R. v. Slobbe Date:, 2010 BCPC 60

Citation: R. v. Slobbe Date: 20100422 2010 BCPC 0060 File No: 53252 Registry: RICHMOND IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. JUDITH SLOBBE REASONS ON SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE R. D. FRATKIN Counsel for the Crown: S. Cooke Counsel for the Defendant: K. Pechet Place of Hearing: Richmond , B.C.

Dates of Hearing: October 15, 2009, February 17, March 4, and March 15, 2010 Date of Judgment: April 22, 2010 FACTS: [ 1 ] The accused, Judith Lynn Slobbe, was employed as a bookkeeper and office manager for the Fraserview Intermediate Care Lodge (“Fraserview”) in Richmond, B.C. commencing in July 2001 and ending in September 2004. In that period, she defrauded the business of at least $712,282.78. [ 2 ] “Fraserview” is a privately owned 105 bed care facility founded in the 1970’s by Audrey and Steve Baron. The company is now owned and operated by their son and daughter, Wayne Baron and Donna Baron.

Both Steve and Audrey Baron have passed away, though the police were able to interview Mr. Baron about the fraud before he died. The “ Agreed Statement of Facts” (“A.S.F.”) reveals the following: “In the early 90’s, son Wayne and daughter Donna joined their parents as shareholders. At about the same time, Audrey Baron was diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease; her debilitation was such that she herself became a resident in the Lodge.

Donna took over some of her duties, but worked in a back office, away from the accounting office at the front of the Lodge, and left it to her father, despite his advancing years, to maintain responsibility for signing cheques on behalf of “Fraserview”. Wayne had cheque-signing authority as

well, but as a result of the death of a son by suicide in 1999 and the tremendous emotional impact that caused, he effectively removed himself from an active role in the business. This was the situation into which Judith Slobbe entered when she started looking after accounting aspect of the business in July 2001. [ 3 ] The Barons discovered Ms. Slobbe’s frauds in 2004, fired her and called in the police. Police investigators questioned Ms. Slobbe and her husband and released them without charges.

The investigation took quite some time to piece together the fraudulent activities and, in the intervening period, and after defrauding Ms. Lee (Count# 3 in “Fraserview” information), Ms. Slobbe and her husband moved to “Port Alberni” on Vancouver Island. [ 4 ] A second series of frauds and related offences (“Port Alberni””) occurred between April 2007 and September 2009 at Port Alberni, wherein the accused, Ms.

Slobbe, befriended and later defrauded various senior citizens. [ 5 ] The “ Agreed Statement of Facts” (“A.S.F.”) (factual details of the various offences) of both “Fraserview” and ”Port Alberni” are available in Appendix “A” herein, and the “ Agreed Statement of Facts” and other relevant sentence materials are found in Exhibit 1 . [ 6 ] The “A.S.F.” was entered into and agreed upon by Crown Counsel, Mr. Cooke and Defence Counsel, Mr. Pechet. [ 7 ] The accused employed various schemes and methods to obtain funds from both the “Fraserview” and “Port Alberni”” victims. As a result of her deceit, Ms.

Slobbe was able to obtain vast sums and lavishly spent money on jewellery, travel, clothing, cars, furniture and other personal items. [ 8 ] The accused was at liberty during the "Fraserview" investigation until May 1 st , 2008 when the "Fraserview" information was sworn. She was released on those charges on a summons ordering her to appear in Court, starting in June, 2008 .

The accused committed the "Port Alberni" offences, both during the "Fraserview" investigation, and after the "Fraserview" information had been sworn. [ 9 ] She was finally arrested on the "Port Alberni" matters in December 11 th , 2009 and jailed, where she presently remains. [ 10 ] The accused was scheduled to appear before the Court in October, 2009 for a Preliminary Hearing in Richmond. [ 11 ] On the day set for the opening of the preliminary hearing (October, 2009) Ms. Slobbe entered guilty pleas to the “Fraserview” charges contained in Information #53252-1 (Count # 1 and Count # 3).

Count # 2 was stayed by the Crown. Charges were stayed, as well, against Ms. Slobbe’s husband. A sentencing date for the "Fraserview" offences was set and then adjourned, and submissions were eventually scheduled to be heard on March 4 th 2010. [ 12 ] On March 4 th 2010, Ms. Slobbe pleaded guilty in Richmond to the "Port Alberni" charges contained in Information #52493-1-T (Count # 1, 2, 3, 5 (as amended), 9, 10, 11, 12-16.

The remaining Count # 4, 6-8 and 17 were stayed by the Crown. [ 13 ] Sentencing submissions for both "Fraserview" and "Port Alberni" were heard on March 4 th 2010 and sentencing decision was reserved until today, April 22 nd 2010. [ 14 ] As stated above, Exhibit 1 contains the Agreed Statement of Facts for both “Fraserview” and ”Port Alberni” [Tab 1], and the criminal record of the accused [Tab 8]. This Exhibit also contains a variety of documents pertaining to the assorted frauds (Bank records, credit card application, trip itinerary, fraudulent letter, Supreme Court Transcript and a quantum financial

summary of the losses sustained by the victims [Tab 7]). The facts, criminal record and other materials were summarized by the Crown during submissions. CRIMINAL RECORD : The accused has accumulated the following criminal convictions: COURT DATE OFFENCE SENTENCE Thorold, Ontario Jan 22, 1971 False Pretences Section 304(1)(a) (2 chrgs) 1 year Probation Order on each concurrent Prince George BC June 22 1973 False Pretences Section 320(1)(a) 30 days intermittent plus Probation Order Woodstock, Ont October 16, 1975 False Pretences Section 320(1)(

a) Probation Order for 3 years Victoria, B.C. October 17, 1979 False Pretences Section 320(2)(b) (4 chrgs) $100 fine and Probation Order for 3 years for 2 chrgs and $150 for one chrg and 4 days prison for Count # 4 Brisbane Australia December 17, 1987 Misappropriation of Property Probation Order for 1 year and Restitution $4,676 to be paid by July 1, 1988

Brisbane Australia December 9, 1988 Breach of Probation imposed Dec 17, 1987 Probation Order for 2 years to submit to medical, psychological, psychiatric treatment Brisbane Australia October 17, 1989 Fraudulent False Accounting Discharged upon entering into own recognizance without sureties in sum of $150 and to be of good behaviour for 12 months. Restitution $980 i/d 14 days Imprisonment; 14 days to pay Pt. Coquitlam BC Feb 3, 1997 fraud Over $5,000 s. 380(1) (a)( 2 chrgs) 1 year imprisonment on each concurrent and Probation Order for 3 years.

Restitution order of $76,100 and $6,210 ISSUES: [ 15 ] What is the appropriate sentence for the crimes of Ms. Slobbe? A variety of issues arise from the sentence submissions, including, inter alia, the principle of totality of sentence, consecutive and concurrent terms, and recognition for time already served. I will deal with each of these considerations in my reasons. DEFENCE SUBMISSIONS: [ 16 ] Background of the Offender : The accused is presently 63 years old and, as above noted, confined in custody at the remand centre. She was born and raised in the Toronto area.

Her parents separated when she was 17 years and she became pregnant when she was 19 years. Her child was born in 1967 and she also assumed custody and control of her nine-year old nephew. Ms. Slobbe followed her mother to British Columbia and for several years moved throughout the province. She also returned to Ontario for a short while and then returned to British Columbia. She also lived in Calgary for a period of time. She married Ben Slobbe, a man 18 years her senior. They spent eight years in Australia. [ 17 ] Psychiatric History: Dr.

Derek Eaves, a highly regarded and experienced psychiatrist, prepared a report for sentencing. His report is found in the Defence Sentencing Materials (“DSM”) filed by Mr. Pechet for the accused. Dr. Eaves chronicles the background of Ms. Slobbe and many of her personal issues. The report mentions her health problems and the attendant troubles that this presents to both the accused and her ailing husband. The materials provide some insight into her character and offer some explanation why she might have committed these frauds. The conclusions that Dr. Eaves shares are found on page 4 and 5 of his report.

At page 5 Dr. Eaves says: “I would not wish to suggest that Ms. Slobbe’s lifelong psychological problems are the sole cause of her anti-social behavior, but they have certainly contributed to it.” [ 18 ] Ms. Slobbe’s daughter passed away in 2007 in Australia and the death had a profound affect upon the accused to the degree that Dr. Eaves said that she is still grieving today. Mr. Pechet refers to Dr.

