R. v. Jamo, 2020 BCPC 301

Citation: R. v. Jamo 2020 BCPC 301 Date: 20200312 File No: 62449-1 Registry: Richmond IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. AMJED JAMO ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE R. RAVEN Counsel for the Crown: D. Fox Counsel for the Defendant: M. Prang Place of Hearing: Richmond , B.C. Dates of Hearing: February 10, 11, 12, 13, 18, 19, 2020 Date of Judgment: March 12, 2020

[ 1 ] THE COURT : On court file number 62449-1, Amjed Jamo is charged with defrauding the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia of property, specifically driver's licence, of a value not exceeding $5,000, contrary to s. 380(1) (b)(

i) of the Criminal Code . [ 2 ] It is alleged the offence occurred between June 3rd, 2017 and November 3rd, 2017, inclusive, in the City of Richmond, in the Province of British Columbia. [ 3 ] The nature of the fraud alleged is assisting individuals in taking the knowledge test by providing them with verbal and visual cues corresponding with the correct answers on the test. It is alleged Mr.

Jamo did this while he was interpreting the test questions into Arabic in his role as an ICBC approved translator. [ 4 ] The issue, in this case, is whether the Crown has proven all elements of the offence of fraud beyond a reasonable doubt. [ 5 ] The Crown presented evidence from four Insurance Corporation of British Columbia employees, who worked at the ICBC Driver Licensing office, located at suite 402, 5200 No. 3 Road in Richmond, British Columbia, in the year of 2017. In addition, evidence from an undercover officer, Sgt.

Adil Amine and a special provincial constable Robin Stutt was presented. [ 6 ] There was almost no cross-examination of these witnesses. I find all of the witnesses gave their evidence in a straightforward and believable manner. I find they were all credible witnesses and accept their evidence in its entirety. [ 7 ] The evidence can be summarized as follows. [ 8 ] Ms. Allison Reid is a senior fraud intelligence advisor, who has worked for ICBC for 19 years.

She explained that ICBC administers the drivers licensing program in British Columbia. [ 9 ] In order to obtain a learner's licence, which allows the holder to drive a motor vehicle in the presence of another qualified adult, a person must pass the knowledge test. The test consists of 50 questions, including signs, signals, and general rules of the road. The questions and answers are randomized from a pool of 175 questions. A passing grade is 80 percent or higher. The test is taken on a computer touch screen device. [ 10 ] The knowledge test is available in several languages, including Arabic.

Individuals with reading or other disabilities may retain a qualified interpreter to interpret the questions on the test for them. [ 11 ] Mr. Jamo was a member of the Society of Translators and Interpreters of British Columbia, qualified to translate from English to Arabic. In 2013, he applied to ICBC to obtain approved translator status, which he required in order to provide services on behalf of customers for ICBC driver licensing transactions. [ 12 ] A copy of his application was entered as Exhibit 1. Part of the application process required Mr.

Jamo to agree to be bound by ICBC's Code of Conduct for approved translators and interpreters. [ 13 ] The Code of Conduct included the following statements agreed to by Mr. Jamo: Always remain neutral, impartial, and unbiased. When interpreting a knowledge test, only interpret the words and phrases thoroughly and precisely and ensuring that the manner of interpreting will not add any additional information or meaning that may otherwise influence the outcome of the test.

This includes, but is not limited to, by voice inflection and tone, facial expressions and body language; not coach or teach clients including, but not limited to, information required to pass the knowledge test; decline service to any person that offers an incentive to ensure a knowledge test is passed. [ 14 ] The Code of Conduct ends with this statement: Any unethical or illegal behaviour, including fraudulent translation or

interpretation or being a party thereto, may trigger an investigation by ICBC Special Investigation Unit and/or local law enforcement under the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act or Criminal Code of Canada . Below that statement is the following declaration, which was signed by Mr. Jamo: I, Amjed Jamo, have read and understand the ICBC code of conduct for approved translators and interpreters. I hereby undertake to comply with its provisions and understand that any contraventions may result in temporary or permanent withdrawal of my approved translator and/or interpreter status. [ 15 ] Mr.

