for anyone else. Mr. Babbar testified that he was never paid directly by clients, but rather was only paid by Jaspal Singh. [ 122 ] Mr. Babbar testified that he did work on a computer provided by Jaspal Singh in the time period up to 2012. [ 123 ] Mr. Babbar testified that he was not aware of how to obtain a blank ROE from Service Canada, and had never ordered one. He testified that when one was required for his own business (Babbar Accounting Inc.), his partner Baljinder Bhullar would obtain it from Service Canada. [ 124 ] Mr.

Babbar testified that he had prepared the body of the ROEs at issue in the counts before the court. He testified that Jaspal Singh gave him the blank forms when he was working at H and B Accounting. Mr. Singh provided him with the information to complete the ROEs. He testified that Mr. Singh asked him to fill out the ROEs because he had good handwriting. [ 125 ] Mr. Babbar testified that he was not familiar with the business Pearson Dry Cleaning, but he said he did data entry for Pearson Dry Cleaning when he worked at H and B Accounting. He denied that he did accounting for Pearson Dry Cleaning.

He denied that he was ever paid by Pearson Dry Cleaning for accounting work. He denied that the ever did taxes, or accounting, or payroll for Pearson Dry Cleaning. He denied that he knew either Khalid Mahmood or Muhammad Mahmood. He denied that he ever attended at the premises of Pearson Dry Cleaning. [ 126 ] Mr. Babbar denied that he had ever met Amritpal Kaur Grewal. He denied that he received money from Ms Grewal to prepare the ROE and employment insurance documents. He denied that he ever gave any instructions with regard to what to say if there were inquiries by Service Canada.

He admitted that he had filled out the ROE in her name (Exhibit #1, tab 8). But he said that he completed it on instructions from Jaspal Singh. Mr. Singh gave him the blank ROE, and a paper with instructions of what information to put in the ROE. Mr. Babbar testified that he completed the ROE, but did not sign it, and gave the ROE and written instructions back to Mr. Singh. He testified that he put his own phone number in box 16 of the ROE because Mr. Singh instructed him to. [ 127 ] Mr.

Babbar’s evidence was essentially with same as outlined in the preceding paragraph with respect to the ROEs in the names of Vimalpreet Kaur (Exhibit #1, tab 18), Amandeep Kaur Tamber (Exhibit #1, tab 24), Sarabjit Kaur Dhindsa (Exhibit #1, tab 5), Amandeep Kaur Sidhu (Exhibit #1, tab 20), and Mandeep Kaur Chohan (Exhibit #1, tab 16). All of these ROEs also named Pearson Dry Cleaning as the employer. [ 128 ] In relation to Ujjal Dhawan, the defendant testified that he met him at the H and B Accounting office. He testified that H and B Accounting did accounting services for Mr. Dhawan.

He testified that he never had access to Mr. Dhawan’s bank accounts, and never used any cheques from Mr. Dhawan’s bank accounts. Mr. Babbar testified that he did not communicate with Mr. Dhawan in 2010 and 2011 when the ROEs at issue in relation to Extreme Computing Inc. were prepared. Rather, he testified that he only met Mr. Dhawan in 2013 or 2014 when his computer at home was not working, and Jaspal Singh recommended Mr. Dhawan to Mr. Babbar to fix the computer. [ 129 ] Mr.

Babbar testified that he prepared the ROE in the name of Sanjay Jadhav for Extreme Computing Inc. (Exhibit #1, tab 11) on instructions from Jaspal Singh. He testified that he did not know Sanjay Jadhav. He testified that he did not recognize the phone number in box 16 (which was different than the phone number on the Pearson Dry Cleaning ROEs). He testified that he did not sign the ROE, and that he gave it back to Jaspal Singh when it was completed. [ 130 ] Mr. Babbar’s evidence was essentially the same as in the preceding paragraph with respect to the ROE in the names of Mumnaza Syed (Exhibit #1, tab 22).

This ROE also related to Extreme Computing Inc. [ 131 ] Mr. Babbar’s evidence was similar to paragraph 129 with respect to the ROE in the name of Narinder Kaur Gujjar for Extreme Computing (Exhibit #1, tab 9). However, I note that Mr. Babbar put his own phone number in box 16, although the name of the contact person was not his name. This was also the case for the ROE in the name of Kuldip Kalkat for Extreme Computing Inc. Mr. Babbar testified that he put his own phone number in box 16 because Jaspal Singh asked him to do so. Mr.

Babbar’s evidence with respect to the ROE in the name of Satinderjit Dhaliwal for Extreme Computing (Exhibit #1, tab 4) was essentially the same. [ 132 ] Mr. Babbar testified that he knew Amarjit Chohan because he had taken truck training from him at Holland Truck Company around 2005. Mr. Babbar denied that he was ever Mr. Chohan’s accountant, that he did taxes for him, or that he was ever paid by Mr. Chohan for such work. [ 133 ] Mr. Babbar testified in relation to the ROE in the name of Mandeep Kaur Chohan for Holland Truck Training (Exhibit #1, tab 15) that he prepared it on instructions from Jaspal Singh.

