Her Majesty the Queen - v. -, 2014 SKPC 196

IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF SASKATCHEWAN Citation: 2014 SKPC 196 Date: November 10, 2014 Information: 33612275, 33612276, 33612277, 33612271, 33612273, 39745564, 43174441, 44334431, 44334870, 44407633, 43174847, 36655796, 30579282, 44335021 Location: Saskatoon _____________________________________________________________________________ Between: Her Majesty the Queen - and - Melissa Ann Weatherbee Appearing: Bryce Pashovitz For the Crown Mike Buchinski For the Accused SENTENCING DECISION D.E.

LABACH , J INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] On October 2, 2014, the accused, Melissa Ann Weatherbee, came before me facing numerous charges on some fourteen separate Informations. Some of these Informations were from the Province of Alberta while others were from the Province of Saskatchewan. She had already entered guilty pleas to a number of these matters and the Crown had stayed a number of the charges. She reaffirmed her guilty pleas in front of me to twenty-two charges from Alberta and another eighteen from Saskatchewan. The Crown

advised they were proceeding summarily on all the charges to which the accused had pled guilty. [ 2 ] The Alberta charges to which she pled guilty are as follows:

a) Information 33612275: Count 3: between the 18 th day of June and the 24 th day of June, 2013, at or near Edmonton, Alberta, did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, unlawfully defraud Sonya Prison of a sum of money, of a value not exceeding $5,000.00, contrary to s. 380(1) (

b) of the Criminal Code of Canada ; Count 8: between the 23 rd day of June, 2013, and the 24 th day of June, 2013, both dates inclusive, at or near Edmonton, Alberta, did unlawfully have in her possession a cheque of a value not exceeding $5,000.00, the property of James A. McMullen, knowing that the said property was obtained by or derived directly or indirectly from the commission in Canada of an offence punishable by indictment, contrary to s. 355 (

b) of the Criminal Code of Canada ; Count 9: on or about the 10 th day of April, 2013, at or near Edmonton, Alberta, being bound by a Probation Order dated the 5 th day of April, 2013, did, without reasonable excuse fail or refuse to comply with the Order in that she failed to keep the peace and be of good behaviour, contrary to s. 733.1(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada .

b) Information 33612276: Count 1: between the 25 th day of May, 2013 and the 27 th day of May, 2013, both dates inclusive, at or near Edmonton, Alberta, did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, unlawfully defraud Victoria Beauchamp and Gerald Beauchamp of property, money, valuable security, or a service, to wit: monies of a value not exceeding $5,000.00, contrary to s. 380(1) (

b) of the Criminal Code of Canada ; Count 4: between the 25 th day of May, 2013 and the 27 th day of May, 2013, both dates inclusive, at or near Edmonton, Alberta, being bound by a Probation Order dated May 25 th , 2013, did wilfully fail to comply with the Order, to wit: fail to keep the peace and be of good behaviour, contrary to s. 733.1(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada ; Count 5: between the 10 th day of April and the 24 th day of June, 2013, at or near Edmonton, Alberta, did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, unlawfully defraud Caterina Sousa of a sum of money, of a value not exceeding $5,000.00, contrary to s. 380(1) (

b) of the Criminal Code of Canada ; Count 8: on or about the 23 th day of June, 2013, at or near Edmonton, Alberta, did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, unlawfully defraud Susan Alison Webber of a sum of money, of a value not exceeding $5,000.00, contrary to s. 380(1) (

b) of the Criminal Code of Canada ; Count 13: on or about the 10 th day of April, 2013, at or near Edmonton, Alberta, being bound by a Probation Order dated April 5 th , 2013, did wilfully fail to comply with the Order to wit: fail to keep the peace and be of good behaviour, contrary to s. 733.1(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada .

c) Information 33612277:

Count 2: on or about the 29 th day of July, 2013, at or near Edmonton, Alberta, did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, unlawfully defraud Epcor of property, money, valuable security, or a service, to wit: residential power and water services of a value not exceeding $5,000.00, contrary to s. 380(1) (

b) of the Criminal Code of Canada ; Count 4: between the 2 nd day of May, 2013 and the 4 th day of May, 2013, both dates inclusive, at or near Edmonton, Alberta, did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, unlawfully defraud Gordon Bate of property, money, valuable security, or a service, to wit: monies, of a value not exceeding $5,000.00, contrary to s. 380(1) (

b) of the Criminal Code of Canada ; Count 7: between the 2 nd day of May, 2013 and the 14 th day of May, 2013, both dates inclusive, at or near Edmonton, Alberta, did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, unlawfully defraud Betty Hutchings of property, money, valuable security, or a service, to wit: monies, of a value not exceeding $5,000.00, contrary to s. 380(1) (

b) of the Criminal Code of Canada ; Count 10: between the 7 th day of June, 2013 and the 9 th day of June, 2013, both dates inclusive, at or near Edmonton, Alberta, did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, unlawfully defraud Bryan Clackett of property, money, valuable security, or a service, to wit: monies, of a value not exceeding $5,000.00, contrary to s. 380(1) (

b) of the Criminal Code of Canada ; Count 13: between the 15 th day of June, 2013 and the 16 th day of June, 2013, both dates inclusive, at or near Edmonton, Alberta, did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, unlawfully defraud Mike Moholitny of property, money, valuable security, or a service, to wit: monies, of a value not exceeding $5,000.00, contrary to s. 380(1) (

b) of the Criminal Code of Canada ; Count 15: between the 17 th day of July, 2013 and the 18 th day of July, 2013, both dates inclusive, at or near Edmonton, Alberta, did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, unlawfully defraud Margaret McEachern of property, money, valuable security, or a service, to wit: monies, of a value not exceeding $5,000.00, contrary to s. 380(1) (

b) of the Criminal Code of Canada ; Count 18: between the 19 th day of August, 2013 and the 20 th day of August, 2013, both dates inclusive, at or near Edmonton, Alberta, did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, unlawfully defraud George Molyneux of property, money, valuable security, or a service, to wit: monies, of a value not exceeding $5,000.00, contrary to s. 380(1) (

b) of the Criminal Code of Canada ; Count 19: on or about the 20 th day of August, 2013, at or near Edmonton, Alberta, did unlawfully steal a bicycle of a value not exceeding $5,000.00, the property of George Molyneux, contrary to s. 334 (

b) of the Criminal Code of Canada ; Count 20: between the 19th day of August, 2013 and the 22 nd day of August, 2013, both dates inclusive, at or near Edmonton, Alberta, did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, unlawfully defraud Christos Amarandos of property, money, valuable security, or a service, to wit: monies, of a value not exceeding $5,000.00, contrary to s. 380(1) (

b) of the Criminal Code of Canada ; Count 25: between the 13 th day of May, 2013 and the 14 th day of May, 2013, both dates inclusive, at or near Edmonton, Alberta, being bound by a Probation Order dated the 5 th day of April, 2013, did, without reasonable excuse, fail or refuse to comply with the Order in that she failed to keep the peace and be of good behaviour, contrary to s. 733.1(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada ; Count 32: between the 19 th day of August, 2013 and the 22 nd day of August, 2013, both dates inclusive, at or near Edmonton, Alberta, being at large on her recognizance entered into before a justice and being bound to comply with a condition of that recognizance, requiring her to keep the peace and be of good behaviour, did fail without lawful excuse to comply with that condition, contrary to s. 145(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada .

d) Information 33612271:

Count 1: between the 12 th day of September, 2013 and the 7 th day of October, 2013, both dates inclusive, at or near Edmonton, Alberta, being bound by a Probation Order dated the 5 th day of April, 2013, did, without reasonable excuse, fail or refuse to comply with that Order in that she failed to report in person as required by the Probation Officer, in the manner directed as per condition #2 of the Probation Order, contrary to s. 733.1(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada .

e) Information 33612273: Count 1: between the 12 th day of September, 2013 and the 7 th day of October, 2013, both dates inclusive, at or near Edmonton, Alberta, being at large on her recognizance entered into before a justice and being bound to comply with a condition of that recognizance requiring her to report in person to a bail supervisor within two working days of release and thereafter as required and in the manner directed by the supervisor, did fail without lawful excuse to comply with that condition, contrary to s. 145(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada .

f) Information 39745564: Count 1: on or about the 2 nd day of October, 2013, at or near Edmonton, Alberta, being at large on her recognizance entered into before a justice, did fail, without lawful excuse, to attend court in accordance therewith, contrary to s. 145(2) (

a) of the Criminal Code of Canada . [ 3 ] The Saskatchewan charges that she pled guilty to are as follows:

a) Information 43174441: Count 1: on or between the 14 th day of December and the 16 th day of December, 2013, at or near Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, defraud Linda Hrabal of the sum of $160.00 by having Linda Hrabal deposit an empty bank envelope into her account, contrary to s. 380(1) (

b) of the Criminal Code ; Count 4: on or about the 16 th day of December, A.D. 2013, at or near Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, did, being bound by a recognizance dated August 4, 2013, fail to comply with a condition, to wit: shall keep the peace and be of good behaviour, contrary to s. 145(3) of the Criminal Code ;

b) Information 44334431: on or about the 30 th day of December, A.D. 2013, at or near Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, defraud Sean Hayes of money in the sum of $565.00 by providing him an empty envelope that was deposited into his account, contrary to s. 380(1) (

b) of the Criminal Code .

c) Information 44334870: Count 1: on or between the 22 nd day of December and the 23 rd day of December, A.D. 2013, at or near Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, defraud Matthew Gedison of money in the sum of $600.00 by having him deposit an empty envelope which supposedly contained a cheque made out to herself, then giving her the cash, contrary to s. 380(1) (

b) of the Criminal Code ;

Count 4: between the 7 th day of March, A.D. 2014, and the 3 rd day of April, A.D. 2014, at or near Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, defraud Cornelius Penner of money in the sum of $1,300.00 by having him deposit two empty envelopes which supposedly contained two cheques made out to herself, contrary to s. 380(1) (

b) of the Criminal Code ; Count 5: on or about the 1 st day of April, A.D. 2014, at or near Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, defraud Cheyenne Kinequon, Rebecca Neapetung and Kaylib Neapetung of money in the sum of $100.00 by having her deposit an empty envelope which supposedly contained a cheque made out to herself, contrary to s. 380(1) (

b) of the Criminal Code .

d) Information 44407633: Count 1: between the 6 th day of January, A.D. 2014, and the 30 th day of January, A.D. 2014, at or near Saskatoon, Saskatchewan did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, defraud Robert Bennett of money in the sum of $1,200.00 by writing a worthless cheque, contrary to s. 380(1) (

b) of the Criminal Code ; Count 3: between the 6 th day of January, A.D. 2014, and the 30 th day of January, A.D. 2014, at or near Saskatoon, Saskatchewan did, being at large on her undertaking given to a justice or a judge and being bound to comply with a condition thereof, to wit, live at 38-412 Avenue B North, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, and not change that residence without prior written permission of your Probation Officer or designate or the Court, fail without lawful excuse to comply with that condition, contrary to s. 145(3) of the Criminal Code ; Count 5: between the 6 th day of January, A.D. 2014, and the 30 th day of January, A.D. 2014, at or near Saskatoon, Saskatchewan did, being bound by a Probation Order made by a Judge of the Provincial Court of Alberta on April 5, 2013, without reasonable excuse fail to comply with a condition thereof, to wit, keep the peace and be of good behaviour, contrary to s. 733.1(1) of the Criminal Code .

e) Information 43174847: Count 1: on or about the 14 th day of January, A.D. 2014, at or near Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, defraud Eric Best and Maryanne Hill of the sum of $180.00 by having them deposit an empty bank envelope into their account, contrary to s. 380(1) (

b) of the Criminal Code ; Count 5: on or about the 14 th day of March, A.D. 2014, at or near Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, defraud Colette Jean of the sum of $400.00 by giving her an empty envelope to deposit into her bank account indicating it contained Melissa Weatherbee’s pay cheque, contrary to s. 380(1) (

b) of the Criminal Code ; Count 6: on or between the 31 st day of January, A.D. 2014, and the 4 th day of February, A.D. 2014, at or near Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, defraud Linda Unger of the sum of $400.00 by having her deposit an empty bank envelope into her account, contrary to s. 380(1) (

b) of the Criminal Code ; Count 9: on or about the 4 th day of February, A.D. 2014, at or near Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, did being at large on her undertaking given to a justice or a judge and being bound to comply with a condition thereof, to wit, shall keep the peace and be of good behaviour, fail without lawful excuse to comply with that condition, contrary to s. 145(3) of the Criminal Code ; Count 11: on or about the 13 th day of January, A.D. 2014, at or near Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, did with intent to defraud and without lawful authority did make a document, to wit: a letter stating that the Government of Saskatchewan, Social Services would pay the rent for her apartment in the name of the Government of Saskatchewan, contrary to s. 374 of the Criminal Code ;

Count 14: on or about the 15 th day of March, A.D. 2014, at or near Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, defraud Rebecca Pratchler of the sum of $200.00 by giving her an empty envelope to deposit into her bank account indicating it contained Melissa Weatherbee’s tax return cheque for $501.00 contrary to s. 380(1) (

b) of the Criminal Code .

f) Information 36655796: between the 1 st day of February, A.D. 2014, and the 2 nd day of February, A.D. 2014, at or near Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, defraud Charlene McGuire of the sum of $320.00 by giving her an envelope to deposit into the ATM which did not contain a cheque, contrary to s. 380(1) (

b) of the Criminal Code .

g) Information 30579282: on or about the 6 th day of February, A.D. 2014, at or near Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, did, having appeared before Saskatchewan Provincial Court, 220 - 19 th Street East, Saskatoon, did fail without lawful excuse to attend court as required by the Court, contrary to s. 145(2) (

b) of the Criminal Code .

h) Information 44335021: on or about the 21 st day of February, A.D. 2014, at or near Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, defraud Samantha Crawford-Mundell of a sum of money of a value not exceeding $5,000.00, contrary to s. 380(1) (

b) of the Criminal Code . [ 4 ] At the conclusion of their sentencing submissions, it was the Crown’s position that 21 months less 6 months credit for remand time would be an appropriate sentence and would be consistent with the purpose and principles of sentencing set forth in the Criminal Code . Additionally, they asked for Restitution Orders pursuant to

section 738 of the Criminal Code for all of the victims in both Alberta and Saskatchewan. Defence counsel did not take any issue with the Restitution Orders requested by the Crown, however, it was their position that a Conditional Sentence Order, as opposed to actual jail time, was a more appropriate sentence. [ 5 ] After sentencing submissions, but before I rendered sentence, it came to my attention that the Crown could not proceed summarily on the

section 374 Criminal Code charge in count 11 on Information 43174847. This offence is an indictable offence; it is not a dual offence. Upon bringing this to Defence counsel’s attention, they advised that that being the case, on that count, the accused would elect to be tried by a Provincial Court Judge and would re-enter her guilty plea to the offence. The Crown consented to dealing with this issue in this fashion. FACTS [ 6 ] The accused is a 31 year old female who was born and raised in Hamilton, Ontario. By her own account, she had a normal upbringing with no concerns.

She left her parents home in 2003 at the age of 21 when she had a son. In 2007 when she was 25, she moved to Edmonton. While in Edmonton, she was in a common-law relationship with Charles Carr. They have five children together, all of whom are presently wards of the Province of Alberta. While on remand on the aforementioned charges, the accused gave birth to another child who is presently in the care of the Government of Saskatchewan. [ 7 ] When living in Edmonton, the accused began running afoul of the law. On March 22, 2012, she was convicted of three fraud offences pursuant to section 380(1) (

b) of the Criminal Code . She received a sentence of 60 days jail and 12 months probation on these matters. Then on April 5, 2013, she pled guilty to stealing a cheque contrary to

section 334 (

b) of the Criminal Code and was sentenced to a suspended sentence and 15 months probation.

[ 8 ] Five days after being sentenced for stealing a cheque, the accused began committing the offences for which I am to sentence her on. On April 10, 2013, at 1:00 a.m., the accused knocked on the door of Caterina Sousa’s residence in Edmonton. When Ms. Sousa came to the door, the accused told her that she had locked her keys in her vehicle and needed some money to pay for a locksmith. She said that she had no money but asked Ms. Sousa if she would deposit a cheque of hers into her account and then withdraw some money for her. Ms. Sousa agreed to do this. [ 9 ] Ms.