Eaves and said: “He says that her only daughter's death in 2007 was profoundly distressing to her, there was considerable disruption to her life when she and her husband travelled to Australia and since their return they've had to cope with substantial ongoing stresses, notably the health problems of her elderly husband and most recently her own health problems.” [ 19 ] Criminal Record: Ms. Slobbe was 54-years old when she commenced employment with “Fraserview” and in the three (3) short years, she was able to defraud the company of the aforesaid amount. Mr.

Pechet suggested that when one examines her previous criminal record in perspective, it amounts to several minor and dated convictions. The evidence to support his contention that her previous crimes were minor in nature is found in the sentences imposed. In each case, the disposition was a fine, probation order or an intermittent jail sentence. He conceded that the one exception, Port Coquitlam 1997, is a significant matter in sentence consideration. Mr.

Pechet also conceded that the sheer size of the “Fraserview” fraud, and more significantly, the breach of trust aspect, causes the “Fraserview” matter to be the centrepiece of sentencing concern. He argued that the ”Port Alberni” charges are of less significance, relatively speaking, as there was not the legal breach of trust position and the amounts involved are not comparative.

He does not suggest that there are not aggravating features of the ”Port Alberni” charges, nor does he minimize the impact on the ”Port Alberni” victims; he simply suggests, relatively considered, they are of less significance. (The full criminal record of Ms. Slobbe is contained in Exhibit 1, Tab 8.) [ 20 ] Guilty Plea: The accused contended that the guilty plea saved the Crown considerable time and expense in trial preparations, effort and cost. Valuable court time was saved. Most importantly, the victims of both matters were spared the need of attending Court and all that follows as part of that process.

The victims were elderly and the ordeal of a trial can be overwhelming. Mr. Pechet suggested the plea of guilty was virtually immediate for the ”Port Alberni” matters once the accused was detained in custody in December 2009. As for the preliminary inquiry that was to begin in October 2009, Mr. Pechet suggests that Ms. Slobbe was without

counsel (her counsel withdrew earlier), and was unappreciative of her circumstances. When he was retained, he immediately arranged for the guilty pleas to be entered. He suggests the guilty plea is a significant mitigating circumstance. [ 21 ] “ Port Alberni” Charges : Mr. Pechet argued these charges did not occur while Ms. Slobbe was under any form of judicial interim release. She and her husband had been arrested and released without charge on the “Fraserview” matters in 2004. Mr. Pechet outlined the time frame of arrests and releases and the swearing of informations and the commission of offences.

He submitted that the worst that could be said about the commission of the ”Port Alberni” offences was that she was aware that she was facing charges in Richmond for “Fraserview”. (It is noteworthy that one of the elements of the perjury count relates to Ms. Slobbe, in testimony, denying that she was facing charges [“Fraserview"], when she fully knew she was under charge). [ 22 ] Aggravating Factors: Mr. Pechet submitted that the deceit, dishonesty and lies told by the accused to perpetrate the fraud should not be viewed as aggravating.

He submitted that the essence of committing a fraud includes the use of deceit, dishonesty and lies to achieve the offence. The type of deceit and dishonesty varies from case to case but method itself should not be an aggravating factor. He accepted that the victims’ age, vulnerability and the betrayal of friendship are aggravating circumstances. The use of her daughter’s illness and death should not be part of the aggravating circumstances. The appeal to the victim’s sympathy should not be seen to be an aggravating factor. The manner and nature and the carrying out of the scheme is part of the fraud. Mr.

Pechet said: “There are lies, there's duplicity. That's the essence of fraud. It's not an aggravating factor. Those are the elements.” (Transcript p. 8 line 31) “The fact that you lied to people in order to deprive them of property, that's the essence of fraud. That's not an aggravating factor. Aggravating factor is perhaps who you did it to, whether you've done it before, or as you say, your relationship. Those things that I say are clearly aggravating factors. The scheme itself.” (Transcript p. 8 line 40) [ 23 ] Defence Comment on the Crown Sentence Position : Mr.

Pechet characterized the Crown position as follows: “.. the Crown position in this particular case as my friend has set out is four to five years, by virtue of the criminal record and the egregious circumstances of the case is what he said, plus two more for the “Port Alberni” fraud, for six to seven years…….I think that is not justified in this particular case. The mitigating factors of plea, number one, the less effect of -- I say the weight of the criminal record is much less than he says. And as I said earlier, there's no more egregious circumstances here than any other.” [ 24 ] Mr.

Pechet said that a Conditional Sentence Order was not appropriate. He suggested the appropriate range of sentence is three and one-half (3 ½) years to four (4) years in total for both the “Fraserview” and ”Port Alberni” charges. Mr. Pechet also provided various cases and related materials to support his range submission.

CROWN SUBMISSIONS: [ 25 ] The Crown submitted that the appropriate penalty range for the offences relating to the counts contained in the “Fraserview” charges is a sentence of four (4) to five (5) years imprisonment. [ 26 ] The Crown urges a sentence of two (2) years for the ”Port Alberni” charges.

The Crown said that the perjury Count # 12 in the ”Port Alberni” charges warrants a sentence of three (3) months consecutive. [ 27 ] The Crown suggests that the appropriate global sentence for both “Fraserview” and ”Port Alberni” is in the range between six (6) to seven (7) years, and that the perjury count, aforesaid, should be served consecutive to the global sentence. The range follows the principles in

Section 718 of the Criminal Code and the case law. General deterrence and denunciation are important sentence concerns. The Crown suggested the case at bar presented a unique set of circumstances, wherein both the “Fraserview” and “Port Alberni” frauds call for federal sentences. [ 28 ] To summarize, the Crown submitted the Fraserview Intermediate Care Lodge guilty plea is of limited value as it took place on the day of the preliminary inquiry and against an overwhelming Crown case. According to the Crown, the accused did not display any remorse or contrition for her misdeeds.

The aggravating factors are significant when one considers the monetary amount of the fraud, over a three-year period, an elaborate scheme based on pure greed and the impact on a small business. Added to these previous circumstances, further consideration should be given to the fact of a breach of trust as codified in

Section 718.2 (a) (iii). [ 29 ] The Crown conceded the guilty plea regarding the ”Port Alberni” matters was timely and amounts to a mitigating factor for sentence purposes. [ 30 ] As for the ”Port Alberni” offences, the Crown stressed the elaborate scheme that included manufacturing fraudulent bank statements, letters, itineraries and other material to deceive the victims. The Crown also stressed the predatory nature of the accused's actions and the specific targeting of vulnerable and guileless senior citizens.

The accused knew the truth about “Fraserview” and the police investigation and yet she continued to victimize others. Finally, the criminal record of Ms. Slobbe should be a significant circumstance in relation to sentence. [ 31 ] When the aggravating factors, the criminal record, the greed motive, the lack of remorse, and the victim impact are in combination, the Crown submitted the upper end of the sentence range was appropriate. General deterrence and denunciation while significant must defer to specific deterrence and the protection of the public in the imposition of a lengthy sentence.

SENTENCING LAW: [ 32 ] In determining what an appropriate sentence for a crime is, it is generally accepted that the trial judge must consider the gravity of the offence, the circumstances surrounding the actual commission of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender,

having regard to the penalties which the Criminal Code imposes. R. v. Hinch and Salanski, (BC CA), [1968] 3C.C.C. 39 (B.C.C.A.). [33] The judge should also consider the age and character of the accused, whether he has any previous criminal record, whether hehas a family dependent on him and whether the crime was deliberate or committed on momentary impulse. R. v. Willaert (1953), (ON CA), 105 C.C.C. 172 (Ont.

C.A.). [34] Although the health condition of an accused may in rare instances have an effect on the sentence, the courts are generallyreluctant to reduce, because of poor physical health, what would otherwise be the appropriate sentence commensurate with the gravity ofthe offence and the circumstances of the offender. R. v. Maczynski (1998), (BC CA), 120 C.C.C. (3d) 221(B.C.C.A.). [35] The attitude of the offender after the commission of the crime is also important, as it will serve to indicate the degree ofcriminality involved and may throw some light on his character. R.v.

Hinch and Salanski, (supra). [36] Criminal Code

section 718 provides for the purpose and principles of sentencing, and the following edited relevant sectionsapplicable to this case are highlighted and reproduced. “718. The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and themaintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives: (

a) to denounce unlawful conduct; (

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

c) to separate offenders from society, (

d) where necessary; to assist in rehabilitating offenders; (

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

f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims and to the community. 1995,c. 22, s. 6. 718.1 A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. 1995, c. 22, s. 6. 718.2 A court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the following principles: (

a) a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to theoffence or the offender, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, (iii) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a position of trust or authority in relation to the victim, shall be deemed to be aggravating circumstances (

b) a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances; (

c) where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh; (

d) an offender should not be deprived of liberty, if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances; WHAT DO THE ABOVE-NOTED RELEVANT TERMS in S. 718 (

a) to (

f) MEAN? Denunciation – to denounce unlawful conduct: [37] In R. v. M (C.A.). (SCC), 105 C.C.C. (3d) 327 (Q.L. p.29), Chief Justice Lamer commented that denunciationis regarded as essentially a communication process. “The objective of denunciation mandates that a sentence should communicate society's condemnation of that particular offender'sconduct.

