R. v. Grant-Jury, 2019 MBPC 55

CITATION: R. v. Grant-Jury, 2019 MBPC 55 THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF MANITOBA BETWEEN Her Majesty the Queen ) Donald Melnyk and Peter Edgett ) ) for the Crown - and – ) ) ) Heather Grant-Jury ) ) Zilla Jones for the Accused ) ) ) Reasons for Decision ) Delivered: October 2, 2019 Rolston, P.J. INTRODUCTION [1] Heather Grant-Jury admits that she committed the offence of fraud over $5,000 by conversion of money amounting to$65,652.66 belonging to her employer, the United Food and Commercial Worker’s Training Centre for Local 832 (the “TrainingCentre”). The Crown alleges that Ms.

Grant-Jury stole an additional $100,388.94 for a total of $166,041.60. The Court heard evidencefrom both the Crown and Defence as to the quantum of monies taken in the fraud. [2] The Crown argues that the evidence illustrates that there were purchases using company credit cards made by Ms. Grant-Juryover several years that could not have been for the benefit of the Training Centre. These purchases were outside the scope of heremployment and clearly personal in nature. Further, the Crown points to a modus operandi used by Ms.

Grant-Jury to hide her theft andargues that every transaction involving this behaviour marks her theft. [3] The Defence suggests that the Crown is essentially arguing that every transaction made by Ms. Grant-Jury where noexplanation as to how the transaction connects to the policies and business operations of the Training Centre must have been theft. TheDefence argues that the evidence therefore falls short of proving theft beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Defence further suggests that Ms.Grant-Jury has given rational explanations for many of the contested transactions and has pinpointed a timeline where her gamblingbecame problematic. Defence therefore submits that the Crown has only proven theft of the lesser amount. [4] The Court is obligated to determine the facts that will form the basis for the sentencing submissions made by counsel at afurther hearing. THE LAW [5] The parties agree that the law is clear that the Crown is obligated to prove aggravating facts upon beyond a reasonable doubt.This issue was settled in R. v.

Gardiner, (SCC), [1982] 2 S.C.R. 368. It is nonetheless important to note the SupremeCourt’s words at page 414 of that decision: Sentencing is, in respect of most offenders, the only significant decision the criminal justice system is called upon to make. It should be recalled that a plea of guilty, in itself, carries with it an admission as to the essential ingredients of the offence admitted bythe plea, and no more.

Beyond that any facts relied upon by the Crown in aggravation must be established by the Crown. [6] In the case at bar, counsel have presented volumes of accounting lines related to expenditures made by Ms. Grant-Jury. At firstblush, the numbers are overwhelming in that they succinctly itemize and detail every penny of Ms. Grant-Jury’s expenditures using heremployer’s credit cards. However, the forensic accounting document presented by way of affidavit of Detective Lyndon Stadnyk ishelpful but not conclusive proof of the offence before the court.

While on one hand, it is true that the numbers do not lie, even accountingis, at times subject to

interpretation. [7] In that respect, determination as to the extent to which Ms. Grant-Jury is guilty of the offence distills down to an assessment ofthe credibility of the evidence presented. The Court is therefore required to embark upon an analysis of the evidence using the oft cited

framework set out in R. v. W.(D.), (SCC), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742. It is important to note that the Court must be mindful notto choose between the evidence of the Crown and the evidence of the Defence. This is particularly so when considering evidence that isso apparently black and white, such as accounting figures laid out in a report. Suffice it to say, the Court may accept all, some or none ofany given witnesses’ evidence. It is necessary to consider the evidence in the entire context of the case, having regard to “factual andcontextual backdrop” to the case (see R. v. Menow, 2013 MBCA 72). CONTEXT [8] Ms.

Grant-Jury began working for the United Food and Commercial Worker’s Training Centre for Local 832 in June 2004,having served as president to the Winnipeg Labour Council for the prior 18 years. Over her career, she had won many awards for herwork in the labour movement. Her mandate at the Training Centre was to ensure that employees from the member unions were properlyeducated in various ways ranging from skills upgrading, to learning English as an additional language, to attaining a high school diploma.Her duties extended to locations throughout the province.

The Training Centre was funded by a number of sources, including themember union’s employers, the unions and the various levels of government. The Training Centre was a separate entity from the Local832. However, Ms. Grant-Jury reported to the President and Secretary-Treasurer (who at the time were Jeff Traeger and BeatriceBruske), and all accounting was handled by the accounting department of the Local Union 832.

In addition, the Local Union 832 set allof the policies and procedures for the Training Centre. [9] The Court is left with the impression that while the president and the Secretary-Treasurer were overseeing Ms. Grant-Jury, ahigh level of trust was afforded to her to run the Training Centre. This is hardly surprising in light of Ms. Grant-Jury’s impressive resume.It is clear that she was once highly respected and was viewed to be a capable leader. It appears that very little oversight was maintainedas to the day to day operations of the Training Centre. Ms.

Grant-Jury was trusted to run the programming as she saw fit. It seems that,up until the time that her theft was discovered, she was a valued director and the Training Centre was running efficiently, providing avaluable service to the union members of Local 832. This background is relevant on two fronts for the purpose of Ms. Grant-Jury’scurrent legal predicament, which are illustrated in the words of Beatrice Bruske during cross-examination: Q Well, it sounds like you're not entirely sure of what the training centre was doing at -- at all times? A I -- I can't be sure because that wasn't my role.

Q And I imagine it was, kind of -- I think you said frankly that it was very shocking and embarrassing and frightening when thiscame to light? A It was extremely disappointing. It was -- quite honestly, it was heart wrenching to be honest. Is the best way -- Q Of course. A -- I can probably put it. Q And then, of course, that makes you think that you hadn't been looking closely enough at what the training centre was doing overthe past few years?

A It made me question whether or not my obligation and responsibility should have been to review training centre items, along withthe Local’s, because certainly when I moved into this role in 2011, Heather had already long been established in her role as trainingcentre director. And it was clear, in my mind, that my role was not to look at training centre funding or expenditures on an ongoing basis.My role was to deal with the Local specifically.

On one hand, the lack of close oversight detracts from the ability of the President and Secretary-Treasurer to have direct knowledge ofthe day to day operations of the Training Centre. On the other hand, one can see the profound depth of the breach of trust that has beenperpetrated by Ms. Grant-Jury here, no matter how much money was actually taken. [10] The Training Centre budget was annually approved by the President and Secretary-Treasurer. It is clear to the Court that themandate of the Training Centre had expanded over the years that Ms. Grant-Jury served as director.

The sources of funding increasedyearly as did the budget. Expense policies existed for the Training Centre staff. The Court is left with the impression that the trustees ofthe Training Centre, Ms. Bruske and Mr. Traeger, trusted that Ms. Grant-Jury was generally following the policies. They did not wish,nor did they feel the need to, micro manage her conduct. It should be noted that Ms. Grant-Jury’s failure to strictly follow companypolicy does not in and of itself necessarily equate to criminal activity any more than failure to strictly enforce company policy by theTrustees amount to willful blindness.

