2020 QCCQ 2229, 2020 QCCQ 2229

R. c. Chandroo 2020 QCCQ 2229 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL Criminal Division No: 500-01-166446-184 505-01-106240-126 505-01-106241-124 DATE: June 18, 2020 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE SALVATORE MASCIA, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ The Queen Prosecutrix v.

Richard Chandroo Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ Overview [ 1 ] In the early 1900’s, George Parker sold unsuspecting tourists deeds to New York City landmarks, like Madison Square Garden, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and the Statue of Liberty. He even sold the Brooklyn Bridge twice a week for several years. [ 2 ] In the case at bar, the accused, Mr. Richard Chandroo, is not charged with having sold any of Montreal’s landmarks to unwary tourists.

No one has been duped into buying the Jacques Cartier Bridge with a view of collecting tolls from passing motorists.

But not unlike the shenanigans of George Parker who sold the same bill of goods several times over, the accused in the present matter managed to convince one complainant after another to lend him money on the promise that they would be repaid as soon as he received his inheritance from his late grandfather’s estate. [1] To reassure the complainants that he would soon be coming into money, he showed them all a copy of his grandfather’s will which entitled him to a 25% share of an estate valued at 2.6 million dollars.

Some of the complainants were even given a copy of the will. [ 3 ] As the evidence will show, there was no issue concerning the authenticity of the will or the accused right to a 25% share in the liquidated assets of the estate. There was, however, one major problem: the estate was liquidated several years earlier (November 2002). Conveniently, none of the complainants were told that the properties mentioned in the inventory of assets had been sold and that the proceeds therefrom had already been distributed to the rightful beneficiaries, including the accused for his 25% share of the estate.

On the contrary, they were all led to believe that the assets still existed or that they were on the verge of being sold. They even received reassuring letters—purportedly drafted by the executor of the will (the accused’s uncle living in California, Mr. Teddy Chandroo)— indicating that the estate will soon be liquidated and that they will be promptly reimbursed for all sums lent to the accused. The evidence, however, will show that Mr. Teddy Chandroo never drafted the said letters. [ 4 ] The complainants also received telephone calls from someone purporting to be Teddy Chandroo.

Here, again, the purpose of the calls was to allay any qualms the complainants may have had with regards to the authenticity of the will, the value of the estate and the accused’s claim that he will soon be coming into money. The voice of the man purporting to be Teddy Chandroo even assured them that his nephew was an honest fellow and that they will soon be getting their money back.

The evidence, however, clearly establishes that the real Teddy Chandroo never called the complainants. [ 5 ] For one reason or another, the liquidation of the supposed assets of the estate (and the remittance of the accused’s share therein) was constantly delayed. In letters purportedly drafted by lawyers in California and Trinidad and Tobago, the complainants were informed that additional sums of money were needed to disburse the costs of liquidating the estate. Likewise, in letters purportedly drafted by Teddy Chandroo, requests were made for additional sums to defray the costs of the estate.

In all cases, the letters indicated that the proceeds of the estate would be distributed without undue delay upon payment of the additional costs. Time and again, the complainants dished out

more and more money in the hope that a simple payment of estate taxes or costs could speed up the liquidation of the estate and the eventual reimbursement of the money that they lent to the accused. In the end, none of them got a penny back from an estate liquidated and settled several years ago. [ 6 ] Another delaying tactic—and an excuse to borrow more money from the complainants—consisted in the accused telling the complainants that his uncle had «become hostile» and that he would now have to sue to get his money back.

Court action in California (the residence of his uncle) would require hiring an American attorney. Of course, money would be needed to retain counsel. They were told time and again that if they didn’t give him more money they would lose the chance of recovering the money they had already lent the accused.

Feeling that they had no choice, the complainants once again poured more good money after bad money. [ 7 ] Though the accused received a substantial sum of money from the complainants (between $200,000 and $250,000 by his own admission) to sue his uncle, there is scant evidence of his willingness to institute and follow through with legal proceedings. At best, the evidence shows that he contacted several lawyers in the state of California and collected several fee-retainer agreements.

One suit that he launched in 2009 in the state of California was based on a promissory note of $500 000 purportedly signed by his uncle, Teddy Chandroo. From the latter’s evidence, however, the promissory note was fraudulent and the suit was dismissed when the accused (plaintiff in the civil proceedings) failed to appear twice. [ 8 ] In his defence, the accused denies having drafted any of the letters denounced as forgeries (i.e. those purportedly written by his uncle and by attorneys in California and Trinidad and Tobago).

Likewise, he denied any involvement in the phony calls made to the complainants reassuring them that the estate will soon be liquidated and that all sums they lent to the accused will be promptly reimbursed to them. [ 9 ] In essence, his defence is one of good faith. He never misrepresented the nature of the will to any one of the complainants. Admittedly, he received certain proceeds from the sale of two properties belonging to his grandfather’s estate back in November 2002. However, the proceeds therefrom constituted only partial payment of his share of the estate.

He sincerely believed that his grandfather’s legacy included additional properties (immoveables, money and shares) not specifically listed in the will or in the inventory of assets. He also believed that his uncle was holding out on him, hiding the complete assets of the estate and shirking from his responsibilities as executor of the will. The complainants knew that he had to sue his uncle in California in order to recover the sums rightfully owing to him. Thus, he borrowed money from the complainants in order to finance his civil suit.

According to the accused, all the complainants knew that there was no guarantee that the proceedings would be successful. [ 10 ] In his «good faith» defence, the accused insisted that it was always his intention to pay back the complainants once he recovered his full and rightful share of his inheritance. He also believed that he had a case to claim damages against his uncle for failing to carry out his duties as an executor of the estate (breach of fiduciary trust). Sums recovered from the said action would also serve to reimburse the complainants. [ 11 ] It should be noted that for one of the complainants—Mr.

Nikola Rajcic—the accused denied ever having borrowed money on the promise to reimburse him upon the liquidation of his grandfather’s estate. Instead, the complainant lent money to the accused’s business (buying and selling of memorabilia) and as an investment in what the accused called his « mind-blowing » and « secret project. » With some reluctance on his part, the accused revealed that his secret project was a scale model of the Pierre-Elliott-Trudeau International Airport, complete with terminals, a tarmac and moving miniature planes. Unique in its kind, people would buy tickets just to see it.

He even brought a picture of the model airport which was filed in the Court record. [2] [ 12 ] He added that Mr. Rajcic was so impressed by the project that he lent him circa $100,000 towards its completion. [3] The complainant would make his money back and more from the expected ticket sales once the project was completed and open to the public. [ 13 ] In short, the money borrowed from Mr. Rajcic was purely a business transaction that had nothing to do with a supposed « inheritance scheme ».

As no promises or representations were made based on the said scheme, no criminal liability could be attached to the actions of the accused. No scheme, no liability. [ 14 ] Moreover, the accused added that the money he received did not even come from Mr. Rajcic, but from a professional lender named Petaki. [4] As we shall see, the accused offered a convoluted and confusing explanation in which Mr. Rajcic merely acted as the intermediary of Mr. Petaki. The latter was never called as a witness by the accused. [ 15 ] The evidence from Mr.

Rajcic, a man in his early 80s at the time of his testimony, however, makes no mention of having lent money to help the accused with his business operations. Nor did he mention a single word about investing tens of thousands of dollars in the accused’s «mind-blowing» and «secret» project. In the same vein, there is nary a hint that he acted as an intermediary between the lender (Mr. Petaki) and the borrower (the accused).

For that matter, he was never cross-examined on any of these issues by defence counsel. [5] These issues were only raised for the first time in the testimony of the accused. [ 16 ] There was also a great discrepancy between the accused and Mr. Rajcic with regards to the sums borrowed. While the latter claimed that he borrowed between 80,000 and 100,000 thousand dollars, the former pegs the debt owed to him at CAD 843,000. [ 17 ] In a later part of this judgment, the respective positions of the accused and the Crown will be more fully laid out.