In short, a sentence with a denunciatory element represents a symbolic, collective statement that the offender's conduct shouldbe punished for encroaching on our society's basic code of values as enshrined within our substantive criminal law”. [38] Denunciation, as an element of sentencing, is regarded as a tool for educating the public. In other words, the very nature of thesentence will indicate to the public how abhorrent certain conduct of individuals is regarded by the courts. R. v.

Simms (1990), 1990ABCA 352 , 60 C.C.C. (3d) 499. [39] At the same time, the sentence is said to reflect the general moral sense of the community and to mark the disgust felt by themajority of the public for the offender's conduct, not in the sense that it is the role of the courts to reflect public opinion but rather thatthe courts must not disregard it, and may possibly even lead it. R.v.Oliver, (BC CA), [1977] 5 W.W.R. 344

(B.C.C.A.). [40] Although it would appear that there is a fundamental and essential relationship between denunciation and deterrence, it has beensaid that "neither is easily measured empirically; both are presumed to flow from a heavy penalty, and neither is presumed to be achievedfrom a lenient one." R.v. M.(G.) (1992), (ON CA), 77 C.C.C. (3d) 310 (Ont C.A.). [41] In R. v. M (C.A.) (supra) Lamer C.J. said: “The relevance of....denunciation as a goal(

s) of sentencing underscores that our criminal justice system is not simply a vast system ofnegative penalties designed to prevent objectively harmful conduct by increasing the cost the offender must bear in committing anenumerated offence. Our criminal law is also a system of values. A sentence which expresses denunciation is simply the means by whichthese values are communicated.

In short, in addition to attaching negative consequences to undesirable behaviour, judicial sentencesshould also be imposed in a manner which positively instills the basic set of communal values shared by all Canadians as expressed bythe Criminal Code”. DETERRENCE - deter the offender and other persons: [42] There are two aspects to the element of deterrence in sentencing. General deterrence: General deterrence, is based on the belief that the "legal sanction imposed on actual offenders will discourage potential offenders".

Itassumes that members of the public who are about to commit or are even contemplating committing a similar offence will stop to thinkbefore they do it and that they will make a conscious decision not to commit the offence because of the fear of receiving the kind ofsentence that was imposed on the particular offender. R. v.

Sweeney (1992), (BC CA), 71 C.C.C. (3d) 82 Among the factors that determine the significance of the role of general deterrence are the gravity of the offence, the prevalence of thecrime within the community and the potential impact of the offence on public confidence in the administration of justice: see R. v.Morrissette (1970), (SK CA), 1 C.C.C. (2d) 307, 12 C.R.N.S. 392 (Sask. C.A.). “The elusive concept of general deterrence proceeds on the assumption that the sentence of one offender will deter those who are like-minded. When it succeeds, we are not made aware of it.

When it fails, doubters claim it has no application. However, for it to have anychance of success, the principle must be applied fairly and equally to all members of the community”. Specific Deterrence The second aspect, commonly termed specific or individual deterrence, assumes that the sentence will bring home to the particularoffender what will probably happen to him if he is inclined to commit a similar offence in the future. Specific deterrence is designed topersuade the offender from repeating his acts.

Further to that objective, the court will consider the background of the offender, inparticular any prior criminal record and the prospects for rehabilitation. For first offenders, there is always hope. For repeat offenders, thecourts are loath to say there is no hope but, if previous attempts to deter have failed, the sentence will reflect the court's impatience: seeR. v. Morrissette (supra). [43] Simply put, the principle of deterrence has the objective to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences. AGGRAVATING AND MITIGATING FACTORS: [44]

Section 718.2(

a) states that: • a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to theoffence or the offender, and without limiting the generality of the foregoing, (iii) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a position of trust or authority in relation to the victim, shall bedeemed to be an aggravating circumstance [45] To re-state s. 718.1; it is an established principle that the sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and theoffender's role in it.

In other words, the offender must be punished for his or her role in the offence rather than what was done to thevictim. The appropriate punishment is one that reflects “the moral culpability of the offender having regard to the intentional risk takingof the offender; the consequential harm caused by the offender; and the normative character of the offender’s conduct” see: R. v. M

(C.A.), (SCC), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 500 at pp. 557-558 [46] Similarly, an offender should face punishment for the offence committed and not for past criminal actions. Obviously, thecriminal background of the offender is always relevant to sentencing, but that background cannot be the determining factor in theimposition of any subsequent sentence: see R. v.

Hastings (1985), 1985 ABCA 20 , 19 C.C.C. (3d) 86 44 C.R. (3d) 143 (Alta.C.A.). [47] A demonstrated failure by the offender to benefit from a previous lenient sentence will be relevant to the issue of specificdeterrence and may result in a harsher sentence than might otherwise be imposed for the offence. [48] A demonstrated persistence in a life of crime and a lack of respect for the rights of others will be reflected in the sentence: see R.v. Bear, Bear and Tinker (1973), (SK CA), 13 C.C.C. (2d) 570 , 24 C.R.N.S. 393 (Sask. C.A.) and R. v. Bergeron(1982), 7 W.C.B. 485 (Ont. C.A.).

OTHER SENTENCING CONSIDERATIONS: Totality Principle: [49] The totality principle arises when an accused is convicted of multiple offences. The principle requires a sentencing judge to“ensure that the cumulative sentence rendered does not exceed the overall culpability of the offender,” R. v. M.(C.A.), (SCC), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 500 (Lamer C.J.C.) [50] The principle is stated in s. 718.2(

c) of the Criminal Code, which provides: A court that imposes a sentence shall also take intoconsideration the following principles: “(

c) where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh[.]”’ [51] Further, s. 718.1 provides that: “A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.” Consecutive v. Concurrent Sentences: [52] If two offences are closely linked, concurrent sentences should be imposed. See: R. v. Turner (1971), (ONCA), 1 O.R. 83. In deciding whether the sentence should be concurrent or consecutive, the Court should consider the relationship of thecrimes, the time lag between the crimes, and the totality of the sentence. See: R. v. Hiebert

(1980) B.C.D. (B.C.C.A.). A heavierconcurrent sentence should not be imposed where a consecutive sentence cannot be imposed. See: R. v. Paquin (1989), 70 C.R. (3d)(Que. C.A.). [53] There is a discretion in a trial judge as to whether sentences should be concurrent or consecutive. Concurrent sentences areusually ordered when the offences are committed within a short period of time. If, however, the offences are totally unrelated and tookplace at different times, consecutive sentences should be considered. See: R. v. Chislom (1965), (ON CA), 4 C.C.C.289 (Ont. C.A.) Credit for Time Served: [54]

Section 719 of the Criminal Code provides:

(3) In determining the sentence to be imposed on a person convicted of an offence, a court may take into account any time spent incustody by the person as a result of the offence. [55] The cases suggest that, unless there is good reason not to, a court must credit an accused with time spent in pre-sentence custody. There are many arguments as to why pre-sentence custody calls for credit, for example parole ineligibility, unavailability of reformatoryprograms and other features exclusive to sentenced offenders. Suffice to say that it is a discretionary call by the sentencing Judge.