Ultimately, Ms. Grant-Jury was able to factor her crime into the budget while at the same timemaintaining a façade that the Training Centre was running in an efficient manner. [11] Ms. Grant-Jury testified that she became addicted to gambling in 2014. She acknowledged that she has been unable to determineprecisely why and exactly when her gambling became problematic. She did agree that she stole from her employer because of heraddiction to gambling. She also admitted that she was able to hide her addiction from her family, while depleting her family resources atthe same time.

At first blush, it is hard to conceive of someone having the ability to hide such a profound addiction. However, Ms.Grant-Jury’s years of skills as a organized leader were unfortunately employed to deceive all around her. She used all of her availablecash to gamble. At some point, in order to maintain a front that all was well, she used her work resources to deceive her family by payingfor household items with work money. [12] The timeline as to when gambling became an issue is crucial to the Court’s determination of the contested issues. Ms.

Grant-Jury testified that she could not pinpoint a date when she became a problem gambler. In cross-examination, Ms. Grant-Juryacknowledged that there was possible nexus between the loss of her father in 2004 and gambling. Ms. Grant-Jury was seconded to theoffice of the premier of Manitoba from October 2014 to March 2015. This period of time marks a highly public tumultuous period for thegovernment of the day. Ms. Grant-Jury was inserted into that environment when she was seconded, and also maintained someinvolvement at the Training Centre.

She testified that her gambling proclivities got worse however maintains that her life was not overly

stressed during this period of time. The evidence of Ms. Grant-Jury suggests that the secondment to the premier’s office is a significant timeline marker because it closely coincides with when she acknowledges that she began to steal from her employer. However, she also agreed that her efforts to pinpoint when she began stealing has only been done in hindsight by looking back at the forensic accounting and trying to piece things back together.

This fact is best illustrated in the following exchange with counsel in cross-examination: Q Now, ma’am, would you agree with me that certainly the gambling problem could have happened a bit earlier than the beginning of 2014? A Could have is a possibility. As I say, I've analyzed and gone back to think of when that crossover was. Was I occasionally in a casino? Did I travel to Vegas? Yes. Before 2014? Absolutely.

I didn't see it as a financial issue at the time in 2013, so I just -- in my head it was the correlation of when I overstepped that bounds of exhausting personal finances and in my head maintaining that I -- every second night it was in my head that I had to go back to the casino. So I don't believe in 2013 I was reaching that point of the crossover. It was still a form -- a very vague form of entertainment. But was I at a casino in 2013? Absolutely . Regardless, Ms. Grant-Jury acknowledged that by 2014 gambling had definitely gotten out of control and she was in substantial debt.

She was admittedly heading towards serious personal financial problems. [ 13 ] Ms. Grant-Jury employed a simple technique to deceive her workplace to shield the theft to support her gambling addiction. She was required to submit expense receipts to the accounting department. When she stole from her employer, she tore the itemized portion of the receipt off so that only the total amount was left. She then wrote an accounting code on the truncated receipt that attributed the expense to one of many accounting categories.

The accounting department likely did not question this practice due to the level of seniority that Ms. Grant-Jury enjoyed. [ 14 ] Ms. Grant-Jury admits that this was her modus operandi, but only commencing in 2014 . She maintains that all receipts submitted before and many of the receipts after 2014 submitted in this fashion are clearly for legitimate business expenses. Therefore, she asserts that the matter cannot be resolved by simply holding her accountable for every truncated receipt submitted to her employer.

It is true that certain expenses that have been established as business related have truncated receipts. It is also the case that the frequency of truncated receipts increase as Ms. Grant-Jury’s gambling addiction does. The early transactions with truncated receipts that are not alleged to be fraudulent appear to be mainly from restaurants, indicating meals. There are later purchases that indicate that small special occasion purchases were made from locations like Party Stuff. While these occurrences are isolated at first, they establish a pattern that was tolerated by accounting. One might surmise that Ms.

Grant-Jury was able to learn of a practice that was unchecked early on that she exploited later. Ultimately, while a truncated receipt on its own does not establish that the individual transaction indicates a fraud in and of itself, the Court can say it is a marker of Ms. Grant-Jury’s modus operandi . [ 15 ] The Court is unable to define a precise time as to the beginning of Ms. Grant-Jury’s theft. While the Court accepts that the gambling problem worsened when Ms. Grant-Jury was seconded to the office of the Premier, the Court is not satisfied that the problem started at that time.

The Court also accepts that Ms. Grant-Jury has gained some insight into her addiction, but she remains somewhat evasive as to specifics of her theft and when her family finances were in serious peril. Her decline into real personal and financial difficulties was no doubt a process whereby she was declining incrementally until the point at which she discovered that she had, in her words, “lost Heather”. Therefore, the Court finds that gambling was problematic for Ms. Grant-Jury well before 2014. [ 16 ] Based upon the above background of Ms.

Grant-Jury’s personal and employment history, the development of her addiction to gambling and the timeline of her involvement as context, the Court is able to examine each of the contested transactions to determine the credibility of the allegations. The Court can then determine when and the extent to which, Ms. Grant-Jury’s problem gambling lead to criminal behaviour. EVIDENCE OF HEATHER GRANT-JURY [ 17 ] It should be noted at the outset that the Court has no difficulty moving past the first arm of the W.(D.) criteria. That is to say, the Court cannot accept that Ms.

Grant-Jury’s evidence exonerates her on the contested transactions. There are several reasons for this. Firstly, Ms. Grant-Jury has admittedly deceived her employer and her family over several years. While the Court has found Ms. Grant- Jury to convey respect for the criminal justice system, it is clear that she had much more deeply seeded respect for her employer and family and yet she lied to them. Specifically, she lied to Mr. Traeger and Bruske even when confronted about the inconsistencies in her accounting and even after it was clear that she was caught. Secondly, even if most of Ms.

Grant-Jury’s evidence is accepted at face value, her position in most cases is that expenditures could have been for legitimate business purposes. In many instances, she simply does not know. She admittedly did not keep track of her theft, and acknowledged that she utilized a system of truncating receipts by ripping off the itemized portion of the receipt to avoid detection. She also conceded in cross-examination that there was no reason to remove the itemization of the receipts, other than to avoid detection. Therefore, the Court will consider Ms.

Grant-Jury’s evidence by assessing whether the evidence results in a reasonable doubt. [ 18 ] Ms. Grant-Jury has acknowledged that she committed fraud in the amount of $65,652.66. The breakdown of the transactions where Ms. Grant-Jury admits fraudulent transactions was filed as exhibit s-29 and is attached to this decision as Appendix A. [ 19 ] Ms. Grant-Jury testified on her own behalf. While her evidence did not attempt to explain each and every line of the Crown’s accounting, she was able to testify to the tenure of her employment.

