R. v. Ellis | Nov 29, 2007

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta

Citation: R. v. Ellis, 2007 ABQB 722

Date: 20071129

Docket: 070391453Q1

Registry: Edmonton

Between:

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

- and -

Terry Lynn Ellis

Accused

_______________________________________________________

Reasons for Judgment

of the

Honourable Mr. Justice Gerald A. Verville

_______________________________________________________

Table of Contents

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . para. 1

Agreed Facts

General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . para. 4

Summary of Ellis' Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . para.15

Additional Facts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . para. 22

Evidence of Specific Witnesses

Rondah Worrell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . para. 26

Marlene Penney . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . para. 32

Pubalagan (Pops) Venkatraman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . para. 45

Mahendra Pillay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . para. 58

Deanna Bischoff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . para. 68

O'Neil Knight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . para. 113

Gregory DeAgostini . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . para. 115

Terry Ellis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . para. 122

Page: 2

Credibility

Credibility of Ellis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . para. 151

Credibility of Venkatraman Law FirmWitnesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . para. 160

Credibility of DeAgostini . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . para. 166

Credibility of Other Witnesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . para. 167

The Charges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . para. 168

Fraud Charges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . para. 169

Count 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . para. 195

Count 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . para. 208

Count 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . para. 216

Count 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . para. 234

Count 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . para. 248

Count 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . para. 258

Count 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . para. 268

Count 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . para. 278

Count 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . para. 286

Count 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . para. 303

Count 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . para. 310

Count 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . para. 328

Count 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . para. 334

Count 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . para. 348

Count 17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . para. 374

Count 18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . para. 387

Count 19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . para. 397

Count 20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . para. 421

Count 21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . para. 438

Count 22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . para. 456

Count 23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . para. 472

Count 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . para. 496

Count 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . para. 503

Count 26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . para. 531

General Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . para. 544

Charges of Uttering Forged Documents, Possession of Property obtained by Crime

Count 27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . para. 547

Count 28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . para.552

Conspiracy and Criminal Organization Charges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . para. 553

Count 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . para. 554

Count 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . para. 572

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . para. 589

Schedule A - Agreed Statement of Facts

BACKGROUND

[1]

Terry Lynn Ellis ("Ellis") has been charged with 28 separate offences. She is one of six

persons charged with committing fraud for the benefit of or at the direction of or in association with

Page: 3

a criminal organization (Count 1) contrary to s. 467.12 and conspiring to commit fraud with named

and unnamed co-conspirators (Count 2) contrary to s. 465 (1)(c) of the Criminal Code (“Code”).

The other individuals charged were Gohar Pervez ("Pervez"), Scott Park ("Park"), Harkamaljit

Kahlon ("Kahlon"), Pedro Brito ("Brito") and Rodrigo Caroca ("Caroca").

[2]

Ellis is also charged with 24 specific allegations of fraud (Counts 3 to 26 inclusive) contrary

to s. 380(1)(a), with knowingly using, dealing with or acting on forged documents (Count 27)

contrary to s. 368 (1)(a) and with being in possession of a Commissioner for Oaths stamp in the

name of Rondah Worrell (“Worrell”) that was obtained by the commission in Canada of an offence

(Count 28) contrary to s. 355(b) of the Code.

[3]

Ellis initially pleaded not guilty to all 28 counts. During the course of the trial she and the

Crown entered into a lengthy Agreed Statement of Facts which is attached as Schedule A hereto.

The Agreed Statement of Facts includes certain general admissions as well as specific admissions

with respect to each of Counts 3 to 28 inclusive. The admissions made with respect to Counts 27 and

28 which will be discussed below are tantamount to admissions of guilt. A number of paragraphs

in the Agreed Statement of Facts are blank due to the fact that the parties were not able to reach

agreement and there was insufficient time to renumber the paragraphs as certain paragraphs refer

back to other paragraphs by number. Significant portions of the Agreed Statement of Facts are

repeated in this judgment.

AGREED FACTS

General

[4]

The general admissions include the following facts.

[5]

The investigation of these allegations was called Project Infiltrate. This project centered on

the real estate dealings of various persons between 2001 and 2005. The investigation focused on the

fraudulent activities of Pervez and named co-accusedsandunindictedco-conspirators. Each specific

allegation of fraud is predicated upon evidence of fraudulent misrepresentations that were made in

mortgage applications by third parties (called "straw buyers") in an effort to obtain mortgages

secured against properties in the name of several straw buyers.

[6]

The basic format of the fraud scheme operated as follows. Pervezpurchased marginal quality

residences in Edmonton, Alberta, and in Camrose, Alberta. The purchasers were represented to be

one of a series of Alberta numbered companies. These companies were registered with directorship

vested in various persons' names, including co-accuseds, unindicted co-conspirators and others who

had an association to Pervez. The directors typically had little or no control over the operation of

these companies. De facto control over the companies was held by Pervez throughout. Pervez

provided the cash for initial purchase of these properties, and typically signed on behalf of the

company that was named as the purchaser. Pervez would then plan, and sometimes commence,

superficial renovations to the properties.

Page: 4

[7]

Shortly after the acquisition of properties, straw buyers were recruited to obtain mortgages.

Each property was reflected to have increased property values at the time of sale. Straw buyers were

recruited by Pervez personally, or by persons associated to Pervez. Straw buyers have no connection

to the property that they purchase, other than having their name placed on title. Straw buyers have

rarely seen the property that they have purchased, have put no money toward the purchase, and are

often paid a fee for their participation in this scheme. The only role of the straw buyer is to obtain

mortgage financing secured by the property that has been placed in their name.

[8]

The mortgage applications of straw buyers were usually facilitated by mortgage brokers.

Many of the mortgage brokers dealt exclusively with Pervez, although some brokers had additional

dealings with co-accuseds or unindicted co-conspirators. Some mortgage brokers were offered and

some accepted additional monies from Pervez, over their usual commission, as additional payment

to process the mortgage applications that Pervez brought to them.

[9]

In support of the straw buyers' mortgage applications, Pervez retained appraisers who based

their appraisals of properties on renovations that were either incomplete or never started. The

appraisers were often pressured by Pervez to increase the value of their appraisals. Ellis had no

direct contact with any of the property appraisers.

[10] All of the mortgage applications contained material misrepresentations that were relied on

by lenders when considering mortgage applications. Several of these material misrepresentations

were included in the documents that were filed with the Land Titles Office. These

misrepresentations were directly responsible for the creation of a risk of economic deprivation to

the lenders. The most common misrepresentations were:

i)

false claims that the straw buyer had put their own resources into the

purchase of a property predicated upon false gift letters, acknowledgement

letters, trust letters, property sales or bank statements;

ii)

false claims that the straw buyer intended to reside at the property;

false representations of the straw buyer's belief in the value of a property;

false employment letters;

iii)

iv)

v)

forged documents, including false and forged T-4's outlining earnings of a

straw buyer;

vi)

the fraudulent omission of information pertaining to the straw buyer's

liabilities.

[11] Some time after the straw buyer was placed on title and mortgage proceeds were advanced,

the mortgage would be assumed by one of Pervez's associates – either personally or through a

numbered company.

Page: 5

[12] Various persons played various roles in the commission of these offences. Many of these

persons were paid for their role. Pervez, however, received most of the profits associated with the

commission of these frauds.

[13] Over the course of the Project Infiltrate investigation, 280 real estate transactions in

Edmonton and Camrose were identified as connected to the fraudulent mortgage scheme that was

led by Pervez between 2001 and 2005. Over that time period, it was revealed that $29,734,043.20

in mortgage proceeds had been secured through the operation of this fraud scheme. In December

2005, charges were laid against six persons, including Ellis, alleging fraud in securing mortgages

on 119 properties in Edmonton and six properties in Camrose. The mortgages on these properties

were obtained from 19 different lending institutions, and generated $14,428,133.95 in mortgage

proceeds.

[14] Between 2001 and 2005, the constant in this scheme was Pervez. Other indicted and

unindicted co-conspirators came in and out of this operation during that time. Straw buyers were

recruited by persons who formed their own cells with their straw buyers as part of this operation.

While Pervez recruited some of his own straw buyers, including Nishad Altani, Harjit Judge, Mary

Kydd (“Kydd”) and Norman Rodanisky, the majority of the straw buyers were recruited by others

who worked on Pervez's behalf. Pervez was in charge of dealing with mortgage brokers and bankers,

appraisers, realtors, and lawyers. Expenses that were required in order to maintain this fraudulent

operation were incurred by Pervez. At various times, Pervez recruited straw buyers, paid straw

buyers, participated in the creation of forged documents, directly uttered false statements in order

to secure mortgage loans, and secured renters and collected rents in order to cover mortgage

payments for straw buyers. The recruiters were themselves all recruited by Pervez. Some of the

straw buyer recruits had direct dealings with Pervez, but many did not. On each occasion where a

straw buyer was recruited by another person, Pervez determined the property that would be

mortgaged and the share that he would receive from the mortgage proceeds. A straw buyer recruiter

was typically paid a fee, as determined by Pervez, from the mortgages that were extended. The

recruiters were responsible to gather documents that were used for mortgage applications. Typically

Pervez would deal with securing the mortgages, which included dealing with mortgage brokers,

appraisers and lawyers. Some of the recruiters managed the properties that their straw buyers

secured mortgages on, and were responsible for making the mortgage payments. With regard to the

charges laid against the accused persons in these matters, the following cells were identified:

i)

Kahlon (also known as Harkamal Kahlon or Tony Kahlon) was involved in

this scheme from 2001 to the time of his arrest in December 2005. Kahlon was a

close associate of Pervez, and worked for Pervez in Edmonton and in Winnipeg.

Kahlon recruited at least 13 straw buyers during his participation in this operation.

Some of his straw buyers were used to obtain multiple mortgages. Once Kahlon

secured a straw buyer mortgage, he was often responsible to manage the property

that was mortgaged, which included securing tenants, collecting rents and making

mortgage payments. Kahlon's recruits included Robbie Madan (“Madan”),

Manvinder Oberoi (“Oberoi”), Michael Albert (two mortgages), Faycal Khalil,

Steven Young (two mortgages), Derek Duncombe (two mortgages), Palwinder

Kahlon (10 mortgages), Charnkamal Rai (“Rai”) (two mortgages), Pinky Sailopal

Page: 6

(two mortgages), Mina Khoshnavaz, NareshJindal(“Jindal”) (fourmortgages), Gary

McDonald (one mortgage), and Amanpreet Lally (“Lally”). Some time after the

straw buyers' mortgages were secured, one of Kahlon's numbered companies

typically assumed the straw buyer mortgage, and removed the straw buyer's name

from title.

ii)

Kelly Bindon (“Bindon”) met Pervez in April 2000 when she was a legal

assistant employed by the law firm of Scorgie Park. Pervez was one of Park’s real

estate clients. Park was one of the principals of Scorgie Park. In October 2001,

Bindon became involved in a romantic relationship with Pervez, a relationship that

lasted until 2003. In December 2001, Bindon's employment at Scorgie Park was

terminated by David Scorgie when he learned of the relationship between Pervez and

Bindon, and when he became aware of questionable real estate transactions that

Bindon was involved in conveyancing on Pervez's behalf. Despite Bindon's

termination, Park continued to represent Pervez, and continued to employ Bindon as

his assistant on Pervez's real estate work. During her relationship with Pervez, and

as Park's legal assistant, Bindon prepared numerous false documents at Pervez's

direction that were used in support of mortgage applications. These documents

included false trust letters and false Statements of Adjustments. In her position as a

legal assistant and real estate conveyancer, Bindon was involved in the preparation

of property transfer and mortgage documents. Bindon often met with straw buyers

and occasionally communicated with lenders and mortgage brokers. Bindon acted

as a straw buyer herself on two properties, and assumed a mortgage on a third

property. Bindon was also involved in the recruitment of two straw buyers. These

recruits were Lyle Petty (“Petty”), Bindon's brother, and Marie Kapeller

(“Kapeller”), Bindon's sister-in-law (two mortgages). Petty and Kapeller maintained

control over the properties that they obtained mortgages on, as did Bindon. Bindon's

relationship with Pervez ended at approximately the same time that he stopped using

the services of Park. By 2003, several lenders were no longer permitting their

mortgages to be conveyed by Park's law firm. When Pervez stopped using the Park

law office, he began using the law office of Venkatraman & Purewal (“Venkatraman

law firm”) for his real estate files.

iii)

Park was involved in this scheme between 2000 and 2003. Park met Pervez

in early 2000 while he was a lawyer practicing in Edmonton with the firm, Scorgie

Park. Park was introduced to Pervez by a mutual friend named Eehab Taliani, a

mortgage broker in Edmonton. Shortly thereafter, Pervez retained Park to represent

him on his real estate transactions. Between 2001 and 2003, Park acted on numerous

real estate transactions representing Pervez as the vendor, the straw buyer, and the

lender. He acted at times for the same straw buyer on numerous purchases. Park

secured mortgage financing for straw buyers by providing trust cheques for deposit

in straw buyers' accounts, making representations to lenders about funds on trust that

he knew to be untruthful, making payments to the recruiters of straw buyers, and was

complicit in the provision of documents to lenders that he knew to be either forged

or false. Throughout the time of his participation, Park worked to advance Pervez's

Page: 7

operation and did not act in the interest of either the straw buyer or the lender. When

Park received mortgage proceeds advanced by a lender, he advanced these funds to

Pervez. On two occasions, Park assumed mortgages that were obtained by straw

buyers through his company, Lex Notitia. Those two mortgages had been obtained

by Shairose Esmail (“Esmail”), one of Pervez's girlfriends, who acted as a straw

buyer. Park also recruited at least two straw buyers into this operation. Park's recruits

included Gregory Coates (four mortgages) and Kerry Park, Park's brother. Pervez

gradually stopped using Park in his operation, as several lenders would no longer

permit Park to act for them. For a period of time in 2003, Pervez retained Park to act

for him as the vendor of a property, and retained the Venkatraman law firm to act for

the straw buyer and lender. Eventually, Pervez stopped retaining Park for any of his

real estate work, and retained the Venkatraman law firm for all parties in the

transaction.

iv)

Judy Monahan (“Monahan”) and Elizabeth Holloway (“Holloway”) were

involved in this scheme from 2001 through 2003. Monahan was an insurance agent

at the time that she met Pervez. Monahan met Pervez through Harjit Judge, who

shared an office with Monahan, and was part-owner of the insurance company that

employed her. Judge operated "Judge and Associates", a business where Judge

marketed his services as a notary public, where he assisted persons with various

matters including immigration applications andreal estate transactions. Judge is not,

and has never been, a member of any Law Society, however he performed several

duties associated to the services provided by a lawyer. In mid-2002, Monahan left

her employment as an insurance agent. At that time, the Alberta Insurance Council

was involved in investigating several fraudulent insurance binder letters that had

been provided to lenders to prove property insurance on mortgaged properties. Many

of these binder letters were from Supreme Insurance, the insurance company that

employed Monahan. Monahan acted as director of a numbered company that was

used to purchase several properties, although de facto control of that company was

held by Pervez. After she left her employment with Supreme Insurance, Monahan

worked for Pervez in Winnipeg. Monahan and Holloway acted as straw buyers

themselves on four properties. Monahan and Holloway also recruited at least six

strawbuyers during their participation inthis operation, all of whomobtained several

mortgages in their names. Once they recruited a straw buyer, Monahan and

Holloway had no further involvement in the mortgaged property, and were not

responsible for any property management or mortgage payments. Pervez managed

the properties that were placed in the named of Monahan/Holloway recruits. The

Monahan/Holloway recruits included Jayne Sluchinski (two mortgages), Sheila

Holloway (10 mortgages), Sheila Straub (eight mortgages), Beverly Haugh (seven

mortgages), Beverly Dos Santos (“Dos Santos”) (six mortgages), and Sylvia Parsons

(two mortgages). Many of the Monahan/Holloway recruits had their mortgages

assumed by companies associated to Brito and Caroca.

v)

Zafir Rashid (“Rashid”) was involved in this scheme from 2001 through

2003. Rashid was a long-time family friend of Pervez. Rashid obtained his realtor's

Page: 8

license in Alberta, but conducted no business as a realtor that was independent of this

operation. As a realtor, Rashid represented Pervez in the initial acquisition of several

properties. In 2002-2003, Rashid worked as a property manager for Pervez in

Winnipeg. Rashid recruited at least 4 straw buyers during his participation in this

operation. Rashid's recruits included Royston Frederick (“Frederick”) (four

mortgages), Natasha Lindberg (“Lindberg”), Twila Estall (four mortgages), and

Richard Estall (three mortgages). Once Rashid secured a straw buyer mortgage, he

was responsible to manage the property that was mortgaged, whichincluded securing

tenants, collecting rents and making mortgage payments. Some time after the straw

buyers'mortgages were secured, Rashid typically assumed the straw buyer mortgage,

and removed the straw buyer's name from title.

vi)

Brito and Caroca were partners in this operation, with Brito as the leader of

the partnership. Brito knew Pervez for several years before becoming involved in

this scheme. Brito and Caroca first became involved in mid-2002, when they

negotiated with Pervez on the assumption of several straw buyer mortgages. Brito

andCaroca assumed these mortgagesthrough their company, HomesteaderInc. Most

of the properties that were purchased as a block in 2002 went into foreclosure before

a new straw buyer could be recruited to obtain a mortgage. Later in 2002 and through

2005, Brito and Caroca recruited at least 11 straw buyers into this operation. The

mortgages that were obtained by Brito and Caroca's straw buyers were usually high

ratio, insured mortgages. Brito dealt directly with mortgage brokers when applying

for his straw buyers' mortgages. Brito was directly involved with preparing false gift

letters, false employment letters, and providing other false documents to secure

mortgages on properties in the names of his straw buyers. Brito used the same

connections as Pervez to operate his scheme; including some of the same mortgage

brokers, appraisers, and lawyers. On occasion, Brito referred Pervez to connections

that he had made. Once Brito and Caroca secured a straw buyer mortgage, they were

responsible to manage the property that was mortgaged, which included securing

tenants, collecting rents and making mortgage payments. Brito and Caroca recruits

included Anne Chiasson (three mortgages), Keith Rayner (two mortgages), Rui

Correia (“Correia”) (three mortgages), Carlos Lunty, Jaime Zuniga, Kenneth Lunty,

Alejandro Rojas (three mortgages), Eric Enge, Nilson Paez (“Paez”) (three

mortgages), Yolanda Ledda, and Marco Ramirez (two mortgages). Brito paid his

straw buyers a fee; and secured renters and collected rents from tenants to cover

mortgage payments.

vii)

Donald and Johanne Hickling – the Hicklings were involved in this scheme

in 2002. They recruited at least seven straw buyers during their participation in this

operation. In July 2002, several properties were placed in the name of Johanne

Hickling's numbered company. Most of these properties had already been used to

secure a straw buyer mortgage, and had been transferred into the name of a recruiter

or a recruiter's numbered company. The Hicklings negotiated their block purchase

of properties with Pervez. They did not pay Pervez at the time of sale; instead Pervez

received a share of the mortgage proceeds that were then obtained by the Hickling

Page: 9

straw buyers. Pervez worked withtheHicklings in obtaining appraisals, referring and

dealing with mortgage brokers, and the Hicklings used the Park law office for most

of their real estate conveyancing. Once the Hicklings secured a straw buyer

mortgage, they were responsible to manage the property that was mortgaged, which

included securing tenants, collecting rents and making mortgage payments. The

Hickling's recruits included David Flewelling, Christopher York (two mortgages),

David Cooper, Christopher Wood, Emily Dalbec, Anna Czajowski, and Jason York

(two mortgages). The Hicklings maintained control of the properties that were in

their straw buyers' names.

viii) Kulwant Sekhon (“Sekhon”) was involved in this scheme in 2003, but

worked for Pervez as a property manager in Winnipeg earlier in 2002. Sekhon

recruited Mohammed Ali Aziz, also known as Ali Aziz or Mohammed Aziz (“Aziz”)

(five mortgages), who himself recruited Jennifer Heinrichs (“Heinrichs”) (two

mortgages) into this operation. Aziz understood that Sekhon would manage his and

Heinrichs' properties, which included securing tenants, collecting rents and making

mortgage payments. Sekhon quickly became delinquent on mortgage payments, and

Aziz spent several thousand dollars servicing the mortgages in his name and in

Heinrichs'name. At Aziz's insistence, several ofthese properties were transferredout

of Aziz's and Heinrichs' names. O'Neil Knight “(Knight”) assumed the Heinrichs

mortgages. Ellis assumed five of the Aziz mortgages.

ix)

Adil and Faycal Quadri were involved in this scheme in 2003. They met

Pervez through Knight, whom they met in his capacity as a realtor in Edmonton. Adil

Quadri acted as a straw buyer himself on four properties. The Quadris also recruited

at least six straw buyers during their participation in this operation. Once the Quadris

secured a straw buyer mortgage, they were responsible to manage the property that

was mortgaged, which included securing tenants, collecting rents and making

mortgage payments. The Quadri's recruitsincludedPaulGiampa, Luigi Giampa (two

mortgages), Jason Eklund and Roshan Sheikh (co-mortgagors), Martin Tinney (two

mortgages), and Jawad Choudhary. Some time after the straw buyers' mortgages

were secured, the Quadri's numbered company typically assumed the straw buyer

mortgage, and removed the straw buyer's name from title. In exchange for their

participation, the Quadris received a share of the mortgage proceeds that their straw

buyers obtained.

x)

Knight was involved in this scheme in 2003. At that time, he was a licensed

realtor, practicing in Edmonton, Alberta. Knight met Pervez in his capacity as a

realtor. Knight assumed several straw buyer mortgagesthat had beenobtainedaspart

of this operation. He also recruited at least three straw buyers during his participation

in this scheme, and recruited other recruiters such as the Quadris. The Knight recruits

included Trent Dhoedt (“Dhoedt”) (two mortgages), Carolyn Tinney and Andrea

Hayden. In exchange for his participation, Knight received a share of the mortgage

proceeds that his straw buyers obtained.