The“rule of thumb” from the appellate courts on down allows for double-time credit. [56] The accused was at liberty regarding the “Fraserview” charges and was eventually taken into custody on the ”Port Alberni”charges on December 18, 2009. She has thus been incarcerated for 124 days or approximately four (4) months. Any credit granted fortime spent in custody will pertain to the ”Port Alberni” charges only. FRAUD: Section 380 (1) of the Criminal Code:

[57] Between the relevant years 2001-2004, Fraud over $5,000.00 had a maximum punishment of ten (10) years. Fraud under$5,000.00 had maximum prison term of two (2) years. [58] In 2004-2005, Parliament amended this

section providing new maximums. [59] Section 380 (1) (

a) presently provides that the maximum penalty is not to exceed fourteen (14) years for fraud over$5,000.00. [60] Section 380 (1) (

b) provides a maximum penalty of two (2) years for fraud under $5,000.00 prosecuted by indictment. Crown Case Law and Related Materials: [61] I have read and considered the cases provided by both counsel and I intend to refer to only a few. The range of sentence appearsto be generally agreed upon by both counsel except that Crown argued that the global upper range was appropriate and counsel for Ms.Slobbe submitted that the lower to mid-level numbers were fitting for a global sentence. [62] Regina v. Khan and Ali

(2002) BCCA 202 . A $2.2 million dollar fraud committed over a 14-month period. Khan’ssentence was 3 years, and Ali received 2 years less 1 day. The Court emphasized the need for general deterrence in cases of large scalefraud with serious consequences for the victims. [63] Regina v. Quinn [2005] X066517-2 B.C.S.C. (New Westminster Registry) Insurance Corporation of B.C. defrauded of$424.687.11 by employee using a sophisticated method of false authorizations. Sentence imposed was three and one-half (3½) yearsplus full restitution. General deterrence and societal condemnation were paramount. [64] Regina v. Patrick

(2006) BCSC 1284. Sentence for theft of $989,647.46 by office manager over a ten-year period. Sentenceimposed was three and one-half (3½) years. Range of sentence was determined to be 3 to 5 years. Mitigating factors included lack of acriminal record, partial repayment of stolen funds and the guilty plea, but the Court said they were limited in weight. Impact on thevictim was significant. [65] Regina v. Marr

(2008) BCPC No.70269-1. Four (4) year sentence of a cocaine addicted bookkeeper who stole, over a ten-yearperiod, $913,526.78 from victim company. At paragraph 37, “Small family-owned businesses are the backbone of the Canadianeconomy. In order to operate, their employees must be trustworthy. Without such trust, most small businesses would fail because theywould be unable to operate due to the cost of monitoring and security. A strong message must be sent that regardless of one's goodcharacter or weaknesses due to illness or addiction this kind of conduct will be met by significant penal consequences.” [66] Regina v. Datsko

(2009) BCPC No. 194418-1. Fraud totalling $720,715.82 from employer by company controller over a 15-month term. Sentence of three (3) years was imposed. Mitigating factors include guilty plea, full confession, no criminal record,remorse expressed, letters of support and health issues. Aggravating factors contained at p.12. “The legal authorities establish that alarge-scale fraud involving a breach of trust will generally attract a sentence of imprisonment. Specific deterrence and rehabilitationare often given less weight in these cases. General deterrence and denunciation tend to be the driving principles.

They are the verysame principles that lead the courts to conclude that imprisonment is often the only just and effective sanction.” [67] Regina v. Black [1993] B.C.J. No. 964 B.C.C.A. The appellant was the mastermind of an elaborate fraudulent scheme by whichhe obtained substantial payments from the federal government by making applications for Old Age Pensions in the names of deceased ornon-existent persons. The maximum penalty was ten (10) years. The appellant had previous convictions for fraud and theft. The trialjudge sentenced the appellant to six (6) years and he appealed from the sentence.

HELD: Appeal dismissed. The sentence of six (6)years was not unreasonable in the circumstances. The Court discussed the totality principle. [68] Regina v. Goertzen and James 2004 BCCA 639 , [2004] B.C.J. No. 2802 B.C.C.A. Accused with numerous previousconvictions and described as the mastermind of an elaborate fraud was sentenced to consecutive terms totalling 66 months for offencesseparated in time. The Court emphasized the aggravating factors involved. The male accused without a criminal record received asentence of forty-eight (48) months. The Court discussed the range of sentence at paragraph 15 and 18.

Both sentences were upheld. [69] Regina v. Armstrong

(2005) BCPC No. 163884-1-D. The accused was sentenced to a total of eight (8) years for variousfraudulent schemes each separated in time. The Court said that it was appropriate to order consecutive terms for each fraud. The Courtfollowed Goertzen and James (supra). The sentencing Judge described the accused as chronic recidivist with little, if any, likelihood ofreform and a menace to the public. Much like Ms. Slobbe, Armstrong defrauded friends and acquaintances of money they could illafford to lose. The results of his deceit were emotionally very damaging for the victims.

The sentencing Judge concluded that specificdeterrence and the public’s protection were paramount. [70] Regina v. Johnson [1990] B.C.J. No. 302. The accused was sentenced to three (3) years for the crime of perjury, committed inan attempt to deceive the court into acquitting a fellow inmate. The trial judge said: “The offence of perjury is most serious because it strikes at the heart of our justice system and can lead to terrible mistakes being made.The principle of deterrence is, therefore, a prime consideration in sentencing for this offence.” Defence Case Law and Related Materials: [71] Regina v.

Kratky [1997] B.C.J. No. 3167. [72] Regina v. Harding 2002 BCCA 606 , [2002] B.C.J. No. 2502. $600,000.00 theft and fraud over several years. Sentenced to 12 months imprisonment plus a Probation Order for three (3) years. One previous conviction for theft.

[73] Regina v. Bassett [2009] B.C.J. No.654. Accused took $670,000 from family and friends in non-existent investment scheme. Order for compensation of $545,298.00. Sentence of two (2) years plus two (2) year probation order. [74] Regina v. Jamal [2006] B.C.J. No. 3223. Eight (8) charges of fraud $238,981.32 from eight separate clients as investmentadviser. The Court sentenced the accused to three (3) years imprisonment. The aggravating factors were many and the circumstances inmitigation were few. [75] Regina v. Rinehart [2004] B.C.J. No. 2790.

Fraud involving $328,000.00 from employer by a bookkeeper of small family-runbusiness. The monies went to support the accused's gambling. The accused forged cheques and stole cash and the result of the fraudwas the destruction of the business. The crimes took four (4) years to perpetrate and there was a constant pattern of deceit and theft. Thesentence was two and one-half (2 ½) years incarceration. The principle of deterrence and denunciation were paramount. Victim Impact Statements: [76] Donna and Wayne Baron: suffered significant financial loss from the fraud.

The amount of money taken came out of hisparent’s equity in the business built up over a thirty-five (35) year period. The equity was meant to enhance the property andimprovements to the health care facility but the loss prevented the expenditure from being made. The fraud also caused the Baronfamily considerable stress eventually leading to depression. The impact statement clearly outlines the full impact of the accused'scriminality. [77] Peggy Lee: Emotionally devastated and completely betrayed by the accused. She was forced to sell her condominium to makeends meet. Ms.

Lee is now eighty-five (85) years old. [78] Flora Cyr: befriended by the accused shortly after Ms. Cyr’s husband passed. Emotionally devastated and depressed. Thankfulto her family for their support. [79] Cecile Douglas: now a seventy-three (73) year old widow without a great deal of money. Financially burdened by the fraud tothe extent that she has been unable to meet essential expenses. She may have to sell her home as a result of the crime. Emotionally,finds herself unable to know who to trust. [80] Karen Addy: described how she and Ms. Slobbe met and the bond created due to the death of children.

Betrayed and angry withMs. Slobbe [81] Joyce Glover: expresses her anger, sadness, disappointment, frustration and loss of trust. “Judith has hurt and changed the livesof many people….” Conclusion and reasons: [82] R. v. Savard (1996), (QC CA), 109 C.C.C. (3d) 471 (Que. C.A at p. 474.provides the following: “Thefactors which permit one to measure liability of an accused on sentencing, in matters of fraud, were well set out in the decision of ourcourt in R. v. Levesque (1993), (QC CA), 59 Q.A.C. 307 (Que. C.A.).

These facts can be summarized as follows: (1)the nature and extent of the loss, (2) the degree of premeditation found, notably, in the planning and application of a system of fraud, (3)the accused's actions after the commission of the offence, (4) the accused's previous convictions, (5) the personal benefits generated bythe commission of the offences, (6) the authority and trust existing in the relationship between the accused and the victim, as well as (7)the motivation underlying the commission of the offenses”. [83] The accused has clearly demonstrated through her criminal record a cold and calculating disregard for the law.

All of hercriminality involves fraud and false pretences, the one exception a Breach of Probation conviction in Brisbane, Australia in 1988. Hercriminal convictions started in 1971 and, but for a few gaps, continued to the present offences. The criminal behaviour has beendemonstrated in Ontario, Australia and British Columbia. While settled in Australia, she was convicted of fraud and misappropriationcrimes. The sentences imposed for her offences have included fines, probation orders, restitution orders, and jail terms. Ms.

Slobbe’s last recorded conviction was February 3rd 1997 in Port Coquitlam for 2 charges of fraud over $5,000.00. She received a jail sentence ofone (1) year on each charge concurrent, a probation order of three (3) years and a Restitution Order in favour of the victims in theamounts of $76,100.00 and $6,210.00. [84] The charges before this Court fit the same consistent pattern of illegal behaviour throughout her criminal career. In the cases atbar, she again turned to fraud and fraud related crimes.