Overview of the charges [ 18 ] Richard Chandroo is accused of fraud (380(1)

a) of the Criminal Code ) and false pretences (362(1)c)3) and 362(1)

d) of the Criminal Code ) in three different indictments that were tried together. One of the indictments in which Mr. Nikola Rajcic is a complainant also includes a count of extortion (346(1)(1.1)b of the Criminal Code . What follows is a rundown of the specific charges in each of the three separate indictments: File nu. 500-01-166446: Fraud exceeding $5,000 (plaintiff: Mr. Nikola rajcic)

1) Between January 25, 2012, and November 19, 2012, in Montreal did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means defraud Nikola Rajcic of a sum of money , of a value exceeding 5000,00$, committing thereby the indictable offence provided by section 380(1)

a) of the Criminal Code . 2) Between November 20, 2012, and May 19, 2017, in Montreal, did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means defraud Nikola Rajcic of a sum of money, of a value exceeding 5000,00$, committing thereby the indictable offence provided by section 380(1) of the Criminal Code . 3) Between January 25, 2012, and May 19, 2017, in Montreal, district of Montreal, without reasonable justification or excuse and with intent to obtain anything, did induce or attempt to induce Nikola Rajcic by threats, accusations, menaces or violence to or cause to be done something, to wit, give him a sum of money, committing thereby the indictable offence provided by

section 346 (1.1b) of the Criminal Code File nu. 500-01-195621-195: False pretences (complainants: Mr. Samuel Daniels, Thelma Daniels and Mr.

James Andrews) 1) Between December 10, 2007, and January 1, 2009, in Longueuil, did make or cause to be made a false statement in writing with intent that it should be relied on, with respect to his financial condition, means or ability to pay for the purpose of procuring in order to get a loan from James Andrews, committing thereby the indictable offence provided by section 362(1)c)3) of the Criminal Code 2) Between December 10, 2007, and January 1, 2009, in Longueuil, knowing that a false statement in writing has been made with respect to his financial condition, means or ability to pay, did procure, on the faith of that statement, for his benefit in order to get a loan from James Andrews, committing thereby the indictable offence provided by section 362(1) of the Criinal Code 3) Between April 1, 2008, and September 3, 2008, in Longueuil, did make or cause to be made a false statement in writing with intent that it should be relined on, with respect to his financial condition, means or ability to pay for the purposes of procuring in order to get a loan from Samuel and Thelma Daniels, committing thereby the indictable offence provided by

section 362 of the Criminal code File nu. 500-01-195622-193: Fraud exceeding 5000$ (complainants: Mr. and Mrs. Daniels and Mr. Andrews) 1) Between April 1, 2008, and September 3, 2008, in Longueuil, did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means defraud Samuel Daniels and Thelma Daniels, of a value exceeding 5000,00$, committing thereby the indictable offence provided by section 380(1)

a) of the Criminal Code 2) Between December 10, 2007, and January 1, 2009, in Longueuil, did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means defraud James Andrews, of a value exceeding 5000,00$ committing thereby the indictable offence provided by section 380(1)

a) of the Criminal Code . —Some remarks concerning the charges laid in Longueuil and the decision of the Court of Appeal ordering a new trial [ 19 ] The two indictments involving the Daniels and Mr. Andrews are before the Court a second time around. At the first trial, held in the judicial district of Longueuil, the accused was found guilty on February 19, 2016, on four counts of false pretences and two counts of fraud.

On February 20, 2017, he was sentenced to a prison term of 18 months. [ 20 ] The accused appealed the trial judge’s decision arguing (among other things) an error in the application of the «rule» in Browne v . Dunn. [6] More particularly, the accused at the first trial testified that he believed he would inherit unliquidated assets and began to say that this belief was founded on various postal communications that he had allegedly received from his uncle. The uncle, however, had testified for the prosecution by videoconference but was not examined or cross-examined on these alleged communications.

The prosecution objected to the admissibility of testimony by the accused concerning such communications. [7] The objection was not contested by the defence and it was sustained by the trial judge without further discussion of alternative remedies for the breach of Browne v .

Dunn . [8] Writing for a unanimous court, Justice Patrick Healy concluded that the trial judge’s decision on the objection affected the fairness of the trial by preventing the accused from tendering evidence to support his claim that he was expecting to inherit unliquidated assets from his grandfather’s estate: [20] The judge’s decision on this objection substantially impaired the ability of the defence to advance a central claim in its theory of the case. This ground of appeal must be allowed and there must be a new trial in the two files.

Even if counsel for the appellant made no representations in response to the prosecution’s objection, and now makes no suggestion of incompetence, the appellant was barred from presenting his theory of the defence. There is no indication whether his counsel acted deliberately or by inadvertence in this regard, and in such circumstances the appellant cannot be forced to bear the consequences of his lawyer’s failure to make representations concerning the breach of the principle in Browne v . Dunn .

He was entitled to make full answer and defence. (References omitted) [ 21 ] At paragraph 21 of the decision, Justice Healy provided a helpful

summary of the options open to a trial judge when confronted with a breach of the principle in Browne v. Dunn: While an appropriate remedy for a breach of the principle in Browne v. Dunn lies within the discretion of the trial judge, the most preferable remedy is one that will cause the least prejudice to the parties. There can be no fixed rule in this respect but some general observations can be made. First, trial judges should raise with the parties any apprehended breach of the principle even if no formal objection is raised by the opposing party.

Second, if a breach is found, the trial judge should discuss the issue and possible remedies with the parties [*] and, obviously, in a trial by jury this discussion should take place in the absence of the jury. Third, the most appropriate remedy will be the one that best corrects the effect of the omission by the party in breach. In most instances that remedy will likely be to recall the witness who was not confronted in cross-examination.

Otherwise the judge would be prudent to allow the party in breach to proceed but with a strong caution that the trier of fact will be instructed to consider the breach in the assessment of the evidence. Only in

exceptional cases should the party in breach be prohibited from the presentation of its case [...] [ 22 ] Normally, I would have reviewed the Court of Appeal’s decision in Chandroo regarding the application of the Browne v. Dunn «rule» in a later

section of my decision. I simply seized the opportunity to highlight the fact that before the trial even began in the present matter, I explained (on the urging of Crown counsel) to the self-represented accused the basic principles of Browne v. Dunne . Crown counsel even added further explanations to make sure the accused understood the said principles as well as the consequences for ignoring breaches in the Browne v. Dunne «rule». [ 23 ] In response to explanations proffered both by myself and Crown counsel, the accused replied that he was quite familiar with the principles set out in Browne v. Dunne.

He proudly added that it was thanks to Browne v. Dunn that he won his case at the Court of Appeal. [9] As we shall see in the review of the evidence, the case is replete with Browne v. Dunn violations. Time and again, the accused failed to cross-examine witnesses on matters brought up only in the course of his own testimony. Though afforded the opportunity to recall Crown witnesses, he chose not to do so. [ 24 ] The decision of the Court of Appeal in Chandroo, supra, is not a licence to ignore the Browne v. Dunn principle.

It would certainly have been preferable for the accused to put his case to the witnesses before leading contradictory testimony in his own defence. In the middle of the proceedings, Crown counsel mentioned that the accused’s conduct of the trial could be seen as a deliberate effort made in bad faith to circumvent the principles in Browne v . Dunn . In such a case, a court was entitled to apply the most drastic of remedies—prohibit the accused from the presentation of his case.

However, for the sake of avoiding a possible ground of appeal, the Crown conceded that the more prudent course to take was to consider the breaches only on the issue of the accused’s credibility. I agreed with the Crown. Failure to comply with the Browne v. Dunn «rule» will be limited to the assessment of the evidence. —The charges in the similar fact evidence [ 25 ] The case against the accused also included similar fact evidence drawn from another file in which he was charged with one count of fraud and two counts pertaining to the use of a forged document. [10] The victim in that case was Mr. Meir Rabkin.

The charges against the accused overlapped a portion of the period covered by the charges in the three indictments in the present matter and stem from August 2007 to December 2009. Like the cases before the Court, Mr. Rabkin was also persuaded to lend the accused a significant amount of money on the promise that he would be paid back as soon as he (the accused) received his inheritance from his grandfather’s estate.

