Fraud over $5,000
R. v. MacDonnell
Sentence and the Crown's position
What the law allows
Ralston MacDonnell was convicted after trial of fraud over $5,000 and Excise Tax Act offences for defrauding the Canada Revenue Agency of payroll source deductions and HST owed by his companies, including by hiding bank accounts and writing cheques without funds. The Crown sought four years in prison; the defence sought a 12-month conditional sentence. Judge Scovil imposed three years in custody on the fraud counts, concurrent, with a concurrent year and a mandatory fine of $301,511.25 under the Excise Tax Act, finding his moral blameworthiness high and no mitigating factors beyond his positive pre-sentence report and lack of a record that could bring the sentence under two years.
In the judge's words
1Here the moral blameworthiness of the accused is high. Mr. MacDonnell’s priority during the time in question was to maintain his personal lifestyle at the expense of his obligations to the Crown as well as his business. While he may have a positive PSR and no prior record there are no other mitigating factors which might bring the sentence here to under two years.
The record
- Convicted of
- Fraud over $5,000 (CC 380(1)(a), 7 counts)
- Prior convictions
- 0 prior convictions1
- At the time of the offence
- Not stated1
- Defence asked for
- 12 months conditional sentence1
- Appeal
- Not yet checked
- Counsel
- Crown: Scott Millar
Defence: Brian Casey, Q.C.
Sources
- R. v. MacDonnell, 2021 NSPC 57 Court decision, CanLII, August 6, 2021
[10] The crown puts forward that Mr. MacDonnell should receive a four-year prison term for fraud relating to Payroll Source Deductions. A further four years concurrent for the fraud relating to HST given totality factors.
[13] A significant different penalty is envisioned by the defence regarding the charges of fraud under s. 380(1)(a). Mr. MacDonnell seeks a 12-month jail term that would be served on a Conditional Sentence Order.
[2] Ralston MacDonnell was the principal operator of the accused companies during the period covered by the informations in this matter.
[22] At the end of the day, the accused is a first-time offender with an exceptionally positive PSR.
[31] Here the moral blameworthiness of the accused is high. Mr. MacDonnell’s priority during the time in question was to maintain his personal lifestyle at the expense of his obligations to the Crown as well as his business. While he may have a positive PSR and no prior record there are no other mitigating factors which might bring the sentence here to under two years.
[32] Considering all of the above I find that the appropriate sentences regarding the fraud charges relating to the accused MacDonnell to be three years in custody on each to be served concurrently to each other. In relation to the charge under s. 327(1)(c) of the Excise Tax Act there will be a further concurrent period of custody of one year together with the mandatory fine of $301,511.25.
- R. v. MacDonnell, 2021 NSPC 57 Court decision, Courts of Nova Scotia