Her Majesty the Queen - v. -, 2013 SKPC 15

IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF SASKATCHEWAN Citation: 2013 SKPC 015 Date: January 11, 2013 Information: 42799105 Location: Saskatoon _____________________________________________________________________________ Between: Her Majesty the Queen - and - Dwayne Maskwa Appearing: Robin Ritter For the Crown Morris Bodnar, Q.C. For the Accused SENTENCING DECISION D.E. LABACH , J [ 1 ] On January 10, 2011, the accused was charged on Information 42799105 with stealing monies from the Avis Budget Group in excess of five thousand dollars contrary to

section 334 (

a) of the Criminal Code and with defrauding the Avis Budget Group in excess of five thousand dollars contrary to section 380(1) (

a) of the Criminal Code . The Crown elected to proceed by way of indictment. On August 29, 2012, the accused pled guilty to the fraud charge and the Crown stayed the theft charge. A Pre-sentence Report was prepared and filed with the Court. The accused appeared before me on November 22, 2012 for sentencing. After hearing sentencing submissions, I adjourned my sentencing to today’s date.

[ 2 ] The facts on this sentencing are relatively simple. For some eleven years the accused had a contract with the Avis Budget Group to operate the Avis Rent-A-Car booth at the Saskatoon airport. This business was open seven days a week, 365 days of the year. All monies taken in by the business were payable to the Avis Budget Group and they in turn would pay the accused a commission. He had some employees working for him and his wife did the payroll for the business. It appears he was responsible to pay the employees out of his commissions.

He had no business degree or training and his experience in the car rental business was limited to cleaning rental cars to get them ready to re-rent. Notwithstanding this lack of car rental business acumen, the accused put in long hours trying to make the business profitable. [ 3 ] Unfortunately, despite the accused’s best efforts, the business began losing money. At some point he fell into arrears with the Canada Revenue Agency and they began garnisheeing his commission cheques.

As the business and financial stresses increased, the accused’s marriage began to flounder and, as if to further exacerbate matters, the accused was diagnosed with bipolar affective disorder. [ 4 ] As part of the business, the accused would receive payments from Saskatchewan Government Insurance, the provincial motor license issuer, for cancelled license plates on Avis vehicles.

These reimbursement payments were made payable to the Avis Budget Group and the accused was responsible to deposit these monies into the company’s bank account at the CIBC. [ 5 ] The accused dutifully attended the CIBC for years and made deposits into the Avis Budget Group account. The tellers at the bank knew him to be the “Avis guy” and were very familiar with him. In and around September of 2007, the accused opened his own account at this same branch of the CIBC.

In order to alleviate the financial pressures he was feeling, he began depositing these licence plate reimbursement cheques into his own account instead of into the Avis Budget Group account. Given the tellers’ familiarity with him they did not notice that these cheques were payable to Avis Budget and not the accused. [ 6 ] In August 2010, the company had concerns about the license plate costs out of their Saskatoon airport operation and they directed their district manager to do an audit.

It quickly became obvious to the district manager that there was a discrepancy between the license plate reimbursement records and the accused’s deposit records. Further investigation revealed that the accused was depositing these unaccounted monies into his own account. As a result, the accused’s contract to run the booth at the airport was terminated. [ 7 ] At the time the Avis Budget Group terminated the accused’s contract they found out that one of their rental trucks was missing. They eventually determined that the accused had sold the truck to a third party and had pocketed the monies.

The accused did not own the truck and did not have the authority to sell it on behalf of Avis Budget. [ 8 ] The total amount of the fraud perpetrated by the accused on the Avis Budget Group was $146,946.61. Since the bank’s employees did not ensure that the licence plate reimbursement cheques were being deposited to the proper account, the CIBC reimbursed the Avis Budget Group this entire amount. As a result, it is the CIBC who are now out of pocket these monies. [ 9 ] The accused is presently 39 years of age and comes before me with no prior criminal record.

He does not have any issues with alcohol, drugs or gambling, although when he was younger, he was a regular marijuana user. He was raised in a good home by loving grandparents. By all accounts he was a quiet person who got along well with others and never got into trouble but was also someone who was always trying to keep his wife and others happy. [ 10 ] There is a history of depression in the accused’s family. Some six or seven years ago, the accused sought the help of a psychiatrist to deal with suicidal thoughts he was having.

