R. v. Glickman Date:, 2011 BCPC 136

Citation: R. v. Glickman Date: 20110512 2011 BCPC 0136 File No: 86077-1T;86078-1T Registry: Port Coquitlam IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. DARREN NATHAN GLICKMAN ORAL REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE POTHECARY Counsel for the Crown: S. McCallum Counsel for the Accused: M. Stern; D. Albert Place of Hearing: Port Coquitlam, B.C.

Date of Hearing: May 12, 2011 Date of Judgment: May 12, 2011 [ 1 ] THE COURT: Darren Nathan Glickman has pleaded guilty to a series of charges arising from June and July of 2002 in Winnipeg. [ 2 ] During that time he was associated with, it seems to be the operator of, a business called Avorex Design, which had opened in December of 2001. It was set up, I am not clear why, with the requirement that his then wife and a female family friend be the persons with signing authority on the bank account of the business.

Notwithstanding that it was a requirement that any cheques signed on the business account were to be signed by the two women, in fact it was Mr. Glickman who kept the chequebook and the bank statements. Certainly at this particular period, June and July of that year, he controlled what happened with the cheques and what happened with the financial aspects of the business. At some point during that period, from June through to July, the bank account in fact had been closed, but that did not seem to slow down the activity. [ 3 ] The events comprise a series of transactions relating to four different individuals.

The earliest on June 10th, 2002, was with a person by the name of Tyluk who operated the Winnipeg Meat Processors Incorporated business. In the course of dealings with Mr. Tyluk, and to get business for the design company, there was an arrangement made whereby Mr. Glickman was was going to perhaps assist them with some of their design work. [ 4 ] He requested payment in advance of monies totalling $2,000, apparently in order to pay anticipated PST and GST and a cheque was written to him in that amount.

At the same time, because this was a meat packing business, he made an arrangement to get a quantity of meat product, being chicken, shrimp and steak, from the same person, and wrote him a cheque for $720 to pay for that. The $2,000, of course, disappeared. The $720 was a cheque written on this account, and there were no funds in the account. [ 5 ] It is clear that he was managing the cheques and that the witness observed him write the second signature on the cheque at the time of that transaction. This was reported to the police in August of 2002.

That complainant is out $2,720. [ 6 ] The second series of events involved Mandy Hickman, who at that time was 22 years old. She had just been hired by Mr.

Glickman to work in this business, and within a very few weeks, on June 6th her pay cheque bounced, a cheque for $200, for nonsufficient funds. However, there was apparently some arrangement at that time, interestingly, that Mr.

Glickman would also, as part of a barter, pay her in meat products and seafood. [ 7 ] In any event, he then got into what became the pattern for most of the rest of the cheques that we are talking about, whereby he asked her to facilitate bypassing "the system" by giving her a cheque in a larger amount, asking for a portion of the proceeds to be paid by her to him in cash, and that she could keep the difference. In this case, he gave her a cheque for $1,500, I believe that is also June the 6th, and she paid him $1,000; she kept $500.

On June 12th there was another cheque, this one for $1,800, and he got $1,000 from her. Neither of these cheques in fact turned out to be good. The company itself was shut down sometime in early July. This young witness described that she never saw any advertising or marketing going on in this business. It was solely Mr. Glickman who was there, but really nothing much was being done. There was also an observation that he had a very significant cocaine problem. She ultimately went to Employee Standards and the matter was reported to the police in October of 2002.

She was out a total of $2,200. [ 8 ] The third complainant, Shannon Shields, was 21 when a friend introduced her to Mr. Glickman. What is fairly common in the descriptions of the introductions was that friends were introducing their friends to him on the basis that he was such a terrific guy and that he had so much money. He offered this young woman a job at Avorex and that being to design a website.