Page: 10

Summary of Ellis' Role

[15] Ellis was hired to work at the Venkatraman law firm in 2001. She was hired initially as a

litigation assistant.

[16] In May 2003, Ellis took over bookkeeping functions of the Venkatraman law firm, replacing

an employee named Deanna McShane, now Deanna Bischoff (“Bischoff”). In this capacity, Ellis

prepared trust cheques and was responsible for maintaining and balancing the books for the law

firm's trust and general accounts. Ellis did not have exclusive signing authority for trust account

cheques, but signed cheques that she prepared for the co-signature of the lawyers at the law firm.

Lawyers were often prepared to sign cheques presented to them by Ellis without question.

[17] Ellis met Pervez in approximately March of 2003. Pervez was known to her as a client of the

Venkatraman law firm, and specifically a real estate client of Pubalagan (Pops) Venkatraman

(“Venkatraman”). After her introduction to Pervez, Ellis performed the conveyancing work

associated with Pervez's real estate transactions.

[18] Ellis did not have dealings with all of Pervez's co-conspirators. Ellis had limited dealings

with Park, Bindon, the Hicklings and Monahan. Her dealings with Kahlon, Rashid, and Brito were

later in the time of their involvement in this operation.

[19] When Ellis initially began working on Pervez's files, Pervez retained Park to act for the

vendor on the sale of properties to straw buyers. The Venkatraman law firm was retained by Pervez

to represent the straw buyers and lenders. Accordingly, upon receipt of mortgage proceeds the

Venkatraman law firm forwarded the proceeds to Park's law office. Over time, the Venkatraman law

firm was retained by Pervez to represent all parties in a real estate transaction, the vendor, straw

buyer and lender. The Venkatraman law firm was also retained to represent Pervez in the initial

purchase of properties.

[20] Ellis handled a high volume of property transactions for Pervez including the sale of Pervez

properties. These transactions required that Ellis have direct contact with several straw buyers.

[21] After her employment ended with the Venkatraman law firm, Ellis continued to work for

Pervez. Pervez instructed Ellis to transfer properties into one or more companies that named Ellis

as a director. These companies assumed the mortgages of various straw buyers. Pervez provided

Ellis with the funds to service these mortgages.

ADDITIONAL FACTS

[22] Pervez operated a business known as Home Placement Systems (“Home Placement”) at

8407-118 Avenue in Edmonton. He went by variousnamesincluding Gohar Ahmed, Carman Gohar,

Carman Pervez and Gohar Pervez.

[23] Ellis left the employ of the Venkatraman law firm on April 12, 2005. Although she purported

at the time to be leaving on stress leave, she never returned to work there.

Page: 11

[24] Pursuant to search warrants, documents pertaining to the various charges were seized from

the home of Ellis at 4224-86 Street in Edmonton on July 14, 2005, the home of Park at 8520-71

Avenue in Edmonton on December 19, 2005 and Home Placement on December 19, 2005. Many

of the documents seized from Ellis’ home were the property of the Venkatraman law firm.

[25] Thirty five witnesses including Ellis testified at the trial. The witnesses included police

officers who executed search warrants, straw buyers, employees or former employees and members

of the Venkatraman law firm.

EVIDENCE OF SPECIFIC WITNESSES

Rondah Worrell

[26] Worrell was hired as a legal assistant by the Venkatraman law firm in March of 2003 and

continued in her employment there until July of 2005. It was her first job as a legal assistant. She

initially worked as a “floater” but received most of her training from Ellis. They became friends,

lunched together several times a week and visited each other’s homes.

[27] She trusted Ellis implicitly and often commissioned a pile of real estate documents left with

her by Ellis were she recognized Ellis’ signature without asking questions. She stated that Ellis

would meet with clients in a meeting room or the bookkeepers office. She stated Ellis had a picture

of Pervez and Kahlon on the bulletin board of her office.

[28] On April 2, 2005 Worrell went on holidays to the Barbados. She returned to work on April

25, 2005 and noticed that her Commissioner for Oaths stamp was missing. As Ellis was away on

stress leave Worrell went to her home on April 25^thfor lunch. She stated that Brito was there and

that they had a casual conversation.

[29] Worrell told Ellis that her Commissioner for Oaths stamp was missing and was advised by

Ellis that one of the “girls” at the office might have hid it as a prank. After checking everywhere she

reported the missing stamp to the Commissioner’s office and ordered a new stamp. Prathavan (Pro)

Venkatraman (“Venkatraman Jr.”) a lawyer in the Venkatraman law firm showed her a real estate

document that she had purportedly commissioned while on holidays. She stated that her signature

was forged and that the writing looked like that of Ellis. She then reported the matter to the police.

She suspected Ellis and cut off all contact with her. Worrell’s original Commissioner for Oaths

stamp was found by the police in the bedroom office of Ellis’ home on July 14, 2005 and was one

of the items seized pursuant to the search warrant.

[30] Worrell did not commission any further documents until she received a new Commissioner

for Oaths stamp on June 17, 2005. She testified that she never took her stamp to Ellis’ home nor

commissioned documents there. Further, she stated that she never commissioned documents for

Ellis’ son, Gregory DeAgostini (“DeAgostini”).

Page: 12

[31] Worrell identified a number of real estate documents where her signature was forged

including:

-

A transfer of land dated November 12, 2004 of 10811-152 Street from Aziz

to Ellis for $140,000 cash (forged signature as witness of transferor Aziz, as

Commissioner of affidavit of transferee of Ellis, on affidavit of execution and

as Commissioner of dower affidavit of Aziz);

-

On a general power of attorney dated February 4, 2005 of Aziz director of

1151228 Alberta Ltd. appointing Ellis(forgedsignature asCommissioner for

Oaths on affidavit of execution of DeAgostini, and on affidavit of Aziz

verifying corporate signing authority). This document was seized from Ellis’

home pursuant to the search warrant;

-

On a transfer of land dated April 5, 2005 from Palwinder Kahlon to 1151228

Alberta Ltd. (forged signature as Commissioner for Oaths of affidavit of

transferee - Ellis swore as agent, and as Commissioner for Oaths on affidavit

of execution of witness sworn by Ellis);

On mortgage documents pertaining to 15 different parcels of land dated May

1, 2005 signed by Ellis under power of attorney for 1131029 Alberta Ltd, and

witnessed by DeAgostini (forged signature on as Commissioner for Oaths on

all affidavits of execution, on all affidavits sworn by Ellis in support of

caveat and as witness to signature of Ellis on promissory notes). These

documents were seized from Ellis’ home pursuant to the search warrant;

-

On a transfer of land dated June 6, 2005 from Ellis to Realitie Salvation Inc.

(forged signature as Commissioner for Oaths on affidavit of transferee, on

affidavit of execution of DeAgostini, and on dower affidavit of Ellis). This

document was seized from Ellis’ home pursuant to the search warrant;

On a general power of attorney dated June 13, 2005 of Rukhsana Ahmad

director of 1159877 Alberta Ltd. appointing Ellis (forged signature as

Commissioner for Oaths of affidavit of execution and of affidavit verifying

corporate signing authority). This document was seized from Ellis’ home

pursuant to the search warrant;

-

On a general power of attorney dated June 15, 2005 of Karen Sweeney,

director of 1176587 Alberta Ltd. appointing Ellis (forged signature as

Commissioner for Oaths of affidavit of execution sworn by DeAgostini who

purportedly witnessed the signature of Sweeney). This document was seized

from Ellis’ home pursuant to the search warrant;

On a Residential Tenancy Agreement dated July 1, 2004 between Shirley

Mah as landlord and Pervez and Ellis as tenants of 374 Heath Road (forged

Page: 13

signature as witness to signatures of all three individuals). This document

was seized from Ellis’ home pursuant to the search warrant;

-

On all documents which bear her signature in two binders marked as exhibit

27 which form the basis for Count 27.

Marlene Penney

[32] Marlene Penney commenced her employment as a legal assistant at the Venkatraman law

firm in July of 2003. She was hired by Ellis and subsequently trained by her with respect to real

estate transactions as this was Penney’s first job as a legal assistant. Penney started off as an

assistant to Ellis and worked on Ellis’ files doing reporting letters to clients and lenders.

[33] Penney stated that from almost the date she was hired, she learned from Ellis that Pervez was

her boyfriend. She stated that it was understood that Pervez was to only deal with Ellis as she was

jealous and didn’t like him talking to other girls in the office. Penney stated that she understood

from Ellis that Pervez lived with his wife Tasneem Gohar but spent a lot of nights with Ellis. She

understood that Ellis showed Pervez as her spouse on the Blue Cross coverage she had with the law

firm. Ellis showed Penney a pretty diamond ring that had been given to her by Pervez.

[34] Penney stated that Pervez was in the office almost every day and would meet with Ellis in

the bookkeeper’s office. She stated this was a huge issue with the other girls in the office as their

employment records were kept there and he had access to the computer.

[35] Penney knew Kahlon as “Tony”. She stated that he came to the office frequently, two to

three times a week. She understood that he found buyers for houses owned by Pervez. She stated

that Knight, Brito, Caroca, Rashid and Aziz were referred to in the office as Ellis’ clients. She was

told by Ellis that they were her clients through Pervez. Penney stated that Pervez gave her $100 in

appreciation for the work she was doing.

[36] Penney stated that as she became more experienced as a real estate paralegal she began to

ask questions of Ellis about the transactions of these clients but never really received an adequate

explanation. She stated that she became concerned as they were selling the same houses over and

over and never closing the files. She noted that purchasers never brought money in with them when

they were buying properties.

[37] Although she was trained and got her work from Ellis, she asked some questions of another

employee Roberta Brown who was experienced with respect to real estate transactions. Penney

stated she was subsequently told by Ellis not to ask questions of Brown as Ellis did not like the way

Brown did real estate transactions.

[38] In about the Fall of 2004, Penney went to a title insurance seminar where one of the topics

was mortgage fraud. Penney stated that when she heard the details she came to the realization that

“this is exactly what is happening at my office with the clients we have”. She stated that she became

excited and went back to the office and told the lawyers and staff what she had learned.

Page: 14

[39] She told Ellis that things did not seem right and that it seemed to her that Pervez and the

others might be committing mortgage fraud. Penney stated that Ellis responded by saying words to

the effect, “Have you ever heard anybody say that they were committing fraud?” When she said

“No”, Ellis’ response was, “Then you are all right”. Penney stated that she persisted but Ellis

became annoyed with her for asking so many questions and gave her less and less work to do.

Penney testified that she also raised the issue with Venkatraman but was told by him that Ellis knew

what she was doing. It was her recollection that at about this time the real estate files Ellis was

handling were transferred fromVenkatraman to Mahendra Pillay (“Pillay”) who was another lawyer

in the firm.

[40] Penney stated that on about the morning of April 12, 2005 she noticed that Ellis had cleaned

out her office as all her personal effects were gone and there were no files around. She stated that

they discovered on the same morning that there had been a major computer crash. Her computer was

completely destroyed and the office was effectively shut down as there were no data and no

precedents.

[41]

Penney was able to identify certain compact discs that were seized from Ellis’ home

pursuant to the search warrant as the type used by the Venkatraman law firm. She was referred to

a table of contents printout extracted from those discs and confirmed that it contained a list of

precedents, client files, and financial information of the Venkatraman law firm. She stated that was

the type of information lost as a result of the computer crash.

[42] Penny confirmed that when working as an assistant to Ellis she prepared reporting letters to

purchasers and the statements of receipts and adjustments. She stated that after preparing the

reporting letters she gave them to Ellis as she understood that Ellis would deliver them. She

identified a number of reporting letters she had prepared and signed on behalf of the firm which

were found in Ellis’ home and seized pursuant to the search warrant including:

-

Report to Rashid dated January 20, 2004 re: purchase and assumption of

9331-107 A Ave.;

Report to Correia dated September 24, 2004 re: purchase and mortgage of

10712-103 St.;

Report to Jindal dated April 20, 2004, re: purchase and mortgage of 11245-

94 St.;

Report to Aziz dated May 27, 2004 re: purchase and mortgage of 10811-152

St.;

Report to Rai dated February 22, 2005 re: purchase and mortgage of 11904-

96 St.;

Page: 15

-

Report to Esmail dated May 26, 2004 re: purchase and mortgage of 12843-67

St.

[43] When asked about the above reporting letters and several others which were found in Ellis’

home, Penney commented that it appeared her job in preparing all the reporting was useless as the

letters were not going anywhere.

[44] Penney was questioned about a statement of receipts and adjustments she had prepared with

respect to the purchase of 12243-66 St. by Paez. The statement showed a receipt of mortgage

proceeds of $104,250 and a payment of $14,250 to Brito. She stated that although the amount

seemed high, she was told by Ellis that Brito was like a real estate agent, and that was what was

agreed on for finding a buyer. She stated that Knight also explained to her how amounts were paid

for finding a buyer in these types of transactions.

Pubalagan (Pops) Venkatraman

[45] Venkatraman testified that there were four lawyers in the firm including himself during most

of the period that Ellis worked there. He paid the staff and the other lawyers. The other lawyers were

paid 40% of all fees billed and collected.

[46] He stated that Ellis was very efficient and had an extensive knowledge with respect to

handling real estate transactions. After she replaced Bischoff and became the bookkeeper, she was

to divide her time equally between doing the bookkeeping and handling real estate transactions. Ellis

was paid approximately $3,000 per month after she became the bookkeeper.

[47] A number ofemployees includingEllis had signing authority on cheques at the Venkatraman

law firm. Firm cheques required two signatures, one of which had to be by a lawyer in the firm. The

bookkeeper had a small office in which the computer that contained the firm’s financial information

was located. Ellis was the only staff member who had access to the trust ledger. Ellis had a key and

password for the computer.

[48] Venkatraman stated that he did not want to act for Pervez but was prepared to act for

individuals who purchased property from him and for mortgage companies. He said that he advised

Ellis of this fact. He stated that he did not trust Pervez.

[49] Venkatraman stated that the normal practice in the firm was for a lawyer to take instructions

and to then have the receptionist open the file in the name of that lawyer. He stated that sometime

in the latter part of 2004 he learned that Ellis was opening real estate files in his name without his

knowledge. He learned further that these files were not being billed.

[50] He testifed that he could not exactly recall why Ellis began to work for Pillay. He stated that

Pillay did not have much experience in real estate and that he warned him to watch out for files

being opened by Ellis without his permission.

Page: 16

[51] He stated that he saw Ellis in the bookkeeper’s office on occasion with individuals such as

Pervez, Kahlon and Brito. He stated this room was only for lawyers and staff as the computer and

accounting records were kept there. He asserted that he told Ellis the room was not to be used for

clients.

[52] Venkatraman stated that although the firm was very busy he noted that they were always

short of money in the general account. In the later part of 2004 or early 2005 he began to conduct

an investigation. He found that Ellis had real estate files pertaining to Pervez with approximately

$20,000 to $30,000 in uncollected fees and disbursements. He stated that Ellis promised that the

outstanding amounts would be collected but that this was never done.

[53] Venkatraman continued to be concerned about the financial affairs of the firm. As the other

lawyers in the firm were paid on a percentage of receipts basis, the necessary financial information

was required in order to properly pay them. He prepared two copies of a memorandum

(“Venkatraman Memorandum”) dated March 3, 2005 one of which was to be acknowledged by

Ellis. The Memorandum referred to a meeting with Ellis on February 28, 2005 and listed matters

that required her immediate attention including:

-

complete all postings as at February 28, 2005;

complete all trust account reconciliations as at January 31, 2005;

provide balance sheets for individual lawyer’s account as at February 28,

2005;

-

provide all real estate files that have been billed and unbilled in your

possession to Pops on or before the close of business on March 4, 2005.

[54] The Venkatraman Memorandum directed that the postings and balance sheets be completed

by March 21, 2005 and that Ellis was not to work on any real estate files until that work was

completed. The Memorandum further stated that pursuant to instructions from the firm’s accountant

an internal audit was being conducted of all files. The Memorandum was never acknowledged and

the work was not completed. Both copies of the Memorandum were found in Ellis’ home during the

execution of the search warrant.

[55] Ellis went on stress leave from the Venkatraman law firm on about April 12, 2005. At that

time she was still earning approximately $3,000 per month. She never returned to work at the firm.

The next morning, employees of the firm found that the computer which contained the firm’s

financial information had crashed. The financial information had not been placed on any backup

discs.

[56] Venkatraman stated that after Ellis left on stress leave it was determined that monies were

missing from the trust account. Trust cheques began bouncing and the matter was reported to the

Law Society. He rehired Bischoff as bookkeeper to get the financial and accounting affairs of the

firm in order. Certain financial information was eventually retrieved from the hard drive of the

Page: 17

computer that had crashed and with the assistance of forensic accounting it was determined that

approximately $1,933,565.07 was missing from the firm’s trust account.

[57] An action was commenced against Ellis, Pervez, Brito, Kahlon and others. It was settled for

1.4 million dollars and the four members of the firm bore the balance of the loss equally.

Mahendra Pillay

[58] Pillay testified that he practised primarily in the litigation area at the firm. He stated that he

did not have much experience with real estate transactions. Ellis had worked for him after she joined

the firm and he found her to be a competent and fastidious worker who worked independently very

well. He stated that she was knowledgeable with respect to real estate transactions and that all he

had to do was give her instructions and the work was done.

[59] Pillay stated that Venkatraman and Ellis had a bit of a falling out in about the period between

about October 2004 to February 2005. He stated that Venkatraman was not happy about the way

certain real estate files were being handled by Ellis because of outstanding fees. He asked Pillay to

supervise Ellis’ files to conclusion and to ensure that fees were collected. Pillay regarded himself

as a buffer between the two.

[60] Pillay stated that files with the ending 20146 were with respect to transactions that emanated

from Pervez. He stated further that Ellis’ real estate files had the number 65.

[61] Pillay stated that although the firm was busy and generating a lot of money there was an

anomaly as the general account was in overdraft. He, Venkatraman and another lawyer began an

investigation on a cursory level of the general account, the disbursement account and of files where

fees had not been paid. He stated that it was discovered that files where fees had not been paid

related to those directly or indirectly involving Pervez.

[62] Pillay was out of the office on the morning it was discovered that the computer had crashed.

He testified that he received a telephone call from Venkatraman advising that a firm cheque with

his signature on it for approximately $200,000 had been returned as the account was overdrawn.

[63] He stated that on returning to the office he determined that his signature had been forged.

At trial he identified 44 general account or trust cheques where his signature had been forged. The

other signatory on each of the cheques was Ellis.

[64] Pillay also identified a letter dated November 23, 2004 to a Rhodri Bethell (“Bethell”) at

Mortgage One Corporation on the Venkatraman law firm letterhead where his signature had been

forged. This letter was marked “*t” beneath where his name was typed indicating it had been

prepared by Ellis. The File number was 20146-65/PV/TLE. He testified that TLE stood for Terry

Lynn Ellis.