I will outline the aggravating and mitigating factors shortly but, for now, I willhighlight some events of significance. [85] The “Fraserview” offences cover the period from September 1st 2001 to September 16th 2004. Count # 3 involving Peggy Lee took place between February 1st, 2006 and March 10th, 2006. The ”Port Alberni” offences cover the time frame between April 30th 2007 and August 11th 2009. The “Port Alberni” Information was sworn December 11th 2009. Currying Favour and Due Diligence: [86] The “Fraserview” company suffered losses totalling $712,282.78.

As set forth in the A.S.F., the accused devised and executedvarious schemes to commit the fraud. The company’s officers may not have investigated Ms. Slobbe’s background, for if they had donetheir due diligence prior to her employment, they would likely have discovered that Ms. Slobbe was a criminal. Perhaps her history waschecked and simply missed. Ms. Slobbe might just have “charmed” her new employers, assuaging any concern of her bona fides. This is

best illustrated in that shortly after starting her new position, she “discovered” and brought to the attention of her new employer a mistaken $20,000.00 overpayment. This probably went a considerable distance to cement the trust they eventually bestowed upon her. The pattern of “currying favour”, ingratiating manner and building confidence in new found friends is constant throughout her criminal activities and played a major role in her success in perpetrating these frauds.

There was a pattern of manipulative conduct. “Port Alberni” Offences While “Fraserview” Investigation Continued: [ 87 ] Of significant concern is the fact that the “Port Alberni” charges were committed while Ms. Slobbe was at liberty for the “Fraserview” offences. Ms. Slobbe was fired from her job at the complainant company in September 2004. By January 2005, the police officers had executed search warrants on the Slobbe residence and a storage unit in Coquitlam. Ms. Slobbe and her husband had been arrested and released. Ms. Slobbe knew her assets were frozen by Court order.

The accused was, most certainly, keenly aware of the nature of the “Fraserview” investigation and knew of the exact charges upon the swearing of the “Fraserview” Information. MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES: [ 88 ] The only factors that seem to be applicable in mitigation are the guilty plea and the physical infirmity of the accused. The accused entered a guilty plea on the day set for commencement of a preliminary inquiry. Her first appearance in answer to the “Fraserview” charges was shortly after the swearing of the Information.

Notwithstanding the late plea, she did save the employers and related witnesses the ordeal of appearing at the hearing and revisiting the personal deception and betrayal. [ 89 ] Furthermore, what appears to be the only expression of remorse surfaced in Court immediately after Counsel’s sentencing submissions when the accused turned to her former employers, the Barons, with a brief utterance of regret. This expression of penitence is between six (6) and nine (9) years after her “Fraserview” crimes. Many would say that Ms. Slobbe’s apparent contrition, such as it is, is too little and too late.

Moreover, one has to weigh the sincerity of any apology against the repeated “Port Alberni” transgressions. [ 90 ] There is evidence that the accused suffers from heart disease and other related ailments. I am aware that the health of an accused may be of concern for sentencing purposes and I have taken the same into consideration. I am also cognizant of the matters discussed by Dr. Eaves and the difficulties facing the accused in relation to her daughter’s illness and eventual passing, as well as her husband’s health concerns. AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES: [ 91 ] Since the enactment of

section 718, many cases have expressed, or at least catalogued, various circumstances that contribute to the increase or reduction of sentence pursuant to

section 718.2 (a) [ 92 ] The aggravating circumstances are many. The most significant of these is the breach of trust. The fact that her crimes are a breach of trust is “deemed” to be an aggravating circumstance as mandated by s.718.2 (a)(iii). [ 93 ] The owners of the privately run commercial business, Wayne Baron and Audrey Baron, were elderly. Mrs. Baron was ill and confined as a Lodge resident and Mr. Baron was not actively involved in the business. Their two children, at the time the accused was hired, were not involved in the running of the business to any significant degree.

Within a short time of being hired, the accused saw that she could use these circumstances to her advantage. Ms. Slobbe “was responsible for accounts receivable, including payments from residents, accounts payable, and payroll. She opened incoming mail. Another, part-time bookkeeper was hired who worked under Judith’s direction. “Fraserview” had an outside auditor prepare year-end financial statements and tax returns, but he worked from the documents and information provided by Slobbe” (A.S.F. page 2). [ 94 ] Ms. Slobbe, in each of her areas of responsibility, breached the trust.

For example, she had access to the credit cards issued to the three (3) family members and was responsible for the accounting of business and personal expenses debited to those credit cards. The personal expenditures made by the cardholder would be deducted from the shareholder’s equity and treated as income. She relied on the cardholders not closely scrutinizing their monthly statements directed to the company. In other words, Ms. Slobbe had control of the statements and the owners deferred to Ms. Slobbe to oversee their accounts. [ 95 ] Ms.

Slobbe had the use of the company cheque book and made unauthorized payments to herself, her husband, and a variety of service and goods suppliers. Ms. Slobbe created lies to cover her tracks and provided various explanations to anyone making inquiries for her ability to live a lifestyle not commensurate with her pay grade. She also was able to obtain a credit card in her own name in a fraudulent fashion by using the name of the owner’s wife and posing as a daughter. The card that the accused received was a “secondary card”. Ms.

Slobbe wrote “Fraserview” cheques to pay for the bills run up on the credit card. [ 96 ] The case of John Beamish is illustrative of the accused’s deceitfulness. Ms. Slobbe diverted a number of cash payments made on behalf of Mr. Beamish, an 87-year old resident. Michael Beamish paid the monthly residential fee on behalf of his father, some of it in cash. Ms.

Slobbe, who was responsible for depositing the cash, over a 16-month period failed to deposit the fee payments and diverted the funds to her own use. [ 97 ] The amount of monies taken, the level of sophistication involved in the scheme and the duration of the fraud are all important factors. [ 98 ] The Peggy Lee Count # 3 in the “Fraserview” Information is revealing. She shares similar features with the “Port Alberni” victims. Ms. Lee was eighty-three (83) years old. In 2006, Ms. Slobbe befriended Ms. Lee and defrauded her of funds on the pretext of a loan for an Australian trip (to see Ms.

Slobbe’s gravely ill daughter). Ms. Slobbe promised to repay the loan and issued cheques that were NSF. She lied to Ms. Lee about RRSP funds that were available for the repayment, but Ms. Slobbe knew that her assets had been frozen by a Supreme Court Order, from the “Fraserview” investigation. Ms. Lee reported the fraud in 2006, her loss totalling $7,972.88. There is a similarity in the modus operandi, in the aforesaid Lee count and the “Port Alberni” facts. [ 99 ] Examples of this are found in the case of Flore Cyr, aged 78. Using the common link of a death of a loved one (Cyr a recent

widow and the accused’s daughter recent passing), the accused was able to obtain loans from Cyr. These loans related to an Australian trip, a land and a house plans loan, an electric scooter for Slobbe’s husband, and the needy family loan. The total paid by Cyr to the accused was $18,903.20. None of that money has been recovered. [ 100 ] Another example was the befriending of two sisters, Cecile Douglas (73) and Marie Greissel (77). She initiated the scheme by including them in the adventure of a trip. She played on their good and “giving” nature. The same methods were employed in enticing the unfortunate others.

In each case, the accused used some “angle” to remove monies, usually resorting to far fetched stories. Ms. Slobbe “spun a tale” that she had an art collection selling in Australia for $3.4 million dollars, and for tax avoidance purposes, she needed to borrow from Carrie Patrick and Richard Chernomaz. In short, Ms. Slobbe got $13,000.00 from Ms. Patrick (she took that money to cover the ingratiating car payment for Paul Chrernomaz). Ms. Patrick and Mr. Chernomaz were blinded by the hope of receiving significant amounts from the non-existent art collection sale. Throughout, Ms.

Slobbe played the role of a successful and wealthy woman of the world able to access significant sums of money, but she just needed a little assistance from a friend from time to time. Ms. Slobbe would produce forgeries (Bank Statements or letters) to confirm to her friends and convince them of her trustworthiness. [ 101 ] The “Port Alberni” victims were, in all but a few of the cases, invariably single, elderly and seeking companionship. In the end, they were extremely vulnerable and easy prey. Some were experiencing family losses or other debilitating and stressing situations (suicide, stroke, and death).