He told her a story about why he was doing this in Winnipeg now, and told her that she would be paid $1,000 for her work. [ 9 ] The next day he told her he was having some financial problems, that his bank had frozen a very substantial amount of money, and he could not get access to it, but he needed some money to go to Saskatchewan in order to do some business. In her case he wrote a cheque for $1,500 with $1,000 to be paid back to him. She deposited the cheque, but because she did it through her ATM she could only withdraw the limit, her daily limit, which for her was $300.

She ended up over the next few days withdrawing a total of $900, all of which was given to him. A few days after that, of course, the cheque was NSF. He kept saying that this was a bank error, but when the friend who had introduced her to him also had a similar problem, the matter was reported to the police, this time in July 23rd, 2002. She ended up losing the $900. [ 10 ] The fourth complainant, Suzanne De Dominicis, again was introduced to Mr. Glickman through a friend. He had another story this time, about his business being audited.

He needed some money and he could not get money out during the course of the audit. This one took on a slightly darker tone in terms of perhaps pressure being applied in a different way. In this case he wrote a cheque for $2,000. She withdrew $400 as her limit, but he persuaded her to go to a local store to get a money order for $1,000 and give that to him. [ 11 ] The next day a female acquaintance, and this is the part that gets darker, went to Ms. De Dominicis's home, demanding the rest of the money.

She refused to give it to her, however, on the basis that she had actually already paid more to him than she was supposed to be getting from him. Another cheque was produced by this woman for $2,000. Again she turned over $400. She ended up getting another money order, this time for $952.50, and gave that to the woman to give to Mr. Glickman, and then he came over and gave her a third cheque from which he got $800. These cheques all bounced, of course. They were all NSF.

In fact, the account by this time had been closed. [ 12 ] She was out a total of $3,129.41, and her matter was reported to the police August the 9th. [ 13 ] Mr. Glickman was arrested on September 19th, 2002 and made some court appearances with a preliminary inquiry set for December 19th, 2003. A month before that date his lawyer withdrew as counsel for reason of having lost contact with his client. A bench warrant was issued, which has remained outstanding until very recently. [ 14 ] In January of 2006, a contact was made by a lawyer in Vancouver to Winnipeg Crown counsel for particulars.

Those were supplied to the lawyer, but no further action was taken and the matter was allowed to slide again. [ 15 ] Ultimately he came to the attention of the police much more recently. He spoke with the police on April 13th, 2011, and advised them that his daughter was being born that day. So the police held off for a day because they knew where he would be. He was arrested at the hospital the following day, April 14th 2011, and he has been in custody since that time. [ 16 ] Victim impact statements have been filed by Ms. Shields, Ms. De Dominicis, and the representative from Winnipeg Meat Processors.

The two young women in particular described the situation as having been very distressing. They felt taken advantage of. It really caused them tremendous difficulty in developing their own independence from their families, and they also felt humiliated for having been so easily taken advantage of. They have lost or have seriously damaged their ability to trust others. [ 17 ] One of them was on a very tight student budget and she ended up having to delay her studies and move. She could not carry through with her own plans because of what had been taken from her.

For another, her credit rating was significantly damaged and she ended up having to give up on ordinary social activities that would be part of the life of a young person. She had difficulty managing finances in the sense that any cheques she tried to cash being held for a very long time to ensure they would in fact be cleared. Her cash flow was restricted. She could not buy a car that she hoped to be able to purchase. Although the incidents are nearly nine years away, they continue to have impacts on these young women. [ 18 ] The business lost the money.

They had no means of recovering it from any source. [ 19 ] Mr. Glickman has a truly unenviable record. Some of it is reflective of what I am told was a very challenging childhood.

In 1987 he was convicted of a series of very serious matters in Montreal, and for that he received as apparently a first conviction, a sentence of three years and three months on each of about 18 charges, concurrently. [ 20 ] He then was convicted of theft and personation in 1987, for which he got days consecutive, and was paroled in 1989. [ 21 ] In 1997 he was convicted of theft over and given a six-month conditional sentence order, and that apparently related to matters arising in 1995.