Sousa took the accused to a CIBC branch, the accused gave her a bank deposit envelope and told her that there was a cheque for $100.00 in it. Ms. Sousa deposited the cheque into her account through the ATM machine at the branch and then withdrew $200.00 from her account. She gave the accused $100.00 from the cheque and another $100.00 cash from her account. Shortly thereafter, Ms. Sousa was advised by her bank that the envelope she had deposited did not contain a cheque. [ 10 ] One of the terms of the accused’s April 5 th probation order was that she was to keep the peace and be of good behaviour.

She breached this condition when she defrauded Ms. Sousa of these monies. [ 11 ] On May 2, 2013, the accused attended the Edmonton residence of Gordon Bate. She told Mr. Bate that her name was Lisa Kerr, that she had locked her keys in her vehicle and did not have any money to pay for a locksmith. As a result, Mr. Bate loaned the accused $120.00. [ 12 ] Later that evening, the accused returned to Mr. Bate’s residence and told him she needed some more money to have her vehicle towed to a dealership for repairs.

He loaned the accused another $100.00. [ 13 ] On May 3 rd , the accused returned to the Bate residence once again. This time she asked Mr. Bate to deposit a cheque for her. The cheque was for $540.00 and she told him it was her pay cheque from a company called Dynamic Minerals. The accused told Mr. Bate that he could keep what she owed him from this cheque if he would give her the balance. He agreed. He deposited the cheque through an ATM and gave the accused $400.00. [ 14 ] The accused had Mr. Bate deposit another cheque for her on May 3 rd for $550.00 and one on May 4 th for $480.00.

In both cases he immediately withdrew what he had deposited and gave the money to the accused. [ 15 ] On May 7 th , Mr. Bate spoke to his bank. They told him that Dynamic Minerals was not an operating company and that all the cheques the accused had asked him to cash were no good. [ 16 ] On May 13, 2013, the accused went to Betty Hutchings residence and asked for her help. She told Ms. Hutchings that she had locked her keys in her vehicle and claimed that she did not have enough money to pay for a locksmith. The accused said that she had a cheque for $503.00 from Dynamic Minerals and asked Ms.

Hutchings to cash it and give her the money. Ms. Hutchings took the cheque and deposited it into her account. She then withdrew $503.00 and gave it to the accused. [ 17 ] The accused returned to Ms. Hutchings residence several times over the next two days and told her several more hard luck stories including that she had locked her keys in her vehicle again, that she had lost her house keys and that her mom had passed away and she needed money for airfare back to Ontario. She convinced Ms.

Hutchings to cash three more Dynamic Minerals cheques for her for $300.00, $300.00 and $602.00 respectively and give her the money. Unbeknownst to Ms. Hutchings, all of these cheques were bad. [ 18 ] All this while, the accused continued to be subject to her April 5, 2013 probation order and by defrauding both Mr. Bate and Ms. Hutchings, she continued to breach her condition to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. [ 19 ] On May 25, 2013, at approximately 5:00 a.m., Victoria Beauchamp was returning home when she was approached by the accused. The accused told Ms.

Beauchamp that she needed a phone book to call a tow truck because she had locked her keys in the trunk of her car. Ms. Beauchamp felt that the accused was being genuine so she invited her into her van to call a tow truck and keep warm.

[ 20 ] The accused then advised Ms. Beauchamp that she had previously made arrangements for a tow truck to attend and unlock her vehicle however she could not afford the $83.00 plus G.S.T. that they wanted to do this, so they did not show up. The accused told Ms. Beauchamp that she had $3000.00 in her account but she could only get $119.00 out. She also said that she got paid from Sobey’s the following Monday. [ 21 ] Ms. Beauchamp felt sorry for the accused and offered to lend her money so she could get her vehicle unlocked. She told the accused to call the towing company back and have them attend.

The accused suggested that they go to Ms. Beauchamp’s bank and get the money before the tow truck was called. Ms. Beauchamp agreed. She took the accused to a nearby branch of her bank, withdrew $100.00 and gave it to the accused to cover, what she thought, was the cost of the tow truck. [ 22 ] On the morning of May 26 th , the accused went to the Beauchamp residence and gave Ms. Beauchamp and her husband, Gerald, a container of fresh sausage. She also asked for more money and showed Ms. Beauchamp a receipt from the towing company that purportedly showed that they charged her an extra $83.00 for labour.

As a result, Gerald Beauchamp gave the accused $100.00. [ 23 ] The accused returned to the Beauchamp residence at 5:00 p.m. This time she gave Ms. Beauchamp some ribs that she had cooked. She told Ms. Beauchamp that she had received her pay cheque and she wanted to repay her the $200.00 that the Beauchamps had given her. She asked Ms. Beauchamp to take her to her bank and they could deposit the cheque there. The accused told Ms. Beauchamp that they needed to go right away because she was leaving that night to go see her dying grandmother in Hamilton. Ms.

Beauchamp told the accused that she had never deposited a cheque in an ATM before but the accused assured her that it was simple and that she did it all the time. [ 24 ] Ms. Beauchamp agreed to take the accused to her bank. When they got to the bank, Ms. Beauchamp realized that her husband Gerald had her bank card. So they had to go get the bank card from Gerald and then return to the bank. The accused was starting to get somewhat agitated. Ms. Beauchamp deposited the cheque as per the accused’s instructions however she could only take out $80.00 from their account.

The accused got upset and began complaining about how she was going to be able to get the balance of her cheque from Ms. Beauchamp. She demanded the $80.00. The accused was becoming more agitated and Ms. Beauchamp was concerned. As a result, Ms. Beauchamp withdrew $80.00 from her account, then took out another $220.00 on her credit card and gave all these monies to the accused. Unfortunately the cheque was a fake as were all her stories.

By defrauding the Beauchamps of these monies, the accused was again not keeping the peace as per her existing probation order. [ 25 ] The accused continued going up to strangers’ homes and using this same lie about locking her keys in her vehicle and not having enough money to pay for a locksmith. On June 7, 2013, she went to the home of Bryan Clackett and after listening to her, he gave her $120.00.

On June 15 th , she went up to Mike Moholitny’s residence and she got $400.00 from him. [ 26 ] On June 18, 2013, the accused went to Sonya Prison’s home and told her she had locked her keys in her car and did not have enough money to pay for a locksmith. Ms. Prison agreed to deposit a $300.00 cheque for the accused into her account and withdraw the money for her. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately), Ms. Prison could only withdraw $140.00.

She gave this to the accused. [ 27 ] On June 23 rd at 8:00 p.m. the accused went to Susan Webber’s residence in Edmonton and told her that she had locked her keys in her car and needed money for a tow truck. The information that I was given in sentencing submissions was not clear as to what occurred between the accused and Ms. Webber at this time. However, the accused reattended to Ms. Webber’s residence an hour later with a $700.00 cheque that she asked Ms. Webber to deposit into her own bank account. The accused told Ms. Webber that she could keep the balance of the cheque if she would withdraw $330.00 for her.

Ms. Webber agreed. [ 28 ] Over the next number of hours, the accused returned to the Webber residence with more cheques asking that Ms. Webber deposit them, keep some of the money and give the rest to the accused. By the time the accused finally stopped going to the Webber residence, Ms. Webber had given her $2100.00. Again, all of these cheques were worthless. [ 29 ] On June 24 th , the accused went back to Ms. Prison’s house and asked her to deposit another cheque for her. In this instance,

[ 29 ] On June 24 th , the accused went back to Ms. Prison’s house and asked her to deposit another cheque for her. In this instance, the accused said that her grandfather had died and she needed money to go to his funeral. Ms. Prison agreed to do this. They went to Ms. Prison’s bank and she used the ATM to deposit a $400.00 cheque for the accused into her account. Once again she was only able to withdraw $140.00. She gave this to the accused. Like the first cheque she had received from the accused, this one was bad too. [ 30 ] The accused met 93 year old James McMullen in 2010 and befriended him.

Much like the rest of her victims, she told Mr. McMullen a number of hard luck stories and began obtaining money from him. At some point in time, the accused convinced Mr. McMullen to let her and her common-law move into his Edmonton home. [ 31 ] In January 2013, Mr. McMullen became ill and was taken to the hospital. He remained there for a month and was then transferred to a senior’s lodge. The accused and her common-law remained living in Mr. McMullen’s home despite numerous requests by his family to leave. [ 32 ] While at the house, the accused came across blank cheques for a company called Dynamic Minerals.