The psychiatrist diagnosed him with bipolar affective disorder and prescribed lithium and effexor. More recently he has had to deal with the death of his brother, high blood pressure, chest pains and problems sleeping and is depressed and anxious. He has not always followed his treatment regime and from time to time has been off his medications. [ 11 ] The accused was married and has a six year old daughter. Initially his marriage was good but when his business began to have problems he started working more and would not communicate with his wife. He became angry, introverted and embarrassed at his failure.

Around the time he was diagnosed as being bipolar, and as his job stress and financial problems increased, he began taking the license plate reimbursement cheques and depositing them into his own account. The accused apparently used these monies to meet his payroll obligations and to pay himself and his wife. He hid his actions from his wife. She did not find out he was defrauding Avis Budget until he lost the contract and was charged with these criminal offences.

[ 12 ] His ex-spouse confirmed that they began having relationship problems after he was diagnosed as being bipolar. She said that when he went off his medications he became selfish, would lie a lot, was angry and quick to argue and if he had any money, he would spend it. When she found out about what he was doing and the criminal charges, she left the relationship. [ 13 ] After his contract with Avis Budget was terminated, the accused worked as an equipment manager for Stuart Olson Dominion Construction.

About six months ago he left Stuart Olson for a higher paying position with Skyline Roofing as an estimator/project manager. [ 14 ] The accused expressed his remorse in open court and was sincerely sorry for the problems he caused the Avis Budget Group, the CIBC, his family and his ex-spouse and daughter. He indicated a sincere willingness to repay the monies that he wrongfully took. He explained that he had not repaid any of the monies to date because he was not making enough at Stuart Olson to cover his child support payments and other debts. In March 2012 he filed for bankruptcy.

His new position at Skyline Roofing pays him more and he offered that he can meet his existing debt commitments and pay $1,000.00 per month as restitution for the monies he took. [ 15 ] In their sentencing submissions, the Crown urged me to impose a sentence of two years less a day incarceration and to make a restitution order as against the accused for the full amount of the fraud.

In their view this was a fraud perpetrated over a long period of time, the accused breached his position of trust with the Avis Budget Group, he never expressed any remorse, he did not pay back any of the monies he took and while he has pled guilty, this guilty plea did not occur in a timely fashion. [ 16 ] Defence counsel disagreed that incarceration was the only appropriate sentence in this case. In their view, a conditional sentence order was appropriate and would fulfill the purpose and principles of sentencing set forth in the Criminal Code , especially the principles of denunciation and deterrence.

In making this submission, Defence relied heavily on the comments in the Pre-sentence Report, the fact that the accused had no prior criminal record, that he pled guilty to this offence, that the impugned monies were used to meet payroll as well as to pay his and his wife’s salaries, that he was very remorseful and wanted to repay this monies and that he was a low risk to re-offend. [ 17 ] As of the coming into force of

section 34 of Bill C-10, the Safe Streets and Communities Act on November 20, 2012, a conditional sentence order is no longer an available sentencing option for a section 380(1) offence when the Crown has proceeded by way of indictment. However, over the time period that the accused committed the fraud against the Avis Budget Group, the offence, when proceeded with by indictment was not precluded from eligibility for a conditional sentence. As a result of

section 11(

i) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms , the accused is entitled to the benefit of the lesser punishment and a conditional sentence is an available sentencing option in this case. [ 18 ] In any sentencing hearing, I am governed by sections 718 to 718.2 of the Criminal Code . In a sentencing for fraud, I am also governed by

section 380.1 of the Criminal Code . This

section states as follows: 380.1(1) Without limiting the generality of

section 718.2 , where a court imposes a sentence for an offence referred to in

section 380, 382, 382.1 or 400, it shall consider the following as aggravating circumstances: (

a) the magnitude, complexity, duration or degree of planning of the fraud committed was significant; (

b) the offence adversely affected, or had the potential to adversely affect, the stability of the Canadian economy or financial system or any financial market in Canada or investor confidence in such a financial market; (

c) the offence involved a large number of victims; (c.1) the offence had a significant impact on the victims given their personal circumstances including their age, health and financial situation; (

d) in committing the offence, the offender took advantage of the high regard in which the offender was held in the community; (

e) the offender did not comply with a licensing requirement, or professional standard, that is normally applicable to the activity or conduct that forms the subject-matter of the offence; and (

f) the offender concealed or destroyed records related to the fraud or to the disbursement of the proceeds of the fraud.

. . . .