[65] On a transfer of land dated April 5, 2005 of 11331-93 Street from Palwinder Kahlon to

1151228 Alberta Ltd. of 4224-86 Street (which contained Worrell’s forged signature as

Page: 18

Commissioner for Oaths of the affidavit of transferee which Ellis swore as agent, and Worrell’s

forged signature as Commissioner for Oaths on the affidavit of execution of witness sworn by Ellis),

the initial typed name and address of a transferee numbered company 1131020 Alberta Ltd. of 374

Heath Road was struck out and the above numbered company and address inserted by hand. In order

to achieve registration a note was written in the margin “Authorized by the solicitor for the vendor

and purchaser” and purportedly signed by Pillay. Pillay testified that the signature was a forgery,

that he knew nothing of the matter and never authorized anyone to sign on his behalf.

[66] He identified two other letters on the Venkatraman law firm letterhead where his signature

had been forged including:

-

Letter dated January 6, 2005 to Jason at Royal Bank of Canada (“RBC”) Re:

Kydd, file No: 85000-65/MP/TLE prepared by Ellis;

Letter dated January 6, 2005 to Jason at RBC Re: Esmail, file No: 85000-

65/MP/TLE prepared by Ellis.

[67] Pillay stated that he never dealt with a Jason at the Royal Bank and knew nothing of the

transfer of four properties to Kydd or the transfer of five properties to Esmail.

Deanna Bischoff

[68] Bischoff testified with respect to the bookkeeping entries made by Ellis over the period in

question. Bischoff testified that she has been working as a bookkeeper since September 1996 and

worked at the Venkatraman law firm for five years, starting in May 1998. During part of that time,

she was also office manager. Ellis was hired in approximately 2001 while she was the office

manager. Bischoff would have vetted her resume as one of her responsibilities as office manager.

Bischoff understood that Ellis had worked with Devinderjit Purewal while he was an articling

student, that she had 10 to 15 years experience in conveyancing and was knowledgeable in books.

[69]

Bischoff ceased working for the law firm in April 2003. She explained that the lawyers had

decided to divide off into a cost sharing practice, and laid her off at that time as it was more

financially efficient to have one person doing some legal work plus bookkeeping so her position was

not needed anymore. She felt that she left the firm on good terms. She was disappointed in that she

had built certain processes and was comfortable with the work, but felt it was time to move on. She

understood Ellis was taking over as bookkeeper.

[70] In 2005, Venkatraman Jr. contacted Bischoff, requesting that she return for a period of time

to assist with cleaning up the books which were apparently in a mess. She understood there were

serious issues to be addressed. Bischoff agreed to go back as the timing was right for her personally

and she had always had a good working relationship with the members of the firm. She started in

this new capacity at the end of April or beginning of May 2005. She was told the computer had

crashed, and the books and reconciliations were not current and were in a confusing mess. The

lawyers were unable to get the reports they needed. When she returned, she understood that Ellis

Page: 19

was taking a one month disability leave. She understood Ellis’ last day at work to have been April

12, 2005.

[71] Bischoff was referred to the Venkatraman Memorandum dated March 3, 2005 seized from

Ellis’ residence, which directed her to complete a number of tasks, including: complete all postings

as at February 28, 2005; complete all trust account reconciliations as at January 31, 2005; prepare

balance sheets for individual lawyers’ accounts as at February 28, 2005. None of this had been

completed when Bischoff started back in May of 2005.

[72] By the time Bischoff started, the computer system was back up and running, and information

was accessible on the system. She found a mass of papers and postings which had not been dealt

with. The books were backlogged by months. She found that bank reconciliations which had been

prepared months back were extremely confusing and did not provide adequate explanations for

adjustments. It took three to four months to get things squared away as much as possible. Bischoff

understood there were concerns about trust cheques bouncing. She had never experienced a trust

cheque bouncing while she was doing the books. She started sorting out the piles of papers to

determine exactly what had gone on and then attempted to prepare the next bank reconciliation. The

last one had been for November 2004, but when Bischoff started working on the December 2004

reconciliation, she found major issues as problems appeared with respect to the prior reconciliations.

She had to review all transactions in the firm’s Bank of Montreal (“BMO”) trust account back to

December 2003. She did not go further back in time because it looked to her like the trust accounts

began to get extremely confusing around that time.

[73] At a certain point in her investigation, Bischoff wanted to meet with Ellis. She phoned Ellis

within a month of starting the clean up work and asked for help in balancing the books as nothing

seemed to balance. Ellis agreed to assist and she came to the office. Bischoff did not know at that

time that Ellis had numerous materials at home. Ellis did not bring any of the materials with her. The

meeting lasted only 15 minutes. Bischoff pointed out that it appeared the firm was short at least

$1,000,000 in the trust account and she could not figure it out. She was specifically looking at client

file 20146 which Ellis had been working on. Ellis stated this was her client, but then when

questioned corrected herself and said it was the firm’s client, Pervez. Bischoff showed Ellis the trust

ledger. Ellis asked for a copy of the trust ledger to review with Pervez and between the two of them

they would be able to figure it out. Ellis did not explain any of the discrepancies. Bischoff did not

allow Ellis to take a copy of the trust account ledger. Ellis has never provided any assistance in

determining where the trust monies might be, and Bischoff went through the process of scrutinizing

the books and making the necessary corrections.

[74] Bischoff explained that the firm used the Easylaw trust accounting system. All of the

postings of monies coming in and out were exclusively the responsibility of the bookkeeper.

Bischoff testified that Ellis did the vast majority of the postings during the time period in question,

but some other legal assistants were involved in posting to a very small degree. As well, the

bookkeeper was responsible for preparing monthly bank reconciliations which would be presented

to the lawyers for signing off. In Bischoff’s experience the lawyers reviewed these, but did not go

through all of the documentation. The bank statement numbers had to match the general ledger,

otherwise an explanation was required. During the period from 1998 to 2003, the firm used up to

Page: 20

seven trust accounts. Bischoff was familiar with the BMO and National Bank trust accounts. Others

were established for mortgage companies which deposited funds into specific banks. The most

active trust account during her time was the BMO account.

[75] Crown counsel took Bischoff through the financial documentation relating to what she had

found to be false deposits posted to the trust account ledgers. The false deposits were posted from

around February 4, 2004 to January 20, 2005. These are postings of deposits of which Bischoff

could find no evidence, totaling $4,796,429.73. She described her methodology with respect to this

list. She checked all posted deposits and would check them against the bank statements for the

relevant periods. If there was no deposit reflected in the bank statement, she concluded no deposit

was made on the date in question. If there was a deposit, she looked at the individual deposit slips

to see if the amount was one which made up a larger total deposit. Each client had his or her own

trust account number, referred to as the client file number. She explained that when each cheque was

deposited, the client file number would be noted on the cheque to assist the bookkeeper to post it

to the correct account. The deposit slips also had the client file numbers.

[76] Bischoff explained that for each posting, certain information would be inputted manually,

including the amount of the deposit or withdrawal, the bank code number, the date of the transaction

(failing which the current date would appear), the client file number and the explanation. Other

information would be automatically generated. For example, each transaction posted on Easylaw

automatically generates a transaction audit number. By printing a report in order of transaction audit

number, it was possible for her to determine the approximate timing of the posting, which often was

significantly different from the date indicated on the posting and manually inputted by the posting

bookkeeper, with respect to the false deposits on her list.

[77] The evidence established the following with respect to Bischoff’s list of false deposits.

[78] A posting dated March 11, 2004 indicated a direct deposit with respect to client file 20146

(belonging to a numbered company, 978742 Alberta Ltd.) in the amount of $189,500.86 (transaction

#17302). The client inquiry report indicated, by dates of the verified transactions on either side of

this transaction, that this direct deposit was backdated and was actually posted sometime in late

April 2004. The history of the client file shows that the account had over the course of a number of

postings run increasingly into overdraft. Bischoff explained that Easylaw provides a warning and

a beep each time an account goes into overdraft. This direct deposit brought the account balance

from an overdraft position to a zero balance. Bischoff surmised that this posting would have been

made to balance the bank statement with the general ledger at the end of the month, i.e. to hide the

overdraft. If on April 29, 2004, one of the individual client accounts was carrying an overdraft in

a trust account of $189,500, this would have been a serious concern. She testified that no one except

the poster would be aware of the problem after the deposit posting brought the account to a zero

balance. It was established on the evidence (bank statements and deposit slips) that no such deposit

was ever made to the BMO trust account. This deposit posting was never reversed. Based on the

client inquiry report from the time of this posting until the time the account was ultimately closed,

it was always in an overdraft position by at least $189,500.86.

Page: 21

[79] Similarly, two false deposits were made to the BMO trust account in relation to client file

20146 with posting dates of May 1, 2004: transaction #17409 in the amount of $67,381.67 with the

notation “cash to close”, and transaction #17410 in the amount of $134,763.33 with the notation

“direct deposit”. There was no evidence in the bank statements of these deposits ever having been

made, nor that these postings were ever reversed. The evidence established that both postings were

backdated and were actually made in late May 2004. Right before the postings, the client file 20146

was in an overdraft position by $202,145. These two backdated postings cumulatively had the effect

of reducing the overdraft to a zero balance. Again, 978742 Alberta Ltd. received the benefit of these

deposits.

[80] The client inquiry report regarding client file 20146 shows that after the above mentioned

deposit of $189,500 brought the balance to zero, the account continued with a positive balance until

transaction #17405 put it once again into overdraft. This transaction was a transfer from client file

20146 to client file 25093. In other words, client file 25093 received money that did not exist. The

transaction shows on the client inquiry report regarding client file 25093 (1090316 Alberta Ltd. re

purchase of 11840 - 93 Street). A general power of attorney dated May 12, 2004 was seized at Ellis’

residence. It indicates that Pervez, president of 1090316, granted Ellis power of attorney. The

property in question had been foreclosed on March 3, 2004 and 1090316 Alberta Ltd. purchased it

for $75,000 on May 25, 2004.

[81] Transaction #17922, ostensibly posted on July 26, 2004, was a deposit “from Pitblado” of

$30,305.30 to the benefit of 20146. The bank statements indicate no deposit in that amount for that

date. The client inquiry report for 20146 shows that transaction #17921 immediately preceding

#17922 was a withdrawal of $74,090.98, leaving a positive balance of $9,694.97. This, together with

the #17922 posting of $30,305.03, equaled transaction #14970 which was a cheque for $40,000 to

Pervez, leaving the account with a zero balance. Bischoff testified that she was unable to find any

evidence that transaction #17922 was ever reversed.

[82] Transaction #17927, ostensibly posted on May 1, 2004, but backdated three months, was a

$5,300 deposit to the benefit of client file 20146, transferred from client file 25327. It was posted

as a deposit, and although it referred to a transfer, client file 25327 was not debited. The client

inquiry report for 20146 shows that after the deposit of $5,300 leaving a positive balance in that

amount, a cheque was issued to Aziz for $1,250, leaving a positive balance of $4,050, and a further

cheque was issued to Khalid Ahmad for $4,050 (both under transaction #17928). Bischoff testified

that she never did find evidence of an actual deposit of $5,300.

[83] Transaction #17966, ostensibly posted on July 26, 2004, related to $115,770.07 identified

as “ATB draft”. That posting purported to leave a positive balance on client file 20146 of

$115,770.07. A transfer to client file 25329 (1090316 Alberta Ltd. re purchase of 11904-96 Street;

contact Carman Gohar) in the amount of $53,537.33 (transaction #17969) left a positive balance of

$62,232.74, and a further transfer on the same transaction number to client file 25267 in the amount

of $62,232.74 appears to leave the account on client file 20146 with a zero balance. In other words,

the ATB draft was taken up completely with these two transfers. There is no indication in the bank

statements of a deposit for $115,770.07 on July 26, 2004.

Page: 22

[84] The client inquiry report for client file 25329 shows a subsequent cheque for $53,537.33,

which a letter dated July 30, 2004 to Duncan & Craig indicates was cash to close on the purchase

of 11904-96 Street. That property was purchased in August 2004 for $58,250 by 1112360 Alberta

Ltd. after it had been foreclosed. The property was subsequently purchased by Rai and an ING

mortgage was secured. The mortgage was then foreclosed. Client inquiry report for client file 25267

(re 1090316 Alberta Ltd. purchase of 11646-84 Street; contactCarmanGohar) showsthatthe second

transfer of $62,232.74 was the exact amount needed to bring that account to a zero balance. That

property was paid for by cheque to McLennan Ross forwarded under cover of a letter signed by Ellis

and dated July 30, 2004.

[85] Transaction #17901 ostensibly posted on July 11, 2004, was a deposit in the amount of

$263,252.96, with the notation “Pitblado”, and appears to leave a positive balance in client file

20146 of $40,000. Given the verifiable postings on either side of this one, it was made sometime

late in July 2004. Bischoff never found any evidence of such deposit having been made.

[86] Transaction #18319, ostensibly posted on August 27, 2004, was a deposit to 20146 for

$35,372, with the notation “City of Winnipeg void cheque”. Bischoff found no evidence of such

cheque or deposit. This deposit brought client file 20146 from overdraft to a zero balance. Bischoff

found no evidence that the transaction had ever been reversed.

[87] The above false transactions total $841,645.96.

[88]

Bischoff found that a deposit of a cheque from Pervez in the amount of $841,504.01 had

been posted to 20146 as transaction #18348 on August 31, 2004, and a stop payment placed on it.

Prior to posting of that cheque, the account had a zero balance. A 2 page document captioned

(“Carmans Real Estate”) was seized during a search of Ellis’ residence. This is a client spread sheet

for July/August 2004. Bischoff had never seen a document like this at the Venkatraman law firm.

It contains information regarding payees, addresses and amounts. The total under payee is

$1,161,452.41 which, added to the previous balance noted of $250,508.81 equals $1,411,961.22.

Total received is noted as $570,457.21, leaving a balance owing of $841,504.01, which is the same

amount as the cheque from Pervez. The stop payment of that cheque is noted in transaction #21079.

This was posted at the end of January 2005, however Bischoff testified that she found on the C:\

drive of Ellis’ computer at the firm, a document entitled “TERRY ELLIS\Carmans letterhead -

buffalo.doc”. That letter, for signature of Pervez with “t” under his name, in relation to file 20146-

65, was to Buffalo Credit Union Winnipeg, requesting a stop payment. The letter is dated September

1, 2004. Recovered during the search at Ellis’ residence is a fax cover sheet with confirmation of

transmission from the Venkatraman law firm on September 1, 2004, together with a copy of the

letter.

[89] Transaction #19215 is a false deposit in the amount of $52,998.23 ostensibly posted on

September 1, 2004 (but actually posted at the end of September 2004) to client file 20146, with the

notation “BMO draft”. The client inquiry report shows that transaction #19213 (purportedly posted

the same date) immediately prior to this deposit brought the account to an overdraft balance of

exactly the amount of the subsequent deposit. This latter transaction was noted as a “reverse posting

error” reflected to be a withdrawal from the National Bank trust account (code 1235). The entry

Page: 23

being reversed was transaction #18841, being a “direct deposit” to 1235 in the amount of

$287,553.41. Bischoff surmised that transaction #19215 was backdated to hide the account’s

overdraft status. She found no evidence of a deposit in the amount of $52,998.23 to the credit of

20146.

[90] Transaction #21206 was a false deposit in the amount of $55,278.28 to the BMO trust

accountonclientfile 20146, with the notation“received Bishop McKenzie”. Immediately preceding

this transaction is transaction #21205 which left the account in a $55,278.28overdraft, sotransaction

#21206 brought the balance to zero. Transaction #21205 was a transfer of $67,596.98 from client

file 20146 to client file 85108 (1131029 Alberta Ltd. re purchase of 11331-93 Street). It was posted

some time around February 2005 although it purports to have been posted on November 22, 2004.

Bischoff could find no evidence of the #21206 deposit. The client inquiry report for client file 85108

shows a cheque payable to Broda & Co. in the amount of $67,596.98 purportedly posted on

November 23, 2004. This report indicates that the money went out first and the transfer came after

(around January or February 2005). When the cheque was posted, the account was put in overdraft

by $67,596.98 and the person posting would have received a warning. A document wherein Pervez,

president, grants Ellis power of attorney with respect to 1131029 Alberta Ltd. was seized during the

execution of a search warrant of Ellis’ residence. The document is dated February 1, 2005, and is

witnessed by Ellis’ son, DeAgostini. The evidence shows that 11331-93 Street was purchased by

1131029 in November 2004 for $69,500, sold to Kahlon on February 16, 2005 for $120,000,

subsequently mortgaged in the amount of $90,000, sold to 1151228 Alta. Ltd. and then to Brito. A

package of material seized from Ellis’ residence includes a reporting letter to 1131029 c/o Carman

regarding cash purchase of 11331-93 Street, file 85108-65. The last document indicates a November

23, 2004 courier to Broda & Co., noting a closing date on the sale of November 15, 2004, enclosing

a trust cheque in the amount of $67,596.98.

[91] These false postings occurred fromMarch 2004 to January 2005. Bischoff testified that these

false postings would have shown up in bank reconciliations that the lawyers reviewed, but bank

reconciliations can be forced to balance by putting adjusting entries in, and the lawyers did not tend

to look closely at these. Although the bank reconciliations showed as balanced up to a certain date,

there were entries backdated before that date that would not have shown up in any lawyers’ reports.

In other words, the backdating would have assisted in allowing this to go undetected for a significant

period of time. By May 2005, trust cheques started to bounce.

[92] Transaction #16788, posted on February 4, 2004 was in the amount of $43,500 to the BMO

trust account client file 25013 (978742 Alberta Ltd. re purchase of 11915-77 Street). Although it is

indicated to be a “trust transfer”, it was a one sided entry. Transaction #16789, also dated February

4, 2004 was a cheque to McKay Anderson Haak in the amount of $43,484.90. The next transaction

was a trust transfer on March 23, 2004 from client file 25106 to client file 25013 of $43,500 to

create a positive balance of $43,515. A posting dated April 1, 2004 reversed the transfer of $43,500

leaving a balance of $15.10. In other words, between February 4, 2004 and the proper transfer of

$43,500 on March 23, 2004, 978742 Alberta Ltd. had the use of $43,500 for the purchase of the

property.

Page: 24

[93] Copy of title to that property shows a transfer on February 4, 2004 in the amount of $48,500.

978742 Alberta Ltd. transferred the property to Kahlon one week later. Ellis signed the affidavit of

transferee on January 28, 2004 for 978742 Alberta Ltd. The transfer on February 9, 2004 to Kahlon

was for $115,000. Ellis signed the affidavit of transferee for Kahlon. Kahlon sold the property on

April 19, 2005 to Lally who obtained a Toronto-Dominion (“TD”) mortgage in the amount of

$89,250. The transfer in of $43,500 on March 23, 2004 came from client file 25106. A client inquiry

report for client file 25106 shows that it related to Jindal regarding the purchase of 6904-127

Avenue. The first item posted on that client file is a TD draft of $129,035.00. Therefore, this TD

draft provided the resources for the purchase of 11915-77 Street.

[94] The evidence shows that 6904-127 Avenue was owned by 978742 in April of 2003. In

January 2004 it was transferred to Kahlon, then Jindal went on title in March 2004, and obtained a

TD mortgage. Some of those mortgage proceeds went to the benefit of 978742 Alberta Ltd. to

purchase 11915-77 Street, but the seller of 6904-127 Avenue was Kahlon, not 978742 Alberta Ltd.

The TD draft also appears to have been the source of a transfer on the same date to client file 20153

in the amount of $5,022.96. The client inquiry report for client file 20153 shows that this was the

account for 996649 Alta Ltd. regarding the sale of 9328-106A Ave “to Tony”. The evidence shows

that this latter property was owned by 996649 Alberta Ltd. (director Johanne Hickling), transferred

to Kahlon, and transferred back to the numbered company in February. In April 2004, it was

transferred to 978742 Alberta Ltd., then transferred to Kahlon again, then Oberoi and ultimately

Aparjit Kahlon went on title and secured a mortgage.

[95] Returning to the client inquiry report for client file 25106 (Jindal), this record also shows a

transfer to client file 25050 (912715 Alberta Ltd. re purchase of 11330-84 Street). The client inquiry

report for client file 25050 also shows the transfer from client file 25106 to client file 25050

ostensibly posted on March 23, 2004 in the amount of $61,262.09 (proceeds of Jindal’s mortgage).