Jamo was approved by ICBC and his name was listed as an approved translator on ICBC's website. All ICBC customers who take the knowledge test with the assistance of a translator are required to take their test at station number 10 located at the Richmond Driver Licensing office if they are taking their test in Richmond, British Columbia. [ 16 ] That station is equipped with a camera, which records the test and is monitored through the manager's office. The translator signs an approved translator declaration for conduct of a translation every time he translates for an ICBC transaction.

That document states, in part: I declare that the information translated by me is precise, accurate and correct. I have not added any information from one document to the other. In the case of the driver's knowledge test, I understand that ICBC may record and transcribe the translation. I declare that I am an approved ICBC translator/interpreter and have completed and signed the Code of Conduct.

I understand it is an offence to provide false and misleading information in the process of applying for a British Columbia Driver's Licence. [ 17 ] As a result of information provided by ICBC customer service representatives working at the Richmond Driver Licensing office, Ms. Reid and others began to suspect that Mr. Jamo was providing customers with signals or cues to help them choose the right answers

on the knowledge test while he was providing translation services for them. [ 18 ] It was noted that almost 100 percent of the customers who took the knowledge test with Mr. Jamo's assistance passed, many with high scores. Many of those individuals had repeatedly failed the test on prior occasions, without Mr. Jamo's assistance. Many of those same individuals failed the test again on several occasions when their learner's licences were revoked after November of 2017 and they were required to retake the test without assistance from Mr. Jamo. [ 19 ] Ms.

Reid produced dozens of videos, taken between August 5th, 2017 and October 30th, 2017, showing Mr. Jamo providing translation services to ICBC customers at station number 10 at the Richmond licensing office while the customers were taking the knowledge test. [ 20 ] On numerous occasions, Mr. Jamo was seen moving a water bottle from behind his back to the front of his body and at times, taking a sip of the water. There was a very strong correlation between this physical behaviour by Mr. Jamo and the customer choosing answer d on the multiple-choice question appearing on the computer screen.

In the vast majority of the cases, where this behaviour occurred, d was the correct answer to the question on the computer screen. [ 21 ] In addition, on several of the videos, the test takers were observed looking at Mr. Jamo when they were supposed to face the screen and Mr. Jamo was supposed to be standing behind the test takers while the test was occurring. [ 22 ] Evidence was also presented by Delwin Chin Yee Harris, who worked as a customer service representative at the Richmond Driver Licensing Office in 2017. She knew Mr. Jamo because he translated for hundreds of customers taking the knowledge test.

She initially saw him at the Richmond licensing office, once per week, but his presence increased to translating for two to three people on Saturdays, the busiest day at that office. [ 23 ] On August 5th, 2017, Ms. Harris was acting supervisor at the office. One of her responsibilities was to monitor the recordings at station number 10 from the manager's office. On that day, she noticed there was no audio recording of the translation-taking place at station number 10. [ 24 ] As she approached Mr. Jamo at that station, he pulled a recorder out of his pocket.

It had a red light on, which meant it was supposed to be recording. Mr. Jamo suggested the recorder was faulty. She changed it. [ 25 ] Ms. Harris confirmed that translators all know they must have their recorders on at all times that, they are translating questions on the knowledge test for customers. [ 26 ] The customer whose test she monitored that day received translation services, passed the test, and was issued a learner's licence. Ms. Harris testified the customer would not have received a learner's licence if it was known that Mr.

Jamo had given the customer signals that pointed to the correct answers on the test. [ 27 ] Another customer service representative, Amy Mukei, testified that she has worked for ICBC since 2013. She too was able to identify Mr. Jamo because she saw him frequently at ICBC's Richmond Driver Licensing office. She observed that he usually carried a water bottle. [ 28 ] Ms. Mukei testified about the following suspicious incidents involving Mr. Jamo. On September 2nd, 2017, she was administering a vision test to a customer who had the test translated by Mr. Jamo.