(2) When a court imposes a sentence for an offence referred to in

section 380, 382, 382.1 or 400, it shall not consider as mitigatingcircumstances the offender’s employment, employment skills or status or reputation in the community if those circumstances wererelevant to, contributed to, or were used in the commission of the offence. . . . . [19] In this case, I am surprised that the cheques and balances at the bank did not catch the inconsistency between the name on thecheques and the name on the account or that the Avis Budget Group did not perform regular audits on its different outlets.

Once aproblem was noted at the Saskatoon booth it appears that it did not take long to follow the obvious paper trail and determine the licensereimbursement cheques were going into the wrong account. While the amount the accused defrauded the Avis Budget Group wassignificant and the fraud carried on for some three years, it was clearly not a sophisticated, complex or a well thought out plan andcertainly there is no indication the accused attempted to conceal what he was doing. [20] The Crown suggested that the accused’s fraud involved a breach of trust.

Yet upon hearing the facts, it struck me that thiswas a case of breach of a contractual obligation rather than a breach of trust. In Air Canada v. M & L Travel Ltd., (SCC), [1993] S.C.J. No. 118, the Supreme Court of Canada had to determine whether the relationship between the Appellant travelagency and the Respondent airline was one of trust or debtor and creditor. The Appellant travel agency was required by the agreementbetween themselves and the Respondent airline to remit the proceeds of Air Canada tickets to the Respondent airline less any applicablecommissions.

At paragraphs 20 to 23, the Court accepted that in order to constitute a trust, an arrangement must have threecharacteristics - certainty of intent, of subject matter and of object. In the present case, the subject matter is the license platereimbursements and the object (or beneficiary) is the Avis Budget Group. I have not seen the contract between the accused and AvisBudget so I cannot say whether it is certain in its intent to create a trust.

Irrespective of this, I note that the Defence did not take any issuewith the Crown’s characterization of the agreement creating a trust situation which the accused later broke. While this is not the usualbreach of trust we see in these large fraud cases, I accept that it is a breach of trust. [21] I do not accept the Crown’s contention that the accused was not remorseful. He was very remorseful about what he had doneas was evident by his comments to me when I asked him if he had anything to add to his counsel’s sentencing submissions.

I also do notview the length of time it took the accused to plead guilty as a negative factor. A review of the endorsements on the Information revealsthat part of this delay was as a result of the accused trying to obtain legal counsel to assist him. He eventually made a successful courtappointed counsel application and on his next court appearance, Mr. Bodnar appeared with him. Thereafter, not guilty pleas wereentered and a trial date set however that trial did not go ahead. At a case management conference prior to the trial date, the partiesadvised that they were discussing resolution of the matters.

The trial date was never rescheduled as a resolution was ultimately achievedand a guilty plea entered. The Crown did not have to prepare for trial nor were their witnesses inconvenienced by having to come toCourt. The accused’s guilty plea may not have occurred as quickly as the Crown would have liked but it was a guilty plea nonetheless. [22] The Crown referred me to a number of cases as follows:

a) R. v. Germain 2010 SKPC 144. The sentencing judge endorsed a joint submission by Crown and Defence for a three and one-halfyear penitentiary term where the accused defrauded the Saskatchewan Indian and Gaming Authority. The accused provided cashmachines to the Gaming Authority, the Gaming Authority would refill the cash machines as necessary and would be reimbursed by theaccused’s company. The accused knew the number and password to the account to which reimbursement was electronically depositedand over a five month period he redirected almost 1.2 million dollars of these monies to his personal accounts.

The Court also made arestitution order in favour of the Gaming Authority for the full amount of the fraud.

b) R. v. Parkes 2012 SKQB 257 , [2012] S.J. No. 414 (Sask. Q.B.) The 56 year old accused operated a mental health andpersonal care home and defrauded a vulnerable, elderly resident of $173,000.00. Based on the fact that this was a serious breach of trustperpetrated over a number of years, the fact that the accused did not accept responsibility and lacked remorse, had made no restitutionand took away the victim’s independence, the Court sentenced the accused to a three year term of imprisonment and made a restitutionorder. The Court determined that a conditional sentence order was not appropriate.

c) R. v. Leis 2004 SKQB 463 The accused was convicted after trial of fraud and attempted fraud. The accused entered into a series ofeight transactions involving ten worthless cheques to defraud a number of farm implement dealers and motor vehicle dealers. Heattempted to defraud Canada Revenue Agency by using four worthless cheques in relation to income tax owing by three other people. The total amount of the fraud was $592,000.00. The victims recovered much of their lost money. The Court sentenced the accused to aneight month conditional sentence on each offence to be served concurrently, stating that such a sentence met the need for denunciationand deterrence.