This company had been owned by Mr. McMullen but was no longer operating. These were the cheques that the accused passed off to some of her Edmonton victims as her pay cheques. [ 33 ] Between March and July of 2013, the accused would go and see Mr. McMullen at the senior’s home. She would take him out to his bank and would get him to withdraw varying sums of money from his account for her. Later, she created an internet account for Mr. McMullen and conducted a series of electronic money transfers from his account to her own.

Between the stolen cheques and the misappropriated monies, the accused took $12,218.00 from Mr. McMullen. [ 34 ] In July 2013, Mr. McMullen’s family cancelled the utility services to his residence. On July 29, 2013, the accused had Epcor reconnect the power, the gas and water services to the home. However, she opened the account in a fictitious name and did not pay the bills. The accused and her common-law spouse were finally evicted from Mr.

McMullen’s home on September 13, 2013. [ 35 ] On July 17, 2013 at 9:00 p.m., the accused went to Margaret McEachern’s residence claiming she had locked her keys inside her vehicle. She told Ms. McEachern that she did not have any money to pay for a locksmith to unlock her car and asked for her help. Ms. McEachern gave the accused $80.00. [ 36 ] An hour later, the accused returned to the McEachern residence claiming she needed more money for a tow truck. Ms. McEachern went to her bank and got the accused another $80.00. At 2:00 a.m., the accused again returned to Ms. McEachern’s residence and asked for more money.

She told Ms. McEachern that the tow truck driver was refusing to give her keys back unless she paid him more money. So Ms. McEachern went to her bank and got the accused $160.00. [ 37 ] On July 18 th at 7:00 a.m., the accused went back to Ms. McEachern’s home and told her that her grandfather was experiencing medical issues. The accused had a $600.00 cheque from Dynamic Minerals that she showed Ms. McEachern. She told her that the ATM at her bank was not working and asked Ms. McEachern to deposit the cheque for her. She told Ms.

McEachern she could take the $320.00 that she had given to the accused from the cheque and give her the balance. Ms. McEachern went to her bank, deposited the cheque and withdrew $280.00 for the accused. [ 38 ] Later that afternoon, the accused returned to Ms. McEachern’s and told her that her grandfather had passed away. She told her that she needed money to get back to Ontario for the funeral. Like everything else the accused told Ms. McEachern, this was a lie. The accused gave Ms. McEachern another cheque and asked her to cash it. Ms.

McEachern did not go and deposit the cheque but instead, gave the accused $400.00. [ 39 ] Finally, at midnight on July 18 th , the accused returned again to the McEachern residence. She asked Ms. McEachern to feed her kittens while she was away. Then she offered another cheque to Ms. McEachern and asked her to deposit it and give her the money. Ms. McEachern was beginning to get suspicious of what was occurring and refused to take the cheque. The accused left and did not return. All the cheques the accused had given Ms. McEachern were bad and as a result, she was out $840.00.

[ 40 ] By this time, a number of the accused’s victims had gone to the police, complaining about the accused. On July 14 th , the accused was arrested and charged with fraud, forging a document and uttering a forged document in relation to the Beauchamps. She was released on a Promise to Appear with a court date in Edmonton Provincial Court of August 7, 2013. Later in July, the Edmonton Police Service laid some more charges against the accused. They could not locate her so they had a public interest warrant issued for her. On August 4 th , the accused was a passenger in a vehicle stopped by police.

Upon checking her name, she was arrested on the warrant and charged with further fraud offences. She appeared before a Justice of the Peace and was released on a $2500.00 no cash deposit recognizance with a number of conditions including that she keep the peace and be of good behaviour. Her next court appearance on these new charges was set to October 2, 2013. [ 41 ] On August 19, 2013, the accused approached Christos Amarandos at the Empire Food Store in Edmonton and told him that she had locked her keys in her vehicle and did not have any money to pay a locksmith to open her car. She asked for his help.

He gave her $60.00 and his phone number. [ 42 ] At 7:00 p.m. that same date, the accused called Mr. Amarandos, told him that she was able to repay him and asked for his address. He told her where he lived and she came over. When she got to his home, she gave Mr. Amarandos a cheque which she told him was a company cheque from her work. The cheque was for $200.00 payable to Melissa Kerr by a company called Standard Industrial Materials. She asked him to deposit it for her, take out what he was owed and give her the balance in cash.

He agreed and went and did this. [ 43 ] Over the next three days, the accused went to Mr. Amarandos’ home and place of work and gave him more hard luck stories. Each time she said she needed money and gave him a cheque to deposit into his own account for her. On August 19 th he deposited a cheque for her and gave her $200.00; on August 20 th , $300.00; and on August 21 st , $300.00 and then a further $300.00. All of these cheques were returned “Non Sufficient Funds” and Mr. Amarandos was out $1060.00. [ 44 ] At the same time the accused was asking Mr. Amarandos for money, she also approached George Molyneux.

On August 19 th , she went to Mr. Molyneux’s home and told him she needed money to pay for a tow truck. He eventually loaned her $20.00. An hour later, she returned and asked him to deposit a cheque for her. She told him that she could not deposit the cheque into her own account because there was a five day waiting period for the cheque to clear and she needed the money now. Again, Mr. Molyneux agreed to help her. He took the accused to his bank, entered his PIN number on the ATM and then allowed the accused to deposit an envelope, which he believed contained a cheque, into his account.

The accused said that she was depositing a $300.00 cheque but was only able to withdraw $100.00 due to the restrictions on Mr. Molyneux’s account. [ 45 ] On August 20 th the accused returned to Mr. Molyneux’s residence and gave him another hard luck story. She asked him to deposit another cheque for her and he agreed. They went back to his bank however he was unable to access his account through the bank machine. As a result, the accused came away empty handed. [ 46 ] Later in the day, the accused again went to Mr. Molyneux’s residence. She asked if she could borrow his bicycle. He told her that would be fine.

She rode off on his bicycle and he never saw her again. [ 47 ] In defrauding both Mr. Amarandos and Mr. Molyneux, and stealing Mr. Molyneux’s bicycle, the accused was not keeping the peace and in violation of her recognizance. [ 48 ] Both the accused’s April 5, 2013 probation order and her August 4, 2013 recognizance had reporting conditions in them. And, for awhile, the accused was reporting as directed. However, after September 12 th she stopped reporting to both her probation officer and her bail supervision officer as she was no longer in Edmonton.

Concerned about the charges she was facing, pregnant and scared about the possibility of having a baby in jail, the accused and her common-law spouse fled to Saskatoon. She did not return to Edmonton for her October 2 nd court appearance and a warrant was issued for her arrest. [ 49 ] It did not take the accused long to pick up in Saskatoon where she left off in Edmonton. On December 13, 2013 at 7:00 p.m.

the accused went to the door of Linda Hrabal’s residence in Saskatoon. She asked Ms. Hrabal for a phone book to call a tow truck because she had locked her keys in her car. She told Ms. Hrabal that she had a pay cheque from Sobey’s. She wanted Ms. Hrabal to deposit it into her bank account and take out cash for her. Ms. Hrabal agreed to do this. The accused left and returned at 1:00 a.m. with a cheque for $183.00. Her and Ms. Hrabal went to her bank and deposited the cheque into Ms. Hrabal’s account. However Ms. Hrabal was only able to take out $60.00.

She gave this to the accused. [ 50 ] On December 15 th , the accused went back to Ms. Hrabal’s residence and asked her to deposit another cheque for her in the amount of $186.00. Ms. Hrabal went to the bank, deposited this cheque and withdrew $160.00 which she gave to the accused. She also gave the accused $210.00 cash that she had. [ 51 ] The accused returned to Ms. Hrabal’s home at 1:30 a.m. on December 16 th and asked Ms. Hrabal to deposit another cheque for her. Again Ms. Hrabal agreed and they went to Ms. Hrabal’s bank. Ms.

Hrabal deposited a $200.00 cheque for the accused, then withdrew $200.00 cash and gave it to the accused. [ 52 ] The accused returned to Ms. Hrabal’s two more times on December 16 th . The first time she had Ms. Hrabal deposit another $200.00 cheque for her. Ms. Hrabal withdrew $200.00 and gave it to the accused. The second time, Ms. Hrabal gave the accused $200.00 cash. The hard luck stories the accused had given Ms. Hrabal were lies and the cheques were bad. All total, Ms.