That customer gave her answers to questions that she had not yet asked. [ 29 ] On September 16th, 2017, she noticed Mr. Jamo's translation was not being recorded. She retrieved the recording device from Mr. Jamo, turned it on, and it was working. [ 30 ] That same day, she interceded while he was translating with a customer to remind him that he had to stand behind the test taker. The test taker was, to her observation, looking at Mr. Jamo while taking the test. [ 31 ] On October 7th, 2017, Ms. Mukei noticed Mr. Jamo's recording device had no volume.

She checked the device and again, it was not faulty. [ 32 ] On October 14th, 2017, Ms. Mukei noticed Mr. Jamo and his customer left station number 10 abruptly in the middle of the test, which was not allowed, and then returned to complete the test. On the same day, Ms. Mukei noticed Mr. Jamo's customer was leaning on the computer screen and looking back at Mr. Jamo. [ 33 ] Ms. Mukei testified that if she was sure there was cheating going on, she would have stopped the test and not allowed a learner's licence to issue. [ 34 ] Sgt. Amine is an Arabic-speaking RCMP member, who has been on the force for 20 years.

ICBC's Special Investigations Unit contacted him for assistance in the investigation of Mr. Jamo. Sgt. Amine assumed the name of Said Bin-Ibrahim and contacted Mr. Jamo, asking for assistance to pass the ICBC knowledge test so that he could obtain his learner's licence. He told Mr. Jamo he was from Morocco, where he drove a vehicle, but he had tried and failed the knowledge test in British Columbia several times. [ 35 ] Sgt. Amine met Mr. Jamo at ICBC's Driver Licensing office. Mr. Jamo told Mr. Amine he charged $100 for translation services only and $300 if Mr.

Jamo's assistance was requested to help pass the knowledge test. Mr. Jamo told Sgt. Amine that if he did not pass the test, he would not have to pay the additional amount. [ 36 ] Sgt. Amine asked for the additional help. Mr. Jamo gave Sgt. Amine three different verbal cues which signalled when the correct answer to a question on the knowledge test was a, b, or c. Mr. Jamo also told Sgt. Amine that when he moved his water bottle forward, the correct answer was d. Also, if he took a sip of water from the bottle, the correct answer to the question on the computer screen was d.

[37] Sgt. Amine followed Mr. Jamo's cues and passed the test. Afterwards, he walked with Mr. Jamo to a nearby mall, where he paidMr. Jamo $300 in cash. Mr. Jamo asked Sgt. Amine to send him anyone else that needed help to pass the test. [38] For purposes of this trial, the Crown chose to proceed only with the proof of physical cues or signals, including movement of Mr.Jamo's water bottle, and sipping from the water bottle. The recording of Mr. Jamo's translation during Sgt. Amine's test-taking wasviewed and entered into evidence at the trial. [39] It is clear that Mr.

Jamo held a water bottle in his hands that were crossed behind his back. On nine occasions, he brought thewater bottle forward from behind his back, which was the pre-arranged signal to pick answer d to the question on the computer screen.On all nine occasions, d was the correct answer. [40] It was pointed out, on cross-examination, that on two additional occasions, the answer was also d but no water bottle wasproduced. [41] Sgt. Amine finished the knowledge test early, without completing all questions, because a pass is recorded when 40 answers areanswered correctly. Sgt.

Amine testified he responded to questions on the knowledge test based upon the cues provided by Mr. Jamo. [42] Sgt. Amine's test was supervised by Vera Wong, on October 28th, 2017. She testified she did not issue a learner's licence for Sgt.Amine because she was aware he was taking the test as an undercover officer. [43] Mr. Stutt, a special constable appointed under s. 9(1) of the Police Act, also testified. He conducted the investigation of Mr.Jamo beginning in November of 2016. Mr. Stutt met Mr. Jamo on several occasions at the ICBC Driver Licensing office. [44] He started to routinely observe Mr. Jamo.

He noticed Mr. Jamo often wore a coat, carried a satchel, and removed a water bottlefrom his satchel, prior to starting translation of test questions for customers. During the translation, Mr. Jamo held the water bottlebehind his back. From time to time, during the translation, he brought the water bottle forward from behind his back, and at times, hetook the cap off and put it back on with or without taking a drink of water from the bottle. [45] After many similar observations, Mr. Stutt arranged to have Sgt. Amine conduct an undercover investigation, posing as anArabic-speaking test taker. Mr.