The accused exploited those emotional vulnerabilities. [ 102 ] Wealthy would not be a fitting description of the ”Port Alberni” victims. From time to time, the accused became aware of their lack of financial resources, yet this did not stop her from exploiting them. If she could not get large amounts from them, she settled on incremental extractions. [ 103 ] Ms. Slobbe showed her victims neither compassion, nor mercy, nor empathy as she pursued them for more and more money. She lied to them repeatedly and when they questioned any of her actions, she lied again.

The offender wreaked havoc upon her victims emotionally, as vividly expressed in the victim impact statements. The victims will endure the scars of humiliation for the rest of their lives, as they will forever be identified as having been made to look foolish. Their self- esteem, confidence and trust have been undermined. [ 104 ] Ms. Slobbe’s criminal record chronicles her predatory crimes. The record is long and persistent (stretching over a thirty-nine year period) with the most recent conviction following the same pattern of fraud. In large part, I disagree with Mr. Pechet’s characterization of Ms.

Slobbe’s record. She has, in the past, been ordered to pay significant sums of restitution for similar crimes ($4,676 in Australia, $76,100 and $6,210 in B.C., plus she has had lengthy probationary periods). The sentences, I agree, have been lenient but probably so in the hope that reformation was achievable. The crimes themselves though appearing minor in relation to the sentence might well have been serious.

The record is reflective of a criminal disposition that could be described as implacable. [ 105 ] The accused profited handsomely from her criminality and engaged in a lifestyle well beyond the imagination of the victims. The profligate spending is overwhelming. The motive was pure and simple greed. [ 106 ] There has not been any evidence of voluntary financial restitution and the accused has not expressed any intent to make restitution.

The total restitution amount is $758,989.68 [ 107 ] The pattern of criminal behaviour was continual against the same victim until the victim was spent or the fraud was discovered. [ 108 ] Regarding “Fraserview”, the accused consistently abused the trust given her. She did so blatantly, knowing that the owners were relying upon her for oversight. Without consideration of the harm and damage that would result she lied to friends, employers and anyone else who could interrupt her goal. Her duplicity was virtually pathological and her conniving knew no bounds.

It is with these facts that a significant sentence is required which reflects denunciation, general and specific deterrence and protection of the public. [ 109 ] The "Port Alberni" victims were not engaging in a commercial venture hoping for some tidy return on investment. These were “loans” made by vulnerable people to a supposed friend who, in fact, had only one intention, that being, to inveigle and remove as much money as possible from the victim without detection. [ 110 ] One must ask, what were the victims getting out of this? They treated Ms. Slobbe as a dear and trusted friend in need of assistance. Ms.

Slobbe treated them as a “mark” to be exploited to the fullest. The common factor in both "Fraserview" and "Port Alberni” victims was their reliance on the “good faith” of someone who was not a friend or trusted employee but a confidence trickster. [ 111 ] In spite of the continuing “Fraserview” investigation and the strong probability that the truth would be uncovered, she persisted in her treachery.

It is hard to imagine that anyone in the accused’s position would so blatantly and cruelly continue victimizing others when the noose of capture was closing. [ 112 ] The accused was prepared to go to extreme lengths to perpetuate the fraudulent schemes, including committing perjury in judicial proceedings (Count # 12). Ms. Slobbe demonstrated a singular dedication to manipulation and deceit.

She treated the Court as just another “mark”. [ 113 ] The denunciation in this case is simply a societal expression of anger and revulsion for the crimes committed by this accused as she defrauded her employer and her friends. She intended to do so, knowing that her acts could easily result in financial ruin for her victims. What this accused has done is antithetical to social norms and construct that govern social and economic relationships. The community has an interest in ensuring that the social norms are protected and not undermined by the deliberate sabotaging by some inveterate offender, such as Ms.

Slobbe. The moral culpability of this particular offender resides at the higher end of the scale.

[ 114 ] Ms. Slobbe is an offender who has never been specifically deterred by previous convictions, amongst which was her last conviction resulting in incarceration for one (1) year and a lengthy probation order (including restitution). The evidence is undeniable; this accused is an undeterred, chronic recidivist whose criminality is relentless. [ 115 ] This offender requires specific deterrence. The sentence imposed will have sufficient denunciatory effect to uphold public confidence in the administration of justice.

It is evident from past performance that neither deterrence nor attempted reformation has had any effect on Ms. Slobbe and, as a result, this Court will segregate her for a lengthy period in order to protect the public from her criminal proclivities and give full effect to the principles enunciated in

section 718 of the Criminal Code . SENTENCE: [ 116 ] The ranges of sentence as suggested by both counsel are based on the case law from the various provincial appellate courts. To reiterate, the Crown suggested that the accused be sentenced on the “Fraserview” offences to a term of four (4) to five (5) years. The maximum sentence available for Count # 1 is ten (10) years and Count # 3 is fourteen (14) years each.

The Crown has thus said that the range is short of one-half (½) or just at one-half (½) of the maximum sentence. [ 117 ] As for the sentence for ”Port Alberni”, the Crown, bearing in mind the totality principle, suggested that a sentence of two (2) years would be proper, taking the global sentence to six (6) to seven (7) years. [ 118 ] I am satisfied that the suggested two year term for the ”Port Alberni” matters is sufficient for a global sentence result , notwithstanding my conclusion that ”Port Alberni” is sufficiently flagrant that a higher sentence would be imposed had the offences been reversed in time or ”Port Alberni” had stood alone.

The same comment is applicable to Count # 3 on the "Fraserview" offence regarding Peggy Lee. [ 119 ] The Crown range, in my view, does not adequately reflect what occurred in the case at bar. I conclude that the actions of Ms. Slobbe regarding the breach of trust “Fraserview” offences are sufficiently egregious , along with the other aggravating circumstances, to warrant a sentence greater than one-half of the maximum available .

The moral culpability of this offender rests at the higher end of the continuum. [ 120 ] The most significant of the aggravating circumstances that take this sentence beyond the Crown range are: (1) breach of trust, (2) criminal record, (3) lack of remorse, (4) brazen and callous nature of the “Port Alberni” offences and, (5) offender’s high degree of moral culpability. [ 121 ] Support for my conclusion is founded, as above-noted, from the fact Parliament raised the maximum sentence. Clearly, Parliament views crimes of the nature committed by Ms.

Slobbe as warranting a greater punishment than sentences that came before the amendment.

TERMS OF IMPRISONMENT: (a) “Fraserview” offences Count # 1 and Count # 3: [ 122 ] Count # 1 : defrauding “Fraserview” the offender is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of six (6) years with a restitution order for $712,282.78. [ 123 ] Count # 3: defrauding Peggy Lee the offender is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of two (2) years concurrent to count one (1) and a restitution order in the amount of $7,972.88 (b) “Port Alberni” offences Count # 1, Count #2, Count # 3, Count # 5, Count # 9, Count #10, Count # 11, Count # 12, Count # 13, Count # 14, Count # 15, Count # 16. [ 124 ] Count # 1: defrauding Flore Cyr the offender is sentenced to a term of imprisonment for two (2) years and a restitution order for $18,903.20. [ 125 ] Count # 2: defrauding Cecile Douglas the offender is sentenced to a term of imprisonment for two (2) years less 1 day and a restitution order for $3,329.61 [ 126 ] Count # 3: defrauding Marie Griessel the offender is sentenced to a term of imprisonment for two (2) years and a restitution order for $10,861.90 [ 127 ] Count # 5: theft from the Estate of Paul Chernomaz the offender is sentenced to a term of imprisonment for one (1) year and a restitution order for $723.00 [ 128 ] Count # 9: defrauding The Brick Warehouse the offender is sentenced to a term of imprisonment for two (2) years less 1 day and a restitution order for $1,366.31 [ 129 ] Count #10: defrauding Carrie Patrick and Richard Chernomaz, the offender is sentenced to a term of imprisonment for two (2) years. [ 130 ] Count #11: defrauding Peter Novotny the offender is sentenced to a term of imprisonment for two (2) years less 1 day and a restitution order for $1,750.00. [ 131 ] Count #12: perjury count in relation to Terry Holland and Peter Novotny the offender is sentenced to a term of imprisonment for three (3) months.

[ 132 ] Count #13: defrauding Barbara Kelpin the offender is sentenced to a term of imprisonment for two (2) years less 1 day. [ 133 ] Count #14: defrauding Karen Addy the offender is sentenced to a term of imprisonment for two (2) years less 1 day and a restitution order for $300.00. [ 134 ] Count #15: defrauding Joyce Glover the offender is sentenced to a term of imprisonment for two (2) years less 1 day and a restitution order for $1,500.00. [ 135 ] Count #16: forgery of T.D.