He filled out the body of the ROE, but did not sign it, and gave it back to Mr. Singh. He denied that he ever met Mandeep Kaur Chohan or received money from her for the ROE. I note that this ROE also has Mr. Babbar’s phone number in box 16 with someone else’s name as the contact person. [ 134 ] Mr. Babbar denied that Evans Biotech Inc. was a client of his. With respect to the ROE in the name of Aruna Bhatia (Exhibit #1, tab 2), he denied that he had ever met Ms Bhatia or received money from her for the ROE. He testified that he prepared the ROE on instructions from Jaspal Singh.

He testified that he did not sign the ROE, and gave it back to Jaspal Singh when it was completed. I note that this ROE also has the defendant’s phone number in box 16, with someone else’s name listed as the contact person. [ 135 ] Mr. Babbar denied that he ever advised anyone not to cooperate with the Service Canada investigation. [ 136 ] Mr. Babbar testified that he had heard of Fountain Plumbing, but that it was not a client of his. He testified that he knew Iqbal

Kachyara because he was a relative. Iqbal Kachyara is the individual named in the ROE at Exhibit #1, tab 13 in relation to Fountain Plumbing. Mr. Babbar testified that he filled out that ROE, but that he did so on instructions from Jaspal Singh. He testified that he did not deal directly with either Iqbal Kachyara or Satwinder Kaur in relation to the ROE. He denied that he assisted Mr. Kachyara to prepare his EI application. I note that box 16 of this ROE also lists Mr. Babbar’s phone number with the name of someone else as the contact person. [ 137 ] Mr.

Babbar testified that he had heard of Fine Tech Computers Inc., but he denied it was a client of his. Rather, it was a client of H and B Accounting. He testified that he never met the owners of Fine Tech Computing Inc., Prabhjot and Sukhjeet Bhullar. He testified that they were not clients of his, and he did not do their taxes. [ 138 ] In relation to the ROE in the name of Nadia Wadood for Finetech Computers Inc. (Exhibit #1, tab 25), Mr.

Babbar testified that he did not know Nadia Wadood, he had not taken money from her or her husband to prepare the ROE, and he did not help her to submit her EI application (Exhibit #1, tab 50). He denied that she had ever attended at his home, and denied that he had ever done taxes for her. He testified that he prepared the ROE based on information and instructions provided to him by Jaspal Singh. He testified that he put his name and phone number as the contact person because Jaspal Singh told him to do so.

He did not sign the ROE, and gave it back to Jaspal Singh when it was completed. [ 139 ] In relation to the ROE in the name of Sukhjeet Bhullar for Finetech Computers Inc. (Exhibit #1, tab 3), Mr. Babbar testified that he did not know Mr. Bhullar. He testified that he prepared the ROE based on instructions and information from Jaspal Singh. He agreed that his name was in box 16 as the contact person, but with a phone number he did not recognize. He agreed that his name was at the bottom of the document as the issuer, but testified that he did not sign the ROE. He testified that he never directed Mr.

Bhullar to be dishonest in his EI application. [ 140 ] In relation to the ROE in the name of Rupinder Kaur Chohan for Babbar Accounting (Exhibit #1, tab 17), Mr. Babbar testified that Ms Chohan was an employee of Babbar Accounting. He testified that during the time she worked for Babbar Accounting, he saw her daily. He testified that his partner, Baljinder Bhullar hired her to work for them. He testified that he completed her ROE when she stopped working for the company. He testified that he got the information to complete the ROE from Jaspal Singh.

He testified that Jaspal Singh did the payroll for Babbar Accounting. Mr. Babbar denied that he ever prepared taxes for Rupinder Chohan. He denied that he was paid by Ms Chohan to provide the ROE for her. [ 141 ] Mr. Babbar testified that he never had a website for Babbar Accounting. He testified that he never had his own fax number of fax machine for Babbar Accounting. He denied that he had an email address for Babbar Accounting. He denied that he had ever made or distributed the business card which Ujjal Dhawan testified that Mr. Babbar had given him (Exhibit #5).

He testified that he did not recognize the email address on Exhibit #5. He testified that the website on Exhibit #5 was not his website. He testified that he did not recognize the fax number on Exhibit #5. He testified that the other two phone numbers on Exhibit #5 were his home phone number and his cell number. He testified that after Ujjal Dhawan provided him assistance with his computer in 2013, in 2014 Mr. Dhawan told him that he did card designing and web pages. Mr.

Dhawan designed a website for him in a different name (Babbar and Associate), but the website was never up and running. [ 142 ] In relation to Shiva Indian Cuisine, Mr. Babbar agreed that the company was registered as having an address that was his own home address (see Exhibit #2, tab 2), and some of the ROEs for Shiva Indian Cuisine had his home address (Exhibit #1, tabs 6 and 10). He testified that he became aware of this when mail arrived at his home addressed to Shiva Indian Cuisine. He asked Jaspal Singh about it. Mr.