She provided explanations for specific expenditures, and the rationale for how she decided to code certain purchases for accounting purposes. Ms. Grant-Jury also detailed her slip into an addiction to gambling and acknowledged stealing from her employer, but maintained that the extent of her theft was far less than outlined by the Crown. EVIDENCE OF THE CROWN [ 20 ] The Crown called three witnesses, Beatrice Bruske, Jeff Traeger, and Constable Lyndon Stadnyk of the Winnipeg Police Service.

The Crown’s evidence as a whole detailed how the Training Centre functioned, how the fraudulent activity was discovered and how the investigation unfolded. The Court found that each Crown witness was genuinely attempting to give their evidence in an honest

and straight forward manner. It was evident to the Court that both Ms. Bruske and Mr. Traeger felt deeply betrayed by Ms. Grant-Jury’s actions. Both witnesses presented as people who were very committed to the Manitoba labour movement, and it is apparent that they had perceived the same of Ms. Grant-Jury. It is clear that they viewed her breach of trust as an affront to everything that they had collectively worked toward. Nonetheless, the Court finds that both Ms. Bruske and Mr.

Traeger attempted to remain objective throughout their evidence. [ 21 ] The contested transactions were filed as exhibit s-61, and are attached to this decision as Appendix B. It should be noted that the Crown amended exhibit s-61 via email by adding two transactions. The emails relating to that amendment were filed as exhibit s-62. These transactions will also be discussed below. Also, it is noteworthy that the Crown initially alleged that Ms. Grant-Jury had committed fraud in a greater amount, but accepted certain explanations given by Ms.

Grant-Jury as being plausible and has not contested these transactions further. [ 22 ] Beatrice Bruske was the Secretary-Treasurer of the Local 832, and as such was a trustee of the Training Centre. She testified to the discovery of Ms. Grant-Jury’s fraud, and the follow-up investigation undertaken by the Local 832. As alluded to at the outset, Ms. Bruske’s downfall as a witness is that she did not have daily knowledge of the activities at the Training Centre.

However, she was able to ascertain details as to the functioning of the Training Centre after the fact: Q So now, you can't say for sure that that money wasn't spent appropriately in 2012, 2013, because you were saying that there are programs. You're saying that they do serve lunch and so on, so how can you be so sure now that -- that was wrong? A Very -- very fair question. And just to ensure that I was really clear in my mind on this because I spent -- as you, I'm sure, realize, have spent a significant amount of time thinking about this -- Q M-hm. A -- in terms of how this could be such an expenditure?

How this could be missed? Why we wouldn't have flagged on to this before? And is there any justification for spending any of this money, specifically the Safeway money.

And to just ensure that I was really clear and firm in my mind that this is -- these were not appropriate expenditures, I've actually just again, this week, spent time going through every single invoice and every single training session that was a full-day session, based on schedules provided by the training centre for the years 2011, ‘12, ‘13, ‘14 and ‘15, looking at each all-day training that we would have had that we would have provided any food for, and matching that with every single invoice that we would have received from a restaurant or catering company to -- so that I can fully be able to say there is no way that a $754 bill from Safeway was for a training session that I may not have been aware of.

I've actually taken that time to meticulously go through every single one of them. And I'm extremely upset about the fact, that, you know, that we're here at this particular point, but I have taken that time to actually make sure that I went through it, because I do want to give Heather the benefit of the doubt, a hundred percent want to give her the benefit of the doubt.

But when I look at those numbers, and when I know that our average training session for a full class for shop steward training would be no more than 30 people at any given point in time, and to order sandwiches from Safeway for that amount of people is $250, $300. It's not $750 or multiple Safeway charges in one day. Q But you've taken issue with some transactions from Safeway that are $250, $300 or $100? A You're -- you're right. I have. Q So then you're saying that it would be appropriate to have that amount for sandwiches for people?

A If the food was coming from Safeway, and if I could match it and say, yes, we had this course on this date, and that's where the food came from. [Irrelevant portions removed] We want to order it from a restaurant. And for every instance of training, full-day training, there was a corresponding bill from a restaurant providing sandwiches, or hot food, whatever it was ordered that particular day. Q When you say every instance, can you clarify -- A Every instance. Q -- what you mean by every -- A Yes. Q -- instance?

A So I had taken the opportunity to -- to have printed off from the log book every training session that would have been provided to our membership in the years 2011, ‘12, ‘13, ‘14, and ‘15. I cross-referenced that with each invoice that we would have received from a variety of different restaurants or catering services so that I can be clear in my mind that for shop steward course A, we ordered slices of pizza; for shop steward course B, Chamberlyn’s was ordered; for shop steward course 3, Peaks and Ridges (sic) provided sandwiches.

So for each instance of full-day training throughout those years, food was provided. And to also be clear, when we're talking training there's certain times of the year where it's very, very busy with training and other times of the year where it's not very busy with training. Certainly, spring and fall are very busy times. Summertime there's almost no training at all that happens, during the summertime, there are a couple of events that happen in the summertime, but very little, if any, training.

And during those -- those -- those times of the year, consistently there were restaurant invoices for those times of the year. The Court accepts that Ms. Bruske did do extensive investigation as to the programming at the Training Centre, and was able to determine what programming was done. To that end, where Safeway receipts have been truncated, and no satisfactory explanation has been given as to a particular expenditure, the Court accepts Ms. Bruske’s evidence that she has checked the Training Centre’s activities

and determined that food was provided by other vendor’s or there was no ongoing programming for that day. FINDINGS OF FACT [ 23 ] Safeway transactions represent the bulk of the contested transactions. Ms. Grant-Jury testified that she was required to provide meals for the English as an Additional Language program as well as high school programming. She said that these classes were often several time per week and that there were many people being put through the classes. This is in stark contrast to Ms. Bruske’s position.

It is noteworthy that these programs were funded in large part by government resources, and Ms. Grant-Jury testified that providing meals were part of that mandate. Ms. Bruske and Mr. Traeger were not asked about this by either counsel. [ 24 ] When asked why food receipts were not turned in, Ms. Grant-Jury stated the following: Q So for some of these transactions that, to Safeway that you're saying are for business expenses for food for hundreds of people, why is it that we don't have those itemized receipts turned in? A That I'm not sure.

As I say, I kept receipts in a little envelope with me on my desk or in my purse or in my briefcase. Every time a receipt was received it was put in that envelope. At that time, again, if it was business expense for an EAL class there's no reason, there was nothing to hide, there was food brought back to the Centre. It was left there for our high school students to eat in the evening. I can't explain. Q So, to your recollection what did you do with those receipts? A Handed them in. Q To? A The accountant at the office. Q And would you ever see them again?