[ 22 ] Then in 2008 in Vancouver, he was convicted of 15 counts of fraud, plus a charge of uttering threats, for which he was sentenced to a sentence equivalent to 30 months of custody, (there was eight months credit for pre-sentence custody), plus probation for 18 months with a $179,542 restitution order. [ 23 ] I am told that for whatever reason these matters from Winnipeg were not dealt with in 2008. I gather that these fraud charges in Burnaby all arose from Burnaby. [ 24 ] Mr. Stern, you have not told me anything about the $179,000. Has any of that been paid? [ 25 ] MR. STERN: I can indicate that Mr.

Glickman came to the courthouse to make some payments towards that, and was informed that because it is registered as a civil judgment, that individuals would have to proceed against him for payment of that kind. So, no, there has been no payment made towards that. [ 26 ] THE COURT: All right. Thank you. [ 27 ] Mr. Glickman is 43 years old. He was born in Montreal and really had little in the way of family help or guidance throughout his childhood. He lived with various relatives, his mother, his father and uncle, and that seems to have terminated about the time he was eight.

I am told that he then went through a number of various group homes in Montreal. [ 28 ] In 1993 he began a common-law relationship which continued till September of 2009. He has three children from that relationship, a 17-year-old, 13-year-old and eight-year-old.

They are all living with their mother, although it is his hope in the long run to have the eight-year-old son come to live with him. [ 29 ] He then married on November 9th, 2009, and has the newborn child as a result of that marriage. [ 30 ] Since his release from custody on June 29th, 2009, I am told that he has worked hard at sorting out his income tax problems with Canada Revenue, and is in the process of becoming a part of the Voluntary Disclosure Program. He has been accepted into it and they are trying to work out how he is going to manage the returns, as well as pay taxes that are owing from the past.

He has been working at two different jobs, one in Coquitlam and one in Abbotsford, one doing marketing and marketing design type work, the other marketing in a much more direct way, apparently of making referrals for high-end used cars. [ 31 ] I am told that his dependence on cocaine really became worse in around 1995, and continued to be the dominant feature in his life until his release from custody.

While he was in custody at North Fraser Pre-Trial Centre and then more particularly at Fraser Regional Correctional Centre, he was able to take advantage of counselling and meetings, et cetera, for the purpose of coming to terms with his cocaine addiction. It has left a physical impact on him in many ways. So it certainly does suggest that that was a very significant addiction. [ 32 ] It has been suggested to me by counsel that had he brought these matters out from Winnipeg in 2008, that the sentence would essentially be rolled into that sentence in Burnaby, which was the 30-month sentence.

I do not agree with that position, in that these are discrete, they are separate, they are a different time and a different location. It is my view that they would have attracted a sentence attributable to them alone that would have extended beyond the 30 months. [ 33 ] I am told that he has tried to right the wrong; that he has arranged for payment to counsel for the purpose of paying restitution in full of these four complainants. I will be making that as an order. [ 34 ] Crown counsel is seeking a sentence in the range of 12 to 18 months, plus probation. Time served at this stage is about one month.

Crown is also seeking a two-year probation order, 150 hours of community work service, as well as restitution, and a series of other terms. [ 35 ] It is of some mitigation, I suppose, that the monies apparently were used to support an addiction. The challenge that I think I have with that in terms of how mitigating that is, is that if the addiction really took full hold in 1995, and then he received a conditional sentence order, whatever he did at that time did not seem to take him or carry him for very long.

These matters then arose just a few years after that. [ 36 ] His record is exactly related to this sort of behaviour. That makes this serious, and that record precedes this event, as well as the events thereafter. [ 37 ] Principles of sentencing of course must always be looked at. They include deterrence, denunciation, specific and general deterrence, rehabilitation. They are all factors to be considered, and I have to weigh all of them in contemplating what is the appropriate sentence here. [ 38 ] Defence counsel is arguing that he is really a changed man.