Stutt observed Mr. Jamo's translation during Sgt. Amine's test. [46] On November 4th, 2017, Mr. Stutt met with Mr. Jamo, explained his role as a police constable, and also, explained Mr. Jamo'sCharter rights to him. Mr. Jamo indicated he wished to obtain legal advice before speaking with the police. [47] Mr. Stutt testified that ICBC tests applicants for drivers’ licences, to ensure they are safe on the road. He said a learner's licenceallows a driver to drive, under the supervision of a qualified licence holder.

He further stated, if unqualified drivers are driving vehicles,ICBC's insurance risk increases, even if there are no actual motor vehicle accidents. [48] My decision is based on those findings of facts.

I turn now to the law. [49] Section 380(1) of the Criminal Code states a person is guilty of fraud if the person: ... by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, whether or not it is a false pretence within the meaning of this Act, defrauds the publicor any person, whether ascertained or not, of any property, money or valuable security or any service [50] Crown and defence counsel, agree that the leading cases on fraud from the Supreme Court of Canada are R. v. Olan, (SCC), [1978] 2 S.C.R. 1175 (Olan) and R. v. Théroux, (SCC), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 5 (Théroux). The law in thisarea is summarized in R. v.

Singleton, 2010 BCSC 1734 at paragraphs 85 to 90 as follows: The elements required for a conviction of fraud pursuant to s. 380(1) of the Code were discussed by the Supreme Court of Canada in R.v. Olan ... and R. v. Théroux... Théroux contains a thorough recitation of the law of fraud and the various elements necessary for conviction. With regard to the actusreus, McLachlin J., as she then was, writing for the majority, referred to Olan, and stated: Olan marked a broadening of the law of fraud in two respects.

First, it overruled previous authority which suggested that deceit was anessential element of the offence. Instead, it posited the general concept of dishonesty, which might manifest itself in deceit, falsehood orsome other form of dishonesty. Just as what constitutes a lie or a deceitful act for the purpose of the actus reus is judged on the objectivefacts, so the "other fraudulent means" in the third category is determined objectively, by reference to what a reasonable person wouldconsider to be a dishonest act.

Secondly, Olan made it clear that economic loss was not essential to the offence; the imperilling of aneconomic interest is sufficient even though no actual loss has been suffered. By adopting an expansive

interpretation of the offence, theCourt established fraud as an offence of general scope capable of encompassing a wide range of dishonest commercial dealings. McLachlin J. continued to discuss the actus reus necessary if the particular fraud is alleged to have been by “other fraudulent means”: [W]here it is alleged that the actus reus of a particular fraud is "other fraudulent means", the existence of such means will be determinedby what reasonable people consider to be dishonest dealing.

In instances of fraud by deceit or falsehood, it will not be necessary toundertake such an inquiry; all that need be determined is whether the accused, as a matter of fact, represented that a situation was of acertain character, when, in reality, it was not. After a general discussion of mens rea, McLachlin J. described the mens rea for fraud: The mens rea would then consist in the subjective awareness that one was undertaking a prohibited act (the deceit, falsehood or otherdishonest act) which could cause deprivation in the sense of depriving another of property or putting that property at risk.

If this isshown, the crime is complete. The fact that the accused may have hoped the deprivation would not take place, or may have felt there was

nothing wrong with what he or she was doing, provides no defence. ... McLachlin J. states the following with regard to risk of deprivation: The inclusion of risk of deprivation in Olan requires specific comment. The accused must have subjective awareness, at the very least,that his or her conduct will put the property or economic expectations of others at risk. As noted above, this does not mean that theCrown must provide the trier of fact with a mental snapshot proving exactly what was in the accused’s mind at the moment the dishonestact was committed.

