R. v. Wells, 2023 BCPC 240

Citation R. v. Wells 2023 BCPC 240 Date: 20231017 File No: 27052-1 Registry: Nelson File No: 69442-1 Registry: North Vancouver File Nos: 181837-1, 184890-1, 185142-1 Registry: Victoria File No: 249079-4-C Registry: Surrey File No: 266762-1 Registry: Vancouver IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REX v. DESIREE WELLS ORAL REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE L. MROZINSKI Counsel for the Crown: S.M. Simpson Counsel for the Accused: T. Barton Place of Hearing: Victoria , B.C.

Date of Hearing: August 16, 2023 Date of Sentence: October 17, 2023 [ 1 ] THE COURT: Desiree Wells is before the court today for sentencing on a number of fraud-related offences. At issue in this sentence hearing is the length of custodial sentence the court ought to impose on Ms. Wells, an Indigenous woman, who has pled guilty to a number of increasingly sophisticated fraudulent offences involving the use of identification of persons other than her own. [ 2 ] It is admitted in this hearing that from approximately March 2021 through until September 30, 2022, when she was detained on

all these matters, Ms. Wells obtained nearly $140,000 in merchandise by fraud. Among the many victims of these offences, those persons whose identity Ms. Wells fraudulently utilized have suffered significant harm, devastating in at least one case. As the Crown submits, it will take the victims of Ms. Wells' offences years to recover, some perhaps never. [ 3 ] Aggravating factors on sentence include that Ms. Wells was on several release orders as well as a probation order while committing all of the offences at issue here. In addition, Ms.

Wells has a number of prior cognate convictions. [ 4 ] The Crown spent some time during the sentencing hearing outlining the details of Ms. Wells' various offences. I do not propose to reiterate all of that detail, but for the purposes of these reasons it is necessary to discuss them, however briefly. In doing so, I want to emphasize that the sheer number of offences being admitted by Ms. Wells and their somewhat tortuous fact patterns underscore the meaningfulness of these guilty pleas. Whatever the strength of the Crown's case on each, by entering into these pleas, Ms.

Wells has saved the court and the public considerable time and expense. No doubt, at least some of Ms. Wells' victims will feel relief having been spared the ordeal of a trial. [ 5 ] Putting these offences into context, it bears noting that Ms. Wells, as I alluded to in part a moment ago, appears before the court at age 43 with a related and recent criminal record. Commencing in 2014, Ms. Wells received convictions on a number of offences involving fraud and/or dishonesty, as the Crown puts it.

The offending behaviour has proceeded continuously since 2016 between a slight break between then and a conviction in December 2014 for use of a forged document, which conviction was entered on January 2014. [ 6 ] The last entry of Ms. Wells' JUSTIN conviction list indicates that, on June 17, 2021, she was convicted of personation with intent to gain an advantage, essentially misrepresenting her identity to police in a vehicle stop when various warrants were out for her arrest. The import of this conviction is simply that Ms.

Wells was on a release order and then a probation order for this offence when she committed all of the offences that form the subject matter of this hearing. In addition, Ms. Wells was on other release orders in relation to some of the offences before the court on this sentencing even as she committed other offences. [ 7 ] Although most of Ms. Wells' offending at issue in this sentencing took place between March 2021 and September 2022, we are also dealing with a plea by Ms. Wells to the charge of defrauding Paul Mara Jewellers of property under $5,000 on or about October 29, 2020. The facts bear a brief

summary largely because they do support the Crown's submission on sentencing that Ms. Wells has evidenced a pattern in the last several years, at least, of engaging in increasingly more sophisticated fraudulent offending, leading to greater adverse consequences for her victims. This first offence, like the next one I will describe, is not terribly sophisticated, but it is certainly an early attempt by Ms. Wells to utilize the identification of others to make fraudulent purchases.

Her early success may well have emboldened her to commit the subsequent much more serious fraudulent offences. [ 8 ] In the case of Paul Mara Jewellers, Crown outlines that Ms. Wells used a Visa card and an assumed name to purchase a ring valued at $1,875. The transaction was fraudulent and, through video footage, Ms. Wells was quickly and easily identified. Still, the information was not sworn until March 22, 2021, when a warrant was issued for Ms. Wells' arrest.