Hrabal was out $1200.00. [ 53 ] Even though the accused was now living in Saskatoon, she remained bound by her August 4, 2013 recognizance attached to her Edmonton charges. By committing this fraud on Ms. Hrabal, she was in breach of the condition in her recognizance that she keep the peace. [ 54 ] On December 22, 2013, the accused went to Matthew Gedison’s residence in Saskatoon. She asked him to deposit a cheque into his account and then withdraw the money for her. He agreed to do this. He also agreed to deposit a cheque for her on December 23 rd and another one on December 24 th . Unfortunately for Mr.

Gedison, the three envelopes the accused gave him that purportedly contained cheques, were empty. Mr. Gedison was out a total of $1500.00. [ 55 ] On December 30, 2013, Sean Hayes was visiting a friend when the accused came to the door of his friend’s house. She told them that her car had broken down. She convinced them to drive her to the Royal Bank main branch and once there, she told them that her bank card was not working. She had a cheque for $560.00 and she convinced Mr. Hayes to deposit it into his account, withdraw $560.00 cash and give it to her. Mr.

Hayes was later notified by his bank that the cheque the accused had given him was worthless. [ 56 ] On January 6, 2014, the accused knocked on the door of Robert Bennett’s residence. She told Mr. Bennett that she was having financial problems and needed money to fix her car. Mr. Bennett gave her some money because he felt sorry for her. [ 57 ] Over the next three weeks, the accused continued to come to his home and ask for money. She asked him to take her to his bank and deposit a $750.00 cheque for her. He agreed. They went to his bank and Mr. Bennett accessed his account through the ATM.

He then stepped aside and let the accused deposit the cheque into his account. She made like she was depositing the cheque, then withdrew $500.00 from his account for herself and supposedly left $250.00 for him. [ 58 ] Later that night, the accused asked Mr. Bennett to deposit another cheque for her. They went back to his bank and the accused deposited an envelope that she said contained a $900.00 cheque. She then withdrew $500.00 and left the rest for Mr. Bennett. Altogether, Mr. Bennett gave the accused $1200.00.

Unfortunately his bank advised him that the envelopes that the accused had deposited to his account had no cheques in them. [ 59 ] On January 13, 2014, the accused had an Order of Possession Hearing at the Rentalsmans Office as a result of an application her landlord made to have the accused evicted for not paying the rent. At the beginning of the hearing, the accused provided the landlord with a document from the Department of Social Services, stating that they would be paying the accused’s rent. As a result, the Hearing was postponed to January 27 th .

[ 60 ] The landlord, not prepared to take the letter at face value, contacted the Department of Social Services to confirm that they would be paying the accused’s rent. He was told that the Department did not write such a letter, that the letter was signed by a fictitious person who did not work for the Department and that they were not prepared to pay the accused’s rent. When the Hearing reconvened on January 27 th , the accused acknowledged that the letter was false. [ 61 ] In between going to Mr.

Bennett’s residence and asking him to deposit empty envelopes for her and creating fake correspondence from the Department of Social Services, the accused went to the residence of Eric Best and Maryanne Hill on January 13 th and told them that she needed help depositing a cheque so that she could get money for a tow truck. They agreed to take her to a Royal Bank ATM and once there, they deposited an envelope that the accused had given them believing there was a $180.00 cheque in the envelope. They then withdrew $180.00 cash and gave it to the accused.

The accused told them that she had another cheque for $100.00 that she would appreciate if they could cash for her. Again they deposited an envelope the accused gave them believing it contained a cheque. They then withdrew $100.00 for the accused. They later found out that neither envelope the accused had given them had a cheque in it. [ 62 ] On January 14, 2014, the accused was arrested and charged with three counts of defrauding Ms. Hrabal.

On January 16 th , she was released on an undertaking with a number of conditions including a condition that she reside at 38 - 412 Avenue B North, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan and not change that address without the written permission of her probation officer or the Court. Her next court appearance on these charges was set for January 23rd in Saskatoon Provincial Court. The accused attended court that date and adjourned her matter to February 6 th without plea. [ 63 ] During their investigation into the fraud against Mr. Bennett, the police suspected the accused.

At the end of January, 2014 they went to 38-412 Avenue B North however she was not living there any longer. In addition to breaching the residence condition in her Saskatchewan undertaking, she continued to be in breach of her Edmonton probation order by not keeping the peace. [ 64 ] On January 31, 2014, the accused went to Linda Unger’s Saskatoon residence claiming that she had locked her keys in her vehicle and needed some money to pay for a tow truck. She told Ms. Unger that her name was Melissa and she lived in a suite in her apartment building. Feeling sorry for her, Ms.

Unger gave her $35.00 cash. [ 65 ] Later that afternoon, the accused returned and told Ms. Unger that she needed some more money to have her vehicle towed to a car dealership because it would not start. She asked Ms. Unger if she would go to her bank and get some money for her. Ms. Unger capitulated and went and got the accused $400.00. [ 66 ] On February 1, 2014, the accused went to Charlene McGuire’s house and told Ms. McGuire that she needed to use her phone book to call a tow truck because she had locked her keys in her vehicle. She then asked Ms. McGuire for $60.00 to cover part of the cost of the tow truck.

Ms. McGuire declined to give the accused any money and sent her on her way. [ 67 ] On February 2 nd , the accused went back to Ms. Unger’s and asked if she would deposit the accused’s pay cheque into her account and withdraw money for her. The accused said that the cheque was for $780.00 and if she gave the accused $460.00, she could keep the rest. Ms. Unger agreed to do this. As with many other of the accused’s victims, these were lies and the cheque was worthless. Ms. Unger lost $1360.00 at the hands of the accused. [ 68 ] The accused also went back to Ms. McGuire’s house on February 1 st and asked Ms.

McGuire to deposit a cheque for her, stating that her bank account was not working and she needed some money. Despite declining to help the accused the previous day, Ms. McGuire agreed to deposit this cheque for her. The two of them went to the Toronto Dominion Bank and Ms. McGuire cashed a $320.00 cheque for the accused and gave her the cash. [ 69 ] Later that day, the accused convinced Ms. McGuire to do this again. This time the accused gave her a cheque for $480.00, she cashed it and gave the accused the money. Unfortunately all the cheques the accused gave Ms. McGuire were bad.

[ 70 ] By defrauding Ms. Unger and Ms. McGuire of these monies, the accused was in breach of her January 16 th undertaking to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. The accused also failed to attend court on February 6 th in Saskatoon and a warrant was issued for her arrest. [ 71 ] On February 21, 2014, the accused approached Samantha Crawford-Mundell at a Co-op gas station in Saskatoon and told her that she needed to cash a cheque to pay for a cab outside. Ms. Crawford-Mundell agreed to help her out.

She deposited the accused’s cheque for $453.00 into her own account, then withdrew $440.00 cash and gave it to the accused. Shortly thereafter she was advised that the accused’s cheque bounced. [ 72 ] On March 7, 2014, the accused met Cornelius Penner on 33 rd Street outside the Safeway grocery store. She introduced herself as Melissa Kerr and told Mr. Penner that she needed help carrying her groceries. She then went on to tell him that she needed help paying for repairs to her vehicle so she could get to school. She asked him if he would deposit a cheque for her into his account and he agreed.

The two of them went to an ATM at Mr. Penner’s bank and the accused gave him an envelope to deposit. She told him that there was a $1300.00 cheque in the envelope. Mr. Penner deposited the cheque to his account and then withdrew $100.00 and gave it to the accused. [ 73 ] On March 8 th , the accused met with Mr. Penner again and gave him a $140.00 cheque to deposit for her. Again he deposited the cheque into his account, withdrew $100 and gave the money to the accused. However, the accused wanted the rest of the money from the $1300.00 cheque that he had deposited for her the day before. Mr.

Penner had some cash in his pocket and borrowed $200.00 from a friend of his so that he could give her the further $1100.00 that she was demanding. As was the case with all the other victims, these cheques the accused had Mr. Penner deposit for her were worthless. [ 74 ] On March 14, 2014, the accused approached Colette Jean. She asked Ms. Jean if she would deposit her pay cheque and then withdraw some money for her. Ms. Jean agreed, deposited an envelope purportedly containing the accused’s pay cheque into her account via an ATM and then withdrew $400.00 for the accused. Ms.