Not unlike the other complainants, he too was given reassurances in the form of letters from Teddy Chandroo and attorneys to the effect that the estate would be liquidated soon and that the sums owing to the beneficiary would also be distributed without undue delay. The letters were all fake. Likewise, he received calls from the same host of characters making similar promises with regards to the quick settlement of the estate.

The calls were also fake—that is, made by a person or persons impersonating the uncle of the accused or attorneys busy with the liquidation of the estate. [ 26 ] On January 23, 2019, my colleague, Justice Robert Marchi found the accused guilty on one count of fraud and on one count of using or having acted on a forged document. He was sentenced to a prison term of 15 months on November 7, 2019.

The case is presently under appeal and the accused was granted bail pending the outcome of the Court’s ruling. [ 27 ] Later on in this decision, I will review in detail the similar fact evidence and its relevance to the three indictments before the Court. Detailed position of the parties Position of the Crown [ 28 ] As could be expected, the Crown’s case highlighted the credibility and reliability of the complainant's testimony. In point form, the arguments buttressing the complainants’ credibility could be summed up as follows: • Little or no contradiction in their testimony.

The complainants in the three indictments delivered an honest and credible account of the facts. There were little if any contradictions in their respective testimonies. In essence, they were all persuaded to lend money to the accused on the assurance that they would be paid back upon the pending liquidation of his grandfather’s estate. Though swindled of important sums of money, nothing in their testimony suggested they were exaggerating or distorting the events. • Paper trail All the complainants had a paper trail corroborating the sums lent to the accused.

More importantly, the accused himself signed documents or papers attesting to the fact that he would reimburse the complaints of all sums received from them upon the liquidation of his grandfather’s estate. • Similar fact evidence The Crown pointed to the sheer improbability that all of the complainants in the three indictments and Mr. Meir Rabkin (the victim in the similar fact dossier) would have concocted a similar tale of the manner in which they were hoodwinked by the accused. There was no evidence of collusion among the complainants (in the present matter) and Mr. Rabkin. Aside from the Daniels and Mr.

Andrews, the complainants and Mr. Rabkin did not know each other. [ 29 ] As could be expected, the Crown’s case dismissed the accused’s version of the evidence as contradictory, improbable and totally lacking in credibility. In the face of overwhelming evidence, all he could do was spin one improbable and convoluted explanation after another. In point form, the Crown’s arguments dismissing the accused testimony may be summed up as follows:

• Documentary evidence emanating from the accused Documents signed by the accused establish without a doubt that he conned the complainants into lending him money based on the promise that they would all be repaid as soon as the estate was liquidated. • Documentary evidence that the main properties mentioned in the will or in the inventory of assets were liquidated several years earlier In his defence, the accused admitted to having received proceeds from the sale of the two properties mentioned in his grandfather’s will.

More particularly, in November 2002, his share of the liquidated assets came to about Can$140,795. He claimed, however, that the said sum was merely an advance on properties that still existed and that had yet to be liquidated. However, in his representations to the complainants he never mentioned that the estate was already liquidated and that he had received his share of the properties mentioned in the will. The ruse is compounded by the fact that in his dealing with the complainants and with Mr. Rabkin, he indicated that these properties were still part of the unliquidated estate of his grandfather.

The mere fact that he misrepresented the possible assets of the estate constitutes in and of itself a fraud. • The impersonation of Teddy Chandroo and attorneys in California and Trinidad and Tobago As mentioned earlier, the complainants received a series of forged documents from persons purporting to be the uncle of the accused and individuals impersonating attorneys supposedly involved with the liquidation of the estate in California and in Trinidad and Tobago.

Obviously, the purpose of the façade was to reassure the complainants that the estate would soon be liquidated and that the accused would soon receive his share of the proceeds. The said documents and phone calls were usually followed by requests for additional sums of money to resolve the various difficulties that were delaying the prompt settlement of the estate. The accused denied being behind the forged documents and fake calls. However, logic dictates that the only person who had an interest in coaxing the complainants to lend more money was the accused. Who else would benefit from such a ruse?

If he didn’t forge the documents himself, he certainly had a hand in their creation. At the very least, he knew that the documents were fake and persuaded others to act on them. Likewise if he wasn’t the one behind the fake voices impersonating his uncle (Teddy Chandroo) and the attorneys purportedly working on the liquidation of the estate, he certainly had a hand in the sting. • Browne v. Dunn breaches In the course of his testimony, the accused introduced several issues which were not put to the Crown’s witnesses in cross-examination.

Pleading that the breaches were on matters of substance, the Crown requested that I draw an adverse inference on the credibility of the accused. [ 30 ] In the course of the trial, the accused made several statements with respect to his honest belief that the estate held more assets than the two properties sold upon the liquidation of the estate in November 2002. Confident that he would eventually receive his fair share of the estate’s remaining assets, he would have reimbursed all the individuals (complainants) who helped him out.

In the mind of the accused, he did nothing that was morally wrong. [ 31 ] In his testimony, he explained his two-pronged approach to recovering what was owed to him: (

i) institute legal proceedings to uncover the remaining assets of the estate; and (ii) institute an action in damages against his uncle for failure in his duties as an executor of the estate (breach of fiduciary trust). Given his appreciation of the facts (supposedly gleaned from his own research and from what was told to him by supposed professionals), he was optimistic in his chances of success. [ 32 ] Of course, the Crown asked that I dismiss any pretence made by the accused regarding the reasonableness, let alone the sincerity, of his belief that more assets could be squeezed out of the estate.

Likewise, all claims by the accused regarding the morality, feasibility and chances of successfully recovering additional assets from the estate had to be dismissed for want of credibility.

This being said, the Crown (arguing for the sake of argument only) pointed out that the personal feelings of the accused with regard to the morality or honesty of the act or its consequences is no more relevant to the analysis than is the conscience of the accused that his actions constitute a criminal offence. [11] A person who deprives another person of what the latter has should not escape criminal responsibility merely because, according to his moral or her personal code, he or she was doing nothing wrong or because of a sanguine belief that all will come out right in the end. [12] [ 33 ] The analysis focuses on whether the accused subjectively appreciated that certain consequences result from his action, not if he believed that his actions or their consequences were moral. [13] From the actions of the accused, one could easily infer that he was subjectively aware of the consequences of his actions.

Position of the accused [ 34 ] As mentioned in an earlier chapter, the focus of the accused’s defence lay in the claim that he reasonably and honestly believed that his grandfather’s estate was not fully liquidated in November 2002 and that additional sums were still owing to him. [ 35 ] Unfortunately, the executor of the estate, his uncle, was less than cooperative and hid or appropriated for himself assets (immoveables, cash or investment titles) that should have been split among all the beneficiaries. To get his just share of the estate, he borrowed money from three of the complainants (The Daniels and Mr.

Andrews) in order to institute court proceedings against his uncle in California). [14] He insisted that all the complainants (including Mr. Meir Rabkin in the similar fact file) were aware of the risks and that there was no guarantee that they would get their money back. [ 36 ] In his testimony, he referred to the $140,795 he received in November 2002 as merely an «advance» or a partial payment on his share of the estate. Noting that his «grandfather was not popper», he felt confident that the estate had additional assets. The grounds

advanced by the accused to justify the reasonableness of his belief that the estate was not totally liquidated and that he was entitled to additional sums may be summed up as follows: • He received funds from the estate that were not mentioned in the will From the testimony of Mr. Teddy Chandroo, the uncle of the accused and the executor of the estate, we learned that the decedent had circa Can$105 000 in an account at the Bank of Nova Scotia in Toronto.

Prior to the liquidation of the estate in November 2002, he remitted to the accused a 1/3 share of the said money, approximately Can$ 35 000. [15] The will, however, made no mention of any monies held in a bank account anywhere. A short time after the liquidation of the estate, $30,000 was found in a security box held by the decedent in a Trinidadian bank.

After subtracting the sum of $6,000 that went into the costs of probating the will and other related expenses, the executor of the will forwarded to the accused the sum of$ 6 000. [16] Once again, the decedent’s will made no reference to money tucked away in a security box. • Admissions from his uncle The accused claimed that he had several conversations with his uncle in which the latter admitted that the assets of the estate were not totally liquidated and that additional sums were forthcoming. [17] • The hearsay information from his aunt In a meeting with his Aunt Rosario, who came to Montreal on a short visit from California in 2005, she informed him that his uncle had received 10 or 15 million dollars from the estate—considerably more than the four or five hundred thousand dollars from the assets that were liquidated in November 2002.