She was released on a release order dated May 27, 2021, with a condition that she not possess identification other than her own. [ 9 ] On March 11, 2021, Ms. Wells entered Golden Star Jewellery in North Vancouver, identifying herself as Nicole Treber. Ms. Wells used a money order valued at $860 to purchase gold jewellery worth $724. She left the store with the jewellery and the difference between its price and the face value of the money order. Again, Ms. Wells was identified by CCTV footage.

She was on a release order at the time on the personation offence bound by the condition not to possess identification other than her own. [ 10 ] On June 17, 2021, Ms. Wells pled guilty to the charge of personation as charged in Information 68467. She received a sentence of three days and was placed on an 18-month probation order. It included the condition that she not possess identification other than her own. By then, Ms. Wells was also bound by the release order in relation to the fraud charge at Paul Mara Jewellers. [ 11 ] On or around July 30, 2021, police executed a search warrant at Ms.

Wells' residence as a follow-up on a fraudulent online purchase report. There, police found a number of false driver's licences and credit cards. All of the licences contained Ms. Wells' photo, though each was under the name of another person, including Ms. Treber whose name Ms. Wells used to defraud Golden Star Jewellery. Police also found two point-of-sale terminals in the residence Ms. Wells shared with a roommate. [ 12 ] As Crown submits, certainly at this point, there is an apparent level of sophistication in Ms. Wells' fraudulent activity.

As of March 31, 2022, that level of sophistication and planning and determination as well as sheer audacity only increased. [ 13 ] On March 31, 2022, Ms. Wells attended at an auto dealership in Richmond, British Columbia, whereupon she arranged to finance the purchase of a Mini Cooper worth approximately $30,000, using identification in the name of Hana Klikova. Ms. Wells left the dealership with the vehicle both financed and insured in Ms. Klikova's name. One can only imagine Ms. Klikova's shock and distress when she received a call from the dealership on April 21, 2022, regarding this purchase.

She reported the matter to police who the next day located Ms. Wells still operating the vehicle. Inside the vehicle, police found other stolen identification as well as identification belonging to Ms. Klikova altered with Ms. Wells' image. Ms. Wells was released on conditions she not be in possession of identification other than her own. [ 14 ] Having just been released on the charge related to the Mini Cooper and being on release on the jewellery charge and on probation for the offence of personation, Ms. Wells simply continued to commit fraudulent offences. On April 28, 2022, Ms.

Wells arranged the purchase and financing of a 2020 Mercedes in the name of Amanda Chapman. Here, in addition to paying a deposit of $2,500 with a fraudulent credit card, Ms. Wells was able to arrange financing utilizing a paystub. She had sufficient information regarding the victim in this case to enable her to answer various security questions put to her by the dealership. After she posed for a photograph with the salesperson, Ms. Wells left the dealership with the Mercedes. It was subsequently found in Nanaimo by RCMP on May 27, 2022, the same day Ms.

Wells was arrested in Nelson, British Columbia, on unrelated fraud charges. [ 15 ] Crown submits the vehicle was valued at approximately $82,000. Again, one can only imagine Ms. Chapman's reaction upon learning of this purchase. This offence, as the Crown submits, evidences a level of sophistication and considerable daring on Ms. Wells'

part. It also evidences a complete lack of regard for court orders and, certainly at the time, at least, absolutely no regard for her victims. [ 16 ] On May 27, 2022, while still bound by various court orders and having fraudulently obtained both the Mini Cooper and the Mercedes , Ms. Wells used identification belonging to Destiny Swiderski to obtain a hotel room in Nelson. When questioned by police, Ms. Wells identified herself as Ms. Swiderski.

She was subsequently released by order of the court with numerous conditions, including that she not possess identification belonging to others and that she not go to any rental accommodation without the approval of her bail supervisor. [ 17 ] Still, on June 23, 2022, Ms. Wells arranged to purchase a vehicle from the Jim Pattison dealership here in Victoria with financing all in the name of Marguerite Du Plessis. The vehicle, a white Mini Cooper, is valued from between $20,000 to $30,000. It was insured in Ms. Du Plessis' name.

In regard to this charge, Crown entered into evidence a driver's licence purported to belong to Ms. Du Plessis. The photo is that of Ms. Wells. It does indicate the gender of the licensee as male, but apart from that error, which obviously went unnoticed at the dealership, the fraud is sophisticated and brazen. Ms. Du Plessis, who does not live on the island, had nothing to do with the transaction. The car itself has never been recovered. [ 18 ] Finally, on September 30, 2022, travelling in a white BMW fraudulently registered and insured in the name of Tammy Forberg, Ms.