d) R. v. Moulton 2001 SKCA 121 The accused defrauded a cattle producers cooperative of $228,488.00 by disposing of animals withoutaccounting to the co-operative for the proceeds. Fictitious contracts were created to avoid detection. The fraud led to the bankruptcy ofthe co-operative. The trial judge sentenced the accused to a conditional sentence order of two years less one day and made somerestitution orders. On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld this sentence.

e) R. v. Purves [2011] S.J. No. 275 (Sask. Q.B.) The accused pled guilty to three counts of fraud. In her capacity as the RMadministrator she manipulated the financial records of the rural municipality to take $107,245.00. The accused was also the secretary fora conservation organization and she wrote cheques to herself totalling $87,000.00. Finally, she was the treasurer of a minor sportsconcession business and wrote $33,468.00 in cheques to herself. The total amount of these frauds was $227,713.00. The Courtsentenced the accused to a conditional sentence of two years less one day and made a number of restitution orders.

f) R. v. Horvath, (SK CA), [1997] S.J. No. 385 (Sask. C.A.) A bank manager defrauded her employer of $198,527.00and another bank of $35,581.10. She had a severe gambling addiction. The Court of Appeal upheld a sentence of two years less one dayto be served in the community.

g) R. v. Besler 2011 SKPC 134 The accused was a partner at a chartered accounting firm. He had control over the office books, bankaccounts and a payroll account for a mining company. He was responsible to issue proper payroll cheques and remittances and remitappropriate deductions to the CRA. He left the firm and fled to Costa Rica. Shortly thereafter, the accounting firm was advised that itowed $1.5 million in outstanding payroll taxes relating to shortfalls on CRA remittances deducted from the mining company’s payroll.

The accused had issued unauthorized firm cheques to himself and then used payroll funds to cover these transactions. The accused pledguilty to fraud and three counts under the Income Tax Act. The judge sentenced him to a three year jail term.

h) R. v. Trotchie, unreported, November 9, 2011(SKPC) The accused defrauded an elderly lady who was blind and in a wheelchair of$43,000.00. She also defrauded the Ministry of Social Services of $16,272.57. The judge sentenced the accused to a total of two andone-half years of incarceration and made two restitution orders. [23] I have also taken the opportunity to review the following cases:

a) R. v. Salikin, [2011] S.J. No. 740 (Sask. Prov. Ct.) The accused was the village administrator and its sole employee. As part of herduties, she received payments for various items and diverted most of that money to herself. She pled guilty to defrauding the village of$65,000.00. The trial judge sentenced her to an 18 month conditional sentence order and made a restitution order.

b) R. v. Hache, 2012 SKPC 38 , [2012] S.J. No. 203 (Sask. Prov. Ct.) The accused was the director of Food and BeverageServices at TCU Place, a publicly funded, city owned entity. Over a one month period the accused misappropriated $143,452.00 byusing a variety of methods. The judge sentenced the accused to an 18 month conditional sentence order and a restitution order.

c) R. v. Stone, [2012] S.J. No. 520 (Sask. Q.B.) While acting as Chief of his First Nation, the accused took

part in a scheme with fourothers to defraud the band of more than $1 million in Treaty Land Entitlement Trust Funds. The accused had the least participation of allfive participants. The judge sentenced the accused to a one year conditional sentence order.

d) R. v. West, [2012] S.J. No. 555 (Sask. Prov. Ct.) The accused defrauded two separate employers of a total of $611,317.00 whileperforming bookkeeping duties. She overpaid her salary, falsified credit card business expenses, kept a client payment for herself andfabricated expense claims. She was sentenced to a jail term of 21 months in total with appropriate restitution orders.

[ 24 ] It is apparent from the aforementioned cases that in the case of a significant fraud, the only appropriate sentence is incarceration, either in an institution or in the community. It would be an extraordinary circumstance where it would be anything but. The present case is not so extraordinary. I have no hesitation in concluding that an appropriate sentence for the accused is a jail term. [ 25 ] While the fraud in this case is significant, the circumstances of the fraud do not fall into the category of cases that demand penitentiary time like Germain, Parkes, Besler and Trotchie.