She advised him to get his share of the money from his uncle and to do it in «a civil manner». He had no reason to doubt her words. [18] • Acted on the advice of his attorneys In his testimony, the accused stated that the information given to him by various attorneys in Montreal and in California led him to believe that his grandfather’s estate held additional properties.

At the very least, he was told that he had valid cause for an action in damages against his uncle for the negligent manner in which he carried out his duties as executor of the estate (breach of fiduciary trust). [19] • Contacted attorneys in California with a view of instituting proceedings against his uncle Along with three attorneys in Montreal, the accused had also dealt with several lawyers in California in order to recover his fair share of the estate.

In the process of finding the right lawyer for his needs (one with expertise in estate law and willing to work on a contingency basis), he received close to twenty retainer propositions. From the perspective of the accused, it corroborates the claim that he genuinely believed that his uncle was not being honest with him when claiming that there were no more assets other than those mentioned in the inventory.

After all, why bother communicating with so many attorneys if one didn’t genuinely believe in the righteousness of his cause? [20] • New information garnered by Norman Burnash In his testimony, the accused explained that he enlisted the services of an individual named Norman Burnash to help him in recovering his fair share of the estate. According to the accused, Mr. Burnash discovered new information corroborating the view that other properties were still held by the estate. The accused was especially impressed by the fact that Mr.

Burnash was able to get a new copy of his grandfather’s will. [21] The accused went on to explain how he was buoyed by the enthusiasm, persistence and confidence of Mr. Burnash to continue fighting for what was rightfully his. In the words of the accused, «he believed in it more than me. » The accused also stated that he relied on the experience and knowhow of Mr. Burnash. [22] • Mr. Burnash the fall guy The accused never denied having received money from the Daniels and Mr. Andrews in order to recover his just share of the estate. He maintained, however, that he handed the money over to Mr.

Burnash, his representative. More particularly, the money was requested by Mr. Burnash in order to help him sleuth around looking for all the hidden properties or assets still held by the estate. Mr. Burnash was also tagged with the task of retaining counsel in California in order to sue Mr. Teddy Chandroo. By this line of defence, the accused was implying that Mr. Burnash somehow squandered or mismanaged the funds that were handed to him. Conversely, the accused was suggesting that he (the accused) did not misappropriate the funds for his own personal use.

On the contrary, the money he collected from the complainants was dutifully handed over to his representative for the single purpose of resolving the ongoing estate issues. • The moral high ground To boost his credibility and to appear sincere in his drawn-out crusade to uncover the estate’s additional assets, the accused maintained that « it was never about the money ». His stated purpose was to honour his grandfather’s «legacy». More particularly, his grandfather was in the export-import business in Trinidad and Tobago and acted as a salesman for the Caterpillar Company.

Impressed by his grandfather’s client list and by the machinery he sold, the accused wanted to carry on his grandfather’s business. [23] Always on the theme of taking the moral high ground and dismissing any suggestion that he was motivated by personal gain, the accused stated that his main concern was making sure that the complainants would be totally reimbursed. [24] As for himself, he didn’t care if

there was not a penny left in the tray for him once the issues relating to the estate were resolved—so long as there was enough money to pay back all the complainants. He described himself as a simple country boy who didn’t need much to be satisfied. [25] He added that he was not the type of person to shy away from work and rely on social assistance. If he had to, he would work two jobs to make ends meet. [ 37 ] As mentioned earlier, the accused’s defence took a different turn when dealing with the sums borrowed from Mr. Rajcic.

The accused steadfastly denied that he borrowed money from the complainant in order to recover his fair share of his grandfather’s estate. Instead, the complainant lent him money in order to help him with his business ventures (memorabilia, vintage toys, electronic components) and the completion of his «mind-blowing» and «secret» project. The accused speculated that the complainant’s testimony was unduly tainted or influenced by his daughter, Natasia Rajcic. [26] [ 38 ] The accused also took issue with the calculations regarding the total amount of money he borrowed from the complainant.

While the complainant pegged the total amount of the loan at $843,150, the accused only admitted to having borrowed $100,000. [ 39 ] To state the obvious, the discrepancy between the accused’s and the complainant’s assessment of the debt owed is significant. In order to understand the accused’s issue with the amount claimed by the complainant, some background information is in order. The relationship between the complainant and the accused started off as one of landlord-tenant back in October 2009. According to the complainant, the accused owed him 39,300$ in unpaid rents.

The latter promised to repay him as soon as he received his share of his grandfather’s estate. In order to facilitate the liquidation of the estate (and eventually recover the rent money) the complainant lent money to the accused. However, the purported liquidation of the estate was delayed by one snag after another and the accused kept on asking for more money to resolve one new issue after another. Feeling that he had no choice but to comply, the complainant kept on giving more money lest he lose the money disbursed thus far.

For his protection, the complainant took care to record in writing the individual sums lent to the accused. He was also in the habit of tallying each of these individual loans to the total amount owed. For instance, in a receipt dated July 18, 2014, one reads that the accused received the sum of $1,200 from Mr. Rajcic. [27] On this same receipt, at the bottom left, one notes an inscription with the figure 457,810, representing the cumulative amount of the debt at that date.

The accused signature appears twice on the said receipt: once at the space usually reserved for acknowledging the loan (at the bottom right-hand side and once alongside the cumulative amount owing. [ 40 ] It should be noted that in a conversation between the complainant and the accused, the latter accepted the former’s assessment of the amounts owing ($843,150). The conversation was recorded surreptitiously by Ms. Natasa Rajcic, the daughter of the accused. [28] [ 41 ] The accused’s response to the said allegations was essentially one of denial—he owed no back rent and he never signed the receipts.

With respect to the issue of back rent, more particularly, he produced a series of receipts purportedly signed by the complainant attesting that the rent was paid in full. Next, in an effort to diminish any pretense that the unpaid rent could be anywhere in the ball park of $39,300, he stated that the lease binding him to the complainant was only for a period of nine months.

In support of this claim, he pointed out that the lease—filed into evidence by the prosecution—was signed on the 1 st of October 2009 for a term that covered the period of October1, 2009 to June 30, 2010. [29] [ 42 ] Next, he denied the authenticity of certain documents or receipts attesting to certain loans made to him by the complainant. In the same vein, he denied the veracity of the receipts or documents that kept track of the cumulative amounts owing after each individual loan was made.

When asked by Crown counsel in cross-examination if the handwriting on the said documents was familiar to him, he simply replied, «not to me, not even the signature.» [30] In other words, the documents bearing his signature were all forgeries. Though he didn’t state it out right in his pleadings, the accused was implying that the documents must have been fabricated by either the complainant or his daughter, Ms. Natasa Rajcic. [31] Detailed review of the evidence Overview of the evidence tendered by the parties and the history of the case [ 43 ] As mentioned earlier, the two cases involving the Daniels and Mr.

Andrews are actually a second trial following the decision of the Court of Appeal to order a new trial on account of an error in the application of the Browne v. Dunn «rule». The period concerned by the aforementioned complainants runs roughly from December 2007 to January 2009. [ 44 ] Along with the Daniels and Mr. Andrews, the case at bar also included the complaints of fraud and intimidation perpetrated by the accused on Mr. Nikola Rajcic.

In this case, the period concerned by the alleged wrongdoings of the accused runs from January 2012 to May 2017. [ 45 ] Finally, the case against the accused also included proof of similar fact evidence involving Mr. Meir Rabkin as a victim of the accused’s fraudulent «inheritance scheme.» [32] As was the case with the complainants mentioned in the present indictments, similar promises were made to the Mr. Rakin that he would be reimbursed once he received the sums owing to him from his grandfather’s estate.