Bank Statement the offender is sentenced to a term of imprisonment for one (1) year. [ 136 ] The ”Port Alberni” counts will be served consecutive to the “Fraserview” counts . [ 137 ] All of the ”Port Alberni” counts are concurrent one with the other except perjury Count # 12 which will be served consecutive to the ”Port Alberni” and the “Fraserview” counts . [ 138 ] I credit the accused with having served 124 days in custody .

Notwithstanding the nature of her offences, I credit her with having served the equivalent of eight months in custody in relation to the ”Port Alberni” charges ONLY . [ 139 ] The total sentence that I impose for the “Fraserview” offences is six years and the sentence for the ”Port Alberni” charges is two years consecutive , less credit of eight months time already served on the ”Port Alberni” offences. [ 140 ] Therefore, the sentence is: “Fraserview” six years (72 months) plus ”Port Alberni” 16 months (24 months less 8 months credit = 16 months).”Port Alberni” to be served consecutive to “Fraserview” + three (3) months for the ”Port Alberni” perjury Count # 12 to be served consecutive to the “Fraserview” and ”Port Alberni” counts. • The total in months is 88 months + 3 months consecutive for the ”Port Alberni” perjury Count # 12 • The total in years is seven years and 4 months + 3 months consecutive for the”Port Alberni” perjury Count # 12 GLOBAL SENTENCE: [ 141 ] Seven years and 7 months or a TOTAL of 91 months. _____________________________ R.

D. FRATKIN, P.C.J. APPENDIX “A” AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS File No. 53252 Richmond Registry File No. 32914 Port Alberni Registry IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA

v. JUDITH SLOBBE AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS Richmond Charges Count 1 - FRAUD OF FRASERVIEW INTERMEDIATE CARE LODGE The victim, Fraserview Intermediate Care Lodge Co. Ltd., operates a care facility for the elderly on Williams Road in Richmond. While employed at the Lodge as an office manager, Judith Slobbe, over a three-year period, from September 2001 (shortly after Slobbe began her employment) to September 2004 (when the fraud was discovered), defrauded the business of at least $712,282.78. The accused misappropriated the funds through various schemes, all of which I will outline shortly.

The funds were used to make extravagant purchases, including motor vehicles, jewelry, and travel. Fraserview Intermediate Care Lodge Some background is, I think, necessary to appreciate how Ms. Slobbe was able to take advantage, of both a lack of oversight and a trust she engendered, to commit the offence over a three-year period. Fraserview Intermediate Care Lodge is privately owned. It was founded by husband and wife, Audrey and Steve Baron, and is now owned and operated by their son and daughter, Wayne Baron and Donna Baron.

Both Steve and Audrey Baron have passed away, though the police were able to interview Mr. Baron before he died. Audrey Baron was a nurse by profession and, until the 1990’s, had a very hands-on control of the operation. When she and her husband Steve left Winnipeg for Richmond, to build the lodge in the early 70’s, they were already in their mid-fifties. Over the years, and with their son Wayne’s help, they built up the facility from 24 beds to 68 beds to the 105 bed facility it is today. In the early 90’s, son Wayne and daughter Donna joined their parents as shareholders.

At about the same time, Audrey Baron was diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease; her debilitation was such that she herself became a resident in the Lodge. Donna took over some of her duties, but worked in a back office, away from the accounting office at the front of the Lodge, and left it to her father, despite his advancing years, to maintain responsibility for signing cheques on behalf of Fraserview.

Wayne had cheque-signing authority as well, but as a result of the death of a son by suicide in 1999 and the tremendous emotional impact that caused, he effectively removed himself from an active role in the business. This was the situation into which Judith Slobbe entered when she started looking after accounting aspect of the business in July 2001. Judith Slobbe was responsible for accounts receivable, including payments from residents, accounts payable, and payroll. She opened incoming mail. Another, part-time bookkeeper was hired who worked under Judith’s direction.

Fraserview had an outside auditor prepare year-end financial statements and tax returns, but he worked from the documents and information provided by Slobbe. Finally, as is typical with a case of this sort, Judith Slobbe established a trust early on and cultivated that trust. Within weeks of being hired, she brought an earlier accounting error, involving a $20,000 overpayment, to Donna Baron’s attention, enhancing her credibility. She appeared to be generous with her time and resources.

She claimed she had played the piano for the gospel singer Bill Gaither and shared that interest in Christian music with Steve Baron. As one observer described it, appearing older than her years, she “looked like everybody’s grandmother.” Fraudulent Schemes

As I indicated, Ms Slobbe employed various schemes to defraud her employer. A breakdown of the amounts involved in relation to each scheme are as follows: 1. Unauthorized Issuance of Fraserview Cheques $ 229,436.00 2. Unauthorized Use of Shareholder Credit Card Accounts $ 51.003.18 3. MBNA Mastercard in the Name of Audrey Baron $ 352,826.17 4. Diversion of Resident Cash Payments $ 9,299.20 5.

Use of Landlord’s Credit Card (with Fraserview Payments) $ 69,717.23 Total $ 712,282.78 Before I take you through each of these schemes, I want to make a general comment with respect to those related to the use of credit cards. In addition to numerous expenditures on jewelry and clothing, a number of the expenses relate to trips the Slobbes took. The police were able to relate the expenses to the trips by cross-referencing witness statements, evidence from Canadian Border Security, and Judith Slobbe’s own computer records. In some cases, more than credit card was used in relation to each trip.

Putting it all together, the trips unknowingly financed by Fraserview were: - Nashville in December 2001 - Alaska cruise on Holland America in May 2002 - New York in December 2002 - New York in March 2003 - Ontario in May 2003 - Las Vegas in July 2003 - Palm Springs in October 2003 - England in December 2003 - Australia in April 2004 - Alaska cruise on Royal Caribbean in July 2004 But before I deal with the credit card schemes, the most straightforward scheme was her use of Fraserview cheques to make unauthorized payments to herself, her husband, and various service and goods suppliers.

The Crown theory is that, while Slobbe may have forged Steve Baron’s signature on some of the cheques, for the most

part it is believed that she approached Steve (or in a small number of cases, Wayne) with a blank cheque and asked for his signature, advising him the cheque was for a legitimate Fraserview expense. She started writing these cheques in November 2001. The cheques payable to her husband Ben often contained a reference to work he had done, all of which was bogus. When the part-time bookkeeper asked, she claimed (falsely) he did work for the Barons at their farm in the Valley.

After a series of such cheques to herself or her husband, she started using them to pay for personal items: - over $38,000 at Cartwright Jewelers for jewelry or crystal figurines - over $19,000 for furniture - $20,000 for a (red) 1996 Buick Regal - over $33,000 for a second car, a new (white) Pontiac Grand Am; and - almost $3000 for car repairs More than once with merchants, in order to explain the use of Fraserview cheques, Slobbe claimed she was a shareholder in Fraserview.

Another scheme involved the unauthorized use of shareholder credit card accounts, and this was actually the first of the schemes, starting in September 2001. The four Barons each possessed a Royal Bank Visa. Slobbe looked after payment of the Visa bills with Fraserview cheques. The Barons used the accounts to pay for business expenses, but if used for personal expenses, that amount would come off their shareholder’s equity in the company and be treated as income. The monthly statements were sent to Fraserview and received by Slobbe.

The background I have provided goes some way to explaining the fact that Audrey, Steve and Wayne seldom reviewed their statements, leaving the task to Slobbe. Thus she used those three accounts to fraudulently obtain goods and services. Examples include:

- $2125 to stay at the Opryland in Nashville in November 2001 - Over $1000 for Air Canada tickets in January 2002 - $1888 for an Alaska cruise on Holland America in March 2002 - Over $1200 for Cathay Pacific air fare to New York in January 2003 - $2000 for a vacation package to Las Vegas in June 2003 - a large number of visits to Fashion Addition (a women’s clothing store) - car repairs; and - jewelry A third scheme was this: in June 2002, she fraudulently opened an MBNA Canada Mastercard account in the name of Audrey Baron, and subsequently paid the MBNA bills with Fraserview cheques.

The Crown theory is that Slobbe must have intercepted mail addressed to Audrey Baron and used it to complete a credit card application. We have a copy of the application, ostensibly by Audrey Baron, but naming Judith Slobbe as a daughter who was to be given a secondary card. Thus Judith Slobbe had an MBNA Mastercard in her name, with bills addressed to Audrey Baron at Fraserview Lodge. Slobbe would again receive that mail and use Fraserview cheques to pay MBNA.