Normally, the inference of subjective knowledge of risk may be drawn from the facts as the accused believed them tobe. ... McLachlin J. summarized her discussion of the elements of the offence of fraud: These doctrinal observations suggest that the actus reus of the offence of fraud will be established by proof of: 1. the prohibited act, be it

an act of deceit, a falsehood, or some other fraudulent means; and 2. deprivation caused by the prohibited act, which may consist in actual loss or the placing of the victim's pecuniary interests at risk. Correspondingly, the mens rea of fraud is established by proof of: 1. Subjective knowledge of the prohibited act; and 2. Subjective knowledge that the prohibited act could have as a consequence the deprivation of another (which deprivation may consistin knowledge that the victim's pecuniary interests are put at risk). Where the conduct and knowledge required by these

definitions are established, the accused is guilty whether he actually intended theprohibited consequence or was reckless as to whether it would occur. [51] In applying this law, I start by accepting the evidence of Sgt. Amine who testified Mr. Jamo clearly offered to provide him withsignals to the correct answers for a payment of $200, over and above the $100-fee for translation of the questions on the test. [52] The recording of Mr. Jamo providing translation during Sgt. Amine's test, visually confirms the evidence that Mr. Jamo used awater bottle to signal when the correct answer to a test question was d.

This water bottle motion made by Mr. Jamo was viewed when hetranslated for dozens of other test takers with a strong correlation between the signal and the answer d on the test question. The behaviourseen in those other videos corroborates the evidence of Sgt. Amine. [53] In order to be approved as a translator for ICBC transactions, Mr. Jamo agreed to be bound by a Code of Conduct for approvedtranslators and interpreters.

I find he breached that Code of Conduct by not remaining neutral, impartial, and unbiased by addingadditional information through body language to influence the outcome of the knowledge test results by using physical signals to coachcustomers on which answers to choose and by providing service to persons who offered a financial incentive to ensure they passed theknowledge test. [54] Every time Mr.

Jamo translated for a person taking the knowledge test, he signed the declaration stating he signed the Code ofConduct and he understood it is an offence to provide false and misleading information in the process of applying for a British Columbiadriver's licence. [55] I find that in the case of Sgt. Amine and in dozens of other cases, Mr.

Jamo lied in the declarations he signed, because he knewhe had provided signals to the test takers which assisted them in passing the test contrary to the provisions of the Code of Conductbinding him. [56] The Code of Conduct is detailed in listing prohibited conduct and it clearly states failure to comply with its provisions can triggeran investigation under the Motor Vehicle Act or the Criminal Code of Canada. [57] I find Mr. Jamo induced ICBC to issue learner's licences to customers by falsely representing to ICBC, that the knowledge testquestions were translated without any influence from Mr.

Jamo when he knew the declaration was not true. That constitutes dishonestyand Mr.

Jamo subjectively knew he was being dishonest because he was clearly aware of the behaviours prohibited by the Code ofConduct, that he signed and agreed to be bound by. [58] I find the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt the element of dishonesty, both in the actus reus of the offence of fraudand in the mens rea aspect of the offence. [59] The primary issue in dispute between the Crown and the defence is whether the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubtthat ICBC suffered deprivation as a result of the accused's dishonesty and that the accused had the subjective knowledge that hisdishonesty could have, as a consequence, the deprivation of ICBC through actual loss or by placing ICBC's pecuniary interests at risk. [60] The defence argues that the Olan decision expanded the definition of fraud, however, urges the Court to find that there are limitsto the scope of the offence.

It is argued that deprivation is the gatekeeper between

an act of dishonesty that does not bear criminalconsequences and

an act of criminal fraud. [61] The defence relies upon the decision of R. v. Hagerman, (BC SC), where the accused obtained Alberta MotorVehicle Operators’ Licences by providing a false British Columbia driver's licence and other pieces of false identity. [62] The accused was acquitted of fraud because it was determined that the Province of Alberta was not defrauded of any property,nor was there any risk of economic loss as all of the licences issued were paid for by the accused.

[63] The defence argues that ICBC was also not deprived of property, because it was paid for all of the licences it issued and theHagerman case should be applied in the case of Mr. Jamo. [64] The Crown asks the Court to distinguish the case of Hagerman, on the basis, that in Alberta the body that issues licences does notinsure the vehicle being driven by persons who hold licences, therefore there was not a strong argument to make about risk to thevictim's pecuniary interests.

