|
Criminal - Sentencing - Fraud. R. v. Booker
In R. v. Booker (Ont CA, 2024) the Court of Appeal considered criminal sentencing for fraud, here over $5,000:[54] The range for analogous sentences both for fraud over $5,000 and for uttering forged documents show the sentence imposed by the trial judge for each conviction was not at the high end of the range and represented a rough mid-point between the Crown and defence positions at the sentencing hearing.
[55] With respect to the sentence for fraud over $5,000, the trial judge concluded a range of 12-18 months in custody reflected a proportionate sentence, in the range of analogous cases. The trial judge reiterated the seriousness of the appellant’s fraudulent conduct, involving 140 unauthorized cheques: “This case involves a serious breach of trust by an employee secretary/bookkeeper, involving close to or just slightly above $100,000. Regardless of whether this is a major large-scale fraud or not, the facts surrounding Ms. Booker’s fraud of her employer are egregious and were carried out over an extensive period of time, with devastating consequences and impact on the victims.” (at para. 32).
[56] The trial judge, taking into account the seriousness of the offence, together with the fact that this was a first jail sentence for the appellant, as well as the COVID-19 concerns raised by her counsel, imposed a 12-month custodial sentence.
[57] With respect to the sentence for uttering a forged document, the trial judge concluded that a fit and proportionate sentence for the conviction would be in the range of six to nine months. After taking into account the principle of totality and the COVID-19 collateral consequence, he imposed a six-month consecutive custodial sentence on the appellant.
[58] This overall sentence is in line with sentences for analogous convictions: see e.g., R. v. Charity, 2022 ONCA 226, 161 O.R. (3d) 721; R. v. Manickam, 2021 ONCA 668; R. v. Piccinini, 2018 ONCA 433; R. v. Shaw, 2012 ABPC 273, aff’d 2015 ABCA 25, leave to appeal refused, [2015] S.C.C.A. No. 108.
[59] In our view, the trial judge properly considered the appropriate sentencing range, the principles of deterrence and denunciation, restraint and totality, as well as the applicable aggravating and mitigating factors.
|