We know that all of these credit card expenses were fraudulent, not only because of the obvious lie in the application, but as well, because of her deteriorating health, Audrey Baron was not in a position to use the card, and the credit card in the name of Audrey Baron was recovered by the police in a search of a storage facility held by Slobbe. To best convey to you the enormity of this fraud, I have attached, as Appendix A, a copy of the application and credit card bills, the transactions of which run from July 2002 to September 2004.

You will find, again, numerous expenditures involving clothing, travel, jewelry, along with other goods and services.

Just picking those transactions that were a $1000 or more, we have: - Fashion Addition (x 3) - Shellan Jewelers in Washington State (x 2) - The Holiday Network - Ann Louise Jewelers (x 5) - Cartwright Jewelers - A Bowflex exercise machine from Belko Canada - Electrolux - Royal City Jewelers - Waldorf Astoria Hotel in New York in April 2003 (a second visit, as she had already used the card to stay there at Christmas of 2002) – at the same time, she made thousands of dollars worth of purchases at several high-end stores such as Macy’s and Bloomingdale’s - The Bombay Company in Langley - ICBC (x 2) - The Lodge at Rancho Mirage, California - The Mayfair Hotel in London, England - Thrifty Car Rentals in Australia - The Carlton Crest Hotel and Quilpie Opals, a jewelry store, both in Brisbane - Apparently part of the Alaska Cruise, Serenade of the Seas (Royal Caribbean) In the Spring of 2004, she gave MBNA a change of address and had the statements go to her residence – we believe, in order to prevent Fraserview management from discovering the scheme during her absence in Australia.

A fourth and smaller part of the fraud involved Slobbe diverting a number of cash payments made on behalf of one of the residents. Residents paid a daily rate for the cost of staying at the Lodge. Judith Slobbe’s duties included receiving the funds and depositing them into the general account. John Beamish was an 87 year old resident, and his son Michael paid the monthly fee on behalf of his father. Part of those payments was made in cash. After the larger fraud came to light, it was discovered that, over a 16 month period, Slobbe

had failed to deposit the cash payments and diverted the funds to her own use. Finally, in the last several months of her employment, a fifth and rather involved scheme impacted not only Fraserview but her landlord: she used her landlord’s credit card and paid her back with Fraserview cheques. Let me explain. Judith and Ben Slobbe rented their Burnaby residence from an elderly couple of Italian heritage, Bruna and Aldo Brizzi, and the two couples became friends.

Slobbe persuaded Bruna Brizzi to let her use Bruna’s credit card with the following reasoning: they talked of travelling to Italy together; Judith was able to go on points; but Bruna did not have the points to do so, but would if Judith used the credit card and paid her back. With one exception, which I will come to, she did pay her back on a monthly basis, and, you guessed it, she did so with fraudulently issued Fraserview cheques.

And what is worth noting in this case, the cheques were made payable to Visa, and so it is quite conceivable that Steve Baron signed the cheques thinking they were going to pay the shareholder Visa accounts. Slobbe first used the Brizzi credit card in this fashion in March 2004 to purchase over $14,000 worth of airline tickets for the Slobbes to fly first class to Australia for the wedding of the their daughter. Next, when the two couples were travelling together on Vancouver Island, Slobbe used Bruna Brizzi’s credit card at two shops at the Empress Hotel, to the tune of about $14,000.

Subsequent expenses included Qantas Airways tickets for her daughter’s Australian in-laws, the Alaska cruise on Royal Caribbean, and almost $24,000 worth of jewelry and figurines at various ports of call. Back at home, Slobbe made other purchases using the Brizzi credit card account, some without Bruna Brizzi’s knowledge.

Every month, though, Slobbe used the Fraserview cheques to pay down the account, that is, until the fraud was discovered in late September 2004, at which time Fraserview put a stop payment on the last cheque of $10,250, and thus the Brizzis ended up being out of pocket in relation to the last set of expenditures. Despite the Brizzis’ request, Slobbe never paid them back. Other Evidence It is worth mentioning other evidence that came to light through police interviews. There were a couple of ways in which Slobbe explained her expensive spending habits.

She told friends and fellow employees that her husband had a healthy pension. It seems clear that Judith Slobbe liked to gamble, and oft-times she explained away her expenditures by claiming she had made money at the casinos. She claimed she was always making money gambling, so much so that it paid for her trips. Part of Judith Slobbe’s modus operandi was to win favour by an apparent generosity, showering friends with gifts, gifts we find, after the fact, purchased fraudulently.

Starting with the shopping trip to New York in the Fall of 2001, and through to Nashville, London and the Alaska cruise, she would bring back $100 or 200 worth of souvenirs each for friends and co-workers. Supposedly on her own time, she worked at home on banners and print jobs for the Lodge, only Fraserview was to find out later that, in fact, the shareholder credit card accounts were used to pay Colorama Printing for the work.

One final example of extravagant expenditures: in June 2003, Slobbe withdrew $8500 from her bank account to purchase a private collection limited edition Swarovski crystal called “Wild Horse” from Cartwright Jewelers, later pawned by Slobbe in December 2004. One acquaintance described going into her home in this time period in these terms: “I thought I was walking into Birks jewelry store” with “cabinet upon cabinet full of expensive figurines.” Discovery and Police Investigation By 2004 Wayne Baron had become more involved in the business.

He started to take issue with sloppy accounting practices, specifically, the signing of blank cheques or the fact that Judith seldom provided supporting invoices to justify a cheque. In March 2004, the external auditor informed Wayne and Steve Baron that they owed $70,000 and $60,000, respectively, in personal taxes, something which came as a shock. Wayne started asking Judith Slobbe for Fraserview’s financial statements, but Slobbe always found an excuse to postpone their provision. In the Spring of 2004, a box of pertaining to accounts payable went missing. It included the shareholder visa account statements.

The box was later recovered by the police from the Slobbe residence, and the belief is she deliberately took them in order to prevent the auditor from discovering the fraud.

Finally, with Slobbe off sick, Wayne Baron obtained what he could from the other bookkeeper, and, in September 2004, attended the auditor’s office to meticulously review the finances, especially the inexplicably high level of shareholder expenditures. Both men then discovered the unauthorized cheques and realized Judith Slobbe was responsible for a fraud well in excess of a quarter of a million dollars. Within days they reported the matter to the Richmond RCMP and commenced a civil action and obtained a freeze on Slobbe’s assets. Cst. Ben Maure of the Economic Crime

Section of the Richmond Detachment conducted an extensive investigation in the ensuing three years. After the first few months of interviewing witnesses and gathering evidence, they started conducting surveillance at the Slobbe residence in Burnaby. They followed her to a storage facility in Port Coquitlam. She was observed disposing of a figurine at a pawn shop in breach of the Supreme Court Order freezing the assets. She then entered the Gateway Casino to play the slot machines.

On January 27, 2005, the RCMP executed three search warrants: at the Slobbe residence, at the Port Coquitlam storage unit, and at the Brizzi residence. Mr. And Mrs. Slobbe were arrested and later released. The Pontiac Grand Am and the Buick Regal were seized (and subsequently, through Court Order, transferred to Fraserview Lodge for resale). A large number of items were seized from the Slobbe residence and the storage facility. The latter contained a large number of crystal and ceramic figurines. I will say more about the items seized when I deal with a forfeiture application toward the end of my submissions.

Given the size of this file, considerable time was taken deciphering and organizing documents. An analysis was done of Slobbe’s computer hard drive. A forensic accounting report was prepared. The Information was sworn on May 1, 2008, and of course you are aware that the plea was entered October 2009, on a date scheduled for the Preliminary Inquiry. Count 3 - PEGGY LEE Count 3 is an unrelated fraud that occurred in 2006 as the police investigated the Fraserview offence. At the time of the offence, Peggy Lee was 83 years old. They had met at the Vancouver Hair Salon in 2001.

In late February 2006, Slobbe called Peggy Lee and told her that her daughter was gravely ill in Australia (and I should interject at this stage to advise that the Slobbes’ daughter did become ill with cancer and ultimately passed away). Following the telephone call, Slobbe attended Mrs. Lee’s residence with pictures of her daughter and asked Mrs. Lee if she could help her financially by lending her money to go to Australia to see her daughter. Even though Mrs. Lee was in financial difficulty herself, she withdrew $400 from her bank and gave it to Slobbe.

Judith Slobbe then issued her a cheque in that amount, and Lee deposited it into her account. Then Slobbe convinced Mrs. Lee to attend Sears travel agency in Metrotown and pay over $3000 for air travel so the Slobbes could travel to Australia to see their daughter. Mrs. Lee used her Sears credit card to pay for the flights. Slobbe told Mrs.

[…]