Like the other complainants, there were promises to «top off» the sums owing with a few thousand dollars extra as gratitude for helping him out in his time of need. [ 46 ] The said evidence was tendered by the prosecution to discredit the accused’s claim that the estate held more properties yet to be liquidated. It was argued that his prior discreditable conduct would have significant value in demonstrating the fraudulent intention of the accused. Conversely, the evidence was tendered to bolster the credibility of the complainants’ testimony.

The odds that they would all have recounted a similar story of being swindled by the accused were too remote to even seriously consider. [ 47 ] The current trial was originally set for five full days of hearings from the 22 nd of October to the 29 th of October, 2019. During that time, the Crown presented its case—consisting of various documents, two audio recordings and the testimony of eight witnesses. The similar fact evidence motion was also presented and granted at the end of the Crown’s evidence in chief.

[ 48 ] Additional trial dates were then required for the accused to present and complete his evidence: November 29, December 3 and December 20 in 2019 and January 6 and 7 in 2020. In point form, the evidence consisted of the following: • His own testimony (3 days). In essence, a defence of good faith in which he detailed all the factors that led him to believe that the estate held additional assets yet to be liquidated.

His testimony also included long and drawn-out accounts of the multiple efforts deployed to recover his rightful share of his grandfather’s inheritance. • The police videotaped statement from the plaintiff, Mr. Rajcic. At trial, the prosecution filed into evidence the testimony delivered by Mr. Rajcic during the examination for discovery. For the purposes of contradicting some of the allegations in the said examination, the accused produced a previously taped statement made by the complainant to the police. [33] • The audio recording of the testimony delivered by Mr. Myer Stern in the first trial.

In 2006 or 2007, Mr. Myer Stern, an attorney practising in Montreal, was involved in the process of helping the accused recover his fair share of the estate. [34] From his testimony, we learned that he sent several letters to Mr. Teddy Chandroo requesting that the latter remit important sums of money owed to the accused as a beneficiary of his grandfather’s estate. [35] We also learned that he received letters purportedly authored by Teddy Chandroo admitting that important sums were owing the accused.

Even more promising, the letters were to the effect that payment of the sums due would be made without undue delay. [36] Mr. Stern examined the possibility of hiring attorneys in California with a view of launching a law suit against Teddy Chandroo when it appeared that none of the promised money would be delivered any time soon. [37] Finally, it’s in the testimony of Mr. Stern that we learned that Mr. Burnash was acting as an intermediary for the accused. In exchange for services rendered by Mr.

Burnash to the accused (i.e., financial), he would receive 30% of the accused’s share of the estate. [38] • An audio recording of a conversation between the accused and Mr. Andrews. After having filed charges against the accused, the complainant and the accused met at a fast-food restaurant. At the said meeting, the complainant said that he could be a hostile witness for the prosecution if the accused gave him back his money. The complainant even added that his attorney knew the prosecutor well. Unbeknownst to the complainant, the accused was secretly taping the conversation.

Of course, the purpose of the evidence was to undermine the credibility of Mr. Andrews. The undisputed documentary evidence —Some preliminary remarks [ 49 ] As mentioned earlier, the crux of the accused’s defence was predicated upon his «reasonable» belief that his grandfather’s estate held additional assets. He qualified the sums received from the sale of two properties mentioned in an inventory of assets [39] , dated February 25, 1998, as a mere «advance» on monies still owed to him.

One will recall that in November 2002, his portion from the sale of the two properties came to Can$140, 795. [ 50 ] Unfortunately for the complainants, they were never informed by the accused that the estate had been liquidated several years earlier.

The deceit was compounded by the fact that a list of the estate’s assets presented to them by the accused suggested that the properties sold back in November 2002 were still available. [ 51 ] Along with representations with respect to properties that no longer existed (as they were sold), the accused also included assets (both immoveable property and money) that were never part of the estate.

The purpose, no doubt, was to reassure the complainants that his share of the estate was more than sufficient to reimburse the money they lent him. [ 52 ] In the following section, I will review the relevant portions of the inventory of assets with an emphasis on the two immoveable properties mentioned therein. A copy of the said inventory of assets was sent to the accused’s attorney in Montreal back in 2001 or 2002 and the accused was well aware of its contents. [ 53 ] Next, I will briefly examine the two deeds of sale relating to the properties mentioned in the said inventory of assets.

The deeds were signed by the accused at the office of his attorney back on November 5, 2002. At that same date, he received his share from the proceeds of the sale. Yet, in his dealings with the complainants, the properties were still part of an unliquidated estate. — The will (the gift that keeps on giving) and the inventory of assets [ 54 ] The last will and testament of Mr.

William Chandroo was dated July 20, 1992. [40] At the time, the testator stated that he lived at Number 410 Southern Main Road, La Romain, in the Ward of Naparima, in the island of Trinidad, Proprietor. [41] [ 55 ] Drafted in the English form, the will is but one page long. In the third paragraph of the document, he appointed his wife, Dorothy Chandroo and his son, Teddy Chandroo, as co-executors of the will.

In the following two paragraphs he summarily set out the manner in which his estate was to be divided to his heirs: in essence, ¼ unto his wife, Dorothy Chandroo, ¼ unto his son, Teddy Chandroo and a half share to his grandchildren, Richard Chandroo and Geetanjali Chandroo. [ 56 ] Mr. William Chandroo passed away on October 6 1995. At the time, he and his wife were living in San Diego, California with their son, Mr. Teddy Chandroo. A pastor and personal friend of the family, Mr. Charles, was entrusted with the task of probating the last will and testament of William Chandroo.

[ 57 ] In the process of probating the will, an inventory listing the assets of the decedent’s estate was submitted for the approval of the High Court of Trinidad and Tobago. [42] From the first line of the said list, we learn that the assets consisted of two pieces of real property situated at La Romain in the ward of Naparima. The first property was described as «ONE ACRE ONE ROOD AND FOUR PERCHES (…) on the survey plan no 63043. » The property also had a house situated at 410 Southern Main Road la Romain. The land was valued at $833,085 TT and the building at $66,915 TT [43] .

The second real property was described as «comprising TWO ACRES ONE PERCH ON THE Survey Plan Number 63039. » [44] It was valued at $1,742,400TT. [ 58 ] Aside for the real property mentioned above, no other assets were listed in the inventory.

Thus, on the lines marked «Cash in hand», «Cash in the bank», «Furniture», «Shares», «Pro Notes», «Policies of insurance», one reads the word «nil» for each and every one of them. [ 59 ] When the value of the real property is tallied up, the estate was worth 2,642,400 Trinidadian dollars. [45] The said amount was in line with a document filed before the High Court stating that the sum of 500 dollars was being remitted in order to pay for the registration costs of an estate valued at 2,642,400$TT [46] [ 60 ] A document issued by the High Court of Trinidad and Tobago on September 10, 1999, indicates that proceedings to formally probate the will were still pending.

The document, however, confirms that the value of the estate was 2,642,400 TT. [47] [ 61 ] As we shall see in the testimony of Mr. Teddy Chandroo, the will was only probated in 2002. By that time, his mother had passed away and he became the sole executor of his father’s estate. —The deeds of sale [ 62 ] On November 5, 2002, at the office of his Montreal attorney, Mr.

Martin Blanchet, the accused signed two deeds of sale—each one relating to the two properties mentioned in the inventory of assets submitted to the High Court of Trinidad and Tobago. [48] Along with the accused and his attorney, the closing of the sale was witnessed by Mr. Katwaroo, a real estate agent from Trinidad and Tobago who hand delivered the deeds, and Mr.

Gosselin, a notary practising in Montreal. [ 63 ] The first deed of sale concerns the decedent’s property situated in La Romain in the Ward of Naparima, in the Island of Trinidad, survey number 63039. [49] The document names Teddy Chandroo, Geetanjali Chandroo and Richard Chandroo as the vendors.

The sale was concluded for the price of 1,850,000 TT, a quarter of which would go to the accused. [ 64 ] The second deed concerns the sale of the decedent’s property described as a «parcel of land situated at La Romain in the Ward of Naparima, Island of Trinidad, comprising ONE ACRE ONE ROOD AND FOUR PERCHES, (…) on the Survey Plan Number 63043…». [50] As in the first deed of sale, the accused’s name appears along with that of his uncle and sister as vendors of the said property. The land was sold for the sum of $650,000 TT.