A No. *** Q So, I guess, I -- yeah, I should clarify that, because I guess what I, what I'm asking, Ms. Grant-Jury, is that you're saying that you would truncate receipts intentionally when a transaction was fraudulent? A Yes Q Correct? So if we have Safeway transactions that you say are not fraudulent but we don't have those itemized portions, what's the explanation for that? A Yeah, I don't why you wouldn't, because there wasn't -- as I say, it was a legitimate business expense for, you know, and I wasn't using it at the time for, you know, personal gambling stuff, that whole receipt should've been handed in.

Q And -- A There was no reason to hide it. Many of the transactions uncovered by the forensic audit and turned over to the police involve undocumented receipts. This is different from those transaction where receipts are truncated (which, as the Court has noted represents the modus operandi of Ms. Grant-Jury). Ms. Grant-Jury need not prove anything in this hearing. The Court accepts that she may have regularly handed in receipts. In fact, one of the reasons why her fraud was discovered was because she handed in the fraudulent truncated receipts.

The Court cannot be blind to the possibility that some receipts have been lost or misfiled by the Local 832 accounting department. Therefore, those transactions, listed as Appendix C to this decision shall not be included in the fraud as there is insufficient evidence to determine if they are fraudulent. [ 25 ] Many of the transactions have been defined by the forensic audit as expenditures where there was no itemized receipt filed, but there was only the credit card receipt portion filed with accounting (see Affidavit of Lyndon Stadnyk, exhibit s-2, exhibit B, page 14 and 15).

These transactions do qualify under transactions where Ms. Grant-Jury was using her modus operandi . It is clear that while there was no truncated receipt, the purpose was the same; to ensure that the items purchased were not detected by the Local 832. [ 26 ] Therefore, a number of transactions remain controversial. The Court has reviewed the evidence and has taken the context of the circumstances into account. Each remaining transaction will be commented on individually. [ 27 ] October 22, 2011 purchase from Safeway for $1,000 – Exhibit s-21 is a non-itemized receipt.

There is handwriting attributing the receipt to gift cards for instructors for Christmas, and the expense was coded to “office expenses”. Ms. Grant-Jury did not specifically address this expense but generally explained that she would purchase gift cards of $25 for instructors annually after the Training Centre ended the practice of holding a Christmas party. She further advised that there were anywhere from 30-50 instructors, and that she often purchased the cards early in the year to get it off the list of things she had to do. Ms.

Bruske testified that this transaction was flagged because it occurred on a Saturday and it was right after a conference was held, so there was no chance that food would have been needed to be purchased. She admitted in cross-examination that she was not aware of the practice of handing out

Christmas gift cards to instructors. It is noteworthy that $1,000 accounts for 40 $25 gift cards, within the range mentioned by Ms. Grant- Jury as to number of instructors. The Court finds that Ms. Grant-Jury’s explanation could be true and therefore there is a doubt as to whether she committed fraud for this transaction. [ 28 ] December 7, 2011 purchase from The Green Spot for $44.79 - No receipt was filed for this transaction. Ms. Grant-Jury specifically addressed it in her evidence.

She stated that poinsettias and chocolates were purchased for the Brandon office due to the fact that the staff was not employed directly for the Training Centre but often assisted them in registering their students. This explanation could explain the total amount and time of the purchase. The Court finds that Ms.

Grant-Jury’s explanation could be true and therefore there is a doubt as to whether she committed fraud for this transaction. [ 29 ] Purchases from Hallmark from November 9, 2011, April 17, 2012, and May 22, 2012 - No receipts were filed for these transactions, which were credit card receipts with no itemization. Mr. Traeger suggested that these were included because they were “clearly away from grad time”, presumably to say that the timing precludes that these were gifts of some kind. As has been stated, Ms.

Grant-Jury did purchase gifts at different times that could account for these purchases, and they will therefore not be included in the fraudulent amount. [ 30 ] Purchases from Small Indulgences from March 22, 2012 and April 5, 2012 for $694.40 and $508.20 - No receipt was filed for these transactions, which were credit card receipts with no itemization. Mr. Traeger commented that these amounts are extremely large for a small gift shop and could not be business related expenses. The Court agrees that no acceptable explanation for these expenses has been offered. While Ms.

Grant-Jury is not obligated to give an explanation, the nature of the transactions fit her modus operandi and therefore the expenses will be included as fraudulent transactions. [ 31 ] Purchase from Small Indulgences from May 2, 2012 for $76.56 - No receipt was filed for this transaction, which was a credit card receipt with no itemization. Exhibit s-2 lists the amount as $77.56, while Mr. Traeger testified that the amount was $76.56. He also stated that there was no reason for this expense. Regardless, Ms. Grant-Jury testified that she bought gifts for presenters at all times of the year for use on short notice.

The Court accepts that this could explain this transaction, and the amount will not be included in the fraudulent amount. [ 32 ] Purchase from Carlton Cards from June 25, 2012 for $33.60 - No receipt was filed for this transaction, which was a credit card receipt with no itemization. Mr. Traeger suggested that it was included because although it potentially could have been for gifts or cards for facilitators, the auditors would have checked to see when graduation was that year and determined that the purchase came after graduation. Therefore, the Crown submits that this is fraudulent.

The Court does not accept that Mr. Traeger’s assumption as to why it is included as adequate evidence to qualify as proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, this amount will not be included in the fraud. [ 33 ] Purchases from Small Indulgences dated August 21, 2012 for $367.14 - This transaction was documented by exhibit s-26, which was a receipt from Small Indulgences with no itemization. This was the modus operandi of Ms. Grant-Jury when she wished to hide a transaction. It was noted to be an expense allocated to “shop steward”. Mr.

Traeger testified that there was no need to expense this amount to the shop steward category. The monetary amount is too high for this to be a gift expense. The Court accepts that this is a fraudulent transaction in light of the fact that the itemization was not submitted and the accounting code seems to be a random selection.

It should be noted that this amount was noted as a Safeway expense in the Crown’s chart filed as exhibit B of this decision. [ 34 ] Purchases from Safeway dated September 4, 2012 for $115.78 and $195.60 - These transactions were documented by exhibit s- 58, which were credit card receipts with no itemization. This was the modus operandi of Ms. Grant-Jury when she wished to hide a transaction. They were not mentioned in the oral evidence of the Crown, but Ms. Grant-Jury commented on them extensively as examples of non-itemized receipts where there were legitimate transactions noted.

While the Court cannot be certain as to whether the transactions were legitimate, the notations on the receipts seem to indicate a plausible accounting. In each of these cases, the Court has a doubt that they are fraudulent and they will not be included in the fraudulent totals. [ 35 ] Purchase from Safeway dated September 24, 2012 for $1,250.00 - As stated earlier, this amount was noted to be spent on gift cards. While this is arguably early in the year to be purchasing gift cards for Christmas, it is plausible that Ms. Grant-Jury started Christmas shopping early.

The amount would account for 50 gift card which accounts for the range of number of instructors given by Ms. Grant-Jury. This amount will not be included in the amount of the fraud. [ 36 ] Purchase from Safeway dated November 9, 2012 for $527.90 - This transaction was documented by exhibit s-27, which was a credit card receipt with an obvious tear mark across the top with no itemization. This was the modus operandi of Ms. Grant-Jury when she wished to hide a transaction. Mr. Traeger testified that the receipt indicates a code for custom training.