Wells attempted to check into two hotels in Victoria using Ms. Forberg's identity. Ms. Wells was arrested for breach of her probation order and release orders by possessing identification documents other than those in her own name. Ms. Forberg's driver's licence with Ms. Wells' photo was found by police in the BMW. [ 19 ] Since being detained on September 30, 2022, Ms. Wells has been held in custody. Today, she seeks a time-served sentence. It is well below the sentence sought by Crown which is a global disposition of 48 months.

Crown submits its sentencing position is at the low end and takes into account not just the totality principle, but also Ms. Wells' guilty pleas, her Indigenous status, her remorse as evidenced by the pleas, if nothing else, and the steps that Ms. Wells has taken while in custody toward improving her prospects for successful reintegration upon release. [ 20 ] Ms. Wells submits that when this court takes into account her personal circumstances, including the relevant Gladue factors, it could be satisfied that no further custodial time is necessary. In support of this sentencing, Ms.

Wells participated in a presentence report and provided information to the Gladue report writer. Each report sets out various of Ms. Wells' personal circumstances. Counsel has provided some additional detail as well as evidence of Ms. Wells' programming while in custody and her plans and hopes for the future. [ 21 ] Ms. Wells is the daughter of a man she believes to be a status member of the Roseau River Nation in Manitoba. She recalls living with her parents during her early formative years up to age two on the Roseau River Reserve and then up to age five in Northern Ontario. Ms.

Wells reports suffering neglect, witnessing intimate partner violence, a lot of drinking and drug use, and the frequent presence of police at home. [ 22 ] Ms. Wells reports her father passed when she was five and she was subsequently placed in foster care up to age nine. She reports living with over 10 foster families during this time. Ms. Wells reports suffering emotional, physical, and sexual abuse including by other foster children. She was left feeling other children were treated better, particularly the non-Indigenous children. Ms.

Wells was introduced to and began consuming alcohol, marihuana, and tobacco at an early age. [ 23 ] At age nine, she was adopted by a non-Indigenous family. Ms. Wells again felt ostracized and less favoured than the family's natural children, again, in part due to her Indigeneity. She left school early. [ 24 ] Ms. Wells is diagnosed with ADHD and reports through counsel a bipolar diagnosis for which she has, until at least recently, declined proper medication. [ 25 ] Ms. Wells suffers from some significant physical challenges. Born without an anklebone, Ms. Wells' right leg was amputated at birth. Since then Ms.

Wells walks with the use of a prosthetic leg. Additionally, Ms. Wells has undergone numerous corrective surgeries on her left foot and has experienced many complications with the prosthetic leg. Ms. Wells' left hand is also imperfectly formed. [ 26 ] Overall, counsel for Ms. Wells submits that Ms. Wells is someone who has suffered and been abused most of her life. Unsurprisingly, as an adult, Ms. Wells reports being a substance user who self-medicates as she struggles with mental health issues. Despite this, Ms.

Wells reports a close relationship with her natural sister and hopes to spend time with her upon release. [ 27 ] A Gladue report prepared for this sentencing indicates that Ms. Wells is an intergenerational survivor of the residential school system, if not the entire colonial experience visited upon Indigenous communities here in Canada. She presents with numerous Gladue factors compounded by her physical disabilities. Ms.

Wells is dislocated from any familial community but for her sister, she has little in the way of formal education, she is a substance user if not a sufferer of a substance abuse disorder, she has experienced ostracization for a number of reasons, and she is the product of a broken foster care system. [ 28 ] Since being in custody, Ms. Wells has quite apparently reflected on the course her life has taken, on her prospects and plans for the future, and on her offending behaviour generally. Ms. Wells expressed remorse for her offending behaviour, particularly given its impact on her numerous victims.

She did not, she stated, appreciate at the time, at least, the impact these fraudulent transactions would have on them. In the meantime, Ms. Wells, who is clearly very intelligent, has taken a number of courses in preparation for postsecondary studies, as well as making plans for treatment. She is, I accept, making genuine efforts towards rehabilitation. [ 29 ] Though there are a number of victims in this case, there is but one victim impact statement, that is, from Ms. Du Plessis, who has unquestionably suffered terribly and struggles to this day to try to recover her reputation.