In step with the dictates of the will, the accused was entitled to one quarter of the said amount. [ 65 ] In total, the accused’s one quarter share from the sale of the two properties amounted to $140,795 in Canadian dollars. [51] A cheque for the said amount was remitted by Mr. Katwaroo to the accused’s attorney, Mr. Blanchet. After deducting fees paid to his attorney, the accused pocketed the sum of Can$105,596. [52] The testimonial evidence — Mr. Martin Blanchette [ 66 ] Mr.

Martin Blanchet, an attorney in Montreal, was hired by the accused in 2002 to represent his interests in the liquidation of his grandfather’s estate. A good portion of his work consisted in corresponding with the executor of the estate, Mr. Teddy Chandroo. In the course of his testimony, he filed the first letter he addressed to Mr. Teddy Chandroo requesting a copy of the decedent’s will and a complete inventory of the estate’s assets. The said letter was dated February 1, 2002. [53] Next, he filed into the Court record a series of letters or faxes he received from Mr. Teddy Chandroo.

One of these letters proved to be a forgery. [54] [ 67 ] A review of Mr. Teddy Chandroo’s letters to Mr. Blanchet will be useful in understanding the process that went into the probation of the will and the liquidation of the estate in the year 2002. The letters also attest to the conflict—not to say acrimony— between Mr. Teddy Chandroo and his nephew. Conflict aside, the tenor of the said letters was consistent with the executor’s continued cooperation with Mr.

Blanchet as well as a willingness to settle the estate fairly and without undue delay. [ 68 ] A first letter by Teddy Chandroo, dated March 2, 2002, was a reply to Mr. Blanchet’s request for the decedent’s will and a copy of the estate’s inventory of assets. [55] At the first paragraph, Mr. Teddy Chandroo succinctly stated that he did not have the requested documents. He added, however, that a copy of Mr.

Blanchet’s letter (in which he requested a copy of the will and a copy of the inventory of assets) had been forwarded to the law office in Trinidad and Tobago charged with the probation of the decedent’s will. [ 69 ] In that same letter, Mr. Teddy Chandroo also addressed personal issues he was having with his nephew. More particularly, at the second paragraph of this relatively short letter, Mr. Teddy Chandroo informed Mr. Blanchet that his client, Mr. Richard Chandroo, had been making threatening phone calls.

Framed as a warning to have his client cease and desist from making further threats, he closed his letter with the following remarks: «Kindly advise Mr. Chandroo (the accused) that his recent threats are interpreted as having very serious legal implications and will be dealt with accordingly» [56] [ 70 ] Next, Mr. Blanchet filed into the court record a second letter he received from Mr. Teddy Chandroo, dated March 19, 2002. In this letter, Mr. Teddy Chandroo gives the actual contact information regarding the Trinidadian law firm that was handling his late father’s estate.

He also asked him to advise his client (the accused) to refrain from contacting him. Once again, he complained of having received more threats from his nephew. No doubt to ring home the seriousness of the matter, Mr. Teddy Chandroo added that he is forwarding by fax a copy of « a most threatening letter » he had just received from his nephew. [57]

[ 71 ] In a third letter, dated July 29, 2002, Teddy Chandroo informed Mr. Blanchet that he has no additional information other than that which he previously shared with him. [58] The letter writer also advises the attorney that he will not be assuming any of the latter’s legal fees. After all, he never solicited the services of Mr. Blanchet’s services. [ 72 ] With respect to progress in the liquidation of the estate, the letter indicated that there was still some work to be done: «to the best of my knowledge, my father’s will has not yet been probated. »

However, he reassured the attorney that the real property in the estate will be sold upon completion of the probate proceedings. Of course, he would also need the cooperation of his nephew and an interested buyer: On completion of such probate, and should I be able to secure the cooperation of your client, Richard and his sister, Geentangali, and with a direct seller/buyer agreement I would be willing to offer my father’s estate for sale. [ 73 ] In a letter dated September 20, 2002, Teddy Chandroo asked Mr.

Blanchet to tell his client (the accused) to refrain from contacting him. [59] Once again, he complained of being threatened by his nephew. On a more positive note, he wrote that his lawyer in Trinidad has advised him that in « 2-3 weeks, hopefully, the “will” will be probated. » He also instructed the lawyer in Trinidad to forward copies of the relevant documents to Mr. Blanchet. Upon completion of probate, the properties will be «eligible for possible division among the three shareholders (Mr. Teddy Chandroo, Geetangali Chandroo and Richard Chandroo).

He ended his letter with an undertaking to keep the attorney informed should he be given additional information. [ 74 ] In a letter dated October 4, 2002, Mr. Teddy Chandroo apprised Mr. Blanchet of the latest developments in the probate process. [60] To begin, a ruling from the High Court of Justice in Trinidad and Tobago determined that he (Teddy Chandroo) would be entitled to his mother’s one quarter share of the estate—his mother having passed away in 1999 before the probate process even began.

Consequently, he (Teddy Chandroo) was now entitled to one half of the total property. [61] Next, he gave news that boded well for the liquidation of the estate: several companies and individuals had expressed a desire to purchase the property. Finally, he asked Mr. Blanchet to advise his client to be readily available should negotiations start soon. [ 75 ] Another letter was sent from Mr. Teddy Chandroo to Mr. Blanchet on January 13, 2003. [62] By this time, the estate had been liquidated circa two months earlier. In the said letter, Mr.

Teddy Chandroo informed the attorney that « no additional taxes were owed by his father’s estate. As a result, the money held by the decedent in a Trinidadian bank was now ready to be divided among the beneficiaries (Teddy Chandroo, Richard Chandroo and Geetangali Chandroo). [63] The accused’s share of the undivided money amounted to $6,000TT. At the last paragraph of the letter, Mr. Teddy Chandroo asked for instructions on how to remit the said sum to his nephew: I would like to have a certified cheque for six thousand Trinidad and Tobago dollars be made available for Richard.

Please let me know to whom and where this money should be sent. [ 76 ] The last in the series of «Teddy Chandroo» letters requires a little more attention. As we shall see in a later

chapter of this decision, Teddy Chandroo denied being the author of the said letter. [64] [ 77 ] Though fraught with certain difficulties, the first paragraph is the least contentious. Here, the letter writer (purporting to be Mr. Teddy Chandroo) stated that he will not be paying for the Can$35 000 in legal fees incurred by Richard Chandroo in the settlement of the estate. From the testimony of Mr. Blanchet, however, there was no indication that he sought to recover his legal fees from Mr.

Teddy Chandroo; nor was he ever questioned on this matter in cross-examination. [ 78 ] At the second paragraph of the letter, its author magnanimously offers to pay the accused « $150 000 US as compensation for his “troubles” if that’s what it takes to achieve closure. » The letter writer also asked for a delay of 24 months to pay the said sum. This offer comes out of left field and makes no sense when considered with the whole of the evidence. For one thing, why would Mr.

Teddy Chandroo offer additional sums as compensation when the weight of the evidence confirms that the estate had been settled in full and that it contained no additional assets? Next, why would Mr. Teddy Chandroo make such an admission in writing when his conduct in the years following the liquidation of the estate was consistent with the position that the estate had been totally liquidated? Likewise, the admission made in the letter is totally inconsistent with the testimony given by Mr. Teddy Chandroo that no more sums were owing to the accused as a beneficiary of the estate.

What is more, the real Teddy Chandroo stated that aside for his signature (that appears to be his), he never wrote that letter. [65] [ 79 ] It should be noted that the evidence in this case includes more letters purportedly authored by Mr. Teddy Chandroo promising to pay ridiculous sums of money to the accused (and to people who lent money to the accused). Not surprisingly, none of the promised sums were ever paid. How could they be paid when the guarantees to do so were never made by the real Teddy Chandroo?

Once again, the promised sums in these letters make no sense when considered with the whole of the evidence: Why would the real Teddy Chandroo commit to writing several promises to pay when his testimony (both in the first trial and in the case at bar) was to the effect that no sums were owing? From a legal stand point, why would he want to comprise his position that the estate held no additional assets by creating written evidence suggesting the contrary? All these letters bearing promises to pay were dismissed as forgeries in the testimony of Mr.