At that time, the custom training related to Don Foods, and that there were not enough participants to justify a food bill in that amount at that time. The receipt also has a handwritten note indicating, “reimburse when billed”. This may indicate that an expense was incurred that was to be charged back to Don Foods. No one asked about or explained this notation in the evidence. Since Ms.

Grant-Jury is entitled to the benefit of the doubt, this amount will not be included in the total amount of the fraud. [ 37 ] Purchase from The Green Spot on December 10, 2012 for $260.50 - No receipt was filed for this transaction, but it is noted in exhibit s-2 as a transaction where Ms. Grant-Jury filed an un-itemized credit card receipt. Mr. Traeger described this in the same way that he described previous receipts from the Green Spot, suggesting that there is no legitimate reason for such an expense. It is difficult to objectively determine that in this case as the actual receipt is not before the court.

It may be that a notation on the receipt explains the expense. In light of the lack of evidence, this amount shall not be included in the fraudulent amount. [ 38 ] There are 48 additional transactions in 2012, and one transaction from December 18, 2011, all from Safeway that are noted in the Affidavit of Lyndon Stadnyk (exhibit s-2), but that were not mentioned specifically in oral evidence and where no receipts were filed. Exhibit B of the affidavit of Lyndon Stadnyk indicates where only credit card receipts were filed.

Notations indicating plausible expenses were located upon inspection of some of those receipts, where they were filed by the Crown. The Court is concerned that in the majority of cases, the 2012 “credit card receipt only” receipts were not filed in evidence. In 2012, Ms. Grant-Jury would have been very early on in her gambling addictions. The Court is left with very little evidence to determine whether some or all of the 2012 transactions were

legitimate. Since Ms. Grant-Jury is entitled to the benefit of the doubt, the only amount for 2012 listed in Appendix B under Safeway transactions that will be attributed to the fraud is the $367.14 from Small Indulgences as indicated above at paragraph 33. [ 39 ] Purchases from Hallmark dated February 20, 2013 for $96.93, and from Whitehorse Gift Emporium dated February 21, 2013 for $104.37 - These were transactions where Ms. Grant-Jury submitted an un-itemized receipt, which was her modus operandi when she wished to hide a transaction from her employer. Mr.

Traeger testified that there would be no union business reason for these transactions. The Court does accept that there may have been times when it was necessary to purchase gifts for speakers, and that these purchase could represent the purchase of a few such gifts or cards. These amounts will not form part of the fraudulent total. [ 40 ] Purchase from The Green Spot dated October 8, 2013 for $501.58 - This transaction was documented by exhibit s-25, which was a credit card receipt with no itemization. This was the modus operandi of Ms. Grant-Jury when she wished to hide a transaction. According to Mr.

Traeger, the coding to “yard maintenance in Brandon” did not accord with his understanding of what was going on, as any maintenance would have been handled by the facilities instructor in Brandon. Ms. Grant-Jury specifically addressed this transaction, indicating that the expense was for the construction of a playground in Brandon. Mr. Traeger was not asked about this position. While Court is troubled by the lack of cross-examination on the point, the Court is prepared to give her the benefit of the doubt.

This matter will not be included in the fraud. [ 41 ] Purchase from The Green Spot dated December 10, 2013 for $457.50 - This transaction was documented by exhibit s-16, which was a credit card receipt with no itemization. This was the modus operandi of Ms. Grant-Jury when she wished to hide a transaction. In this case, the handwriting on the receipt noted the accounting code for shop steward course expenses. Mr. Traeger testified that the register receipt was obtained from The Green Spot (also part of exhibit s-16).

The items purchased varied from “decor points” to “fashion” to “seasonal gifts” in amounts up to $135.99. The amounts are not conducive to the kinds of gifts that Ms. Grant-Jury would buy for appreciation to speakers. The Court is satisfied that this receipt is fraudulent and it will be included in the total amount of the fraud. [ 42 ] Purchases from Safeway between the dates of January 10, 2013 to December 29, 2013 - Each of these transactions are instances where Ms. Grant-Jury submitted credit card receipts only, indicating her modus operandi . However, all of these transactions pre-date when Ms.

Grant-Jury admits any fraudulent activity. Interestingly, three transactions occurred on the weekend, a time when the Training Centre would not have been in operation. Two of the three are on the same day, mid-afternoon, and minutes apart. Both of these transactions are coded to office supplies, with one receipt having a notation “supplies” and the other having a notation of “cutlery dishes” (see exhibit s-49). It is not logical to separate these expenses as they are coded to the same account. The amounts are also large for typical office supplies.

The court is satisfied that these expenses are fraudulent for this reason. The other weekend transaction (see exhibit s-59), is coded to UFCW meetings and is noted to be for a C.U.P.E Christmas party. The Court is satisfied that this is a feasible explanation and this transaction is not included in the fraudulent amount. There are several receipts included in exhibit s-59 that cover the year 2013. Many of these receipts have notations that may indicate reasonable expenses: • There is a receipt dated December 10, 2013 coded to “office supplies” and noted as “potluck Wpg”.

It is unclear what this refers to, however, given the time of year this expenditure was made, it is feasible that it could have been for legitimate purposes. It will therefore not be included in the fraudulent amount. • There is a receipt dated December 13, 2013 coded to “office supplies” and noted as “xmas plates cleaning napkins cups cutlery”. The Court is satisfied that this is a feasible explanation and this transaction is not included in the fraudulent amount. • There is a receipt dated December 13, 2013 coded to “HS Employment skills” and noted as “Ethnic Dinner employment skills”.

The Court is satisfied that this is a feasible explanation and this transaction is not included in the fraudulent amount. • There is a receipt dated December 8, 2013 coded to “HS Employment skills”, and noted as “xmas”. Although this expense was made on a weekend, it is possible that this relates to a Christmas event that is a legitimate expense based upon the time of year. The Court is satisfied that this could be a feasible explanation and this transaction is not included in the fraudulent amount. • There is a receipt dated November 22, 2013 coded to “office supplies” and noted as gift cards for instructors”.

The Court has noted that this is a feasible expense. The amount in this case, $1,200.50 accounts for 48 gift cards which is within the range of instructors Ms. Grant-Jury testified to. The Court is satisfied that this could be a feasible explanation and this transaction is not included in the fraudulent amount. • There are receipts dated October 15 and 30, 2013 coded to “shop steward course development” and noted as “Unifor Oct 31,13 food invoiced”, and “Unifor rental continental breakfast invoiced”.

The Court is satisfied that these could be feasible explanations and these transactions are not included in the fraudulent amount. • There is a receipt dated September 12, 2013 that is coded to “office supplies” and noted as “supplies cleaner”. The amount of $272.44 could be consistent with that amount. The Court is satisfied that this could be a feasible explanation and this transaction is not included in the fraudulent amount. • There is a receipt dated August 30, 2013 that is coded to “high school employment skills” and noted as “orientation”.