In contrast, ICBC is responsible for driver licensing, vehicle registration, and auto insurance in the Provinceof British Columbia, making the argument of the accused's conduct placing at risk the insurance interests of ICBC a much strongerargument in B.C. than in Alberta. [65] Alternatively, the Crown argues that the Hagerman case preceded the decision in Théroux and this court should follow theguidance of McLachlin J. in Théroux, in finding that the dishonest acts of Mr.

Jamo placed ICBC's pecuniary interests at risk. [66] Having considered both the Hagerman and the Théroux decisions, I find that where the reasoning in Hagerman differs from thatin Théroux, the reasoning in Théroux supersedes that, of the reasoning, in Hagerman and the Théroux decision should be applied. [67] The defence also referred to the case of United States of America v.

Schrang, (BC CA) which was anextradition case addressing whether there was a prima facie case of fraud. [68] The accused provided the United States military with false fabric test certificates, regarding the flammability of tents ordered bythe U.S. military. Upon sampling the tent fabric, the U.S. military found the fabric was defective and did not pay for the tents. [69] It was determined that there was no risk of economic deprivation to the U.S. military because it never took possession of the tentsand it was not actually deceived.

The Court did find proof of attempted fraud. [70] The facts in the case before me appear to be distinguishable because, in the case of ICBC and Mr. Jamo, ICBC was in factdeceived into issuing learners’ licences relying upon the declarations of Mr. Jamo regarding the accuracy of his translations, whichdeclarations were knowingly false. [71] The issue of the lack of a direct connection between Mr. Jamo and ICBC was also raised. The Crown referred to the case of R. v.Kirkwood, (ON CA), 148 D.L.R. (3d) 323 (Ont.

C.A.) (Kirkwood) an Ontario Court of Appeal decision, for theproposition that there need be no personal nexus between the fraudsman and his victim where the accused's false representationsoperated on the mind of the victim. [72] I find in the case before me there is no doubt that ICBC relied upon the declarations signed by Mr. Jamo in accepting the validityof the knowledge test results. [73] The Crown also referred to the case of R. v. Mondor, 2007 ABPC 271, which involved 55 counts of forgery.

The accused usedfalse identity documents to obtain Class 6 and 7 drivers’ licences and registrations for various vehicles. [74] The Court indicated the government of Alberta Motor Vehicle Special Investigations is responsible for the verification ofsupporting documentation supplied by registrants, in connection with applications for motor vehicle licences and other officialgovernment documents. [75] In finding that the accused's conduct amounted to actual risk of prejudice to the economic interests of the registry system inAlberta, the Court stated at paragraph 21: The Alberta government set up the private registry system throughout the province to facilitate public access to important governmentservices with respect to the issuance of drivers licences which are a material document for conduct in ordinary society, for the issuance ofregistration of vehicles to ensure that all vehicles driving on Alberta roads are properly registered and insured and to facilitate a host ofother document issuing activities.

The accused in this case took advantage of several unforeseen weaknesses in the system (which havesince been corrected) in a comprehensive fraud committed upon registry offices which impaired the efficacy and reliability of the entireregistry program. Clearly, this action amounts to a serious risk of prejudice to the economic interests and the integrity of the registrysystem in the province of Alberta.

The public must know and believe that the registry system can be implicitly trusted as the ultimateprovider of important government records and documents. [76] The Crown argues that the reasoning in this case, although not binding on this court, is persuasive and urges the Court to findthat ICBC was economically deprived by the accused's conduct because it placed at risk the integrity of the licensing system in BritishColumbia.

It is argued, that the British Columbia public must know and believe ICBC is issuing valid learners’ licences to persons whohonestly pass the knowledge test. [77] The Crown further argues that from all of the evidence, in this case, the Court can infer Mr. Jamo knew the financial interests ofICBC were affected by the issuance of licences to individuals he knew were not able to pass the knowledge test on their own. [78] The Crown relied upon the Kirkwood case, approved of in Théroux, and adopted by the British Columbia Court of Appeal in R.v.