The next transaction on client file 25050 is a cheque to Cleall Pahl for $60,862.09 for the purchase

of 11330-84 Street. The evidence shows that this property was purchased in March 2004 by 1090316

Alberta Ltd. for $63,000, then transferred to Kahlon and subsequently transferred to P. Kahlon in

July 2004 with a TD mortgage. Eventually it was transferred to A. Kahlon with a Royal Bank

mortgage and ultimately it was foreclosed.

[96] Client inquiry report for client file 25106 shows that a payment to Kahlon in the amount of

$10,000 was posted with a date of March 23, 2004. Additional transfers show on client inquiry

report for client file 25106 to client file 20146 (978742 Alberta Ltd.). Transaction #16985 was a

transfer to client file 25063 (Jindal re purchase of 11245-94 Street) in the amount of $6,807.40.

Transaction #17285 was a transfer to client file 25106 from client file 25063 in the amount of

$6,807.40. A third transfer (#17287) ostensibly made on March 17, 2004 transferred $5,760.95 to

client file 25063. As at April 5, 2004, the balance was at zero. The transfer of $200 on July 5, 2004

to pay for title insurance came from client file 25342 (Rai re purchase of 11149-97 Street). The

report inquiry for client file 25342 shows an initial TD draft for $81,750 and numerous trust

transfers following, mostly out of the account.

Page: 25

[97] The evidence establishes that 11245-94 Street was purchased by Jindal on March 13, 2004,

secured by an MCAP mortgage in the amount of $116,000, and in August 2004 Ellis assumed that

mortgage.

[98] Transaction #17303 was a false deposit ostensibly posted April 12, 2004, noted to be a

“direct deposit” in the amount of $71,171.22 to the BMO trust acct on account of client file 25096

(1090316 Alberta Ltd. re purchase of 10712-112 Street). This transaction was backdated. The client

report inquiry demonstrates that the first posting was actually on April 22, 2004, being a cheque to

Bryan & Co. in the amount of $71,171.22, leaving the account overdrawn in that amount. The next

transaction was the “direct deposit” of $71,171.22 bringing the account to a zero balance. Bischoff

testified that she could find no evidence of such a deposit, nor that the posting was ever reversed.

The evidence demonstrates that 1090316 Alberta Ltd. purchased 10712-112Street on April28, 2004

for $73,500 cash. Ellis signed the affidavit of transferee for 1090316 Alberta Ltd. on April 21, 2004.

The property was mortgaged and then transferred on September 23, 2004 to 1125812 Alberta Ltd.

for $110,000. Ellis signed for 1125812 Alberta Ltd. It was transferred to Erika Bustos for $126,500

paid in part by CIBC mortgage of $94,875. On the transfer document from 1125817 Alberta Ltd.

to Erika Bustos, Ellis witnessed the signature of Brito for 1125817 Alberta Ltd.

[99] Transaction #16887 was a false deposit ostensibly posted on March 1, 2004 in the amount

of $118,440.16 to BMO trust account for client file 25125 (Correia re purchase of 11920-77 Street)

with the notation “London Life”. Bischoff testified that she was unable to find any evidence of such

a deposit. On the client inquiry report, transaction #16888 immediately following on March 4, 2004

was a transfer in the amount of $96,500 from client file 25125 to another client file 25070 (978742

Alberta Ltd. re purchase of 10730-92 Street). A cheque was written on client file 25070 on March

4, 2004 to Fraser Milner for $66,793.62. The evidence shows that 10730-92 Street was transferred

in April 2004 to 1090316 Alberta Ltd. for $70,000. Ellis signed the affidavit of transferee dated

March 29, 2004 for the company. A mortgage was filed on title on April 17, 2004 in the amount of

$40,000. In January 2005, the property was transferred to Esmail. A letter on Venkatraman

letterhead dated January 6, 2005 to the Royal Bank regarding that sale purports to be signed by

Pillay. Bischoff testified that this was clearly not his signature. Pillay stated that it was a forgery.

On the client inquiry report for client file 25125, the next transaction (#17033) was a real deposit

dated April 1, 2004 in the same amount as previous posting for London Life. Transaction #17166

was a reverse double posting of $118,440.16 on April 1, 2004.

[100] Client file 25125 related to the purchase of 11920-77 Street. The false London Life deposit

posting was dated March 1, 2004. 978742 Alberta Ltd. purchased the property on December 1, 2003

for $67,000, sold it to Brito for $90,000 on April 1, 2004, and then it was transferred to Correia on

April 1, 2004 for $124,900. A London Life Mortgage was then placed in the amount of $122,511.29.

The affidavit of transferee for Correia’s signature was commissioned by Ellis and dated March 25,

2004, after the posting of the false London Life deposit. The mortgage application signed by

someone purporting to be Correia dated March 13, 2004 was also after posting of the false London

Life deposit, and before the real deposit.

[101] Following the April 1, 2004 valid deposit on client file 25125, was a payout dated April 1,

2004 to the Lefebvres for $50,000, a cheque to Millwoods Honda in the amount of $16,000

Page: 26

(transaction #14491) dated April 1, 2004, a cheque to Brito for $21,219.16 (transaction #14492), a

payment for title insurance, and payment of a Venkatraman bill. The balance at that point was

$52,440, which was not enough to reverse the double deposit. There was a subsequent transfer in

from client file 25127 (Aziz re purchase of 10811-152 Street) in the amount of $49,215.97 and from

client file 20146 of $784.03. Then the double posting was reversed and the Millwoods Honda

cheque was reversed (transaction #14491), bringing the account to zero. This reversal of the

Millwoods Honda cheque might initially suggest that the cheque had not gone through, but the

cheque had in fact cleared and had been certified. A subsequent payment to Scott Thorne’s law firm

overdrew the account by $600. This was covered by a transfer from client file 20146 in the same

amount.

[102] On the client inquiry report for client file 25127 (Aziz re purchase of 10811-152 Street), the

initial transaction (#16887) appears to be a deposit of $97,125 from ING Mortgages on March 1,

2004. This was found by Bischoff to be another false deposit. The next item (#16888) is a transfer

in the amount of $33,674.80 from client file 25127 to client file 25069 (978742 Alta Ltd. re purchase

of 12807-127 Street). Following this was a real ING deposit in the amount of $97,125 (#17034), and

a reversal of the initial false deposit (#17079). The next item is a transfer of April 2, 2004 to another

client file 25006 (978742 Alberta Ltd. re sale of 11225-89 Street) in the amount of $13,804

(#17085). A transfer dated April 1, 2004 to client file 25125 in the amount of $49,215.97 (#17164)

was the transfer to the Correia account that allowed for reversal of the double posting on that

account as discussed above.

[103] The client inquiry report for client file 25069 shows that the transfer in of $33,674.80

(#16888) from file 25127 left a positive balance of $74,202. This was followed by a cheque on

March 31, 2004 for cash to close for 12807-127 Street to Alexander Pozniak in the amount of

$73,802.17.

[104] The client inquiry report for client file 25006 shows that prior to the above mentioned

transfer of $13,804 (transaction #17085), this account was in overdraft by $13,804.23, so this

transfer brought the account to a zero balance.

[105] The evidence establishes that 10811-152 Street was transferred to Aziz on April 5, 2004. In

June 2004 there was an attempt to transfer the property into Ellis’ name, and then it went back to

Aziz, and back again to Ellis. In relation to the mortgage in the name of Aziz against 10811-152

Street for $97,125, the affidavit of Aziz purports to be sworn before Ellis on March 30, 2004 after

the initial false deposit. The mortgage approval from ING dated March 20, 2004 indicates a closing

date of March 27/04 (after the posting of the false deposit).

[106] Bischoff testified that each lawyer had his or her own code. “Resp Lawyer: 65 TE Suspense”

was set up to gather together information on all of Ellis’ files. The print out of a report under this

code shows: Date Opened: 12/30/03; Date last bill: 10/01/05; Date last payment: 09/08/04; Date last

active: 10/01/05.

[107] Bischoff testified that she found the majority of bookkeeping issues or problems were in

relation to client file 20146 and 978742 Alberta Ltd. Materials seized during the execution of a

Page: 27

search warrant at Ellis’ residence included a document dated December 20, 2003, wherein Pervez,

president of 978742 Alberta Ltd. granted Ellis a general power of attorney for 978742 Alberta Ltd.

[108] Also seized from Ellis’ residence were the following: an 8 page report by lawyer with an

open date range of January 1, 1980 to September 28, 2004, being a listing of all files opened in the

Easylaw system under area of law 65 designated as Ellis’ files); a 7 page document with an open

date range of January 1, 1980 to August 6, 2004 for area of law 65, similar to the above document

but covering a slightly different date range; a trust account log for client file 20146 (978742 Alberta

Ltd.) in Ellis’ handwriting ( Bischoff testified that a trust account log is required to be on the inside

of every file in the office on which the legal assistant tracks monies in and out, and she searched for

but was never able to find this document for client file 20146) ; a document listing transactions for

client 20146 printed by date with a first posting in July 2004, and last entry being the deposit on

August 31, 2004 in the amount of $841,504.01 payment of which was stopped as discussed above,

and one of the entries being a cheque for $5,300 which Bischoff learned was for the purchase of a

Mustang for DeAgostini.

[109] Bischoff also identified a false deposit in relation to the National Bank trust account on client

file 85168 (1131029 Alberta Ltd. re purchase of 124 Grandview Crescent). The first transaction,

dated April 11, 2005, is a deposit by 1131029 in the amount of $550,000 to give the account a

positive balance in that amount. One of the documents seized at Ellis’ residence was a lined yellow

sheet in her handwriting. At the top is written NBC and the various entries appear to represent

National Bank trust cheque numbers. The calculations indicate an overdraft in the amount of

$107,243.78. The following pages appear to be an account statement for the National Bank trust

account. The statement is dated Saturday, April 9, 2005 (Saturday) at 9:39 p.m. and shows “Terry

Ellis - Venkatraman & Purewal (89368)” at the top. The balance in the account is $156,706.12.

Another yellow lined document appears to be a handwritten listing of trust cheques associated with

the BMO trust account. A total of $316,212.21 is followed by an entry “O.D. 115,000", and a total

overdraft of $431,212.21 is indicated. The next page is a BMO statement of trust account, dated

April 9, 2005 which covers 6 pages, the last entry being on April 8, 2005, a cheque in the amount

of $266,699.16 which overdraws the account by almost $115,000. A further item seized at Ellis’

residence is a cheque dated April 11, 2005 in the amount of $550,000 drawn on the account of

Pervez, payable to Venkatraman Purewal regarding “Deposit Camrose Condos “Amarjit Singh”,

which amount is slightly more than the combined total of overdrafts tallied on two yellow sheets of

paper. As well, seized from Home Placement was a letter on Pervez letterhead dated April 11, 2005

regarding a cheque for $550,000 with a request to put a stop payment on the cheque. The cheque

never cleared.

[110] The client inquiry report for client file 85168 shows the cheque for $550,000 deposited on

April 11, 2005 and then a cheque posted April 11, 2005 payable to Venkatraman BMO trust account

in the amount of $225,000 (#21577). A copy of that trust cheque (3999) dated April 8, 2005 purports

to have been signed by Pillay, but Bischoff confirmed that the signature was not that of Pillay.

[111] In the course of cleaning up the books, Bischoff also found cheques that had not been posted,

and entered those as she did the necessary reversals and corrections. When the account for client file

Page: 28

20146 was closed, it was overdrawn by $1,609,420.46. When the figures from other client accounts

where false postings had not been reversed are added to this amount, the total is around $2,000,000.

[112] Bischoff testified that all of the false deposits in the list she compiled were eventually found

to be related to Pervez. She further testified that the false deposit list could not simply be the result

of posting mistakes. In particular, she noted that a warning would come up when a posting put the

account into overdraft, or when posting in the wrong month so that a person backdating entries to

another month would be aware of this.

O’Neil Knight

[113] Knight was a reluctant witness. Knight testified that he had numerous dealings with Pervez

who carried on business as Home Placement at 8407 - 118 Avenue in Edmonton. He estimated that

Pervez had approximately 120 to 200 properties in 2003 and 2004. Knight stated that he attended

at Home Placement at least a hundred times over a four year period and that he knew a number of

Pervez’s associates or partners including, Brito, Caroca, Rashid, Kahlon, Monahan, and Adil and

Faycal Quadri.

[114] Knight stated that generally Pervez would sell any of his properties for 75% of the appraised

value. Knight stated he would find a buyer. He stated that if for example a property was appraised

at $100,000 it would be represented to a lender that the purchase price was $100,000 even though

it was purchased from Pervez by Knight for $75,000. Where a high ratio CMHC insured mortgage

of $95,000 was obtained in the name of a straw buyer, Knight stated he would then enter into an

agreement with the purchaser with respect to how the remaining $20,000 would be divided.

Gregory DeAgostini

[115] DeAgostini testified that he lived in the same home as his mother. He is in the business of

detailing cars and stated he had done some work for Pervez. He stated that his mother and Pervez

were as close as friends can be.

[116] DeAgostini confirmed that a Blue Cross Employee Benefits Application dated November

26, 2004 which named Pervez as the beneficiary of optional life insurance of $70,000 was prepared

and signed by his mother.

[117] He confirmed that he owned a green Mustang but other than recalling that it was acquired

from a person named Darwin Pratt, he purported to have a vague recollection as to the manner in

which it was purchased. He was shown a Venkatraman law firm trust cheque dated August 16, 2004

in the amount of $5,300 payable to Darwin Pratt and acknowledged that would have been the

amount paid. He was also show a Bill of Sale from Pratt for the above amount transferring

ownership of the vehicle to Ellis and Pervez. DeAgostini stated however that he was the registered

owner. He could not explain why there was a notation which stated “Darwin Pratt - Greg’s car -

$5,300" on a spread sheet for July and August called “Carmans Properties”. The spread sheet was

seized from Ellis’ home pursuant to the search warrant.

Page: 29

[118] DeAgostini confirmed that a numbered company 1176587 Alberta Ltd. was the company he

used for his business. He was shown a document indicating that the registration was authorised by

his mother on behalf of the company. Karen Sweeney was shown as the director

[119] When asked whether he knew a Karen Sweeney, DeAgostini stated that such person does

not exist. He was also questioned about a George Sweeney and Catherine Sweeney. DeAgostini

stated that he was not sure that he had ever met them but thought they were a great aunt and uncle

on his mother’s side living near Kenora, Ontario.

[120] When shown the general power of attorney dated June 15, 2005 signed by Karen Sweeney

of Jarvie, Alberta as director of 1176587 Alberta Ltd. appointing Ellis as attorney which was

witnessed by him, DeAgostini confirmed that the name Karen Sweeney was in fact signed by his

mother. His affidavit of execution was purportedly witnessed by Worrell. He purported not to have

a clear memory as to the circumstances under which he swore the affidavit.

[121] DeAgostini purported not to have much knowledge of assuming four mortgages or

purchasing any property stating that such matters were looked after by his mother. He was shown

a document “Terry’s Mortgages” which listed 18 mortgages (six of which appeared to be in his

name) and showed total monthly payments of $10,767.82. DeAgostini confirmed that he did not

make any of the payments and assumed the payments were made by his mother through a numbered

company.

Terry Ellis

[122] Ellis was an experienced legal assistant when she commenced working for the Venkatraman

law firm in 2001. She stated that she first met Pervez towards the end of March of 2003. Ellis stated

that the firm was disorganized, there was a large staff turnover, she was overworked and the pay was

lousy. She stated that she did not leave as she was not the type of person who moved around from

job to job and that she tried to make things better.

[123] Ellis stated that Pervez was an important client of the firm. She asserted that she was getting

overworked because of the large number of real estate files she was handling. She said she went to

Venkatraman and told him she could not continue to handle the volume. She stated that Pervez came

in while they were discussing the issue and suggested she be given a raise. She stated that

Venkatraman told Pervez that he should give her a raise at which time Pervez said he would take

his work elsewhere but Venkatraman said he could not do that as he was the firm’s best client. She

further stated that Venkatraman never wanted to get rid of Pervez as a client.

[124] Ellis claimed that she and Pervez were simply friends. She admitted that she kept his picture

next to hers in her bedroom. She stated that when her vehicle became unreliable he helped her out

by buying her a used Lexus and that she slowly paid him back. She denied that it was a gift. She

stated that she could not remember how much Pervez had paid for the vehicle, she paid him what

she could when she would have extra money, she did not keep a record of those payments and did

not make regular payments, but as far as she knew she no longer owed him any money for it.

Page: 30

[125] She confirmed that she named Pervez as the beneficiary of optional life insurance of $70,000

on her Blue Cross Employee Benefits Application dated November 26, 2004, stating that as she

owed Pervez money for the Lexus at the time, she wanted to be sure he was paid if something

happened to her. However, Pervez’s name was also on the Lexus, and she testified that this was to

ensure that he would get the vehicle if something happened to her. When questioned further, she

stated that she had houses in her name and the car, and she “wanted him to get his stuff back”.

[126] Ellis acknowledged she also put Pervez on her Blue Cross Plan in November 2004 as her

common law spouse stating that he needed dental work done and she wanted to help him out. She

stated that she was paying “an arm and a leg for these benefits”. Ellis signed on behalf of both the

employer and employee. In doing so she certified that all of the information was true and complete.

Under “date of marriage/cohabitation” Ellis entered January 15, 2002. Shestatedthat the firm’sBlue

Cross representative advised her that Pervez should be stated to be her common law spouse in order

to be eligible for the benefits, and that she should backdate the date they commenced cohabitation.

[127] Ellis stated that she understood that Pervez bought old houses, renovated them and then sold

them. She stated that her understanding was that Pervez would personally net 75% of their appraised

value and that an individual who found a buyer for a house owned by Pervez would earn an agreed

amount for doing so. She stated that if there was no cash to close a transaction she would phone

Pervez who would advise her not to worry about it as the cash to close was adjusted between the

parties.

[128] She stated that she did not dispute the assertion that false statements were made when

applying for mortgages but stated that she was not involved. She acknowledged that a lender relies

upon the integrity of the law firm to see that its interests are looked after. She acknowledged further

that a law firm has an obligation to its client.

[129] Ellis was referred to two statutory declarations of Jindal that were sworn before her on

March 10, 2004 with respect to the purchase and mortgage of property at 11245-94 Street (Count

16) and March 22, 2004 with respect to the purchase and mortgage of property at 6904-127 Avenue

(Count 17). Both statutory declarations provided that the property would be Jindal’s principal

residence, used as a single family dwelling and not rented.

[130] Ellis claimed that she did not recall that the transactions were only 12 days apart. She stated

further that she did not consider it her responsibility to ask questions and if a person swore to the

truth of the declaration she did not question it.

[131] Ellis described Jindal as a whiner. She stated that he began phoning her stating that he was

having trouble with the bank as he did not have enough money to cover his mortgage payments:

“payments were coming out of the TD Bank and he could not get in touch with Tony”. Jindal asked

for her assistance in locating Kahlon. She testified that Jindal told her that Kahlon had stopped

making the mortgage payments. She did not know if she asked Jindal why he would want to call

Tony about his own mortgage payments. When asked whether she thought it was odd that Kahlon

was paying Jindal’s mortages she stated that she did not think about it at the time.

Page: 31

[132] Ellis recalled that Aziz was having trouble making his mortgage payments and “wanted out”.

She stated that she discussed the matter with Pervez who indicated that he would look after the

properties and assume the rents. She stated that she agreed to acquire Aziz’s properties by simply

assuming the mortgages. Ellis stated that while she could have afforded to pay for one mortgage she

could not have afforded to pay for all them but thought the payments would be covered by the rent.

[133] Ellis stated that over time she acquired more and more and more mortgaged properties either

in her name or her son’s name. She was shown a spread sheet captioned “Terry’s Mortgages” which

was seized from her home pursuant to the search warrant and acknowledged it represented the

mortgages she had assumed. The total monthly payments for all of the mortgages exceeded $10,000.

[134] Ellis stated that she recalled Pervez advising that he was giving four properties to Kydd and

being instructed to prepare four transfers. She recalled Kydd calling the office and requesting that

they be transferred out of her name. She stated that she went with Pervez to the Westmount

Shopping Centre where they met with Kydd and she signed the documents.