While there are no other victim impact statements, it is not difficult to imagine the impact of these offences on those persons whose identity Ms. Wells used to make these major purchases. I think few people would not be entirely unsettled to learn their identity had not only been stolen, but also used to purchase and insure expensive vehicles. [ 30 ] Ms. Du Plessis describes the process necessary to try to extricate herself from these transactions. She, like the other victims, is

wholly innocent, yet still tasked with the burdens of satisfying creditors that they are victims of fraud. There is obvious value in today's world to a good credit rating. There is an equal and opposite detriment when ones credit rating is undermined by the fraudulent activity of others.

It can have devastating economic and psychological effects, yet these offences occur regularly and with seemingly no regard by the perpetrators for the victims. [ 31 ] In light of the consistent and increasingly sophisticated level of fraudulent offending, coupled with the related criminal record, Crown seeks a global sentence of 48 months. For the three offences relating to the fraudulent obtaining of vehicles, the Crown seeks sentences in the range of 24 months on each with the sentence for the offences on April 1 and 28 running consecutively and the offences on June 23, running concurrently.

Elsewise, Crown submits these three offences alone could attract a sentence of six years. On the other offences, Crown seeks concurrent sentences of 60 days or less. [ 32 ] Ms. Wells submits a sentence in the range of six months on each of the motor vehicle offences would be appropriate for a global total of 18 months or a time-served sentence. Ms.

Wells also offered to pay restitution in relation to the jewellery in the amount of $2,725 as a way of restoring some balance in addition to the suggested custodial sentence of 18 months. [ 33 ] Both parties agree on the terms and conditions of a probation order. [ 34 ] Bearing all of this in mind, I now turn to the question of the appropriate sentence in this case.

Section 718 of the Criminal Code provides that: The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing … sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives: (

a) to denounce unlawful conduct and the harm done to victims or to the community that is caused by unlawful conduct; (

b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences; (

c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary; (

d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders; (

e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and (

f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims or to the community. [ 35 ] Not every objective applies in every case. Some offences may attract but a few objectives, others nearly all. The question is what sentencing objective or objectives are necessary to import into a sentence in a given case in order to meet the fundamental purpose of sentencing in order to protect society and to contribute to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful, and safe society.

In the case of fraud, particularly sophisticated identity fraud, the sentencing objectives are obvious. A sentence for fraud, generally, must serve to denounce the conduct, it must serve to deter the offender and others from this kind of offending, and support for that is found in R. v. Abdulahi-Sabet , 2019 BCSC 1538 , at paragraph 14 ; R. v. Kodimyala , 2020 BCCA 275 at paragraph 42 . As early as 2009, the Alberta Court of Appeal wrote in R. v.

Judge , 2009 ABCA 118 at paragraph 11 that: Identity theft is a serious problem that needs to be addressed by denunciation and deterrence. [ 36 ] Still, in this instance, even despite Ms. Wells' related record, it is not too late to give consideration to the sentencing objective of rehabilitation, also. [ 37 ] In addition to the sentencing objectives, pursuant to s. 718.2 of the Criminal Code , a court that imposes a sentence shall take into consideration a number of other principles and circumstances.

These include that: … a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender … [ 38 ] Additionally, courts should impose similar sentences on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances. … an offender should not be deprived of liberty, if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances; and [finally] … all available sanctions, other than imprisonment, that are reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with the harm done to victims or to the community should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders. [ 39 ] The Gladue factors have bearing in this latter regard.

They can, among other things, serve to reduce an offender's degree of moral responsibility for an offence by enabling a sentencing court to take into consideration the unique systemic or background factors that may have played a

part in bringing the offender before the court: R. v. Eustache , 2014 BCCA 337 at paragraphs 13 and 14 . [ 40 ] Whatever else a sentencing court considers, ultimately the court must arrive at a disposition that is proportionate, that is to say, that the ultimate disposition must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. Here, the offences are serious and the question becomes to what degree do the Gladue factors and, frankly, Ms.

Wells' life experience generally serve to reduce her moral culpability. [ 41 ] Here, as I noted earlier, Crown submits its sentencing position has taken into account the Gladue factors here. At the same time, the Crown emphasizes Ms. Wells' high degree of moral responsibility for these offences given the level of planning and intention evidenced on the facts.

[ 42 ] On the other hand, Ms. Barton submits that Ms. Wells appears at this sentencing as a highly marginalized Indigenous woman who struggled throughout her life with mental and physical disabilities, drug addiction, homelessness, and poverty. The offending behaviour, it is submitted, is driven by survival rather than greed. [ 43 ] In regard to the latter point, I find I agree with the Crown that, on the facts, at least, Ms. Wells' offending behaviour is neither impulsive, as she herself advised the presentence report writer, nor does it appear that Ms. Wells was offending to survive. Ms.