In support of that he has filed a number of letters of reference from friends and acquaintances, only one of whom has, from what I can gather, known him actually from before his most recent release from custody. They all describe him as a hardworking, genuine, sincere, good person.

Some of the phrases are "good moral character", another is "extremely proactive to be an upstanding member of society", "business dealings have all been completely honest and honourable", "hardworking self-starter", "resourceful, creative and solution-oriented", "superior written and verbal communication skills," "getting along extremely well with staff and colleagues".

Another says that "he is totally rehabilitated, peace-loving, courteous and responsible," "kind-hearted and hardworking and an honest personality." Another says that from the time that this person has known him, and again that is going to be more than the past year, so "he has always displayed sound judgment and acted with the utmost sincerity," "he is a different person today than he was several years ago." [ 39 ] In weighing an appropriate sentence, it is always a challenge, particularly when the events took place a significant period of time ago, and when there has apparently been a change at this stage from the lifestyle and circumstances that one lived in at the time of the commission of these offences.

[ 40 ] The total amount of restitution being sought is $8,949.41. Cocaine is an expensive drug. Clearly, if that was indeed what this was all used for, in the course of about six weeks, he took advantage of friends, acquaintances, business associates to the tune of nearly $9,000, with especially in the last incident a great deal of pressure being applied to a young woman who was simply trying to be his friend. [ 41 ] He really took advantage of young, naïve, kind people. They did not have a chance. The story that he strung them was designed to reel them in and to enable him to get whatever it was he wanted.

He showed no mercy. The pattern was similar from one to the next, but no advantage or opportunity was too small to overlook to get money out of somebody. I have no doubt that he now is remorseful for that, but unusually, in my experience, that when an incident is nine years old, these witnesses still remember it. They are still able to articulate the impact it has had upon them for the past nine years, and are able to describe in reasonable and appropriate ways what happened to them because of these events. [ 42 ] Victim impact statements are often a two-edged sword.

Sometimes they measure as much against the victim as they do for the victim. Sometimes they are exaggerated and overblown, and state that all the problems in the life of that particular victim is the fault of the offender. Other times they are written with remarkable restraint, notwithstanding what we all have to know was a very, very difficult time for them. These statements are of the restrained variety. These are not people out for blood.

They are simply saying, "Hey, this really hit me hard" and then describing matter of factly how it did that. [ 43 ] Defence counsel is submitting that this is a matter that should be dealt with by way of a conditional sentence order, given the turnaround that Mr. Glickman has made, the new life that he is living, well, literally with his new daughter and new marriage, and the new and responsible friends and associates with whom he has developed relationships. [ 44 ] I have to say that I really hope that those relationships are as sincerely and wholeheartedly held as these letters suggest.

One of the problems is that once you are a con man, it is hard to step back. The only way these people in Winnipeg turned over this amount of money was because Mr. Glickman presented as honest, sincere, hardworking, reliable, and someone with whom they wanted to be friends. That is how fraud takes place. [ 45 ] In terms of a conditional sentence order, the requirements are that the sentence be for less than two years and that I be satisfied that the safety of the public is not jeopardized, or that the circumstances when taken as a whole do not require a sentence to be served in custody.

I do not have the necessary level of certainty. However, I am also not going to ignore totally the fact that maybe this is real. So the sentence is somewhat shorter than requested by the Crown. Firstly, I should say that I am acknowledging that you spent a month in custody, which doubles and gives you two months credit. The sentence that I would impose without the credit is ten months on each charge concurrently, one to the other.

So it is a sentence of eight months to be served in prison, and probation for a period of two years. [ 46 ] The terms of the probation order and, Madam Clerk, I am going to pass you this sheet for a lot of the details, but I will read it out: Firstly that you are to keep the peace and be of good behaviour, and report to the court if and when required to do so. You must report in person within two working days of your release from custody, to a probation officer at 2610 Mary Hill Road in Port Coquitlam, and report thereafter as directed. I have been requested to make that not less than once a week in person.