[135] Ellis stated that Worrell commissioned legal documents at her home. Ellis stated

that Worrell’s Commissioner for Oaths stamp which was found in her home was either left there by

Worrell or that the stamp could have been on her desk and accidentally picked up when she packed

up her belongings the evening before she took stress leave. She said that she did not remember being

told by Worrell that her Commissioner for Oaths stamp was missing.

[136] Ellis denied that she forged Pillay’s signature on any of the cheques where he identified his

signature as being a forgery.

[137] Ellis stated she had no memory of meeting with Venkatraman with respect to the matters

referred to in the Venkatraman Memorandum. She stated that they were probably four to five

months behind with respect to postings and trust account reconciliations at the time.

[138] Ellis denied that she ever heard of “recruiters” or “straw buyers” until her house was

searched. When asked to explain why she would have written a cheque dated February 8, 2005 to

Rai for $1,000 she stated that Kahlon (Tony) told her he owed Rai $1,000 and that he would pay

Ellis back if she paid Rai. When asked why she would pay a stranger’s debt, she said “Tony wasn’t

a stranger”. She stated she had no idea straw buyers were getting paid. She was not able to explain

why she had made notes on a yellow sheet seized from her home which stated “Pay -Aziz 11710-92

St. - ING” and “pay Lally -11614-92 St. - Scotia Bank”.

[139] When asked why a cheque for $6,700 from Pervez to the Venkatraman Purewal firm was

found in one of her purses during the seizure she stated that she had no idea other than she might

have been told by Pervez not to give it to the firm.

[140] With respect to the 43 mortgages referred to in paragraphs 448, 449 and 450 of the Agreed

Statement of Facts where Worrell’s Commissioner for Oaths stamp was improperly used and which

contained Worrell’s forged signature, Ellis stated that she did not think about her actions as being

illegal. She acknowledged that she knew documents used for Land Titles must be truthful and

Page: 32

accurate and that the system relies on truthfulness. She admitted in the Agreed Statement of Facts

that she intended that Alberta Government Services act upon these false mortgages as if they were

genuine.

[141] Ellis swore an affidavit before a lawyer, Sadownik, in July 2005 stating that she had read

Worrell’s affidavit of July 22, 2005 and that she swore every affidavit she executed before Worrell.

When confronted with this affidavit evidence, after prevaricating for some time, she admitted that

she had lied in the affidavit sworn before Sadownik and that she made up the information in para.

46 thereof to the effect that she attempted to contact Karen Sweeney, which Ellis acknowledged

during this trial was in fact her pseudonym.

[142] Ellis stated that she was a director of 1131029 Alberta Ltd., had a power of attorney and did

the banking. She acknowledged that she prepared a mortgage which was signed by her son and

witnessed by Pervez in which her son acknowledged receipt of $130,000 secured by property at

12330-67 St. Ellis commissioned the affidavit of execution of Pervez and the dower affidavit of her

son. She acknowledged that Land Titles relies on the accuracy, truth and honesty of the person filing

the document. She claimed not to have any specific recollection of the document but admitted that

her son likely never received a $130,000 loan from 1131029 Alberta Ltd.

[143] Ellis was referred to three draft mortgages seized from her home with respect to three

different legal descriptions which indicated that she had borrowed $32,000, $35,000 and $25,000

respectively from Tasneem Gohar, Pervez’s wife. She stated that as the mortgages were not signed

“maybe the deals fell through” but could not specifically recall.

[144] Ellis was referred to an unsigned mortgage which indicated a loan of $15,000 from Ellis to

Paez. She was also referred to a number of mortgages with respect to various parcels of land which

were signed and commissioned but not registered including:

-

Mortgage dated July 23, 2005 granted by Correia in consideration of a loan

of $20,250 by Ellis;

Mortgage dated October 21, 2005 granted by Kurtis Steiner in consideration

of a loan of $33,177.60 by Ellis;

Mortgage dated November 22, 2004 granted by Lisa Kemph in consideration

of a loan of $29,000 by Ellis;

Mortgage dated January 12, 2005 granted by Loreto Nunez in consideration

of a loan of $27,650 by Ellis;

Mortgage dated October 20, 2004 granted by Laura Chubey in consideration

of a loan of $17,150 by Ellis.

[145] Ellis claimed to have no specific recollection of preparing these mortgages or why they were

prepared but not registered. She did not loan anyone any money. She recalled that Kemph had

Page: 33

purchased a house from Pervez and remembered that Nunez was a relative of Brito. She believed

that with the exception of Kemph the others had purchased houses from Brito but did not have

enough money, but she could not specifically remember. She stated that Brito trusted her and that

she believed they were prepared to give Brito security. She stated that it was because she was a

director of a numbered company, but the Crown pointed out to her that the mortgage showed her as

lender in her personal capacity. She surmised that Brito had a number of creditors who were after

him which was the reason he entrusted her with the security. However, she later stated when asked

if she was going to help him avoid his creditors that she had never heard of people coming after

Brito for money. She admitted there was nothing truthful in these mortgages.

[146] When asked why she had used the name Karen Sweeney, Ellis stated that it was a family

name and that she used it as a pseudonym for the numbered company, 1176587 Alberta Ltd. She

claimed she did not use it for any illegal purposes. When asked why she created a company in the

name of Karen Sweeney, she replied, “Because I wanted to”. She did not remember why she did not

want her name on the company. When asked further, she said she wanted the house she was living

in to be in her company name and did not want anyone to know that it was hers. She told Pervez that

she and Karen Sweeney were one and the same person.

[147] Ellis was shown an offer to purchase of 11710-92 Street which indicated that George

Sweeney and Catherine Sweeney were the purchasers and Aziz the vendor. Worrell was purported

to be the witness to the Sweeney’s signatures. Ellis stated that it did not look like Worrell’s

signature. She waffled as to what if any knowledge she had of the document. She stated that

Sweeney was a family name but stated the transaction did not look familiar. The statement of

adjustments with respect to the transaction had the letters “tle” under the name indicating it was

prepared by her. She admitted that this was one of the properties she acquired from Aziz.

[148] Ellis was shown a general power of attorney dated February 4, 2005 signed by of Aziz as

director of 1151228 Alberta Ltd. and witnessed by her son DeAgostini appointing her. This

document was seized from her home during the execution of the search warrant. She admitted that

Worrell’s signature was forged as Commissioner for Oaths on the affidavit of execution of

DeAgostini, and on the affidavit of Aziz verifying corporate signing authority.

[149] Ellis testified that sometime in 2004, Venkatraman Jr. put an Easylaw update on the

computer, and six months of postings were lost. She could not retrieve the information on the

backups disks, and had to re-post it all. She tried to attribute the bookkeeping irregularities to

mistakes in posting.

[150] When asked about the fact that over one million dollars had gone missing from the

Venkatraman trust account during the time she was responsible for the bookkeeping, Ellis simply

said, “It didn’t happen”. She stated that the evidence only showed one file prepared by an employee

and that there were other overdrawn files.

CREDIBILITY

Credibility of Ellis

Page: 34

[151] Ellis asserted that she and Pervez were only friends. On the other hand Penney stated that

she was told by Ellis that Pervez lived with his wife Tasneem Gohar but spent a lot of nights with

Ellis. Penney was shown a pretty diamond ring that had been given to Ellis by Pervez. Ellis admitted

that she kept Pervez’s picture next to hers in her bedroom. Ellis confirmed that she named Pervez

as the beneficiary of optional life insurance of $70,000 on a Blue Cross Employee Benefits

Application, and acknowledged she also put Pervez on her Blue Cross Plan on as her common law

spouse. I do not accept the evidence she gave regarding the reasons for doing so. Rather I accept on

the totality of the evidence that the evidence of Penney as to what she was told accurately reflected

the relationship as being much closer than a simple friendship.

[152] While Ellis admitted to certain forgeries, she denied others. I find that all of the forged

documents referred to by Worrell at para. 31 were forged directly by Ellis or at her direction. I find

further that Pillay’s signature on the 44 cheques identified by him were forged by Ellis and further

that she forged his signature on the transfer of land referred to in para. 65 and the two letters referred

to at para. 66.

[153] Ellis denied entering any false deposit information while working as the Venkatraman law

firm’s bookkeeper, but could not explain how any money was missing. Her flat denial that trust

money was missing is simply incredible and clearly contradicted by the documentary evidence in

this case. She stated that the evidence only showed one file prepared by an employee and that there

were other overdrawn files. Her evidence on this point does not make any sense at all. She appeared

to be persisting in taking a position of total denial in the face of the overwhelming evidence against

her in relation to the Venkatraman law firm’s books. I find that Ellis was directly involved in making

false deposits and in misappropriating funds from the Venkatraman law firm.

[154] Ellis’ evidence regarding the reason for writing a cheque for $1,000 to Rai at Kahlon’s

request is incredulous in the circumstances.

[155] It is my view that the Venkatraman Memorandum led to Ellis taking stress leave as by that

time she knew that the misappropriated funds were not going to be replaced and that “the jig was

up”.

[156] As for Ellis’ explanation that the bookkeeping irregularities could be attributed to mistakes

in posting, I reject this evidence entirely. The bookkeeping irregularities in which Ellis was involved

were clearly for the benefit of Pervez, and far from being mistakes, the false deposit entries and

other inappropriate transfers were calculated by Ellis to cover the fact that Pervez was using trust

funds (necessarily with the assistance of Ellis) to fund his mortgage fraud scheme.

[157] I find that Ellis is a blatant liar and that little of her testimony can be believed. I found much

of Ellis' evidence to be unbelievable or far-fetched and at times nonsensical. I was left with the

impression that she truly is a stranger to the truth. Even when confronted with the very obvious lies

in the affidavit she swore before Sadownik, she had great difficulty in actually admitting that she

had lied.

Page: 35

[158] Crown counsel submitted that this Court should apply the rule from Browne v. Dunn (1893),

20 C.C.C. (3d) 113 (Ont.H.C.) with respect to those portions of Ellis’ testimony where she

contradicted evidence of others on which they were not cross-examined. In my view, I can attach

so little weight to Ellis’ testimony in general, that it is not necessary to seriously address the rule

from Browne v. Dunn. In any event, given the volume of documentary evidence in this case, Ellis'

contradictions of the testimony of other witnesses does not play prominently in my analysis of the

charges, as will be seen below.

[159] Despite my comments on Ellis’ credibility, I appreciate that simply finding her to be a

blatant liar does not necessarily mean that she is guilty of all or any of the counts with which she

is charged.

Credibility of Venkatraman Law Firm Witnesses

[160] I find that Worrell was a credible witness and accept her evidence in totality. Clearly she was

young, naive and inexperienced when she commenced her employment at the Venkatraman law firm

as this was her first job as a legal assistant. The majority of her on the job training came from Ellis

whom she trusted. I accept her evidence that because of this trust and her lack of experience she

from time to time simply witnessed or commissioned piles of real estate documents left with her by

Ellis without question. While such conduct cannot be condoned, it is understandable in the

circumstances.

[161] Penney, like Worrell, was inexperienced when she went to work at the Venkatraman law

firm as Ellis’ assistant as this was her first job as a legal assistant. Again, a substantial part of her

on the job training came from Ellis. It is clear that she had reason to be suspicious after attending

the title insurance seminar where one of the topics was mortgage fraud. I accept her evidence that

as she asked more and more questions Ellis became annoyed with her and gave her less work to do.

I find that Penny was a credible witness and accept her evidence.

[162] Bischoff, who was the bookkeeper at the Venkatraman law firm before Ellis and again after

Ellis left on stress leave, gave very compelling evidence. Her analysis of the state of the financial

affairs of the firm after Ellis left was very thorough. She gave clear and cogent evidence as to the

status of trust accounts after she completed her analysis. Her methodology was not seriously

challenged by defence counsel. Suffice it to say, it is clear from her testimony that there were many

irregularities including false deposits and transfers from one client file to another for the purpose

of showing everything was in balance. I accept her evidence in totality.

[163] Venkatraman gave evidence with respect to the management of the firm. I accept his

evidence that Ellis was very efficient and had extensive knowledge with respect to handling real

estate transactions. This is supported by the documentary evidence, and the evidence of Penney and

Worrell. I also accept his evidence that after Ellis left the firm it was determined that nearly two

million dollars was missing from the firm’s trust account. However, while Venkatraman purported

to be concerned about Pervez and about Ellis handling “Pervez files” it is apparent that he did not

properly supervise these files while Ellis reported to him and either did not know or did not want

to know what was going on. Some of the documentary evidence points to questionable practice on

Page: 36

his part on real estate files. To direct Ellis to subsequently report to Pillay who had no experience

in real estate was in my view nothing less that totally irresponsible.

[164] I accept Venkatraman’s evidence that he had a meeting with Ellis on February 28, 2005 as

evidenced by the March 3, 2005 Memorandum. However, it is clear that he did not follow up on the

request in the Memorandum that she provide all billed and unbilled real estate files in her possession

to him on or before March 4, 2005. It appears that Venkatraman’s only real interest was with respect

to the firm’s financial affairs because of the fact that the firm, although busy, was short of money

in the general account. It is my view of the evidence that lack of supervision or controls at the

Venkatraman law firmcreated the ideal environment within which a dishonest person could conduct

fraudulent transactions.

[165] Pillay gave straightforward evidence with respect to his interaction with Venkatraman and

Ellis. He admitted that he did not have much experience with real estate transactions but agreed to

have Ellis report to him at Venkatraman’s request after Venkatraman and Ellis had a falling out. In

my view any supervision by Pillay of the conduct of these real estate files was cursory at best. I

accept his evidence that his signature was forged on 44 general account or trust cheques, the transfer

of land referred to in para. 65 and the two letters referred to in para. 66.

Credibility of DeAgostini

[166] I found DeAgostini to be an unreliable and reluctant witness. In my view, on the evidence

before me, it appears he simply did what he was told. Clearly he acted in concert with his mother

with respect to the forgeries that were perpetrated.

Credibility of Other Witnesses

[167] I am mindful that some of the other witnesses were knowingly or unknowingly involved in

the mortgage fraud, and therefore may have their own reasons to tailor their evidence, or to profess

poor recollection of the events involving them. I further address the credibility of specific witnesses

in relation to the individual counts of fraud.

THE CHARGES

[168] I will deal with the individual counts of fraud (Counts 3 to 26). I will then briefly address

Count 27 (s. 368 (1)(a)) and Count 28 (s. 355(b)). Finally, I will assess the evidence on Counts 2

(conspiracy) and 1 (criminal organization).

Fraud Charges

[169] Before embarking on an analysis of the individual counts of fraud, it is helpful to review the

law on the elements of the offence under s. 380(1)(a) as set out in R. v. Theroux, [1993] 2 S.C.R.

5 and R. v. Zlatic, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 29. The actus reus for fraud requires proof of the prohibited act

(be it an act of deceit, a falsehood or “some other fraudulent means”) and deprivation caused by the

prohibited act, either actual loss or the placing of the victim’s pecuniary interests at risk. What

Page: 37

constitutes a falsehood or a deceitful act for the purpose of the actus reus is judged on the objective

facts, and the actus reus of fraud by "other fraudulent means" encompasses all other means which

can properly be stigmatized as dishonest, and this is also determined objectively, by reference to

what a reasonable person would consider to be a dishonest act.

[170] The mens rea of fraud is established by proof of subjective knowledge of the prohibited act

and that the performance of the prohibited act could have as a consequence the deprivation of

another. In some cases, the subjective knowledge of the risk of deprivation may be inferred from

the act itself, barring some explanation raising a doubt with respect to such inference. Where the

conduct and knowledge required by these definitions are established, the accused is guilty whether

she actually intended the deprivation or was reckless as to whether it would occur. The accused's

belief that the conduct is not wrong or that no one will in the end be hurt affords no defence to a

charge of fraud. An example of the application of these principles can be found in R. v. Receveur

(1993), 109 Sask. R. 139 (C.A.) a case where false mortgage application information and false

supporting information was submitted to a trust company and CMHC. The Court of Appeal held that

it is not necessary to find that the accused had a dishonest motive.

[171] Guilt on a charge of fraud can also be proven on the basis of recklessness or wilful blindness.

In R. v. Sansregret, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 570, the Supreme Court defined recklessness as the attitude of

one who, aware that there is a danger that his conduct could bring about the result prohibited by the

criminal law, nevertheless persists, despite the risk.

[172] Wilful blindness was described in R. v. Jorgensen, [1995] 4 S.C.R. 55 as “deliberately

choosing not to know”. In R. v. Sansregret at para. 24, wilful blindness was described as being

deliberately ignorant as a result of blinding oneself to reality. In R. v. Souter, [1998] A.J. No. 736,

1998 ABCA 215 at para. 12, the Court of Appeal stated that the test for wilful blindness is not an

objective one; the person must be proven to have suspected a fact and to have refrained from seeking

confirmation or denial of it. Wilful blindness must be assessed in light of all of the circumstances,

including past events: R. v. Hucal (2001), 291 A.R. 1 (Q.B.) at para. 240 and cases cited therein.

[173] B.L. Nightingale, in The Law of Fraud and Related Offences (Scarborough, Ont.: Carswell,

c1996-) at p. 11-6 explained recklessness and wilful blindness as applied to the mens rea of fraud

as follows:

...if an accused made a false representation, but which he believed to be true or at

least does not know to be probably false, the accused was not reckless...even if the

accused should have known that the representation was false or if a reasonable

person would have known that the representation was false. An accused would be

reckless, however, if he made a representation that fact x existed with the knowledge

that there was a risk that fact x did not exist. The accused would be wilfully blind if

he or she made a representation that fact x existed and had suspicions that fact x did

not actually exist, but failed to make inquiries with respect to its existence.

...an accused will be reckless if it is established that he or she was subjectively aware

that there was a risk of deprivation even if he or she did not subjectively know that

Page: 38

deprivation would occur as a result of such conduct. An accused will be wilfully

blind to a consequence if suspicions were aroused that deprivation may flow from

such conduct, but failed to make further inquiries with respect to it.

[174] Watson J. in R. v. Ticknovich (2003), 343 A.R. 243, 2003 ABQB 854 reviewed the law on

fraud and noted that the proof of the mental element of fraud is often solely an inference. The Crown

can meet its burden by proving an inference of guilty knowledge and intent that is so compelling and

unanswered that no reasonable doubt arises.

[175] In R. v. Hucal, [2001] A.J. No. 944, 2001 ABQB 606, R. v. Poonai, [2003] O.J. No. 1927

(Ont.Ct.Just.), and R. v. Yates, [2001] B.C.J. No. 170, 2001 BCCA 45, the courts found that

fraudulent intent was established upon proof that the accused was reckless or wilfully blind with

respect to either or both of the conduct and consequence elements of the actus reus of fraud. Poonai

contains a helpful analysis of the elements of fraud in a similar factual context.

[176] Finally, although the accused’s subjective belief that his or her conduct was honest will not

provide a defence, an honest though mistaken belief of the facts alleged to constitute deceit,

falsehood or other fraudulent means, or with respect to facts alleged to constitute deprivation,

negatives a finding of mens rea: Sopinka J. in Theroux and Zlatic.

[177] Counts 3 through 26 contain specific allegations of fraud predicated on evidence of the

provision of false information for the purpose of securing mortgage financing from various lenders.

Ellis admits that each allegation is supported by evidence of material false representations made to

lenders for the purpose of securing mortgage financing, that these misrepresentations were relied

on by the lenders, and that the economic interests of the lenders were put at risk as a result of their

reliance on these false representations. She further admits that each complainant was defrauded by

deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, in the manner and amount specified in each individual

charge. However, she denies involvement either as a party or as a principal to each fraud allegation.

Except where specifically indicated otherwise in the Agreed Statement of Facts, Ellis takes the

position that she had no knowledge of the facts at the time that the events occurred.

[178] A binder of documents containing the same exhibit number as the count was provided with

respect to each of the specific counts of fraud. Ellis did not contest the admissibility of the contents

in each binder.

[179] The position of the Crown is that Ellis had a “relationship with Pervez that was not what one

would expect of a legal assistant and a client of a law firm” and that her involvement gave the

scheme an “air of legitimacy”. The Crown submits that Ellis’ role changed over time, becoming

increasingly blatant and eventually changed from legal assistant to criminal accomplice whereby

it virtually became her full time occupation to ensure the success of Pervez’s criminal enterprise.

[180] The undisputed evidence is that Ellis first met Pervez towards the end of March of 2003.