Wells was obtaining luxury items, jewellery and high-end vehicles. She was attempting to stay at quality hotels. [ 44 ] Undoubtedly, there is a connection between Ms. Wells' offending behaviour and her life experience, shaped as it has been by her Indigenous roots, her upbringing generally, her significant physical disabilities, and her substance use, but the evidence in this hearing does not support the submission that these factors drove Ms. Wells to offend out of desperation. I believe there is some connection between Ms.

Wells' personal circumstances and her offending, some a function of the Gladue factors identified, some probably at a much deeper psychological level which was not explored at this sentencing. I will accept for the purposes of this sentencing that Ms. Wells' life experience contributed to her offending behaviour and, no doubt, her disregard for court orders. I accept this serves to reduce Ms.

Wells' culpability to some degree and that, therefore, the sentence should be lower than it would have been had these factors not been present. [ 45 ] The length of a sentence is determined by both mitigating and aggravating factors. The mitigating factors in this sentence include the guilty pleas. I find these to be a significant mitigating factor as I earlier stated. Ms. Wells has expressed her remorse to the report writers, through the pleas themselves, and finally before this court at the conclusion of submissions. Ms.

Wells has been in custody for over a year now and has had some considerable time to reflect on this offending behaviour. These expressions of remorse appear to be sincere. [ 46 ] Moreover, through her own conduct, Ms. Wells has evidenced not only remorse, but a real commitment to rehabilitation. Ms. Wells has engaged in programming over the past year with some exceptional results. She is well regarded and considered an enthusiastic learner. These course results as well as the facts in this sentencing testify to Ms. Wells' intellectual abilities. Ms.

Wells' early life experience did not afford the luxury of an education. She lacks one, but it is not due to any intellectual deficits. It is clear that Ms. Wells is deeply intelligent. [ 47 ] Aggravating circumstances on sentence include, firstly, the victim impact -- or the impact on the victims. As I say, there is only one victim impact statement in this sentence hearing, but it serves as an example of the kind of devastation this kind of offending behaviour has on the innocent victims of identity theft. This kind of conduct deals a harsh emotional blow to the victim. I have no doubt, as Ms.

Du Plessis described, the process of extricating oneself from this kind of crime is one that places a heavy burden on the victim. Victims are left to feel helpless and less worthy and unsafe in many cases. They have, after all, been preyed upon by a stranger or strangers who care not a whit about them, who see them as a sort of a non-entity, and who do not hesitate to place them in harm's way to serve their own personal and immediate needs. In a modern civil society, it is among the cruelest forms of victimization. [ 48 ] Ms.

Wells has made matters worse for herself by having engaged in this offending behaviour while on probation and having been bound by various court orders which she simply obviously ignored. Ms. Wells would have assured courts when seeking her release that she would abide by her release conditions. She would have been taken at her word and it is not, at this juncture, unfair to say that Ms. Wells' words are not necessarily to be trusted. [ 49 ] Other aggravating factors include Ms. Wells' related and not dated record. It is made up of offences of dishonesty, a number of which are cognate offences. I know Ms.

Wells says she does not -- or did not understand the impact of her offences at issue in this sentencing on the victims, but given the prior cognate convictions, it is hard to understand how that could be the case. Nevertheless, I do not doubt Ms. Wells' current remorse. [ 50 ] Crown submits that an aggravating factor in this case is the level of planning and increasing sophistication of these offences.

Section 380.1 of the Code sets out a number of statutorily aggravating factors for the kinds of fraudulent offences at issue in this sentencing. These include the magnitude, complexity, duration, or degree of planning of the fraud as well as the number of victims and the impact on the victim or victims. The aggravating factors in this sentencing are significant as the Crown submits. [ 51 ] A sentence should be similar for similar offences committed by similar offenders in similar circumstances.

In this case -- in this sentencing, I should say, Crown has submitted some case authorities in which offenders have been sentenced for fraudulent offences. None are directly on point and most have been provided for other reasons. Still, it is possible to [indiscernible] from these sentencing objectives as I referred to earlier in these reasons. [ 52 ] Additionally, I find that the range sent out in R. v. Kodimyala at paragraph 40 to be somewhat helpful. That case involved the fraudulent deposit of cheques. It was held for that kind of offence the range of sentence is a custodial sentence of nine to 18 months.