The Court is satisfied that this may be food provided for a high school function as suggested was done by Ms. Grant-Jury. The Court is satisfied that this could be a feasible explanation and this transaction is not included in the fraudulent amount. • There are receipts dated July 22, 2013 and August 29, 2013 that are coded to “professional development” and noted as “reimbursed options for success” and “v.w./poverty”. The Court is unclear as to what these notes mean, however the Court is satisfied that this may be food provided for functions as suggested was done from time to time by Ms. Grant-Jury.

The Court is satisfied that this could be a feasible explanation and this transaction is not included in the fraudulent amount. • There are receipts dated May 13, 2013 and May 21, 2013 that are coded to “Custom Training expenses” and noted as “dawn closure”. It is unclear what these notes reference, but one day surmise that it involved Don Foods. However, the Court accepts that there

may have been some custom training that incurred food expenses as set out on those receipts. The Court is satisfied that these could be feasible explanations and this transaction is not included in the fraudulent amount. • There is a receipt dated May 8, 2013 that is coded to “Shop Steward course development” and noted as “SS Generation Gap Pilot”. The Court is satisfied that this may be food provided for a function as suggested was done by Ms. Grant-Jury.

The Court is satisfied that this could be a feasible explanation and this transaction is not included in the fraudulent amount. • There is a receipt dated April 4, 2013 that is coded to “SSC expense” and noted as “SS Conf gift trays”. The Court is satisfied that this may be food provided for a shop steward conference as suggested was done by Ms. Grant-Jury. The Court is satisfied that this could be a feasible explanation and this transaction is not included in the fraudulent amount. • There is a receipt dated April 1, 2013 that is coded to “high school employment skills” and noted as “open house high school”.

The Court is satisfied that this may be food provided for a high school function as suggested was done by Ms. Grant-Jury. The Court is satisfied that this could be a feasible explanation and this transaction is not included in the fraudulent amount. • There is a receipt dated March 9, 2013 that is coded to “high school employment skills” and noted as “open house food”. Despite the fact that this expense was incurred on a weekend, the Court is satisfied that this may be food provided for a high school open house as suggested was done by Ms. Grant-Jury.

The Court is satisfied that this could be a feasible explanation and this transaction is not included in the fraudulent amount. • There is a receipt dated March 7, 2013 that is coded to “office supplies” and noted as “dish soap cleaning wipes plates etc”. The Court is satisfied that this may be for supplies purchased for the office from time to time as suggested was done by Ms. Grant-Jury.

The Court is satisfied that this could be a feasible explanation and this transaction is not included in the fraudulent amount. • There is a receipt dated March 6, 2013 that is coded to “high school expenses” and noted as “food trays”. The Court is satisfied that this may be food provided for a high school function as suggested was done by Ms. Grant-Jury. The Court is satisfied that this could be a feasible explanation and this transaction is not included in the fraudulent amount. • There is a receipt dated March 3, 2013 that is coded to “SSC expenses” and noted as “wrap/cards”.

Despite the fact that this expense was incurred on a weekend, the Court is satisfied that this may be for work related expenses due to the nature and amount of the expense. This transaction is not included in the fraudulent amount. • There is a receipt dated March 1, 2013 that is coded to “SSC expenses” and noted as “gifts facilitators”. The Court is satisfied that this may be for the purchase of gifts for facilitators as suggested was done by Ms. Grant-Jury.

The Court is satisfied that this could be a feasible explanation and this transaction is not included in the fraudulent amount. • There are receipts dated January 10, 2013 and March 1, 2013 that are coded to “custom training expenses” and noted as “dawn” and “food dawn closure”. The Court is satisfied that these may be food provided for a custom training function (perhaps for Don Foods) as suggested was done by Ms. Grant-Jury.

The Court is satisfied that this could be a feasible explanation and this transaction is not included in the fraudulent amount. • There are receipts dated February 14, 2013 and December 10, 2013 that are coded to “office supplies” and noted as “cleaner computers”, and “cleaning supplies”. The Court is satisfied that these may be for cleaning supplies as suggested was done by Ms. Grant- Jury.

The Court is satisfied that this could be a feasible explanation and this transaction is not included in the fraudulent amount. • There is a receipt dated February 11, 2013 that is coded to “English as an additional language expenses” and noted as “family eal”. The Court is satisfied that this may be food provided for a function as suggested was done by Ms. Grant-Jury.

The Court is satisfied that this could be a feasible explanation and this transaction is not included in the fraudulent amount. • There are receipts dated January 19, 2013 and February 1, 2013 that are coded to “custom training expenses” and noted as “Dawn”. The Court is satisfied that these may be food provided for custom training functions (perhaps Don Foods) as suggested was done by Ms. Grant-Jury.

The Court is satisfied that this could be a feasible explanation and this transaction is not included in the fraudulent amount. • There is a receipt dated January 23, 2013 that is coded to “English as an additional language expenses” and noted as “open house”. The Court is satisfied that this may be food provided for a function as suggested was done by Ms. Grant-Jury. The Court is satisfied that this could be a feasible explanation and this transaction is not included in the fraudulent amount. • There is a receipt dated January 18, 2013 that is coded to “High School expenses” and noted as “open house”.

The Court is satisfied that this may be food provided for a function as suggested was done by Ms. Grant-Jury. The Court is satisfied that this could be a feasible explanation and this transaction is not included in the fraudulent amount. • There is a receipt dated February 19, 2013 that is coded to “Public Relations” and noted as “CEP reimbursed”. The Court is unclear as to what is being referenced here. No questions were asked about this receipt specifically, however, it appears that it might relate to a legitimate expense.

The Court is satisfied that the note could be a feasible explanation and this transaction is not included in the fraudulent amount. It is important to note that the Court’s conclusion regarding the above expenses is premised on the fact that Ms. Grant-Jury appears to have gradually developed the custom of handing in truncated receipts. The year 2013 was nearer to the beginning of her gambling habits and it appears that this was a period of time where she developed the beginning of her modus operandi . Ms.

Grant-Jury also testified that when she handed in fraudulent receipts, she attached random codes to spread the fraud around to avoid detection. 81 receipts were submitted for the year 2013 as exhibit s-59, 26 of which are noted with explanations where the Court has doubts as to whether they are fraudulent. The remaining 55 receipts are characterized by only a notation of an accounting code (which are varied), and are all not itemized. The Court is satisfied that these receipts (amounting to $21,647.65) are all of a fraudulent nature and they will be included in

the amount of the fraud. [ 43 ] January 28, 2014 purchase from the Green Spot for $473.48 - Ms. Grant-Jury specifically addressed this transaction during cross-examination. She said that generally speaking there were purchases made for gifts for speakers, but she could not say what this transaction was for. Exhibit s-17 is comprised of the receipt Ms. Grant-Jury handed in and the receipt recovered from the Green Spot. Ms. Grant-Jury’s receipt is truncated, fitting her modus operandi . The register receipt reflects that purchases of gifts, seasonal items and fashion were made. Ms.