Fitzpatrick, 1984 Carswell BC 839, to argue that a court can infer awareness on the part of an accused of a risk of prejudice to theeconomic interests of the victim. [79] In response to the Crown's arguments, the defence argues the integrity of the drivers’ licence issuing system in British Columbiais not referred to in the Information, and should not be considered by the Court. The defence argued there is no evidence to indicate theindividuals who obtained licences with the assistance of Mr.

Jamo ever drove a motor vehicle or, if they did, that they would be a greaterrisk of causing motor vehicle accidents than others. [80] I have considered carefully the submissions of Defence and Crown counsel. It appears that the defence is asking the Court tointerpret the element of deprivation, in both the actus reus and mens rea of the offence of fraud more strictly, while the Crown is seeking

a broader

interpretation, asking the Court to infer ICBC's pecuniary interests were at risk and to infer that Mr. Jamo knew his acts could place ICBC's pecuniary interests at risk. [ 81 ] As indicated by the Supreme Court of Canada in Théroux , fraud is an offence of general scope capable of encompassing a wide range of dishonest commercial transactions.

The Crown is not required to prove actual economic loss in order to prove the actus reus element of deprivation. [ 82 ] It is my view that a reasonable person informed that dozens of learners’ licences were issued by ICBC, to individuals who were not capable of passing the learner's test without having Mr. Jamo signal correct answers to them, would have concern for the ability of those persons to safely operate a motor vehicle on the road. Whether they actually drove a motor vehicle, is not something, in my view, the Crown has to prove.

It is the fact that they received a learner's licence and could at any time drive that causes concern for the integrity of ICBC's licensing system. [ 83 ] In addition, I find the reasonable average person would consider those individuals who did not legitimately obtain a learner's licence to be at higher risk to be involved in motor vehicle accidents because they do not understand the basic rules of the road.

This places themselves, the qualified drivers in their cars, and the public at higher risk for injury. [ 84 ] It is, in my view, reasonable to foresee that the risk of more accidents places at risk ICBC's insurance scheme resulting in greater losses to ICBC and higher insurance premiums for the general public. [ 85 ] I find the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that deprivation caused by the accused's dishonesty placed the pecuniary interests of ICBC at risk. [ 86 ] Finally, I infer from the conduct of Mr.

Jamo that he had subjective knowledge that his dishonesty placed ICBC's pecuniary interests at risk or that could be a consequence of his dishonesty. [ 87 ] Mr. Jamo was in a position of trust with ICBC. He agreed to be bound by a detailed Code of Conduct and to sign a declaration validating the accuracy of his translations, every time he translated questions from the knowledge test for his customers. His signals to customers were a form of subterfuge and he took an extra cash payment for helping customers cheat on the knowledge test. [ 88 ] I find Mr.

Jamo was very well aware of how much extra help the people he translated for needed in order to pass the knowledge test, which focused on basic rules of the road. He knew many, if not most of them, would have failed if he did not signal the answers to them. He also knew the object of obtaining the learner's licence was to have the right to drive.

He knew he was ensuring that people who most likely would not be able to pass the knowledge test were, in any event, able to drive on B.C. roads because of his dishonest acts. [ 89 ] I find he knew that inducing ICBC to issue learners’ licences to his customers by producing false-positive test results on the knowledge test was a fraudulent act. [ 90 ] In my view, it is reasonable to infer that Mr.

Jamo, like the reasonable average person, would know that his conduct would place at risk the safety of those drivers and others who came into contact with him, which in turn would increase ICBC's risk for insuring all B.C. drivers. [ 91 ] I infer from all of the evidence that the Crown has proven, beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Jamo had the subjective knowledge that his dishonest acts could have, as a consequence, deprivation to ICBC's pecuniary interests. [ 92 ] For these reasons, I find all elements of fraud have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I convict Mr.

Jamo of defrauding the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia of property, specifically driver's licences, contrary to s. 380(1) (b)(

i) of the Criminal Code . (REASONS FOR JUDGMENT CONCLUDED)