The facts here are obviously more egregious. [ 53 ] In R. v. Abdulahi-Sabet , the Court of Appeal quashed a lower court's suspended sentence, sentencing the offender to six months in custody for his supporting role in the fraudulent purchase of two vehicles. A number of factors animated that sentence, but what is notable is that the so-called mastermind of the fraud received a 24-month sentence for the same two fraudulent purchases. Neither involved the theft of identity and, in each case, the vehicles were recovered.

In the case of the mastermind, the sentence of 24 months was imposed by way of joint submission on a guilty plea and included two other offences. [ 54 ] On the main offences in this case, the three instances involving the fraudulent purchase of motor vehicles by way of identity theft, the Crown has proceeded by indictment. Sentencing options, therefore, range from a suspended sentence to a maximum of 14 years.

Of course, nothing like the maximum is under consideration here, but it does underscore the seriousness of the offence. [ 55 ] Using the Abdulahi-Sabet case as an example, the sentence proposed of 24 months on each with two to be served consecutively and the third concurrently is not out of the range. The facts in Abdulahi-Sabet , even respecting the so-called mastermind, are far less egregious than here. There was no fraud by identity theft. All of the property was recovered. The Crown sentencing position based on this case may be at the high end, but it is within the range.

[ 56 ] On the other hand, I find Ms. Wells' submission that a six-month sentence on each of the charges of fraudulently-obtained motor vehicles in the circumstances of this case is far outside of the range and far too low even taking into account Ms. Wells' personal circumstances. Such a sentence would not send a message of denunciation or deterrence. It could well only further encourage offending behaviour by communicating to the offender and others that the offences are not taken seriously by the courts. Ms.

Wells' moral culpability is lessened by reason of her life experience, but it is not reduced to that extent. [ 57 ] In my view, an appropriate sentence that takes into account Ms. Wells' reduced moral culpability yet still meets the relevant sentencing objectives and does not adversely affect Ms. Wells' prospect for rehabilitation is a sentence in the range of 32 months. [ 58 ] Because of the length of sentence and probation order, Ms.

Wells' future plans for education and retraining, I decline to make a restitution order. [ 59 ] For the first offence involving the theft of a motor vehicle using the identity of another person, Ms. Wells should serve 16 months in custody, a reduction in what would otherwise have been appropriately a 24-month sentence at the least. Given that Ms. Wells committed the second offence while on a probation order and release from the first and taking into account the value and nature of the fraud, I find that a sentence of 16 months to be served concurrently is appropriate.

Given the principle of totality, the remaining sentences will be imposed concurrently on these sentences for a global disposition of 32 months with credit for time served. [ 60 ] Ms. Wells, I will ask you to stand, but I am going to enter sentences on the record for each of these offences after which I will deal with the rest of the sentencing including the probation order. [ 61 ] It might be useful for Mr.

Clerk's benefit if I start with Information 249079-C-4. [ 62 ] There have been guilty pleas to a number of counts there, but with respect to Counts 1 and 8 of that information, and those are the charges of defrauding the dealerships in a value in excess of $5,000, the sentence is 16 months on Count 1 and 16 months on Count 8 to be served consecutively for a total of 32 months. [ 63 ] With respect to Count 3, and all of the other counts, Mr.

Clerk, I will set out the sentences on the record, but they are all going to be served concurrently. [ 64 ] THE CLERK: Thank you, Your Honour. [ 65 ] THE COURT: So Counts 3 and Count 5 and Count 7 and Count 10 and Count 13 of that information, there is a sentence of one month or 30 days each to be served concurrently with the sentence that I have just imposed. [ 66 ] I am going to go back in time to Information 181837. There is a single count plea of a guilty plea on Count 1. That is the defrauding of Paul Mara Jewellers.

The sentence is 30 days to be served concurrently with the sentences that I have imposed. [ 67 ] On Information 69442, guilty pleas on Counts 1 and 2, the sentences are 30 days on each count to be served concurrently with one another and concurrently with the other sentences I have imposed already. [ 68 ] On Information 266762, Count 3, using another's person's identity with intent to commit an indictable offence, the sentence is 30 days to be served concurrently as well as the sentence on Count 4, 30 days to be served concurrently with one another and with the remaining sentences. [ 69 ] On Information 27052, there is guilty pleas on Counts 1, 2, and 3, of that information.