The facts of the accused’s case have more in common with the facts in cases where courts have determined that correctional centre time or a conditional sentence are appropriate. See Leis , Purves, Salikin, and Hache . Taking into account the Crown’s position, I am satisfied that a period of incarceration of less than two years is appropriate in this case. The question is whether I should allow the accused to serve his sentence in the community pursuant to

section 742.1 of the Criminal Code . [ 26 ] In this case, I consider the following to be aggravating factors: - The amount of money taken in the fraud was significant; - The fraud carried on for a little over a three year period; - None of the monies have been repaid to date; - The accused had a contractual obligation to the Avis Budget Group to make deposits to their bank account.

While this is not the same kind of breach of trust seen in other cases, it is still a breach of trust of sorts. [ 27 ] I have determined that the mitigating factors in this case are: - The accused has pled guilty to this offence thereby accepting responsibility for his actions; - The accused is deeply remorseful for his actions; - The accused has no prior criminal record; - The monies were not used to support an alcohol, drug or gambling addiction or for extravagant purposes. Rather, the accused’s business was struggling financially and he was using the funds to pay his employees, himself and his wife’s salaries.

There is no indication that his or his spouse’s salary was extravagant or not justified; - The accused was suffering from bipolar affective disorder; - This was not a sophisticated or complex plan and the accused made no efforts to conceal what he was doing; - The accused has an honest and sincere desire to repay all of the monies he took. He sought work immediately after losing his contract with the Avis Budget Group and has only recently been in a position whereby he is making enough money to begin repaying the fraud.

His suggestion of paying $1,000.00 a month is not an insignificant amount; - The accused is agreeable to a restitution order in addition to making monthly payments toward his indebtedness; - The accused has the support of his family and his present employer; - The accused is described in the Pre-sentence Report as a low risk to re-offend. [ 28 ] In this case, the accused defrauded Avis Budget of a substantial amount of money. The fraud was not very sophisticated and the paper trail created by the deposited cheques and deposit slips led straight to the accused.

Avis Budget was not significantly impacted by the accused’s actions as they were reimbursed by the CIBC bank. There was no information put before me that they had to shut down their Saskatoon airport operation or that they lost any customers. The CIBC bank is out these monies but I was not advised that their day to day operations were affected by this fraud or that their relationships with their customers was damaged. [ 29 ] The accused was very remorseful about what he had done. By pleading guilty to defrauding the Avis Budget Group, he

accepted responsibility for his actions, saved the Crown and its witnesses the necessity of a trial and for the first time in his life, he willhave a criminal record. He had not made any payments towards the monies he took prior to sentencing submissions but not because hedid not want to make reimbursement. Rather, he could not afford to do so.

To his credit, the accused obtained work very shortly afterhis contract with Avis Budget was terminated, tried to pay off other debt and live up to his child support obligations, and then sought ahigher paying job so as to be able to make payments towards the indebtedness created by the fraud.

His offer to pay $1,000.00 permonth and agree to a restitution order over and above that is a considerable offer that reinforces in my mind, the accused’s acceptance ofresponsibility and his remorse. [30] Unlike a great many other cases, the accused did not take these monies to support an alcohol, drug or gambling addiction oran extravagant lifestyle. Instead, he took these monies to try to keep his business afloat. What he lacked in business experience andknow how, he tried to make up for by hard work. Unfortunately that was not enough to keep the business profitable.

His business wasnot making enough money to meet the payroll and to pay him and his wife for the work they were putting into the business. This is notan excuse for what the accused did, but it is unlike many cases that come before the Courts wherein the money is spent on addictions orluxuries. [31] The accused has been on an undertaking with conditions since he was arrested and he has not breached any of thoseconditions. He is a low risk to re-offend criminally.

He has some mental health issues but he has sought medical help for them and anytreatment he requires in that regard would be better accessed in the community than in jail. He suffers from anxiety, his wife has left himand his access to his young daughter is limited. Despite this he has the support of his family and his employer. [32] In R. v. Gopher [2006] S.J. No. 12 (Sask. C.A.), the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal dealt with a Crown appeal fromconditional sentences imposed by a trial judge on an accused who was a band councillor and an accused who was a trustee of the band’sTreaty Land Entitlement trust funds.

Together with the Chief of the band and a couple of others, these two had defrauded the FirstNation of more than $1 million of trust funds using a series of illegal payments to themselves, family and friends over a 21 monthperiod. In allowing the appeal and imposing a three year penitentiary term, the Court, at paragraph 66, said: [66] This review of sentencing authorities, indicates, not surprisingly, that there is no rigid set of rules which determines when a fraud orbreach of trust offence warrants jail or penitentiary time.