Teddy Chandroo. [ 80 ] In his testimony, the accused denied being the author of any of the letters singled out as forgeries. This begs the question: if not the accused, who had an interest in forging such documents? The question, of course, is a rhetorical one. [ 81 ] Returning to the testimony of Mr. Blanchet, he then elaborated on the closing sale of the two parcels held by the estate. On November 5, 2002, the day the deeds of sale were signed, the following people were with him at his law office: Mr.

Katwaroo (a real estate agent from Trinidad who was accompanied by one of his associates), the accused (who was also accompanied by one of his friends), and Mr. Gosselin (a notary who shared office space with Mr. Blanchet). The documents were drafted by Mr. Harrikisson, a lawyer practising in Trinidad, and brought to Montreal by Mr. Katwaroo. [ 82 ] At the office of the attorney—in the presence of all the individuals mentioned above—the accused signed all the documents required to complete the sale. His share from the sale of the two properties amounted to Can$140,795. From the said amount, 25% was

remitted to the attorney for his honorarium. [ 83 ] Along with the two deeds of sale, Mr. Blanchet also filed into the Court record a copy of an affidavit signed by the accused on October 23, 2002. [66] In essence, the affidavit was a promise by the accused to sell his quarter share of the land included in his grandfather’s estate. He also agreed to pay for his share of the fees relating to the said sale, TT$47,750.

Finally, he requested that the sums owing to him from the sale of the properties be paid in American dollars, by certified cheque and made out to his attorney, Martin Blanchet, in trust. [ 84 ] For the purposes of this decision, the affidavit is more than a mere formality in the process of closing the sale of the two properties held by the estate. The manner in which it was drafted suggests that the accused agreed to sell his quarter share of the only real property included in the estate of the late William Chandroo.

Thus, at the first paragraph of the accused’s affidavit, one reads: I agree to sell my one quarter (1/4) share of the land included in the estate of my late grandfather , William Asgurd Chandroo, for a minimum total of selling price of the land of 2,500,000 TT. [ 85 ] With respect to any other sums the accused may have received from the estate, Mr.

Blanchet stated that there was a sum of Can$30,000 in a bank account at the Bank of Nova Scotia. [67] A short time after the sale of the estate’s real property, his client received another amount of $6,000 dollars (representing his quarter share of the money held in a security box in a Trinidadian bank. Aside from the said sums, he affirmed that there was no other money owing to the accused. Questioned by Crown counsel if he requested anything else following the receipt of the Can$140,795 he answered: «It would not be for other sums». [ 86 ] On cross-examination, there was an issue with respect to a letter Mr.

Blanchet purportedly sent to Mr. Teddy Chandroo, dated November 25, 2002, almost three weeks after the sale of the real properties held by the estate. [68] It appears, however, to have been faxed on December 2, 2002. [69] The letter contains but one sentence requesting a copy of the inventory of the deceased’s assets in order «to completely and finally close the file. ». Questioned by the accused if he had drafted and sent the said letter, Mr. Blanchet hesitated to give an answer.

He noted that the letterhead and the print font on the said document were not similar to the ones used by his office at that time. [ 87 ] Mr. Blanchet admitted, however, to having received a fax from Mr. Teddy Chandroo, replying to the letter of November 25, 2002. [70] More particularly, the reply—hand-written and in large capital letters as if to emphasize the point—read «NO! YOU HAVE ALL THE INFO I HAVE. ». This admission notwithstanding, he reiterated that he could not confirm having sent the letter to begin with as it did not contain his usual letterhead —Testimony of Mr.

James Andrews [ 88 ] In the fall of 2007, Mr. Andrews was attending church in Brossard and met the accused at the end of the service. They were not strangers to each other. Mr. Andrews’ knew the accused as a teenager and he was a good friend of his son. The accused, however, «disappeared» after the death of his mother [71] and he hadn’t seen him in about ten years. [ 89 ] After meeting at the steps of the church, Mr. Andrews and the accused headed to a restaurant. Thereat, the accused explained that he had issues with his uncle (Mr. Teddy Chandroo) regarding his inheritance.

He also added that he was in financial straits and that he didn’t have enough money to feed his children. Mr. Andrews took out his wallet and handed the accused 60 dollars. [ 90 ] In November 2007, Mr. Andrews and the accused met up again. The accused brought with him his grandfather’s will. He showed it to Mr. Andrews and pointed out that his share of the estate amounted to $400,000.

He added, however, that his uncle, the executor of the will, was being «hostile»—that is, he was not cooperating in the quick and fair settlement of the estate. [ 91 ] To buttress his story of family conflict with respect to the estate, the accused showed Mr. Andrews two harsh (not to say mean- spirited and nasty) letters purportedly written by Mr. Teddy Chandroo. In a letter dated March 14, 2002, the letter writer’s salutatory address to the recipient (the accused) begins with the words, «Mr.

Fool». [72] Next, the letter-writer uses threatening language to dismiss the accused’s supposed threat of legal recourse to get his fair share of the estate: In response to your childish letter dated the 13/03/2002, let me inform you foolish boy that if you attempt taking this issue to court (which is an impossible accomplishment for you) you will be leaving the courthouse in a wheelchair. [ 92 ] A few paragraphs down, the letter-writer boasts that he alone pulls all the strings and that the accused is powerless to do anything about it: After my father’s death you must now realize who controls your destiny, now that you solicited a lawyer who is stupid as you I am convinced that the both of you make a wonderful team.

I hope for your sake you understand that I cannot be defeated. (sic) [ 93 ] In another paragraph, the letter writer surprisingly admits that he was negligent in the administration of the estate and that he will do everything he can to delay the settlement of the estate: Do you realize we are in the year 2002?

Since 1995 when my father died I did nothing to advance the estate, now you are witness to my freedom, I promise if you continue with your lawyer this estate will be tied up for the rest of your life. (sic) [ 94 ] On the whole of the evidence, the contents of this letter are totally inconsistent with the actions taken by the real Teddy Chandroo in the execution of the estate. Firstly, his conduct showed a willingness to settle the estate quickly and fairly with the least amount of rancour possible.

Next, it makes no sense that he would admit to negligence in the administration of the estate when faced with pending court action against him. Finally, the threatening language as well as the sarcasm and hyperbole not only sounds contrived but is wholly inconsistent with the tenor of the letters genuinely written by Mr. Teddy Chandroo. On a final note, the fake letters are rife with run-on sentences, punctuation errors and occasional spelling mistakes. It is highly doubtful that Mr. Teddy Chandroo—a high school teacher of many years—would adopt such a writing style.

As expected, the real Teddy Chandroo denied having authored this

letter. [ 95 ] A second letter shown by the accused to Mr. Andrews was even more outlandish and preposterous than the first one. [73] Once again, the letter writer (purportedly Mr. Teddy Chandroo) boasts of his power as executor of the will and how he could crush the hapless accused: Your lawyer is well aware that this estate cannot be sold or probated without my consent, you are a fool to think I can be overpowered when we both know I have the resources to make you disappear from Grandpa’s will.

If you were appointed sole executor then and only then could you act accordingly, unfortunately for you the tables are turned, now you must abide by my rules. (sic) [ 96 ] As in the previous letter, the letter writer admits to negligence in the handling of the estate. It also suggests that he robbed the accused of his fair share of the estate and stashed the money in a secret account: You accused me of numerous robberies in the estate, you must think I am stupid as you are. Do you think I would rob you and keep the money here in the U.S? or maybe in Canada?

The truth is Richard this is all speculation until proven otherwise, but feel free to purse your searches around the globe. (sic) [ 97 ] Despite the arrogant and menacing tone of the letter, the letter-writer holds out the possibility that sums will be advanced to the accused.

Now, I want you to understand this advance from the estate is about to take place in the next few weeks, you must sign the necessary documents before any money will be transferred. (sic) [ 98 ] The remittance of any sums, however, was conditional upon the accused falling into line and behaving himself accordingly: In closing I would also advise you to stop all contact with your lawyer and you will hear from me when the time is right. Remember Richard, the more questions you ask the more unnecessary investigations take place and the slower this estate is liquidated.