With respect to all of the specific counts of fraud, Ellis was aware no money was going through the

trust account for deposits and cash to close. Her evidence was that she thought money was being

transferred between the parties to the various transactions.

Page: 39

[181] Ellis testified that she knew that the law firm on a purchase/mortgage represented both the

lender and the purchaser and that the lender relies upon the law firm to ensure the lender’s interests

are protected, including providing truthful information. She testified that she knew the lender relies

on the integrity of the law firm and its employees. She knew that if there was a contest between two

clients, another lawyer would have to act. She also testified that she knew that it was important that

the documents filed at the Land Titles Office be truthful. She further testified that she knew the

purpose of a mortgage was to ensure that the lender would have the ability to continue to collect the

payments on the loan to the mortgagor.

[182] Ellis acknowledged on cross-examination that typically the purchaser’s lawyer would send

cash to close on trust conditions including discharge of any existing mortgages, and she stated that

she understood this was a very important trust condition as it would put the interests of the

mortgagee and purchaser at risk if the prior mortgage was not discharged. The Crown questioned

her with respect to a transaction involving Rai and Kahlon in August 2004. Ellis testified that she

asked Rai for the cash to close, and Rai told her to call “Tony” Kahlon (Harkamaljit is also known

as Tony). She phoned Kahlon who told her the money was dealt with between Tony and Pervez. She

could not explain why Tony, who had brought Rai to the transaction, would be providing the cash

to close.

[183] In my view while the fact that deposits and cash to close were not going through the trust

accounts on one or a few transactions in isolation might not create suspicion, the result might be

different where this occurs on a continuous series of transactions involving the same individuals and

where other aspects of the transactions clearly point to a fraudulent scheme.

[184] It is my view that in the absence of other evidence of complicity in the fraud, Ellis’

explanation that she thought money was changing hands between the parties might raise a

reasonable doubt with respect to her guilt on a separate fraud count. However, her explanation must

be considered in the context of each count and what she knew at the time.

[185] As well, defence counsel argued that the frauds were committed within the mortgage

application process and that Ellis was not involved in that process; only after the lender had

committed to the mortgage did Ellis become aware of it. While I am mindful that Ellis is not

necessarily tainted by the acts of others involved in the fraudulent mortgage scheme, particularly

those occurring prior to the time she received instructions, I do not accept defence counsel’s narrow

view of the parameters of the mortgage application process.

[186] It is agreed by Ellis in each case that the mortgagees would not have agreed to lend funds

had they been apprised of the true circumstances of the transaction. I accept that if the mortgagees

had learned of the falsity of the information at any time prior to actually advancing mortgage funds,

they would have been in a position to refuse to fund and to attempt to safeguard their interests.

Therefore, in my view, any confirmation, prior to the actual funding, of representations previously

made to the mortgagees or provision of new information at that time, is properly understood to

constitute part of the mortgage application process. Furthermore, the charges are that false

information was provided “in support of a mortgage application”. In my view, this language is broad

Page: 40

enough and is reasonably understood to encompass information provided around the time of the

processing of the mortgage, and upon which the mortgagee would have relied in its decision to

advance the funds in question to the purchaser. This clearly includes information, which if known

to be false, would have affected the mortgagee’s ultimate decision to advance funds.

[187] As for the assertion that the false information was provided by others, Ellis would be guilty

pursuant to s. 21 if she either aided or abetted other(s) in the commission of the offences charged.

As noted by Watson J. in Ticknovich at para. 5, merely because one is aware of other persons

conducting or participating in a fraud, does not of itself mean one is a party to the fraud; there must

be at least a form of knowing assistance or abetting accompanied by the intent to have the fraud

unfold. For example, preparation and filingoftransfer and mortgage documents necessary to register

the mortgage on title at the Land Titles Office and forwarding of information to lenders, knowing

the same contained false information, with the intent of obtaining mortgage funds on the basis of

the information provided could constitute, if not “providing false information in support of a

mortgage application”, certainly aiding and abetting others to commit fraud on the lender. I do note,

however, that recklessness is insufficient to establish liability under s. 21(1)(b): R. v. Roach, [2004]

O.J. No. 2566 (C.A.).

[188] Defence counsel also questioned why Ellis was charged and other people who appear to have

been involved in the scheme were not charged. In my view, this question is irrelevant to my

consideration of Ellis’ guilt on these counts. The involvement of various witnesses in the mortgage

fraud was apparent through their testimony, and through the Agreed Statement of Facts. The Court’s

task is to assess credibility in light of all of the circumstances. It is not for me to second guess the

Crown’s decisions whether or not to charge various individuals. Furthermore, it is not necessary for

me to determine whether others would be proven to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in relation

to any of these transactions. My task is to determine Ellis’ guilt or innocence in light of all of the

evidence before this Court.

[189] Essentially, Ellis testified that she did what she was told and was never told that what she

was doing was wrong, and was too busy to be concerned about details. When asked whether she had

concerns, for example, when Jindal swore two separate affidavits within a relatively short period

of time stating he would reside on two different properties as his principal residence, she stated that

it was not her place to question him: “You just don’t think; you’re just doing your job”.

[190] Ellis also testified that it was common practice for her to swear the affidavit of transferee as

agent of a purchaser if the purchaser had already come in to the office and signed the mortgage. She

had never seen this done at the other law firms where she had worked because it was the lawyers

in those firms, not the conveyancer, who always met with the clients. I reject Ellis’ general

explanation of the reason for signing as agent of transferee; as will be seen below, in numerous cases

the affidavit of transferee which she signed as agent and the mortgage allegedly signed by the

purchaser were purportedly signed the same day.

[191] I ammindful that there is a distinctionbetweenshoddyconveyancing practices and dishonest

acts and that where there is difficulty in distinguishing between same with respect to the individual

counts of fraud Ellis must be given the benefit of the doubt. I am also mindful that the alleged acts

Page: 41

of fraud occurred over a period of time. Ellis had involvement with respect to some of the properties

subsequent to the time frame referred to in the counts. In my view it is proper to consider such

subsequent involvement in order to determine what inferences flow therefrom regarding Ellis’

knowledge and state of mind when considering counts that are close in time to that subsequent

involvement. As my analysis of the various counts proceeds on a chronological basis, I take into

account the evidence recited in relation to preceding counts, even where that evidence is not

specifically reiterated subsequently.

[192] With respect to all of the counts, I am mindful of the instructions in R. v. W.(D.), [1991] 1

S.C.R. 742: if I believe Ellis’ evidence and it constitutes a defence to the charge, I must acquit her;

if I do not believe her testimony but I am left with a reasonable doubt by it, she must be acquitted;

even if I am not left with a doubt by her evidence, I must ask whether, on the basis of the evidence

which I accept, I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt by that evidence of Ellis’ guilt.

[193] Therefore, although I have generally found Ellis’ evidence on substantive points not to be

credible and to warrant very little weight, I must nevertheless consider whether her testimony leaves

me in any doubt on each of the charges. On the basis of all of the evidence, I have no reasonable

doubt, as will be seen in my analysis in respect of most of the transactions which occurred later in

time, that Ellis’ evidence that she was in effect an unthinking dupe in this scheme is so contrary to

the clear evidence of her conscious involvement that it can only be inferred that she intentionally

committed fraud. However, the evidence is that of increasing involvement. (For example, although

I have accepted Bischoff’s evidence with respect to false deposits, those only began to occur on or

around February 4, 2004.) Ellis testified that her understanding was that Pervez and his associates

were involved in buying, renovating and reselling properties. This was the same story told to a

number of the straw buyers. It is conceivable that Ellis had this understanding of Pervez’s business

at the outset of her involvement in his real estate transactions. Therefore, I must determine at what

point in the chronology of events the evidence is so overwhelming as to lead conclusively and

beyond a reasonable doubt to the inference that Ellis had the requisite mens rea for fraud.

[194] Finally, I do determine as explained below a point in time at which the evidence establishes

that Ellis was aware of and involved in the mortgage fraud scheme beyond a reasonable doubt.

However, I must still examine the transaction underlying each count beyond that point to determine

whether in fact she is guilty as charged in each specific count of having provided false information

to the lender in question.

Count 3

[195] Count 3 alleges that between March 1, 2003 and May 30, 2003, Ellis defrauded Bridgewater

Financial Services Ltd. (“Bridgewater”) of $99,630 by providing false information in support of a

mortgage application in the name of Lindberg for 9331-107A Avenue.

[196] Paragraphs 16 to 38 of the Agreed Statement of Facts pertain to this allegation. 9331-107A

Avenue was purchased by 923080 Alberta Ltd. on January 15, 2003 (sole director was Imran Javaid

(“Javaid”) at the time). Javaid is married to Pervez's sister, Nosheen Ahmad. At the time that 923080

Alberta Ltd. was incorporated, Javaid was resident in Lahore, Pakistan. Javaid had no knowledge

Page: 42

of 923080 Alberta Ltd. or any of its dealings, and provided no direction to 923080 Alberta Ltd., and

received none of the profits realized by 923080 Alberta Ltd. Between 2001 and 2003, 923080

Alberta Ltd. purchased and sold numerous properties in Edmonton and Camrose.

[197] A power of attorney purporting to authorize Pervez to act on Javaid's behalf in the dealings

of 923080 Alberta Ltd. is included in the evidence. Javaid has no knowledge of this document, and

his signature is forged. This power of attorney was frequently proffered as evidence that Pervez had

authority to act on behalf of 923080 Alberta Ltd.

[198] On January 10, 2003, Pervez signed the affidavit of transferee on the purchase of 9331-107A

Avenue as agent for 923080 Alberta Ltd. Pervez attested that 923080 Alberta Ltd. paid cash to the

vendors, the Onevathanas, and that the value of 9331-107A Avenue was, in his opinion, $59,900.

This affidavit was commissioned by Bindon.

[199] On April 29, 2003, title was transferred from 923080 Alberta Ltd. to Lindberg. On April 21,

2003, Pervez signed the transfer under power of attorney for 923080 Alberta Ltd. The consideration

received by 923080 Alberta Ltd. was represented to be $123,000. Bindon witnessed Pervez's

signature on this transfer. Venkatraman signed as Lindberg's agent on the affidavit of transferee,

attesting that Lindberg paid consideration by way of cash and new mortgage for the purchase of

9331-107A Avenue, and that the value of theland was, in his opinion, $123,000. Ellis commissioned

Venkatraman's affidavit. On April 23, 2003, Lindberg attended at the Venkatraman law office and

signed a mortgage before Venkatraman in favour of Bridgewater Financial Services in the amount

of $99,630

[200] Lindberg was recruited into this transaction by Rashid, who was a friend and co-worker of

her fiancé, Frederick. Rashid was involved in this scheme from 2001 through 2003, and was a

longtime family friend of Pervez. Rashid obtained his realtor's license in Alberta, but conducted no

business as a realtor that was independent of this operation. Once Rashid secured a straw buyer

mortgage, he was responsible to manage the property that was mortgaged, which included securing

tenants, collecting rents and making mortgage payments. Some time after the straw buyer’s

mortgage was secured, Rashid typically assumed the straw buyer mortgage, and removed the straw

buyer's name from title.

[201] Lindberg was advised that Rashid needed persons to "hold" properties in their names as he

could only have a certain number of properties in his own name. Lindberg received no fee for her

participation in this transaction. Lindberg understood that a property would be purchased in her

name, renovated and sold at a profit. She did not expect to share in the profit; and she participated

in this transaction as a favour to Rashid. Lindberg signed all mortgage application documents with

Rashid. Lindberg attended twice at the Venkatraman law office, once to sign for the purchase of this

property and once to sign for the sale of this property. Lindberg was never asked for any money for

a down payment on this property, nor was she asked about any of the other conditions of mortgage

financing.

[202] The Agreed Statement of Facts states that the application tendered for Lindberg's mortgage

included various false representations: Lindberg did not provide a down payment toward the

Page: 43

purchase of this property and did not receive a $25,000 gift from her father; the Park firm did not

hold $25,000 in trust toward the purchase of this property; Lindberg did not intend to and did not

reside at 9331-107A Ave. and had no knowledge of this property; the Real Estate Purchase Contract

falsely represented that Tasneem Gohar (Pervez’s wife) was the vendor of 9331-107A Ave.;

Lindberg provided no funds by way of deposit or otherwise toward the purchase of this property;

the sale was not completed by March 28, 2003; the property was never listed on the MLS system

with a real estate agent; the sale was not an arm’s length transaction; the purchaser was not a bona

fide purchaser for value; Lindberg did not deal with Harry Brar or any other real estate agent in the

purchase of this property; the telephone number for the vendor was subscribed to by Pervez; and the

shortfall between the purchase price of $123,000 and the mortgage of $99,630 was not provided by

Lindberg or anyone acting on Lindberg's behalf, nor at all.

[203] The further evidence regarding Ellis’ involvement in this property relates to the period from

December 1, 2003 onward. Although that evidence may be pertinent to Ellis’ awareness and

involvement in the scheme at that time, I find that it is not relevant to Count 3 and the false

representations made to Bridgewater in obtaining the mortgage.

[204] The evidence on Ellis’ involvement in Lindberg obtaining the mortgage on 9331-107A

Avenue is that she commissioned Venkatraman’s signature as agent for the transferee on the

transfer. She would otherwise have been involved in the conveyancing duties in relation to the

transaction in keeping with her role at the Venkatraman law firm.

[205] Lindberg (now Frederick) and her husband, Frederick provided very little evidence with

respect to this transaction. According to them, they had little idea what was going on, could not

remember whom they had met with or what was said, and Lindberg signed documents containing

false information and involving significant sums without so much as the most basic inquiry as to

what she was becoming involved in.

[206] Pervez moved his business from Park to Venkatraman in 2003. This transfer and mortgage

of 9331-107A Avenue in the spring of 2003 was one of the transactions where he continued to use

Park for the vendor’s side, and used Venkatraman for the purchaser/mortgagor.

[207] On the entirety of the evidence, I have a reasonable doubt regarding Ellis’ guilt on this

Count. Having considered what the evidence reveals about her conduct with respect to this

transaction and her relationship and involvement with Pervez at this time, I find that the Crown has

not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Ellis committed dishonest acts in relation to obtaining

this mortgage with the mens rea required under s. 380(1)(a).

Count 4

[208] Count 4 alleges that Ellis, between April 1, 2003 and June 30, 2003, defrauded Firstline

Mortgages (“Firstline”) of $104,040 by providing false information in support of a mortgage

application in the name of Heinrichs for 8409-118 Avenue.

Page: 44

[209] Paragraphs 39 to 54 of the Agreed Statement of Facts pertain to this allegation. 8409-118

Ave. was purchased by 923080 Alberta Ltd. on November 6, 2002 (sole director was Javaid at the

time). On October 29, 2002, Pervez signed the affidavit of transferee as agent for 923080 Alberta

Ltd. on the purchase. Pervez attested that 923080 Alberta Ltd. paid cash in the amount of $45,000

to the vendors, Phung and Tran, and that the value of 8409-118 Avenue was, in his opinion, $45,000.

Bindon commissioned Pervez's affidavit.

[210] On May 9, 2003, title to 8409-118 Avenue was transferred from 923080 Alberta Ltd. to

Heinrichs. On May 1, 2003, Pervez signed the transfer associated with this transaction under power

of attorney for 923080 Alberta Ltd. The consideration received by 923080 Alberta Ltd. was

represented to be $120,000. Bindon witnessed Pervez's signature on this transfer of land. On May

2, 2003, Heinrichs signed the affidavit of transferee attesting that she paid consideration for this

property, by way of cash and new mortgage, in the amount of $120,000. Heinrichs' affidavit was

commissioned by Venkatraman. On May 2, 2003, Heinrichs also signed a mortgage in favour of

Firstline in the amount of $104,040. Heinrichs was not asked any questions about the cash required

to close this transaction, or any other questions about the conditions of mortgage financing. She did

not recall ever having met Ellis.

[211] Heinrichs was recruited into this scheme by her then boyfriend, Aziz. Heinrichs' purchase

of 8409-118 Avenue was her second purchase, the first being approximately six weeks earlier

(February 24, 2003) on a property located at 11828-54 Street.

[212] The application tendered for these mortgage proceedsincludedvariousfalserepresentations:

Heinrichs did not provide the down payment toward the purchase of this property represented to

have been generated from the sale of 11828-54 Street; the documents provided as evidence of the

latter sale were false, and the sale never took place in the manner or time described; the information

about Heinrichs' debt load was false; Heinrichs did not reside nor intend to nor did she reside at

8409-118 Ave.; she had no knowledge of this property and had never seen it; Tasneem Gohar was

not the vendor of 8409-118 Ave.; Heinrichs did not provide the vendor with a $3,000 deposit nor

cash to close; Heinrichs provided no funds toward the purchase of this property; Heinrichs'signature

on the Real Estate Purchase document was forged; 8409-118 Avenue was never listed on the MLS

system with a real estate agent; the sale was not an arm’s length transaction; the purchaser was not

a bona fide purchaser for value; Heinrichs did not deal with any real estate agent in the purchase of

this property; and the shortfall between the purchase price of $120,000 and the mortgage of

$104,040 was never provided by Heinrichs or anyone acting on her behalf.

[213] The net proceeds from this mortgage, $102,003.20, were provided by the lender to the

Venkatraman law firm. Ellis prepared the letter to Park which contained trust cheques and accounted

for the funds. It is noted on the Venkatraman law firm’s trust account books that these trust cheques

included a payment of $2,500 to Kahlon and a payment of $9,700 to Sekhon. These cheques were

forwarded to Park at his direction (pursuant to his client’s instructions) as to disposition of the

mortgage proceeds.

[214] The further evidence regarding Ellis’ involvement in this property relates to the period from

December 2003 onward. Although that evidence may be pertinent to Ellis’ awareness of and

Page: 45

involvement in the scheme at that time, I find that it is not relevant to Count 4 and the false

representations made to Firstline in obtaining the Heinrichs mortgage.

[215] On the entirety of the evidence, I have a reasonable doubt regarding Ellis’ guilt on this

Count. Taking into account all of the evidence about her conduct with respect to this transaction and

her relationship and involvement with Pervez at this time, I find that the Crown has not proven

beyond a reasonable doubt that Ellis committed dishonest acts in relation to obtaining this mortgage

with the mens rea required under s. 380(1)(a).

Count 5

[216] Count 5 alleges that Ellis, between May 1, 2003 and July 30, 2003, defrauded MCAP Service

Corporation (“MCAP”) of $126,160 by providing false information in support of a mortgage

application in the name of Madan for 11447-90 Street.

[217] Paragraphs 55 to 90 of the Agreed Statement of Facts pertain to this allegation. 11447-90

Street was purchased by 923080 Alberta Ltd. (directors were Monahan and Javaid at the time) on

August 30, 2001, Park acting on the purchase.

[218] On November 27, 2001, title had transferred from 923080 Alberta Ltd. to Michael Albert,

a straw purchaser recruited by Kahlon. Albert was asked by Suchi Kahlon, Kahlon's cousin, to

purchase a house on Kahlon's behalf. In exchange, Albert was told that he would be paid a $500 fee

for allowing his name to be used in the purchase. Albert was told that Kahlon would pay the 25%

down payment for the house and would pay the mortgage payments while the property was in

Albert's name. Albert was told that Kahlon would keep any profit after the house was renovated and

sold.

[219] Park was Albert's lawyer on this transaction. When Albert signed for the documents on a

prior purchase of property, he also signed the power of attorney naming Kahlon as his attorney.

Pervez signed the transfer of land under power of attorney for 923080 Alberta Ltd. The

consideration received by 923080 Alberta Ltd. was represented to be $110,000. Bindon witnessed

Pervez's signature on this transfer of land. Kahlon signed the affidavit of transferee as the power of

attorney for Michael Albert, attesting that Albert paid consideration, by way of cash and new

mortgage, to purchase 11447-90 Street. Kahlon's affidavit was commissioned by Bindon. This

information was false. Albert provided no cash toward the purchase of this property. On November

26, 2001, Kahlon also signed a mortgage in favour of BMO in the amount of $82,500, as Albert's

attorney. The mortgage on 11447-90 Street was obtained as a result of several false representations

in the Albert mortgage application, including documents verifying Albert'semployment, documents

verifying the source of a down payment and the provision of a down payment, and documents

verifying insurance coverage on the property.

[220] On September 25, 2002, title to this property was transferred to 895238 Alberta Ltd.