The sentences are 30 days on each count to be served concurrently with one another and concurrently with the sentence that I have imposed. [ 70 ] On Information 184890, Count 1, that is the defrauding of the Jim Pattison Toyota car dealership, the sentence is 16 months to be served concurrently with the sentence that I have imposed on the other matters. [ 71 ] There is a sentence of six months on Count 5, the 16 months on Count 1, and one month of Count 6, all to be served concurrently with one another. [ 72 ] On Information 249079-4-C, Count 3, one month; Count 5, one month; Count 7, one month; and Count 10 and 13, one month concurrently with one another, concurrently with the sentence that I have imposed. [ 73 ] That leaves us with Information 185142, and there are guilty pleas on Counts 1, 2, and 4 of that information.

On Counts 1 and 2, the sentence is two months; on Counts 4, the sentence is one month, to be served concurrently with one another and concurrently with the sentence that I have imposed. [ 74 ] So, we have a global sentence of 32 months for all of those offences. Ms. Wells, you have been in custody now as of today for 382 days. When you are given credit for time served, you are entitled to credit in the amount of 573 days or 19 months. The sentence is 32 months, less 19 months, and I can be corrected if I am wrong, but in my calculation, you have 13 months yet to serve. Mr.

Clerk is going to apply the credit of 19 months to the sentences that I have imposed, but that leaves you 13 months to go on all of these sentences. [ 75 ] I have not added up the number of the victim fine surcharges, but I accept that would work an undue hardship in the circumstances of this case. In the result, I will waive all the victim fine surcharges in your case so that you are not burdened with a significant debt when you are released from custody. As I say, Ms. Wells, there is no question you are capable of a lot, right, and you are doing -- it seems like you are doing well and I hope you carry on.

I know you are disappointed by the sentence today. [ 76 ] I am going to set out the conditions of the probation order. The probation order is going to be for two years and it is going to attach to all of these informations. [ 77 ] First of all, the mandatory conditions are that you must keep the peace and be of good behaviour. Attend at court if required to do

so by the court. You also have to notify the court or a probation officer in advance of any change of name or address and promptly of any change of employment or occupation. [ 78 ] While you are bound by this probation order, you may not attend at any jewellery stores in the Province of British Columbia.

You are also prohibited from attending at any car dealership in the Province of British Columbia. [ 79 ] I will have you report to a probation office and right now I will put in the Victoria probation office, but it might be a different one -- [ 80 ] THE ACCUSED: I don't think it matters. [ 81 ] THE COURT: I do not think it does, either, but I will put that in and you can get -- you can -- you can arrange to report elsewise, but I will have you report -- I think I will have you report by telephone because I know you will be over -- back over in Alouette.

You will report by telephone – the number is 250-387-6321 - to the probation office in Victoria at 836 Courtney Street within two business days of your release from custody unless you have obtained before your release from custody written permission from a probation officer to report elsewhere within a different timeframe and, after that, you are going to report as directed by your probation officer. [ 82 ] If no one answers the telephone when you call, you have to keep calling during regular business hours each and every day until you have reached a probation officer and you have received instructions to report and you will report as directed after that. [ 83 ] When you report to the probation officer, you will tell them what your residential address is, where you are staying, as well as your telephone number and you will not change either of those without first obtaining the written permission of your probation officer. [ 84 ] You must attend at any intake, assessment, counselling, or program as may be directed by your probation officer and complete that to the satisfaction of your probation officer. [ 85 ] The reporting requirement under this order will end once your probation officer is satisfied that you have completed all your counselling and treatment or that it is not required and your probation officer has told you that you no longer have to report, but you would still be bound by the no-go conditions as well as the following condition. [ 86 ] You must not possess any identification documents and that will include credit cards, debit cards, cheques, negotiable instruments, driver's licences, birth certificates, social insurance cards, mail, invoices, or bills, other than ones in your name.

There are no exceptions to this condition. [ 87 ] So those are the conditions of the probation order. I have waived the victim impact surcharge. You know the time you have left and I know you know the way that it is dealt with in the correctional institution. I do not think there is much else here other than maybe some stays. [ 88 ] CNSL S. SIMPSON: Yes, Your Honour, Crown directs a stay of proceeding on all outstanding counts. [ 89 ] THE COURT: Okay, okay. All right. Well, thanks, everyone. Thanks for your help. (REASONS FOR SENTENCE CONCLUDED)