Jean later found out that the envelope the accused had given her to deposit was empty. [ 75 ] On March 15, 2014, the accused went to Rebecca Pratchler’s home and asked if she would deposit her tax refund cheque into her account. Mr. Pratchler agreed to do that. The accused gave Ms. Pratchler an empty envelope, telling her there was a $501.00 tax refund cheque from the Federal Government inside. Ms.

Pratchler deposited the empty envelope and withdrew $200.00 cash for the accused. [ 76 ] On April 1, 2014, the accused approached Cheyenne Kinequon on the street, asked her to deposit a cheque into her personal bank account, withdraw the money and give it to her. Ms. Kinequon agreed. They went to Ms. Kinequon’s bank where the accused gave her an envelope and told her there was a $100.00 cheque inside. Ms. Kinequon deposited the envelope into her account through the ATM. She then withdrew $100.00 and gave it to the accused. The envelope, not surprisingly, was empty and Ms.

Kinequon was out $100.00. [ 77 ] Two more individuals were duped by the accused on April 1 st in a similar fashion to Ms. Kinequon. The accused approached Rebecca Neapetung, convinced her to deposit an empty envelope through her ATM and give her $100.00. The accused did the same thing to Kaylib Neapetung and got $80.00. [ 78 ] The accused was eventually arrested on April 3 rd at the Saskatoon Public Library. She appeared in Saskatoon Provincial Court on April 4 th and the Crown opposed her release. Her matters were adjourned a number of times without plea and each time she consented to her remand.

Her Edmonton charges were waived in to Saskatoon Provincial Court and finally, on August 21, 2014, the accused entered guilty pleas to a number of her outstanding charges. In return, the Crown stayed the remainder of them. A pre-sentence report was ordered. I have had the benefit of that report as I determine an appropriate sentence for the accused. ANALYSIS

[79] A judge’s task when sentencing an offender was aptly described by Mr. Justice Danyliuk in R. v. Fast, 2014 SKQB 161, [2014] S.J. No. 299 (Sask.Q.B.) when he said: [8] In Canada, sentencing is now a highly individualized process. It is as much art as it is science. It proceeds on a case-by-case basis. It is incumbent upon a sentencing judge to consider all relevant factors under the Criminal Code and as enunciated in the case law, andascribe to each the weight that the circumstances require. No one sentencing objective trumps the others.

Sentencing is a flexibleprocedure, with relatively few pre-determined results (such as minimum sentences). As Lamer, C.J.C. in R. v. M.(C.A.), (SCC), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 500, [1996] S.C.J. No. 28 (QL): [91] . . .

The determination of a just and appropriate sentence is a delicate art which attempts to balance carefully the societal goals ofsentencing against the moral blameworthiness of the offender and the circumstances of the offence, while at all times taking into accountthe needs and current conditions of and in the community. . . . . . . . [10] A sentence is to be proportionate to the gravity of the acts and the degree of responsibility of the offender. This principle is integralto modern sentencing in Canada. The Supreme Court dealt with it in R. v. Ipeelee, 2012 SCC 13, [2012] 1 S.C.R. 433.

LeBel J. said thisat paragraphs 35 to 38: [35] In 1996, Parliament amended the Criminal Code to specifically codify the objectives and principles of sentencing . . . According tos. 718, the fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute to “respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safesociety”.

This is accomplished by imposing “just sanctions” that reflect one or more of the traditional sentencing objectives:denunciation, general and specific deterrence, separation of offenders, rehabilitation, reparation to victims, and promoting a sense ofresponsibility in offenders and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims and to the community. [36] The Criminal Code goes on to list a number of principles to guide sentencing judges. The fundamental principle of sentencing isthat the sentence must be proportionate to both the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

As this Courthas previously indicated, this principle was not borne out of the 1996 amendments to the Code but, instead, has long been a central tenetof the sentencing process.. . . It also has a constitutional dimension, in that s. 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedomsforbids the imposition of a grossly disproportionate sentence that would outrage society’s standards of decency.

In a similar vein,proportionality in sentencing could aptly be described as a principle of fundamental justice under s. 7 of the Charter. [37] The fundamental principle of sentencing [i.e. proportionality] is intimately tied to the fundamental purpose of sentencing - themaintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society through the imposition of just sanctions. Whatever weight a judge may wish to accord tothe various objectives and other principles listed in the Code, the resulting sentence must respect the fundamental principle ofproportionality. Proportionality is the sine qua non of a just sanction.

First, the principle ensures that a sentence reflects the gravity ofthe offence. This is closely tied to the objective of denunciation. It promotes justice for victims and ensures public confidence in thejustice system.. . .Second, the principle of proportionality ensures that a sentence does not exceed what is appropriate, given the moralblameworthiness of the offender. In this sense, the principle serves a limiting or restraining function and ensures justice for theoffender.

In the Canadian criminal justice system, a just sanction is one that reflects both perspectives on proportionality and does notelevate one at the expense of the other. [38] Despite the constraints imposed by the principle of proportionality, trial judges enjoy a broad discretion in the sentencing process. The determination of a fit sentence is, subject to any specific statutory rules that have survived Charter scrutiny, a highly individualizedprocess. Sentencing judges must have sufficient manoeuverability to tailor sentences to the circumstances of the particular offence andthe particular offender.

Appellate courts have recognized the scope of this discretion and granted considerable deference to a judge’schoice of sentence. . . . [80] In addition to the principle and purposes of sentencing set forth in sections 718, 718.1 and 718.2 of the Criminal Code, section380.1 of the Criminal Code states that when sentencing an offender for an offence under

section 380, the sentencing judge shall alsoconsider the following as aggravating circumstances: - the magnitude, complexity, duration or degree of planning of the fraud committed was significant;

- the offence adversely affected, or had the potential to adversely affect, the stability of the Canadian economy or financial system or anyfinancial market in Canada or investor confidence in such a financial market; - the offence involved a large number of victims; - the offence had a significant impact on the victims given their personal circumstances including their age, health and financial situation; - in committing the offence, the offender took advantage of the high regard in which the offender was held in the community; - the offender did not comply with a licensing requirement, or professional standard, that is normally applicable to the activity or conductthat forms the subject matter of the offence; and - the offender concealed or destroyed records related to the fraud or to the disbursement of the proceeds of the fraud. [81] In this particular case, the Crown is suggesting that a sentence of 21 months incarceration is appropriate less 1:1 credit for theaccused accumulated remand time.

The Defence argues that while jail is the appropriate sentence, it should be by way of a ConditionalSentence Order served in the community. Alternatively they say that if I am of the view that real jail must be imposed, then I shouldcredit the accused 1:1.5 for her remand time as per the Supreme Court of Canada’s recent pronouncement in R. v. Summers, 2014 SCC26 , [2014] 1 S.C.R. 575 and the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal’s decision in R. v. Dyck, [2014] S.J. No. 506 and R. v.Sawchuk, [2014] S.J. No. 478.

For the reasons that follow, I am not satisfied that either counsel’s suggested sentences are appropriate. [82] Over a six month period beginning in April 2013, the accused bilked thirteen people in Edmonton, Alberta out of $21,173.00and defrauded the Edmonton utility company of services. She stole blank company cheques of a now defunct company owned by anelderly gentleman that she befriended, filled them out and passed them off as her pay cheques and she stole a bicycle. Her modusoperandi for defrauding people was relatively consistent.

She would approach strangers, either on the street or at their homes, tell themthat she had locked her keys in her car and needed money to pay the tow truck driver or a locksmith. Once they gave her money shewould return to their homes, sometimes hours later or over the span of a few days, and spin some other hard luck story before asking formore money. Often times she would produce a pay cheque that for one reason or another she could not deposit into her own bankaccount and she would ask her victim to deposit it for her and give her the money.

As an enticement to get the victim to do this for her,she usually offered that they could take what they had previously loaned her out of the cheque and simply give her the balance. Inreality, these cheques were either worthless or the deposit envelopes in which the cheque was supposed to be, was empty. [83] The accused had a criminal record for fraud and theft offences, albeit a small record. What is of particular concern though isthat the accused was sentenced on April 5, 2013 for stealing a cheque to 15 months probation on a number of conditions.