(directors were Monahan and Javaid at the time). On August 22, 2002, Albert signed the transfer

representing consideration of $110,000. Monahan signed the affidavit of transferee as agent for

895238 Alberta Ltd., attesting that 895238 Alberta Ltd. assumed the Albert mortgage as

Page: 46

consideration for the purchase of 11447-90 Street. In early 2003, 895238 Alberta Ltd. fell into

arrears on this mortgage. As a result, the BMO commenced foreclosure proceedings. On February

4, 2003, as part of the foreclosure action, this property was appraised to have a market value of

$83,000.

[221] On July 2, 2003, title to this property was transferred to Madan, a straw buyer recruited by

Kahlon. In May or June of 2003, Madan was introduced to Kahlon through Madan's friend and

Kahlon's cousin, Suchi Kahlon. Madan was told that Kahlon had a construction company and was

engaged in home renovation and that he was looking for persons that were trustworthy to "hold

houses" for him. Kahlon advised Madan that his liabilities were too high to qualify for a mortgage,

and that he was in the business of buying properties, renovating them and re-selling them for a

profit. Kahlon advised that he needed people to hold the homes for him for two to three months,

after which time he would buy back the property and assume the mortgage. Madan was promised

and received $1,000 for his participation in this scheme. He believed that he was buying 11447-90

Street from Kahlon. In fact, Madan purchased this property from 895238 Alberta Ltd.

[222] On June 23, 2003, Monahan signed the transfer of land on behalf of 895238 Alberta Ltd. The

consideration received by the company was represented to be $128,000. Florence Brown was

purported to have witnessed Monahan's signature. Florence Brown is Monahan's mother and her

signature was forged. Kahlon met with Madan and obtained Madan's signature on mortgage

pre-approval documents. Approximately one week later, Kahlon telephoned Madan and arranged

to meet him at the Venkatraman law office.

[223] While at the Venkatraman law office, Madan and Kahlon met with Ellis who presented

Madan with all of the documents that required signature. Madan signed the affidavit of transferee,

attesting that he paid $128,000 by way of cash and new mortgage for the purchase of 11447-90 St.

This information was false. Madan provided no cash toward the purchase of this property. Madan's

affidavit was commissioned by Ellis. On June 20, 2003, Madan also signed a mortgage in favour

of MCAP in the amount of $126,160. Madan provided none of the cash to close this transaction.

Madan signed a false statutory declaration, commissioned by Ellis, declaring that he intended to use

11447-90 St. as his principal residence. This statutory declaration was faxed to the lender from the

Venkatraman law firm on July 2, 2003.

[224] Madan testified that he was in the Venkatraman boardroom for a few minutes and signed

several papers. He did not remember what he had signed. He testified that he was not given a chance

to look at the papers, was not told anything about papers he was signing, was not asked any

questions, was not asked anything about the property, was not asked to swear to the accuracy of any

of the documents he signed, was not asked for any money by either Kahlon or Ellis, and did not

provide any money to either of them. Madan did not know the broker, Allison Rice, and dealt only

with Kahlon, whom he knew as “Kamal” and Ellis. He did not recall ever talking about mortgage

payments. He was not sure whether the signature on a number of the documents was his. Madan

admitted he may have told Ellis the contents of his affidavit were true if asked, but he did not

remember having been asked.

Page: 47

[225] Madan's MCAP mortgage was registered on title on July 2, 2003. Madan's mortgage

proceeds provided the source for the payout of the BMO mortgage.

[226] Theapplicationtenderedforthesemortgageproceeds included various false representations:

Madan did not provide a down payment toward the purchase of this property; a letter provided to

MCAP indicating that Kamal Madan, Madan's cousin, was giving a non-repayable gift of $8,000

to be used for the purchase was false; Madan does not have a cousin by the name of Kamal Madan,

nor did he receive any money from any person for the purchase of this property; the contact number

provided for "Kamal Madan" (fictitious person) in the letter was the residential telephone number

of Amarjit Singh Kahlon, Kahlon's father; to demonstrate to the lender that Madan had received the

"gift", Kahlon provided Madan with an $8,000 bank draft which Madan was instructed by Kahlon

to deposit into his bank account and obtain a record of the deposit, following which Madan, on the

direction of Kahlon, purchased a bank draft payable to Park in the amount of $8,000; Madan never

intended to and did not reside at 11447-90 St.; Monahan was not the vendor as indicated on the Real

Estate Purchase contract; Madan provided no funds by way of deposit or otherwise toward the

purchase of the property; his signature on the Real Estate Purchase contract was forged; the sale was

not completed by June 20, 2003; the information in the purported MLS listing sheet was false; this

was not an arm's length transaction; Madan did not deal with any real estate agent in the purchase

of this property; and the void cheque provided to MCAP to debit mortgage payments was for an

account held by Kahlon.

[227] MCAP relied on all of these representations in making the decision to provide mortgage

financing. Had MCAP been aware that these representations were false, it would not have approved

of Madan's application for mortgage. As a result of its reliance on the misrepresentations in this

mortgage application, the economic interest of MCAP was put at risk in the amount of $126,160.

[228] A void cheque was provided to MCAP, which was to be the account used to debit mortgage

payments. This void cheque was provided by Kahlon to Ellis, and by Ellis to MCAP. The holder of

this account was Kahlon. The proceeds of this mortgage, $126,160, were provided to the

Venkatraman law firm. These funds would not have been sufficient cash to close this purchase based

on the purchase price of $128,000, and no funds were provided to the Venkatraman law firm to

make up the shortfall.

[229] The further evidence regarding Ellis’ involvement in this property relates to the period from

October or November 2003 onward. Although that evidence may be pertinent to Ellis’ awareness

of and involvement in the scheme at that time, I find that it is not relevant to Count 5 and the false

representations made to MCAP in obtaining the Madan mortgage.

[230] Although Madan in my view was an honest witness, his recollection of events was rather

vague and he could not remember many details. Although he was quite adamant that he was never

asked to swear to the veracity of what he was signing, he did say that he might have said it was true

if he had been asked, but he could not remember having been asked.

Page: 48

[231] On the other hand Ellis should have regarded the transaction as at least being somewhat

suspicious. One might question why Madan came in with Kahlon, why he did not provide cash to

close and why he did not pay any legal fees.

[232] It was in May 2003 that Ellis took over bookkeeping responsibilities from Bischoff. The

evidence was that she did the vast majority of the entries from this time until she left the firm, and

therefore I find that from this point on, she would definitely have been aware of what monies, if any,

were flowing through the various trust accounts on the real estate files.

[233] However on the entirety of the evidence, I have a reasonable doubt regarding Ellis’ guilt on

this Count. On the entirety of the evidence, I find that the Crown has not proven beyond a reasonable

doubt that Ellis committed dishonest acts in relation to obtaining this mortgage with the mens rea

required under s. 380(1)(a).

Count 6

[234] Count 6 alleges that Ellis, between May 1, 2003 and July 30, 2003, defrauded MCAP of

$68,250 by providing false information in support of a mortgage application in the name of Twila

Estall for 1516-69 Street.

[235] Paragraphs 91 to 103 of the Agreed Statement of Facts pertain to this allegation. 1516-69

Street was purchased by 978742 Alberta Ltd. on April 30, 2003. At the time of this transaction,

Pervez was the sole director of this corporation.

[236] On April 22, 2003, Pervez signed the affidavit of transferee as agent for 978742 Alberta Ltd.

on the purchase of 1516-69 Street. Pervez attested that 978742 Alberta Ltd. paid cash to the vendor,

Ravinderpal Aujla, and that the value of the property was, in his opinion, $74,000. Bindon

commissioned Pervez's affidavit.

[237] On July 3, 2003, title to 1516-69 Street was transferred from 978742 Alberta Ltd. to Twila

Estall. On June 10, 2003, Pervez signed the transfer of land on behalf of 978742 Alberta Ltd. The

consideration received by the company was represented to be $95,000. Bindon witnessed Pervez's

signature on the transfer. Estall signed the affidavit of transferee, attesting that she paid

consideration by way of cash and new mortgage to purchase 1516-69 Street. This information was

false; Estall provided no cash toward this purchase. Estall's affidavit was commissioned by Ellis.

On June 26, 2003, Estall also signed a mortgage in favour of MCAP in the amount of $68,250. The

dower affidavit dated June 26, 2003 and commissioned by Ellis is incorrect as Estall was married

to Rashid at the time. The shortfall between the purchase price of $95,000 and the mortgage of

$68,250 was not provided by Estall or anyone acting on Estall's behalf.

[238] This was the fourth of four mortgages that Estall secured on properties in Edmonton between

November 2002 and April 2003. At the time that she obtained this mortgage, Estall continued to

hold mortgages on the other three properties that had been placed in her name. This information was

not disclosed to the lender, MCAP. MCAP would not have advanced mortgage proceeds on this

property had it been aware of the other mortgages for which Estall was responsible.

Page: 49

[239] Estall was recruited into real estate transactions in Edmonton and in Winnipeg by Rashid.

She was never aware of the number of properties that were placed in her name. She was told by

Rashid that his credit did not allow him to obtain mortgages. Estall agreed to assist Rashid, who also

recruited her father, Richard Estall. Estall was aware that Rashid was working with Pervez in these

real estate ventures. She was not paid a fee for her participation.

[240] The mortgage on 1516-69 Street was brokered by Allison Rice. The application tendered for

these mortgage proceeds included various false representations: Estall did not provide a down

payment toward the purchase of this property; as evidence of the three sales which were represented

as having generated the down payment, MCAP was provided with three false Real Estate Purchase

Contracts on which Estall's signature was forged; MCAP was provided with false Statements of

Adjustments duplicating the information contained in the Real Estate Purchase Contracts; the

documents also provided false information to the lender regarding Estall's debt load, since they

represent that the mortgages on those three properties would be assumed by the purchasers; the Real

Estate Purchase Contract with respect to this property falsely represented that Frederick rather than

978742 Alberta Ltd. was the vendor, and that Estall provided the vendor with a $3,000 initial

deposit, and would provide the cash to close of $20,750, and Estall's signature was forged on this

document; Estall provided no funds by way of deposit or otherwise toward the purchase; the sale

was not completed by June 16, 2003; the MLS sheet represented to the lender falsely indicated that

the property was listed on the MLS system with a real estate agent, that the sale was an arm’s length

transaction, and that the purchaser was a bona fide purchaser for value; Estall did not deal with any

real estate agent in the purchase of this property.

[241] MCAP relied on all of these representations in making the decision to provide mortgage

financing. Had MCAP been aware of the false representations in the Estall mortgage application,

it would not have approved the application. As a result of its reliance on the misrepresentations in

this mortgage application, the economic interest of MCAP was put at risk in the amount of $68,250.

[242] The mortgage on this property is current, and Estall continues to be on title as the property

owner, and is resident at this property.

[243] Estall was a credible witness but had a poor recollection of events. Rashid accompanied her

when she met with Ellis. She testified that none of the documents she signed were sworn, and Ellis

provided no explanations. However, she could not remember whether she was asked whether any

of the statements in the documents were true. Generally, she testified that she had complete faith in

her husband Rashid and did not pay much attention to what she was doing in signing real estate

documents.

[244] The Venkatraman law firm’s Solicitor Client file regarding this transaction contains the

Residential Real Estate Purchase Contract. It states that Frederick and not 978742 Alberta Ltd. is

the vendor.

[245] Pervez signed the transfer on behalf 978742 Alberta Ltd. and Ellis commissioned the

affidavit of execution of Bindon who witnessed Pervez’s signature.

Page: 50

[246] The trust details in the Solicitor Client file confirm that the only monies received in trust on

this file toward the $95,000 purchase were the mortgage proceeds in the amount of $68,250. Two

trust cheques dated July 7, 2003 were made out. One cheque was to Rashid in the amount of $42,739

and the other to Park in the amount of $25,000. The balance of $511 was used to pay the

Venkatraman law firm account.

[247] Although the evidence raises questions and suspicions about Ellis’ knowledge and

involvement at this point in time, given the involvement of the Park law office on this transaction,

particularly in providing information to the Venkatraman law firm, and Estall’s equivocal evidence

as to what she told Ellis at the time of signing, I am left with a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of

Ellis on Count 6.

Count 7

[248] Count 7 alleges that Ellis, between June 1, 2003 and August 30, 2003, defrauded Resmor

Trust Company (“Resmor”) of $123,203.13 by providing false information in support of a mortgage

application in the name of Jindal for 11933-78 Street.

[249] Paragraphs 104 to 122 of the Agreed Statement of Facts pertain to this allegation. 11933-78

Street was purchased by 923080 Alberta Ltd. on April 24, 2003 (sole director at the time was

Javaid). On April 17, 2003, Pervez signed the affidavit of transferee as agent for 923080 Alberta

Ltd. on the purchase of 11933-78 Street. Pervez attested that 923080 Alberta Ltd. paid cash to the

vendor, the BMO, and that the value of 11933-78 Street was, in the transferee's opinion, $63,888.

Bindon commissioned Pervez's affidavit.

[250] On July 28, 2003, title was transferred from 923080 Alberta Ltd. to Jindal. On July 16, 2003,

Pervez signed the transfer of land on behalf of 923080 Alberta Ltd. The consideration received by

the company was stated to be $125,000. Ellis witnessed Pervez's signature on this transfer. Jindal

signed legal documents at the Venkatraman law firm. He attended at the law firm with Kahlon, and

dealt with Ellis. On July 16, 2003, Jindal signed the affidavit of transferee, attesting that he paid

consideration by way of "cash to close" for the purchase. Jindal's affidavit was commissioned by

Ellis. On July 16, 2003, Jindal also signed a mortgage in favour of Resmor in the amount of

$123,203.13. The shortfallbetween the purchasepriceof$125,000andthe mortgageof$123,203.13

was not provided by Jindal or anyone acting on Jindal's behalf.

[251] This was the second of four mortgages that Jindal secured on properties in Edmonton

between February 2003 and March 2004. At the time that he obtained this mortgage, Jindal

continued to hold a mortgage on a property located at 11838-91 Street, a property that was placed

in Jindal's name on February 5, 2003. This information was not disclosed to the lender, Resmor.

Resmor would not have approved the Jindal mortgage application had it been aware of the other

mortgage that Jindal held.

[252] Jindal was recruited into this scheme by Amarjit Singh, Kahlon's father and former

neighbour to Jindal, who asked Jindal if he would assist his son, Kahlon, to purchase a house. Jindal

Page: 51

understood that he was to obtain a mortgage on a property that Kahlon would then assume. Jindal

understood that Kahlon could not qualify for his own mortgage. Although Jindal was offered $1,000

for his participation, Jindal declined this offer as he believed that he was doing a favour for his

friend.

[253] The mortgage on 11933-78 Street was brokered by David Gorn (“Gorn”). The application

tendered for the mortgage on 11933-78 Street included various false representations: Jindal did not

provide a down payment toward the purchase of this property; the down payment for 11933-78 St.

was falsely represented to have been generated by the sale of 11838-91 St.; the Real Estate Purchase

Contract representing the sale of this latter property to Monahan tendered to the lender was false;

this also provided false information to the lender with regard to the Jindal's debt load, as it

demonstrated that the mortgage on 11838-91 Street would be assumed by the purchaser; Jindal did

not intend to and did not reside at 11933-78 St.; the mortgage on Jindal's residence was not disclosed

on the mortgage application for 11933-78 St.; the Real Estate Purchase Contract falsely represented

that Kahlon, rather than 923080 Alberta Ltd., was the vendor of 11933-78 St.; this document falsely

represented that Jindal provided the vendor with a $2,000 initial deposit, and would provide the cash

to close of $4,250; Jindal provided no funds by way of deposit or otherwise toward the purchase of

this property; the sale was not completed by July 15, 2003; the MLS sheet tendered to the lender

falsely represented that the property was listed on the MLS system with a real estate agent; this was

not an arm’s length transaction, and the purchaser was not a bona fide purchaser for value; Jindal

did not deal with any real estate agent in the purchase of this property.

[254] Resmor relied on all of these representations in making the decision to provide mortgage

financing. Had Resmor been aware that various of the representations were false, it would not have

approved the Jindal mortgage application. As a result of its reliance on the misrepresentations in this

mortgage application, the economic interest of Resmor was put at risk in the amount of $123,203.13.

[255] At all material times Jindal lived at 135 Kiniski Crescent with his wife and two children. He

had a BMO mortgage on Kiniski Crescent. Jindal did not have a very good memory of events. With

respect to this Count, he attended before Ellis (who he thought was a lawyer) with Kahlon. He stated

that nothing was explained to him before he signed the documents, and he did not recall being asked

to swear an oath. He agreed that this was very different from his earlier dealing when placing the

mortgage on Kiniski Crescent where everything was explained and many of questions were asked.

He did not put any money down to purchase the property and understood Kahlon would pay the

legal costs. Jindal was a credible but unsophisticated witness. He stated that he does not read English

well and admitted on cross examination that he may have told Ellis that what he was signing was

true to the best of his knowledge.

[256] The remaining evidence regarding Ellis’ involvement with this property relates to the period

of time from January 2004 onward. Although that evidence may be pertinent to Ellis’ awareness and

involvement in the scheme at that time, I find that it is not relevant to Count 7 and the false

representations made to Resmor in obtaining the mortgage.

[257] Essentially, the evidence of Ellis’ involvement which is pertinent to Count 7 is that she

witnessed Pervez's signature on the transfer of land to Jindal, commissioned Jindal’s signature on

Page: 52

the affidavit of transferee, attesting that he paid consideration by way of "cash to close" for the

purchase, and witnessed Jindal's signatures on the mortgage. Although the evidence may indicate

sloppy conveyancing, and the lack of money flowing through the trust account should have raised

her suspicions, on the entirety of the evidence, including Jindal’s equivocal evidence as to what he

told Ellis, I am left with a reasonable doubt of Ellis’ guilt on Count 7.

Count 8

[258] Count 8 alleges that Ellis, between the June 1, 2003 and August 30, 2003, defrauded

Bridgewater of $116,724.13 by providing false information in support of a mortgage application in

the name of Kydd for 10920-92 Street.

[259] Paragraphs 123 to 144 of the Agreed Statement of Facts are pertinent to this Count. 10920-92

Street was purchased by 978742 Alberta Ltd. on June 20, 2003 (sole director at the time was

Pervez). On June 8, 2003, Pervez signed the affidavit of transferee as agent for 978742 Alberta Ltd.

attesting that 978742 Alberta Ltd. paid cash to the vendor, Hnatiuk, and that the value of 10920-92

Street was, in his opinion, $50,000. Bindon commissioned Pervez's affidavit.

[260] On August 13, 2003, title was transferred from 978742 Alberta Ltd. to Kydd. On July 29,

2003, Pervez signed the transfer of land on behalf of 978742 Alberta Ltd, representing that 978742

Alberta Ltd. was paid consideration of $119,000 on this sale. Ellis witnessed Pervez's signature on

this transfer of land. Kydd signed the affidavit of transferee on July 30, 2003, attesting that she paid

consideration by way of cash and a new mortgage. Kydd provided no cash toward the purchase of

this property. Kydd's affidavit was commissioned by Ellis. On July 30, 2003, Kydd also signed a

mortgage in favour of Bridgewater in the amount of $116,724.13.

[261] Kydd became familiar with Pervez through her employment at Habitat for Humanity

Restore. This business sells donated building supplies to the public. Pervez was a frequent customer

of the store. Pervez persuaded Kydd to purchase property, rather than rent. Pervez showed Kydd

several houses that were available for purchase. The property at 10920-92 Street was one of the

homes that Pervez showed Kydd. Kydd advised Pervez that she could not qualify for a mortgage

because of her marital situation at the time. Pervez advised Kydd that he would take care of securing

the mortgage. Kydd, who was going through a divorce at the time, engaged in an intimate

relationship with Pervez. Ellis displayed considerable hostility towards her during her testimony at

trial. I infer this is because Ellis was jealous of her relationship with Pervez.