We can do this the wrong way or my way, I will not rob you Richard, just give me some time and you will hear from me when I am ready, I am very busy and what do you think Grandma and Grandpa would think if you hired a lawyer to question my authority, if they were alive you would not see the light of day. (sic) [ 99 ] My reasons outlining the obvious forgery of the first letter apply equally to this second letter. [ 100 ] From the evidence, the only person with an interest in forging the said documents was the accused. In showing them to Mr.

Andrews, the accused buttressed his story of an ongoing conflict with his uncle with respect to the settlement of the estate. Yet, despite the said conflict, the letters held the promise that sums would eventually be remitted—thus reassuring the potential lender (Mr. Andrews) of the accused’s capacity to reimburse. Also, the letter writer’s admission of wrongdoings served to buttress the chances of the accused recovering his inheritance in the event of a law suit—bolstering, once again, the accused’s capacity to reimburse money lent to him by the potential lender (Mr.

Andrews). [ 101 ] To complete the narrative of the second meeting, the accused asked Mr. Andrews for money to pay his rent and the Mercedes he was driving. He also asked him to act as his representative in order to «smooth things over» when dealing with his uncle, Mr. Teddy Chandroo. [ 102 ] A short time thereafter, Mr. Andrews received a call from someone claiming to be Teddy Chandroo. [74] The caller advised Mr. Andrews that he accepted the latter’s power of attorney in matters dealing with the liquidation of the estate. Also, the caller tried to convince Mr.

Andrews to lend the accused money while his share of the inheritance was tied up in G.I.C.’s in California and could not be released before April 15, 2008. [ 103 ] Not surprisingly, there was no evidence of funds tied up in California. The real Teddy Chandroo denied having made that call. Once again, who else but the accused would have had an interest in concocting a false claim of inexistent funds made by someone impersonating the real Teddy Chandroo? Of course, the ploy was part of a sting designed to trick the complainant into believing that the requested loan would soon be repaid. [ 104 ] Mr.

Andrews eventually came around, agreeing not only to act as the accused’s power of attorney but also into lending him money. On January 10, 2008, the accused signed a power of attorney agreement naming Mr. Andrews as his representative in matters dealing with the estate. [75] More particularly, the documents were signed at the home of Mr. Daniels who acted as a commissioner of oaths. [ 105 ] The power of attorney conferred by the accused to Mr. Andrews was extensive, as can be seen from the first paragraph of the document: I Richard Chandroo hereby authorize Mr.

James Andrews my financial advisor and decisive executor to receive in his name any and all funds that are to be paid to me from my grandfather’s estate late William Chandroo. He, Mr.

James Andrews is further authorized to act on my behalf to cash and administer said funds according to his judgment. [ 106 ] At the second paragraph, the accused stated where the funds would be coming from: The funds referred to above are properties or proceeds thereof as stipulated in the original of a deed registered in the Red House Port of Spain, Trinidad on 16 th November 1999 as number 23/11 of 1999. [ 107 ] At the third paragraph, the document listed all the purported assets in the deceased’s estate and tallies the final value: Valuation and breakdown of the deceased’s estate are as follows:

House located in Trinidad US $362,706. 00 House located in Sand Diego, California, US $812,651.00 Bank account in Toronto held at Scotia Bank, Scotia Plaza, King Street, Toronto, Ontario, US, $723, 257.50 Bank account in San Diego, California, held at Bank of America US $723, 275.50 Total US $2, 621,908. [ 108 ] Mr. Andrews explained that the breakdown of the property and assets belonging to the estate was information he got from the accused. This being said, the existence of such property is an obvious fiction.

To begin, there was no evidence that in the year 2007 the estate held a «house in Trinidad» valued at US$362,706. Likewise not the slightest indication that the decedent—who lived the greater part of his life in Trinidad—owned a «house in San Diego», California worth the princely sum of US$812,651. If that was the case, the accused could easily have provided proof thereof—especially when one considers that he spent circa $200,000 to $250,000 in legal fees to get his inheritance.

Next, the claim that the estate held US$723,257.50 only has the merit of mentioning that it was held in a bank the decedent once did business with—a branch of the Bank of Nova Scotia. However, the sums held in that bank account were liquidated and distributed several years earlier. The accused’s share from the « real » account in the bank amounted to Can$35 000. As for the outlandish sum of US$723,257.50 supposedly held in the bank, there was nothing to prove it existed.

Likewise, with respect to the sum of US$723,275.50 supposedly held by the estate at the Bank of America in San Diego, there was nothing to prove it existed. One more thing, what an incredible coincidence that the sums held in the Canadian account and in the American account were almost identical: US$723,257.50 in the former vs US$723,275.50 in the latter. The only difference being that the last two numbers preceding the cents were reversed. The accused was getting sloppy in the numbers he was conjuring out of thin air. [ 109 ] In his testimony, Mr.

Andrews stated that the accused showed him a copy of the actual inventory of assets (exhibit P-10). One will remember that the properties listed in the said inventory include the properties that were sold on November 5, 2002. Interestingly, the total value of the assets mentioned in the power of attorney document ($2,621,908) was similar to the total value of the assets mentioned in the actual inventory of assets ($2,642,400).

Of course, there was an obvious difference: while the total amount stated in the proxy was in American dollars, the one in the inventory of assets was in Trinidadian dollars, a much weaker currency. [ 110 ] As we shall see when discussing the accused’s testimony, he will claim that the breakdown of the estate’s assets listed in the power of attorney came from information gathered by Mr. Samuel Daniels—the man called by Mr. Andrews to act as commissioner of oaths. Such a claim will be dismissed as preposterous.

The only person who had an interest in inventing assets in order to impress a potential lender was the accused. [ 111 ] This first power of attorney was followed by a second one dated February 25, 2002. It, too, was signed and witnessed by Mr. Daniels in his capacity as commissioner of oaths. In essence, it repeated the same information regarding the extent of the power of attorney and the value of the (fictitious) assets held by the estate. There were, however, a few additions to the original text. Firstly, it confirmed that that the accused borrowed $19,500 from Mr. Andrews.

Secondly, it provided that the accused will be bound by a budget administered by Mr. Andrews. Finally, as compensation for the money lent to the accused, Mr. Andrews will be paid 10% of the former’s share of the estate. As we shall see, promises from the accused to pay a commission or interest on the sums borrowed was a recurring theme in the testimony of all the complainants. For the accused the interest or commission was immaterial so long as it encouraged the complainants to lend him the money.

Aside for some partial payments, we know that none of the complainants were reimbursed. [76] [ 112 ] Returning to the testimony of Mr. Andrews, he explained how there was always «a crisis» that stood in the way of the prompt settlement of the estate. The money was either tied up in a bank account or additional expenses were needed to liquidate the estate. Curiously, the calls from the accused were often followed by calls from someone purporting to be Mr. Teddy Chandroo. [ 113 ] In December 2008, Mr.

Andrews received a letter from «Teddy Chandroo» requesting the sum of Can$8,589 to pay «back taxes» in order to secure the immediate distribution of $100,769 from the estate to the accused. [77] No doubt written with the intent of reassuring Mr. Andrews that his loan was secure, the letter provided for the prompt reimbursement of the $19, 500 originally borrowed as well as the additional amount needed to defray estate taxes: Should Mr.

James Andrews be able to secure the amount of 8,500Can to be used for said taxes then this amount in addition to previous loan of $19,000Can plus interest fees will be reimbursed upon advance of the above stated amount of $100, 769.00Can to Richard Chandroo. [ 114 ] The letter then goes on to explain other options should Richard Chandroo not accept the aforementioned offer. The other options, however, were less attractive and would delay not only the settlement of the estate but the reimbursement of sums owed to Mr. Andrews. Wisely, Mr. Andrews ignored this last letter. [ 115 ] Mr.

Andrews also ignored the telephone calls from «Teddy Chandroo» asking for more money. In one of those calls, made in November 2009, «Teddy Chandroo» requested that he lend money to Richard Chandroo so as to pay an attorney in Trinidad and Tobago charged with the settlement of the est

[…]