Five days afterbeing sentenced, she began a string of frauds that lasted a year and spanned two provinces. [84] By early July 2013, the Edmonton police were looking for her. She was eventually arrested and charged on July 14th with afraud. At the beginning of August she was arrested and charged with numerous other frauds and placed on a recognizance withconditions. Suffice it to say that the police and the public were getting wise to her and her days of defrauding unwitting Edmontonianswas coming to an end.

By September 2013, pregnant and sensing the possibility of a lengthy period of incarceration, the accused fled toSaskatchewan. [85] It did not take long for the accused to re-establish her ways. Relying on the success she had in Edmonton, the accused begana similar assault on the residents of Saskatoon.

Over a three and a half month period, the accused defrauded another fifteen people inSaskatoon of $9,522.00 and forged a letter to convince her landlord that the Government of Saskatchewan was going to pay her rent. [86] The accused was arrested in mid-January 2014 by Saskatoon city police and charged with three counts of fraud. She wasreleased on an undertaking and within a couple of weeks was back knocking on peoples’ doors, telling them she had locked her keys inher car and needed money to pay to get her car unlocked. This behaviour continued until April 4, 2014 when the accused was arrested

again. [ 87 ] The pre-sentence report prepared for this sentencing describes the accused as having a normal upbringing in Hamilton, Ontario. She suffered no abuse, had caring parents and a sister. She left home when she was 21 because she was pregnant. She gave that child up for adoption and at 25 years of age, she moved to Edmonton. It is unclear when the accused began a common-law relationship with Charles Carr except to say that they have been together for some time.

They apparently have five children in Alberta who are all wards of that province and another newborn in Saskatchewan who is presently in the care of the Ministry of Social Services as he was born while the accused was on remand. Their relationship has been punctuated by drug abuse and domestic violence. Mr. Carr is presently facing his own criminal charges for which he is soon to be sentenced. [ 88 ] The report identifies that the accused’s motivation for committing the Edmonton frauds was to fund her crack cocaine use and for living expenses. Over this time, she was getting money from her parents.

Not surprisingly, her parents were unaware that the money they were sending her was being used to purchase drugs. When she moved to Saskatoon, the accused said she stopped using drugs because she was pregnant. Her frauds in Saskatoon were apparently strictly for living expenses. I do not know if this is completely accurate as the facts appear to indicate that the accused was not even paying her rent. [ 89 ] The report provides a criminogenic risk assessment using the Saskatchewan Primary Risk Assessment analysis. According to the analysis, the accused’s risk for general re-offending was assessed as being high.

This was based on a number of factors including residence, employment, financial situation, family situation, attitude and self-management. [ 90 ] There are a few things that are troubling in the report. Firstly, on page 9 of the report the writer states that “the subject verbalizes responsibility and claims to have empathy for her victims however the subject apparently perceives herself as a victim as she continuously repeated her issues as a form of justification for her actions”. It is unfortunate that the accused does not have a better understanding of the true impact of her actions on her victims.

She may not have defrauded any one of her victims of a significant amount of money, but she certainly took advantage of their kindness and willingness to help those less fortunate.

By focussing on her own problems as justification for what she did, her remorse rings somewhat hollow. [ 91 ] Secondly, perhaps to increase her chances of getting a non-custodial sentence, the accused told the writer of the pre-sentence report that a family friend of her mothers by the name of Tammie Flemming lives in Saskatoon and would provide a residence and community support for her if she was to be sentenced to a community based sentence. The writer contacted Ms.

Flemming and on page 3 of her report wrote: Initially Tammie Flemming confirmed that she wants to help the subject and her common-law husband by providing a residence and her support when released from jail. She stated that she is a long term family friend of the subject’s mother and that she has known the subject and her husband for 4 - 5 years. She added that she believes that the subject deserves a chance. This writer confronted Ms. Flemming that Victoria Weatherbee was adamant that she does not know Tammie Flemming. Ms.

Flemming finally admitted that the subject had asked her to tell anyone asking that she was a family friend of her mother because it would sound better on the report. Ms. Flemming admitted that she met the subject and her husband prior to her recent incarceration through other friends. [ 92 ] I suppose that I should not be surprised that someone that is facing numerous fraud charges would lie to the writer of a pre- sentence report to try to put themselves in a better light for the Court.

It does nothing however to assure the Court that the accused has learnt from her mistakes and would seek a more law abiding road in the future. [ 93 ] Thirdly, the accused claims in the report that she wants to make amends to her victims by paying restitution. Indeed, she told me this when I asked her if she had anything she wished to say to me. However she then went on to tell me that she had an inheritance from her recently deceased father of some $33,000.00.

I pointed out that this would have been enough money to repay her victims in Edmonton and Saskatoon in full and I questioned why she would not have made the necessary arrangements for her lawyer to access these monies and attend her sentencing with a cheque for the full amount of restitution owed. Her response was less than satisfactory. She advised that she did not want to use these monies to pay the victims rather she wanted to get a job and earn the monies to repay them. [ 94 ] I am very skeptical that the accused has any inheritance from her father.

However, even if she does, her unwillingness to access it to pay back the people that she has defrauded is shocking. The fact that she thinks that her victims should have to wait until she

can get a job and save some money to repay them, when she supposedly has enough money to repay them, is just another indication that she has no idea of the impact of her actions on her victims and makes me question how remorseful she really is. [ 95 ] What strikes me in this case was how natural it was for the accused to approach strangers and con them. Whether they were men or women, young, middle-aged or elderly, she had no problem lying to them to get money from them. She was that good at it. She did it with ease and was so convincing that it struck me that it was second nature for her to do this.

The fact that she lied to the person preparing her pre-sentence report and convinced Ms. Flemming to lie for her too and then was less than forthright with the Court about her financial situation and ability to pay back her victims just emphasized how ingrained this behaviour is for her. [ 96 ] Her crimes were not crimes of violence, she did not break in to someone’s house and steal their possessions and she did not use a weapon in committing her offences. But that does not make what she did any less serious. She preyed on peoples’ innate sense of generosity and compassion.

While I wondered how her victims could be so naive that they would allow themselves to become involved in something like this, I think the answer to that question is best summed up by one of her victims who said, “I’m usually not this stupid but I just felt sorry for her.” The accused may not have defrauded her victims of their life savings like in some cases we see but what she did was just as bad. I think that it is fair to say that most Canadians are very giving, especially to those less fortunate. But by doing what she did, the accused took advantage of that generosity for her own selfish reasons.

And when she finally got caught, that did not stop her. She simply moved to a new city and continued to prey on peoples’ compassion for others. [ 97 ] The Crown referred me to two cases that in their view had some significance to my sentencing decision - R. v. Fast , supra and R. v. Bethke 2013 SKCA 135 . The Fast case is of little assistance to me as I determine an appropriate sentence for the accused. In Fast , a father and daughter were involved in a business enterprise to lease vehicles and other equipment to credit challenged customers at high rates of interest.

To expand the business, they solicited private investors, many of which were elderly, with misleading information. They paid themselves significant sums of money despite the fact that the business was unsuccessful. They kept accepting new capital to pay out investors even after the provincial securities commission told them to stop. When the scheme finally fell apart, investors were out some 16.7 million dollars. Mr. Fast and his daughter had no means to repay these monies and there was little prospect of any other ability to recover for the investors. Mr.

Fast was sentenced to 7 years imprisonment and a restitution order for $16,742,441.12. His daughter, who had less involvement, was sentenced to 30 months in jail and a $1,000,000.00 restitution order. The facts in this case are significantly different than the facts in the present case. [ 98 ] The Bethke case is also of limited assistance. In that case, the accused was the secretary treasurer of a union local in Moose Jaw. Over a five year period, she improperly wrote cheques to herself totalling $178,320.58.

She was initially sentenced to an 18 month conditional sentence order but on appeal, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal felt that that sentence was not appropriate. In their view, a sentence of 15 months incarceration was proper. They gave her six months credit for the time she had served on her conditional sentence so that she had nine months left to serve. Ms. Bethke was middle age, had no criminal record and was a low risk to reoffend. She did not repay any of the monies that she had taken but the Court noted that enforcement of the restitution order appeared to have been successful, at least partially.