Grant-Jury testified that she did not mix a purchase between personal items and work items. This receipts reflects fashion items that cost as much as $129.99 in one case. Such a purchase could not be for a gift for a speaker. Mr. Traeger also addressed this receipt and testified that there was no possible legitimate purchase that could have occurred here.

It follows that this transaction was made for personal items, and therefore shall be included in the amount of the fraud. [ 44 ] 13 purchases from Safeway between the dates of January 4, 2014 and January 31, 2014 - Twelve of these transactions are instances where Ms. Grant-Jury submitted credit card receipts only and one was an instance of a truncated receipt, indicating her modus operandi .

Three transactions occurred on the weekend, a time when the Training Centre would not have been in operation. [ 45 ] 13 purchases from Safeway between the dates of February 5, 2014 and February 25, 2014 - Each of these transactions are instances where Ms. Grant-Jury submitted credit card receipts only, indicating her modus operandi . One transaction occurred on the weekend, a time when the Training Centre would not have been in operation. [ 46 ] 18 purchases from Safeway between the dates of March 3, 2014 and March 31, 2014 - Each of these transactions are instances where Ms.

Grant-Jury submitted credit card receipts only, indicating her modus operandi . One transaction occurred on the weekend, a time when the Training Centre would not have been in operation. [ 47 ] 21 purchases from Safeway between the dates of April 3, 2014 and April 30, 2014 - Each of these transactions are instances where Ms. Grant-Jury submitted credit card receipts only, indicating her modus operandi .

Five transactions occurred on the weekend, a time when the Training Centre would not have been in operation. [ 48 ] 11 purchases from Safeway between the dates of May 2, 2014 and May 24, 2014 - Each of these transactions are instances where Ms. Grant-Jury submitted credit card receipts only, indicating her modus operandi . Four transactions occurred on the weekend (although, one is not counted in these 11 transactions because of the fact that no receipt was located), a time when the Training Centre would not have been in operation.

Otherwise, the Training Centre was in operation. [ 49 ] 16 purchases from Safeway between the dates of June 2, 2014 – June 24, 2014 - Each of these transactions are instances where Ms. Grant-Jury submitted credit card receipts only, indicating her modus operandi . Again, two transactions occurred on the weekend, a time when the Training Centre would not have been in operation. Otherwise, the Training Centre was in operation. [ 50 ] The Court is troubled by the pattern of behaviour throughout the winter and spring of 2014 whereby Ms.

Grant-Jury did not hand in credit card receipts and made similar purchases on weekends that cannot be for Training Centre use. It is noteworthy to the Court that, despite her position that she did not commence her fraudulent activity until she was seconded to the Premier’s office in October 2014, she admits to other transactions before that time. She indicated that there was course work for English as an Additional Language training going on during this time that could account for her expenses. However, on several days, there are multiple large purchases. For example, on June 9, 2014, Ms.

Grant-Jury made three purchases amounting to $1,298.80. Her explanation is that there were several English as an Additional Language classes going on. She indicated that she would split receipts to allow for easier accounting. If there were several classes for one accounting code, there would be no need to split receipts, as all should have been attributed to one code. Therefore, Ms. Grant-Jury’s explanation does not make sense. At the same time, she agreed with the Crown in cross-examination that specific transactions during this time frame could also be fraud.

The fact that these transactions all fit her modus operandi , were grouped within a time frame where she acknowledges other fraudulent transactions, and that some of these supposed lunch purchases for programming occurred on the weekend when the Training Centre was not open, strongly dispels the notion that these purchases could be legitimate. The Court does not accept the bald assertion made by Ms. Grant-Jury that the transactions in question could have been legitimate, in light of the whole of the evidence.

The Safeway transactions between January and June, 2014 involving only credit card receipts will be included in the fraudulent amount. [ 51 ] 13 purchases from Safeway between the dates of July 2, 2014 to August 29, 2014 - Ms. Bruske testified that there were no programs going on at the Training Centre during the months of July and August, 2014. Each of these transactions are cases where Ms. Grant-Jury only submitted credit card receipts. The Court accepts Ms. Bruske’s evidence. There was no legitimate purpose for any of these transactions.

Each will be included as a fraudulent transaction. [ 52 ] April 29, 2015 purchase from Home Depot for $161.56 – Neither party testified about this transaction. The accounting information details this as a purchase of “brooms, Scott’s grass, other gardening equipment” (see Affidavit of Lyndon Stadnyk, exhibit s- 2, appendix B, page 80). Ms. Grant-Jury testified that there were gardening activities going on at the Brandon Training Centre. The Court accepts that this purchase could have been for that purpose.

It will not be included in the fraud. [ 53 ] June 25, 2015 purchase from Manitoba Liquor Mart for $124.59 - Ms. Bruske testified that this purchase could have been wine for a teachers gift, and that she was uncertain about it. She did, as does the Court, question why the receipt was truncated if it was a legitimate purchase. Ms. Bruske gave Ms. Grant-Jury the benefit of the doubt on this transaction. The Court is required to do so as well.

It will not be included in the fraudulent amount. [ 54 ] July 16, 2015 and July 30, 2015 purchases from Manitoba Liquor Mart - These purchases were made during the period that the Training Centre was shut down. One was itemized as gift cards by Ms. Grant-Jury. Ms. Bruske pointed out that there is no programming going on in July at the Training Centre. July, 2015 is in the midst of the height of Ms. Grant-Jury’s addictions to gambling as she had just returned from the Premier’s office a few months prior.

The Court does not accept that there was a purchase for gift cards during this time and as such each will be included in the fraudulent transactions. [ 55 ] September 15, 2015 purchase from The Green Spot for $680.70 with Wanda McGorum’s card - This transaction was

documented by exhibit s-18, which was a credit card receipt with no itemization. This was the modus operandi of Ms. Grant-Jury when she wished to hide a transaction. In this case, the handwriting on the receipt noted the accounting code for “building expenses Brandon”. Mr. Traeger testified that the register receipt was obtained from The Green Spot (also part of exhibit s-18). The items purchased are mostly fashion items, but there are trees and fertilizer included as well. Ms. Grant-Jury testified that she did not mix personal and business purchases.

The fashion items are clearly not related to building expenses for Brandon. The Court is satisfied that this receipt is fraudulent and it will be included in the total amount of the fraud. It appears that Ms. Grant-Jury may agree to this amount, however, her agreement is specified as $681.00, an amount taken from the forensic report exhibit s-2. There is no transaction for exactly $681.00 on Ms.