Singh told him to bring the letter to the office, and that the business was just using his address as a mailing address. Mr. Babbar testified that he told Mr. Singh he was concerned about his home address being used. Mr. Singh said they would change the address. A later Shiva Indian Cuisine ROE has a different business address (Exhibit #1, tab 1). [ 143 ] In relation to the ROE in the name of Ramandeep Kaur Bains for Shiva Indian Cuisine (Exhibit #1, tab 1), Mr.

Babbar testified that he did not know Ms Bains (or under the name Ms Narwal), and that he did not provide accounting services for her, or take money from her or anyone else for this ROE. He testified that he prepared the ROE based on instructions and information from Jaspal Singh. He testified that he did not sign the ROE. I note that this ROE has the defendant’s phone number in box 16 with someone else’s name as the contact person. [ 144 ] Mr. Babbar testified that he continued to do his work from Mr. Singh’s office location until 2012.

At that point he had an office in his own home for 5 or 6 months, and then he set up another office elsewhere. [ 145 ] In cross-examination, Mr. Babbar testified that he met Jaspal Singh in 2008 when he (Mr. Babbar) was associated with World Financial Group, which dealt in insurance. He testified that Mr. Singh was an accountant, but that he did not know if he was certified as a chartered accountant. He agreed that he worked at Mr. Singh’s office for three to four years (2008 to 2012) and saw him mostly daily during that time. He denied he did tax work for Mr. Singh. He denied that Mr.

Singh introduced him to clients. He testified that he only did data entry work (for Mr. Singh). Mr. Babbar testified that Mr. Singh had three or four employees, but that he could not remember their names. He testified that the data entry work he did for Mr. Singh was for companies, not for individuals. [ 146 ] Mr. Babbar testified that it was in December 2009 that he and his partner set up their own business, but did work as subcontractors to Jaspal Singh. He testified that Jaspal Singh did the incorporation of Babbar Accounting for them.

He testified that he made the same amount of money working as a subcontractor as he had previously when he was employed by Mr. Singh. He testified that Mr. Singh paid him $2,400 a month when he was an employee, paid by cheque. He testified that when he started working as a subcontractor, he was paid on commission. He said that Mr. Singh would pay him a commission for doing data entry based on what the client was paying. He testified that the commission he was paid was 30 or 40 percent. For example, if a client was paying $10,000, Mr. Singh would pay Mr. Babbar $3,000 or $4,000. Mr.

Babbar testified that as a subcontractor, his company was making $5,000 or $6,000 per month. This was more than he was individually paid when he was an employee, but the company had its own employees. He testified that when working as a subcontractor, he personally made $1,500 to $2,000 per month. He testified that the subcontracting arrangement with Jaspal Singh ended in February or March 2013, and his business (Babbar Accounting) also stopped at that time.

[ 147 ] Mr. Babbar said that he did nothing to confirm how much Mr. Singh was getting paid by his clients (i.e., he did nothing to confirm that he was getting paid his percentage of commission fairly). Mr. Babbar testified that he did not have a contract with Jaspal Singh, but that their agreement was all verbal. [ 148 ] Mr. Singh would pay him by both cash and cheque. Mr. Babbar did not keep copies of any of the cheques, or have any other records of being paid by Mr. Singh. Mr. Babbar testified that he paid his own employees with both cash and cheques.

He did not keep copies of any of the cheques or cheque stubs. He testified that all the records were with Jaspal Singh, as he prepared the cheques. He testified that even for employees of Babbar Accounting, Jaspal Singh would give him information and instructions to prepare ROEs. [ 149 ] Mr. Babbar testified that he had no records about his own company Babbar Accounting, because Jaspal Singh did the company’s taxes and kept all the records. He later testified that his partner Baljinder Bhullar had the records. [ 150 ] Mr. Babbar testified that Babbar Accounting had two or three employees.

He said he could not remember all of their names, but that three employees were Mandeep Kaur and Rupinder Chohan and Jaswinder Singh. He testified than Mandeep Kaur stopped working for him when she moved to Vancouver in 2012. He testified that he did not recall when Rupinder Chohan stopped working or why. He testified that Jaswinder Singh still worked for him for a new company. [ 151 ] Mr. Babbar agreed that his partner (Baljinder Bhullar) and his employees all knew Jaspal Singh, and they all worked in the same office (at H and B Accounting). He agreed that they would all see each other every day.

But he agreed that Jaspal Singh only gave the work of preparing ROEs to Mr. Babbar and Mr. Bhullar, but they would not give this work to their employees. [ 152 ] Mr. Babbar maintained in cross-examination that Jaspal Singh asked him to prepare the ROEs because his handwriting was good. He also said that Jaspal Singh said his other employees were busy. [ 153 ] Mr. Babbar testified that he never verified that information Mr. Singh gave him to prepare the ROEs because he did not have access to the payroll records. [ 154 ] Later in cross-examination, Mr.

Babbar said that he had from the time he started Babbar Accounting 10 or 11 employees (not all at the same time). He denied that this was different than his earlier response of three employees. He said he only had two or three employees at a

[…]