It cannot be otherwise given that sentencing decisions must be geared to thespecific circumstances of each offender. Nonetheless, the authorities do clearly reveal a general view that denunciation and deterrenceare key objectives in sentencing these type of offences and that substantial frauds by persons in positions of trust will generally attractsentences involving substantial periods of incarceration. [33] A conditional sentence can provide significant denunciation and deterrence.

There may be some circumstances though wherethe need for denunciation or deterrence is so pressing that incarceration is the only way in which to express society’s condemnation ofthe offender’s conduct or to deter similar conduct in the future. See R. v. Proulx, 2000 SCC 5 , [2000] 1 S.C.R. 61 (S.C.C.) atparagraph 127. However, I do not believe that this case is one of those circumstances. [34] A conditional sentence order with appropriate conditions followed by a probation order will reflect the gravity of what theaccused did and denounce his conduct.

A condition that he make restitution payments and a restitution order will promote justice andreparations for the victim bank. Conditions confining him to his home for a lengthy period of time and having him complete a largenumber of community service hours all while maintaining regular employment will punish him, deter him and others and promotereparations to the community. I see no need to separate this accused from society. The accused does not have to be incarcerated in orderfor rehabilitation to occur.

He has already sought help for his mental health issues and a condition can be imposed that he continuegetting that help.

Without overly emphasizing the accused’s personal circumstances, I am satisfied that a properly crafted conditionalsentence order followed by a further order of probation will hold the accused responsible for what he did, have a significant deterrent anddenunciatory effect, is in line with the punishments in similar cases involving substantial frauds, will properly express society’scondemnation of his conduct and will maintain public confidence in the administration of justice. [35] Allowing the accused to serve his sentence in the community will not endanger the community and is consistent with thefundamental purpose and principles of sentencing set forth in sections 718 to 718.2 of the Criminal Code.

Consequently, I sentence theaccused to a term of imprisonment of two years less one day however, pursuant to

section 742.1 of the Code I order that he serve hissentence in the community provided that he complies with the following conditions: 1. Keep the peace and be of good behaviour;

2. Appear before the court when required to do so by the court; 3. Report to the supervisor within two working days of today’s date and after that when required and in the manner directed by the supervisor or his designate; 4. Remain within the jurisdiction of the court unless written permission to go outside that jurisdiction is obtained from the court or the supervisor; 5. Notify the supervisor in advance of any change in name or address and promptly notify the supervisor of any change in employment or occupation; 6.

Reside at a residence approved of by the supervisor or designate and not change that residence without the prior written permission of the supervisor or his designate or the court; 7. That you stay inside your residence from 9:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. unless you have the prior written permission of your supervisor or designate or for work purposes or for medical emergencies; 8. That you personally present yourself on demand at the door of your approved residence to any peace officer or supervisor who may be checking the residence or curfew conditions of this order; 9.

That you not possess or consume alcohol or drugs that have not been prescribed for you by a medical doctor; 10. That you complete 150 hours of community service work as told to do so by your supervisor or designate such work to be completed no later than April 11, 2014; 11. That you make restitution by paying to the Provincial Court at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, in trust for the victim, the CIBC bank by paying $1,000.00 on February 1, 2013 and thereafter on the 1 st of each and every month for the full term of this conditional sentence order; 12.

That you see a medical doctor, psychiatrist and/or psychologist as directed and follow directions as to appointments, counselling, treatment and prescriptions and authorize the release of information about appointment times and prescriptions to your supervisor. In addition, following the expiration of your conditional sentence, I place you on probation for a period three years on the following conditions: 1. Keep the peace and be of good behaviour; 2. Appear before the court when required to do so by the court; 3.

Notify your probation officer or the court in advance of any change of name or address and promptly notify the probation officer or the court of any change of employment or occupation; 4. That you make restitution by paying to the Provincial Court at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, in trust for the victim, the CIBC bank the sum of $1,000.00 on February 1, 2015 and thereafter on the 1 st of each and every month for the full term of this probation order.

Pursuant to

section 738 of the Criminal Code , I order Mr. Maskwa to make restitution in the amount of $146,946.61 to the CIBC bank. Any and all amounts paid by Mr. Maskwa in accordance with the conditional sentence order and the probation order that I have placed him on will be set off against the amount described immediately above. Finally, I impose a victim fine surcharge in the amount of $100.00 with time to pay to January 31, 2013. ________________________ D.E. Labach, J