McGorum’s card in evidence, but the Court has concluded that this transaction is the same one referenced. [ 56 ] September 20, 2015 purchase from Safeway of $554.32 with Wanda McGorum’s card - This transaction was documented by exhibit s-19, which was a credit card receipt with no itemization. This was the modus operandi of Ms. Grant-Jury when she wished to hide a transaction. In this case, the handwriting on the receipt noted the accounting code for “custom training”. Mr.

Traeger testified that the details of the actual purchases were recovered (see exhibit s-2 tab C), and the items purchased included chips, toothpaste, chicken wings, and a $500 prepaid MasterCard. These expenses are clearly not for Custom Training and the Court is satisfied that due to the nature of the purchases they were fraudulent. Therefore, they will be included in the total amount of the fraud. [ 57 ] November 9, 2015 purchase from Safeway of $1,125.00 - Ms. Bruske’s testimony focused on the possibility that this transaction related to food items.

When asked about whether it could be for the purchase of gifts as itemized on the receipt itself, Ms. Bruske replied that no teacher would receive a gift that large. Ms. Grant-Jury explained that gift cards were purchased for teachers in amounts of $25. Once again, this amount is consistent with 45 gift cards at that amount, which is within the range presented by Ms. Grant-Jury. It is close to Christmas and was coded to “office supplies” as per how Ms. Grant-Jury would code gifts.

The Court has a reasonable doubt that this may have been a fraudulent transaction, and it will not be included in the total amount of the fraud. [ 58 ] December 16, 2015 and November 17, 2015 purchases from Little Shoppe on R for $514.28 and $187.30 - Only a credit card receipt was submitted by Ms. Grant-Jury for this transaction, which indicates Ms. Grant-Jury’s modus operandi . The Little Shoppe on R is a giftware store in Brandon, and according to Ms. Bruske would not be a location where items would be purchased for members. Ms.

Grant-Jury maintains that she was constantly buying gifts for presenters and that this could have been one of those times. However, if that were the case, she would have submitted a proper receipt. Also, the monetary amounts here are not consistent with small gift purchases. This amount will be counted as part of the fraud. [ 59 ] December 22, 2015 purchase from Safeway for $629.76 - While no receipt has been filed on this transaction, the amount is reflected on the credit card statement for Ms. Grant-Jury (exhibit s-10). Some amounts are attributed to expense codes. This transaction is not. Ms.

Grant-Jury testified that she paid this last credit card invoice, and that it contained a mix of work related items and non-work items. The work related items are reflected by those marked by expense codes. Ms. Bruske testified that the transaction in question cannot be legitimate given the transaction’s proximity to Christmas. The Court notes that the dollar figure involved and the timing of the transaction suggests that it is not for sundry items. While Ms.

Grant-Jury maintained that she absorbed the cost of a work related Christmas lunch, the Court is satisfied that this transaction is not that lunch, based upon the other purchases made around the same time and the coding indicated on the credit card statement. For the reasons expressed, this transaction will be included in the final amount of the fraud. However, it is noted that restitution in the form of the credit card payment made by Ms.

Grant-Jury will be accounted for when calculating the amount of the loss. [ 60 ] There are several further transactions that are only addressed in exhibit s-2 that were not testified to by any witness. In each of these cases, while it appears that un-itemized credit card receipts were filed by Ms. Grant-Jury, the Court does not have enough information to conclude that they are fraudulent in nature.

These transactions are: • Purchase from The Green Spot dated November 5, 2013 for $376.72 • Purchase from The Green Spot dated November 4, 2013 for $327.55 • Purchase from The Green Spot dated March 20, 2013 for $306.77 None of these transactions shall be included in the amount of the fraud. [ 61 ] There were some further transactions that were attributed to Wanda McGorum’s credit card. This credit card was legitimately borrowed by Ms. Grant-Jury due to her own company credit card being compromised by someone other than Ms. Grant-Jury. However, the Crown alleges that it was used fraudulently by Ms.

Grant-Jury as well. Some of those transactions have already been dealt with. There was also a transaction for $638.37 from Safeway from September 12, 2015, which was documented by a receipt and supporting documents filed as exhibit s-13. The receipt is an un-itemized credit card receipt. Safeway was able to confirm the purchases made in this transaction. Ms. Bruske identified them as personal groceries and gift cards. When one inspects those items, there are personal items such as a magazine, chips, and macaroni and cheese amongst other things.

Three more receipts are included as part of the same exhibit for $453.44, $417.48 and $804.79 from Safeway. Again, the items purchased appear to be personal in nature. Clearly, these items were not for “literacy expenses” as was reported by Ms. Grant-Jury. Therefore this transaction will be included in the fraudulent transactions. [ 62 ] Lastly, there is a purchase made using Ms. McGorum’s credit card from Safeway on September 10, 2015 (marked as exhibit s- 32). This transaction involves several $200 gift cards along with activation fees.

The monetary amounts of the gift cards preclude them being proper business expenses for nominal gifts of appreciation. The receipt is truncated indicating Ms. Grant-Jury’s modus operandi, and the amount is coded to “literacy expenses” for accounting. These factors suggest that the transaction was fraudulent and therefore the amount will be included in the amount of the fraud. TOTAL AMOUNT OF THE FRAUD [ 63 ] The Court has considered the context of Ms. Grant-Jury’s circumstances as a whole.

Additionally, the Court has taken into account the evidence called with respect to each of the individual contested transactions and available fact associated to each. The Court has been mindful that the Crown is required to prove each of the alleged fraudulent transactions beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court

has concluded that the amount of the fraud is: • Admitted: $65,652.66 • Contested amount found to be fraudulent: $65,444.38 • Total amount of the Fraud: $131,097.04 [ 64 ] The Defence has asserted that Ms. Grant-Jury has made restitution in the amount of $10,313.81. While exhibit s-2 does acknowledge that there has been some restitution made, it is unclear whether the amount noted is up to date. The Court will hear submissions as to outstanding restitution during the next phase of the hearing. [ 65 ] Based upon the total amount determined, the Court will hear submissions as to quantum of sentence. “Original signed by:” ROLSTON, P.J.

Appendix C Contested Transactions where No documentation has been received by the Forensic Accountant Date Vendor exhibit s-2 page amount August 31, 2012 Safeway 43 $447.12 September 4, 2012 Safeway 55 $166.23 February 9, 2013 Safeway 62 $620.48 May 4, 2014 Safeway 66 $240.95 May 21, 2014 White Horse 67 $124.71 July 2, 2014 Safeway 69 $238.68 August 1, 2014 Safeway 70 $538.60 October 20, 2014 Safeway 74 $1250.00 October 28, 2014 Safeway 74 $517.85 July 21, 2015 White Horse 86 $101.05 July 28, 2015 Safeway 87 $776.80 September 25, 2015 MLCC 89 $150.00 September 25, 2015 Safeway 89 $214.99 December 19, 2015 Safeway 95 $728.85 December 20, 2015 Chapters 95 $75.15 December 21, 2015 Edible Arrangements 95 $229.39