I am not going to do that, but the probation office will determine and they will see from the rest of the terms that there are concerns. You must provide your residential address to your probation officer and you are not to change your residential address without first obtaining the written permission of your probation officer. You are not to be found within the City of Winnipeg, Manitoba, at any time during your probation. You are not to leave the Province of British Columbia except by first obtaining the written permission of your probation officer.

This permission is to be carried on your person and presented to any police officer who may speak with you. You are not to communicate directly or indirectly with Randy Tyluk, Mandy Hickman, Shannon Shields, Susan De Dominicis, or any employee of Winnipeg Meat Processors Incorporated. You are not to possess, access or use any bank accounts except for lawful accounts in your own name. You are not to possess any identification, credit cards or banking documents, including cheques, in any name other than your own name.

You are not to posses any banking, credit card or financial information except that which relates directly to your own accounts. You are not to write any cheques on any bank account whatsoever, including your own accounts, except as approved of in advance in writing by your probation officer. You must pay restitution in the following amounts to the following persons: Winnipeg Meat Processors, $2,720; Mandy Hickman, $2,200; Shannon Shields, $900; Susan De Dominicis, $3,129.41.

Payment in full is to be made by way of cash, certified cheque or money order made payable to the Clerk of the Court at 2620 Mary Hill Road at Port Coquitlam, British Columbia, and that can be done no later than May 31st, Mr. -- [ 47 ] MR. STERN: Yes, Your Honour. [ 48 ] THE COURT: -- Stern. Thank you. To be paid on or before May 31st, 2011. You are to attend for, participate in and accept such counselling as directed by your probation officer. This counselling may

include, but is not necessarily limited to, psychological or psychiatric counselling, substance abuse counselling, including relapse prevention and residential treatment, if necessary. You are to complete any program to which you are referred to the reasonable satisfaction of your probation officer. [ 49 ] Ms. McCallum, you look like you want to... [ 50 ] MS. McCALLUM: It was the counselling/programming that I just wanted to be sure that that was covered, Your Honour. Thank you. [ 51 ] THE COURT: Did I cover it? [ 52 ] MS. McCALLUM: Yes. [ 53 ] THE COURT: Okay.

We have not got the forms all changed for that. [ 54 ] You must perform 100 hours of community work service under the supervision of your probation officer or such other person as the probation officer may designate for that purpose. The place where and the time when such work is to be performed is to be arranged with your probation officer or the designate. All the work is to be completed to the reasonable satisfaction of your probation officer no later than three months following your release from custody. I think if I put it in that way, that is not so vague that they will not be able to follow that, Ms.

McCallum, do you? [ 55 ] MS. McCALLUM: That should be possible, Your Honour. [ 56 ] THE COURT: All right. [ 57 ] Pursuant to s. 487.051 I am making an order that you provide a sample of your DNA suitable for the purposes for the DNA databank. That will be dealt with while you are in custody. [ 58 ] MS. McCALLUM: Can Your Honour specify the -- [ 59 ] THE COURT: And that relates to Counts 3, 5, 7 and 9 of the eight-count Information 86078-1T. [ 60 ] Do you have any questions about any of these conditions, Mr. Glickman? [ 61 ] THE ACCUSED: No, Your Honour. [ 62 ] THE COURT: All right. Mr. Stern? [ 63 ] MR.

STERN: Yes, Your Honour. If you would consider the community work service, as soon as he is released, I am sure he will have a lot going on, 30 hours a month might be a bit strenuous. If Your Honour would consider six months in order to complete that. [ 64 ] THE COURT: Well, tell you what, I will make it four, so within four months, but and if he needs more time, he can come back and tell me he needs more time, and tell me how many hours he has -- [ 65 ] MR.

STERN: Served. [ 66 ] THE COURT: I think in all the circumstances of this, I am waiving the victim fine surcharge, they are being reimbursed through the restitution order for all matters. (ORAL REASONS FOR SENTENCE CONCLUDED)