Again, this is a considerably different fact situation than that of the present case. [ 99 ] Defence counsel provided me with the case of R. v. Maskwa 2013 SKPC 15 , a decision of mine where I gave the accused a conditional sentence order of two years less one day followed by three years probation. However, again the circumstances of this case were considerably different than those of the accused in the present case. In Maskwa , the accused owned a rent-a-car franchise that was struggling financially. He defrauded the parent company to pay his employees, his wife and himself.

The accused had no criminal record, was a low risk to reoffend and had some mental health issues. Neither drugs, alcohol nor a gambling addiction were a motivation for the fraud. On the date of the sentencing the accused had not repaid any of the monies he had taken but he had just recently been able to secure new employment and he presented the Court with a viable plan to repay a good portion of the monies over a five year period and agreed to a restitution order.

For all these reasons, this case is of limited assistance to me as well. [ 100 ] I have reviewed a few cases that bear some similarity to the facts of the accused’s case. These include:

a) R. v. Raymond, [1985] S.J. No. 893 (Sask.C.A.) . Over a three month period, the accused passed six worthless cheques and obtained merchandise from six separate retailers. He also purchased merchandise with a worthless cheque and then tried to obtain money by returning the merchandise. The total amount of the loss of all victims was $2,913.32. The accused had 42 convictions on his criminal record, 40 of which were for property related convictions. At the time the accused pled guilty to these offences he was on probation having been sentenced for similar offences.

The accused had strong support from his family and friends. He was also suffering from multiple sclerosis. The sentencing judge imposed a sentence of two years less one day. The Court of Appeal reduced the sentence to 7 months incarceration followed by two years of probation.

b) R. v. Fitzpatrick , [2005] B.C.J. No. 1301 (B.C.C.A.) . The accused made deposits of empty envelopes into his account at a Credit Union using his ATM card and then made approximately $30,000.00 worth of debit purchases and withdrew another $8,000.00 to $10,000.00 of cash over several days. He used the money to buy various consumer items. The accused had an extensive criminal record, including a number of property related offences. At the time he committed these offences he was on probation as a result of another conviction. The accused pled guilty and was sentenced to 14 months jail less appropriate remand credit. This sentence was upheld on appeal.

c) R. v. Glickman , [2011] B.C.J. No. 1174 (B.C.Prov.Ct.) . The accused pled guilty to four frauds he perpetrated in Manitoba. He ran a design business but had a bad cocaine problem. He took money for design work that was never done and used a bad cheque to pay for items. He bounced a number of cheques to an employee. He convinced others to cash large cheques for him, keep what was owed to them and give him the difference. Unfortunately, these cheques were all bad too. The total amount of his frauds was $8,949.00. The accused had a significant criminal record including 15 prior fraud convictions. He received a sentence of 10 months imprisonment less two month remand credit.

d) R. v. Voutier , [2014] A.J. No. 663 (Alta.C.A.) . The accused made three deposits of empty envelopes into a bank machine and then withdrew cash against these false deposits. The total amount of his fraud against his bank was $5,334.42. The accused’s scheme was unsophisticated but he had a criminal record containing 17 property related convictions. The sentencing judge imposed a six month jail term. The Alberta Court of Appeal upheld this sentence. [ 101 ] In the accused’s case, I consider the following to be aggravating factors:

a) the accused has a criminal record with convictions for fraud and theft, albeit a short record;

b) the accused defrauded a considerable number of people over a one year period in two separate provinces. Her scam was polished, convincing and designed to take advantage of a person’s compassion and generosity. She sometimes changed her name to conceal her identity;

c) five days after being sentenced to probation for stealing a cheque, the accused began defrauding people. Throughout the year that she was defrauding people she remained on this Probation Order;

d) after being arrested in Edmonton and released on a recognizance, the accused continued committing fraud offences;

e) rather than deal with her Alberta charges the accused failed to attend court in Edmonton, fled to Saskatoon and continued her pattern of frauds;

f) after being arrested in Saskatoon and released on an undertaking, the accused continued to commit frauds, ignored her conditions and then failed to attend court in Saskatoon;

g) the accused intentionally misled the person preparing her Pre-sentence Report in an attempt to show that she had a residence and support in the community;

h) the accused has not repaid any of the monies that she obtained from her victims and made attempts to mislead the Court as to her ability to repay her victims;

i) the accused is assessed as a high risk to re-offend.

[ 102 ] The mitigating factors are:

a) the accused pled guilty to a number of charges she was facing and saved the Crown in both Edmonton and Saskatoon the time and expense of what would probably have been lengthy trials;

b) the accused expressed some remorse for her actions. This factor is tempered somewhat by the accused’s view that her personal circumstances justified her actions;

c) one of the reasons the accused committed these offences in Edmonton was to support a drug habit. That was not a reason why she continued these offences in Saskatoon. [ 103 ] There is some suggestion by the Crown that the accused targeted elderly people, persons of diminished capacity or vulnerable persons residing alone. If I was satisfied on the information presented to me that that is what the accused was doing then I agree that that would be an aggravating factor. However, there was very little information provided to me substantiating this suggestion.

I was advised that some of the accused’s victims were elderly, but others were young and still others were middle aged. There was no pattern evident. I was told that one of her victims had a mental disability but nothing more was really said about what that was or how it affected that person’s decision making. I was not given any information as to the vulnerability or capacity of any of the other victims nor was I told who lived alone and who lived with family. No victim impact statements were filed except I was told of one comment from one victim who said that she felt sorry for the accused.

There was a definite lack of information about the background of the victims and as such, it would be inappropriate for me to consider this an aggravating factor as I impose sentence. [ 104 ] Taking into account the magnitude of the accused’s offences, the aggravating and mitigating factors aforementioned and the case law I have referenced, I am satisfied that the only appropriate sentence for the accused is a period of incarceration. The Defence urges me to allow her to serve her sentence in the community on a conditional sentence order. For a couple of reasons, I am not satisfied that that would be appropriate.

Firstly, I am not convinced that allowing the accused to serve her sentence in the community would be consistent with the principles and purpose of sentencing set forth in the Criminal Code . The accused’s offences occurred over a lengthy period of time, spanned two provinces and involved numerous victims. While she was committing these frauds, she was subject to a court ordered probation order and later, an Alberta recognizance and a Saskatchewan undertaking.

The accused pled guilty to a number of her offences but she does not seem to appreciate the impact her offences had on her victims or how wrong it really was. She has not paid any monies back to any of the victims and has provided no reasonable plan for reimbursing her victims in a timely fashion. Denunciation and deterrence are key considerations in a sentencing of this nature and in my view, can only be achieved through a period of real incarceration. [ 105 ] Secondly, as I have mentioned, the

section 374 Criminal Code offence for which the accused pled guilty on Information 43174847 is not a dual offence but rather, a straight indictable offence. The maximum sentence for a

section 374 conviction is 14 years imprisonment and as a result, I am precluded by law from sentencing the accused to a conditional sentence on this offence. [ 106 ] It is my view that a significant period of incarceration accompanied by a restitution order for the full amount of the frauds is the appropriate sentence for the accused. To date, she has spent an accumulation of 7 ½ months on remand and she is entitled to some credit for this time.

Virtually all of that remand time is the result of her breaching her undertaking and incurring new fraud charges after having been released from Saskatoon Provincial Court in mid -January 2014. After she was re-arrested and charged with new offences on April 3, 2014, the Crown was opposed to her release on the new offences and asked for a revocation hearing on the existing offences on which she had earlier been released. She chose not to pursue a show cause hearing but rather consented to her remand from time to time to today’s date. In R. v.

Sawchuk , supra , Madam Justice Jackson explained the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Summers regarding remand credit. At paragraph 37, she said: [37] On the basis of a review of Summers , it appears that the exception of granting enhanced credit under subsection 719(3.1) will generally be the “rule” in the sense that credit at a rate of 1.5:1 will more often than not be granted.

Nonetheless, where “the statutory exceptions within s. 719(3.1) are engaged”, an offender may only be given credit at a rate of 1:1. . . . [ 107 ] It is apparent from the Court record that the accused was detained in custody pursuant to section 524(8) of the Criminal Code and that being the case, she falls within one of the statutory exceptions to the general “rule” in Summers set forth in section 719(3.1) of

the Code . Thus, I can only give her credit for her remand time at a rate of 1:1 and that is what she shall have. CONCLUSION [ 108 ] Taking into account the principles and purpose of sentencing, the principle of proportionality, the aggravating and mitigating factors in this cas

[…]