[262] The mortgage on 10920-92 Street was brokered by Gorn. The application tendered for the

mortgage contained various false representations: Kydd did not provide a down payment toward the

purchase of this property; a down payment was falsely represented to have been generated by both

the division of marital assets and by way of a gift provided to Kydd by her sister; Kydd did not

receive any monies from her sister to put toward the purchase of this property; Kydd's matrimonial

property had not been divided at the time of the purchase; these representations also provided false

information about Kydd's debt load, as they demonstrated that Kydd had been released from

matrimonial debts, including a mortgage on her matrimonial home; Pervez provided Kydd with

$7,000, the amount of the purported gift from Kydd's sister and instructed Kydd to deposit the

Page: 53

money into her personal bank account and to obtain a record of her deposit, which she did and this

deposit record was provided with the mortgage application package as proof of the gift referred to;

Kydd returned most of these funds to Pervez after they were deposited into her account; a false

employment letter and T-4, misrepresenting Kydd's employment and income at Habitat for

Humanity were provided to the lender; the Real Estate Purchase Contract tendered to the lender

described the vendor as being care of the listing real estate agent but Kydd dealt throughout with

Pervez, not a listing real estate agent, and 978742 Alberta Ltd. was the vendor of this property; this

document falsely represented that Kydd providedthe vendorwitha $2,000initial deposit, and would

provide the cash to close of $3,950; Kydd provided no funds by way of deposit or otherwise toward

the purchase of this property; the MLS sheet falsely represented to the lender that the property was

listed on the MLS system with a real estate agent, that the sale was an arm’s length transaction, and

that the purchaser was a bona fide purchaser for value; Kydd did not deal with any real estate agent

in the purchase of this property.

[263] Bridgewater relied on all of these representations in making the decision to providemortgage

financing. Had Bridgewater been aware of these false representations, it would not have approved

the Kydd mortgage. As a result of its reliance on the material misrepresentations in this mortgage

application, the economic interest of Bridgewater was put at risk in the amount of $116,754.13.

[264] The mortgage on this property is current, and Kydd continues to be on title as the property

owner, and continues to reside at this property.

[265] Kydd admitted on cross-examination that she lied to the police about receiving a $7,000 gift

from an aunt in Ontario. On re-examination she said she was afraid she would lose the house since

it would reflect badly on her if Pervez got it by ill begotten ways. Pervez cross-examined her at the

preliminary and she stated she had transferred back four properties for which she eventually held

title (discussed later in this decision). She said at trial that this testimony was wrong but that she

wanted them to be transferred out of her name. While Kydd was not the best witness, I believe the

evidence she gave in chief at trial was credible.

[266] Further evidence of Ellis’ involvement with properties in Kydd’s name relates to the period

of time from December 2004 onward. Although that evidence may be pertinent to Ellis’ awareness

and involvement in the scheme at that time, I find that it is not relevant to Count 8 and the false

representations made to Bridgewater in obtaining the mortgage.

[267] The evidence against Ellis on Count 8 is that she witnessed Pervez's signature on the transfer

to Kydd on July 29, 2003, commissioned Kydd’s signature of the affidavit of transferee on July 30,

2003, and witnessed Kydd’s signatures on the mortgage in favour of Bridgewater in the amount of

$116,724.13. Further, she knew the trust account details on this file. On the entirety of the evidence,

I am left with a reasonable doubt of Ellis’ guilt on Count 8.

Count 9

Page: 54

[268] Count 9 alleges that Ellis, between June 1, 2003 and August 30, 2003, defrauded

Bridgewater of $111,375 by providing false information in support of a mortgage application in the

name of Richard Estall for 11322-93 Street.

[269] Paragraphs 145 to158 of the Agreed Statement of Facts pertain to this allegation. 11322-93

Street was purchased by 923080 Alberta Ltd. (Javaid was the sole director at the time) on March 21,

2003. On March 17, 2003, Pervez signed the affidavit of transferee as agent for 923080 Alberta Ltd.

on the purchase of 11322-93 Street, attesting that 923080 Alberta Ltd. paid cash to the vendor, Peter

Bischoff, and that the value of 11322-93 Street was $57,000. This affidavit was commissioned by

Bindon.

[270] On August 15, 2003, title was transferred from 923080 Alberta Ltd. to Richard Estall. On

July 29, 2003, Pervez signed the transfer of land associated with this transaction under power of

attorney for 923080 Alberta Ltd., the consideration represented as being $113,000. Bindon

witnessed Pervez's signature on this transfer of land. On July 31, 2003, Richard Estall signed the

affidavit of transferee, attesting that he paid consideration, by way of cash and new mortgage for

the purchase of 11322-93 Street. Ellis commissioned Estall's affidavit. Also on July 31, 2003,

Richard Estall signed a mortgage in favour of Bridgewater in the amount of $111,375.63. Ellis

witnessed his signature. She also commissioned Estall’s statutory declaration on July 31, 2003

stating that he would reside on the property as his principal residence.

[271] Estall was recruited into this transaction by Rashid, who was engaged at that time to Estall’s

daughter, Twila Estall. The property at 11322-93 Street was the third of three mortgages that Estall

obtained as part of this scheme. Estall understood that properties would be placed in his name, and

that Rashid would collect rents from the tenants in those properties to raise money for the mortgage

payments. Estall understood that Rashid was managing these properties. Estall received no fee for

his role in this transaction, but understood that he would share in the profit when the properties were

sold. Estall never dealt with any bankers or mortgage brokers; he signed all documents with and

provided all requisite information to Rashid.

[272] The mortgage on 11322-93 Street was brokered by Gorn. The application tendered for this

mortgage included various false representations: Estall did not provide a down payment toward the

purchase of this property; the down payment was falsely represented to have been generated by the

sale of Estall's property at 12406-86 Street (the first property that Estall obtained a mortgage on as

part of this scheme); as evidence of the sale of 12406-86 Street, the lender was provided with a false

Real Estate Purchase Contract purporting to show the sale of this property to Rahine Wadji; this

document also provided false information to the lender about Estall's debt load, as it represented that

the mortgage on 12406-86 Street would be assumed by the purchaser; the lender was not advised

of other mortgages in Estall's name at 11688-15 Avenue and 11836-96 Street; Estall did not intend

to and did not reside at 11322-93 Street, contrary to the statutory declaration he signed, which was

commissioned by Ellis and faxed to the lender from the Venkatraman law office on August 15,

2003; the Real Estate Purchase Contract tendered to the lender falsely represented that Kevin Yee

rather than 923080 Alberta Ltd. was the vendor; this document falsely represented that Estall

provided the vendor with a $3,000 deposit and would provide the cash to close of $2,650; Estall

provided no funds by way of deposit or otherwise toward the purchase of this property; the sale was

Page: 55

not completed by July 18, 2003; an MLS sheet falsely represented to the lender that 11322-93 Street

was listed on the MLS system with a real estate agent, that the sale was an arm’s length transaction,

and that the purchaser was a bona fide purchaser for value; Estall did not deal with any other real

estate agent in the purchase of this property.

[273] Bridgewater relied on all of these representations in making the decision to approve the

Estall mortgage. Had Bridgewater been aware of the false representations, it would not have

approved the Estall mortgage. As a result of its reliance on the material misrepresentations in the

Estall mortgage application, the economic interest of Bridgewater Financial Services was put at risk

in the amount of $111,375.63.

[274] The proceeds from this mortgage, $111,375.63, were provided to the Venkatraman law firm.

These funds would not have been sufficient cash to close this purchase based on the purchase price

of $113,000. No funds were provided by Estall or anyone acting on Estall's behalf to make up the

shortfall.

[275] Estall continues to be the titular owner of11322-93 Street. Accordingly, Bridgewater did not

suffer an actual loss as a result of the false representations tendered in the Estall mortgage

application. Had Bridgewater been made aware that these representations were false, however, it

would not have approved the Estall mortgage.

[276] Richard Estall was an honest witness, but was unable to provide any useful evidence due to

his inability to recall relevant details. His evidence was that he was simply helping Rashid out

because of Rashid’s relationship with his daughter.

[277] Ellis’ involvement in obtaining the mortgage in this Count consisted of commissioning a

false affidavit of transferee and witnessing the mortgage. She knew the details of the trust account

on this file. Given Richard Estall’s inability to recall his interactions with Ellis, I am unable to

determine with certainty what she was or was not told at the time, and therefore on the entirety of

the evidence, I am left with a reasonable doubt regarding Ellis’ guilt on Count 9.

Count 10

[278] Count 10 alleges that Ellis, between September 1, 2003 and November 30, 2003, defrauded

TD Bank of $101,250 by providing false information in support of a mortgage application in the

name of Oberoi for 12661-72 Street.

[279] Paragraphs 159 to 178 of the Agreed Statement of Facts pertain to this allegation. 12661-72

Street was purchased by 978742 Alberta Ltd. (sole director was Pervez at the time) on August 20,

2003. On July 31, 2003, Pervez signed the affidavit of transferee as agent for 978742 Alberta Ltd.,

attesting that 978742 Alberta Ltd. paid cash to the vendor, Kennedy, and that the value of the

property was $65,200. This affidavit was commissioned by Bindon. On October 20, 2003, title to

12661-72 Street was transferred from 978742 Alberta Ltd. to Oberoi. On October 7, 2003, Pervez

signed the transfer of land on behalf of 978742 Alberta Ltd. The consideration received by him was

represented to be $135,000. Ellis witnessed Pervez’s signature on this transfer. Also on October 7,

Page: 56

2003, Oberoi signed the affidavit of transferee attesting that he paid consideration, by way of cash

and new mortgage, for the purchase of 12661-72 Street. Oberoi provided no cash toward the

purchase of this property. Ellis commissioned Oberoi’s affidavit. On the same date, Oberoi signed

a mortgage in favour of the TD Bank in the amount of $101,250 and Ellis witnessed his signature.

[280] Oberoi was recruited by Kahlon. He was introduced to this scheme by a co-worker,

Palwinder Kahlon (Kahlon’s brother). Palwinder Kahlon advised Oberoi that Kahlon was in the

business of buying houses, fixing them up and selling them. Oberoi inquired whether Kahlon would

have contacts with flooring installers, as he needed flooring installed in his residence. Palwinder

Kahlon agreed to have Kahlon contact Oberoi. Kahlon contacted Oberoi and offered Oberoi the

opportunity to have his flooring installed at a discounted rate. In exchange, Oberoi would obtain a

mortgage on Kahlon’s behalf. Kahlon advised Oberoi that he could not get a mortgage himself

because of the number of properties in his name. Kahlon advised that he would assume Oberoi’s

mortgage in a couple of months, once he sold one of his other homes. Oberoi agreed to participate.

[281] The mortgage on 12661-72 Street was brokered by Krishna Gupta. The application tendered

for this mortgage included various false representations: Oberoi did not provide a down payment

toward the purchase of this property; as evidence of the sale of Oberoi’s home at 5426-17A Ave.

which was to generate the down payment, the TD Bank was provided with a false Real Estate

Purchase Contract that demonstrated an unconditional sale by Oberoi and his wife to Pinky Sailopal

for $190,000; Oberoi does not know Pinky Sailopal; at the time of this transaction, Pinky Sailopal

was engaged to Kahlon; Oberoi continues to reside at 5426-17A Ave.; included with the Oberoi

mortgage application wasa false separationagreement, datedSeptember 26, 2003, notarized by Park

and witnessed by Amarjit Singh, Kahlon’s father, between Oberoi and his wife distributing the

proceeds of sale of 5426-17A Ave.; this document indicated Park’s telephone number as 910-8806;

the sale of 5426-17A Ave. was never contemplated, never occurred, and the Oberois have never

separated; the signatures of Oberoi and his wife were forged; Oberoi has never met Park; Oberoi did

not intend to nor did he reside at 12661-72 St.; a false Real Estate Purchase Contract was tendered

to the lender representing that Kahlon, rather than 978742 Alberta Ltd., was the vendor of 12661-72

St.; this document falsely represented that Oberoi provided the vendor with a $3,500 deposit and

would provide the cash to close of $30,750; Oberoi provided no funds by way of deposit or

otherwise toward the purchase of this property; the sale was not completed by September 21, 2003;

the lender was provided a false MLS sheet representing that 12661-72 St. was listed on the MLS

system with a real estate agent, that the sale was an arm’s length transaction, and that the purchaser

was a bona fide purchaser for value; Oberoi never dealt with any real estate agent in the purchase

of this property; on the MLS sheet, the vendor of 12661-72 Street is represented to be “Hakamal”;

the lender was provided with an appraisal of Angus MacInnes in which he represented that the

renovations required to 12661-72 St. had been satisfactorily completed but there is no evidence that

MacInnes took any steps to confirm this information; a void cheque intended to be used to debit

mortgage payments was provided to the Venkatraman law firm by Kahlon, and forwarded to TD

Bank, but Kahlon was the holder of this RBC account.

[282] The TD Bank relied on all of these representations when considering the Oberoi mortgage

application. Had the TD Bank been aware of the false representations, it would not have approved

the Oberoi mortgage. As a result of its reliance on the material misrepresentations in the Oberoi

Page: 57

mortgage application, the economic interest of the TD Bank was put at risk in the amount of

$101,250.

[283] Oberoi signed legal documents with Ellis at the Venkatraman law office. Kahlon drove

Oberoi to this law firm on the two occasions that he attended there, and was present while Oberoi

signed the documents with Ellis. Oberoi did not pay any of the legal fees associated with this

purchase. Oberoi was not asked any questions about the conditions of mortgage financing, including

the cash required toclose this transaction. In cross-examination, Oberoi admitted that Ellis may have

explained the papers but that he was not paying attention and that he spoke in Punjabi to Kahlon

while Ellis spoke in English. The proceeds of this mortgage, $101,250, were provided to the

Venkatraman law firm. These funds would not have been sufficient cash to close this purchase based

on the purchase price of $135,000. Ellis knew the details of the trust account on this file. A

Statement of Receipts and Disbursements was provided to Oberoi by the Venkatraman law firm.

This Statement indicated that the mortgage proceeds were distributed by a payment of $6,000 to

Kahlon, two payments totalling $68,000 to Pervez, and a payment of $27,000 to Home Placement,

a company owned and controlled by Pervez.

[284] The further evidence regarding Ellis’ involvement with this property pertains to the period

from November 25, 2003 onward and is referred to below in relation to counts in that time period.

[285] In my view, the unusual distribution of the mortgage proceeds would have raised Ellis’

suspicions. However, given Oberoi’s testimony that Ellis did explain the documents, and the

possibility of miscommunication due to two languages being used during the signing of the

documents, it is difficult to determine what she may or may not have been told by Oberoi or what

inquiries she may or may not have made, and on the entirety of the evidence, I am left with a

reasonable doubt regarding her guilt on Count 10.

Count 11

[286] Count 11 alleges that Ellis, between September 1, 2003 and November 30, 2003 defrauded

MCAP of $131,437.25 by providing false information in support of a mortgage application in the

name of Kapeller for 12050-65 St.

[287] Paragraphs 179 to 196 of the Agreed Statement of Facts pertain to this allegation. 12050-65

Street was purchased by 978742 Alberta Ltd. (sole director at the time was Pervez) on September

13, 2003. On August 29, 2003, Pervez signed the affidavit of transferee as agent for 978742 Alberta

Ltd., attesting that 978742 Alberta Ltd. paid cash to the vendor, Asif Rizvi, for 12050-65 St., and

that the value of the property was $76,000. Bindon commissioned Pervez's affidavit. On November

4, 2003, title was transferred from 978742 Alberta Ltd. to Kapeller. On October 23, 2003, Pervez

signed the transfer on behalf of 978742 Alberta Ltd. The consideration was represented to be

$134,000. Bindon witnessed Pervez's signature on the transfer. On October 24, 2003, Kapeller

signed the affidavit of transferee attesting that she paid consideration by way of cash and new

mortgage for the purchase of 12050-65 St. Ellis commissioned Kapeller's affidavit. Kapeller

provided no cash toward the purchase of this property. On the same date, Kapeller signed a

mortgage in favour of MCAP in the amount of $131,437.25 which Ellis witnessed.

Page: 58

[288] Kapeller is married to Bindon's brother, Petty. Kapeller was introduced to this scheme by

Bindon, and was advised that there was an opportunity for her to obtain revenue properties without

putting down payments toward the purchase. Kapeller understood that she would be required to

obtain mortgage financing in her name. The property at 12050-65 St. was the second of two

properties that were placed in Kapeller's name.

[289] At the time that Kapeller was approached about the property at 12050-65 St., she was having

financial difficulties associated with an automobile loan. Pervez approached Kapeller at a

Petty/Bindon family function. At that time, Pervez was romantically involved with Bindon. Pervez

advised Kapeller that he had a property ready for sale, and offered to pay off Kapeller's automobile

loan if she agreed to proceed with this transaction. Kapeller agreed to participate. Kapeller's

husband, Petty, assisted with this transactionbydelivering documents between Pervez and Kapeller.

After obtaining the mortgage on this property in her name, Kapeller's automobile loan was paid in

full. While this property was in Kapeller's name, she collected rents from tenants and used those

funds to make the required mortgage payments. Kapeller noted that the property was in poor

condition, and spent a significant amount of money attempting to renovate it.

[290] The mortgage on 12050-65 St. was brokered by Gorn. The application tendered for this

mortgage included various false representations: Kapeller did not provide a down payment toward

the purchase of this property; the down payment was represented to have been generated from the

sale of Kapeller's property at 12024-43 St. (the first property that Kapeller purchased as part of this

mortgage scheme); a false Real Estate Purchase Contract was tendered demonstrating an

unconditional sale of 12024-43 St. to Sandra Schmidt for $137,000; as further evidence of this sale,

MCAP was provided with a statement of adjustments, demonstrating a sale of this property to

Sandra Schmidt for $137,000 made up of a deposit, mortgage assumption and required cash to close;

the statement of adjustments was faxed to MCAP from the Venkatraman law office; Kapeller did

not sell 12024-43 St. in the form or manner described in the statement of adjustments; Kapeller does

not know Sandra Schmidt, and received no funds from the sale of 12024-43 St.; these documents

also provided false information with regard to Kapeller's debt load, as the purchaser was represented

to have assumed Kapeller's mortgage at 12024-43 St.; it was not disclosed to MCAP that Kapeller

resided at a property in Rimbey, Alberta, where she and Petty were responsible for their own

mortgage; Kapeller did not intend to nor did she reside at 12050-65 St.; this property was used as

a rental property, as was intended when Kapeller went on title; Kapeller signed a statutory

declaration attesting that 12050-65 St. would be her principal residence; Ellis commissioned this

statutory declaration and it was mailed to the lender from the Venkatraman law office on November

20, 2003; a false Real Estate Purchase Contract was tendered to the lender representing that the

vendor of 12050-65 St. was care of the listing broker but there was no listing broker involved in this

purchase; 978742 Alberta Ltd. was the vendor of the property; this document represented that

Kapeller provided the vendor with a $2,500 deposit and would provide the cash to close of $4,200;

Kapeller provided no funds by way of deposit or otherwise toward the purchase of this property; also

tendered was a false statement of adjustments pertaining to the sale of 12050-65 St. by 978742

Alberta Ltd. to Kapeller, showing Kapeller as having deposited $2,500 and paying cash to close on

this transaction of $4,200; Kapeller provided no funds toward the purchase of this property, and no

one asked her for any funds; the statement of adjustments was faxed from the Venkatraman law

Page: 59

firm; the lender was also provided with a false MLS sheet; Kapeller did not deal with any real estate

agent in the purchase of this property and this was not an arm's length transaction.

[291] MCAP relied on all of these representations in making the decision to approve the Kapeller

mortgage. Had MCAP been aware of these false representations, it would not have approved the

Kapeller mortgage. As a result of its reliance on the material misrepresentations in this mortgage

application, the economic interest of MCAP was put at risk in the amount of $131,437.25.

[292] Kapeller signed the purchase documents at the Venkatraman law office where she met with

Ellis. Kapeller did not pay any of the legal fees associated with this purchase. The proceeds from

this mortgage, $131,437.25, were provided to the Venkatraman law firm. These funds would not

have been sufficient cash to close this purchase based on the purchase price of $134,000. No funds

were provided by Kapeller to make up the shortfall.

[293] Kapeller testified that she never intended to live in the residence and did not know she was

signing a statutory declaration saying the property would be her principal residence.

[294] The evidence implicating Ellis in this fraud is more substantial than in the previous counts.

On October 24, 2003, Ellis commissioned Kapeller's affidavit of transferee and witnessed the

mortgage. Kapeller testified that the statutory declaration was neither explained nor sworn and was

very quickly done. She was not asked to pay any cash to close. In my view, Kapeller was a credible

witness. She had a reasonable recollection of the events surrounding this transaction. She candidly

admitted that she was in a hurry and was not as attentive as she should have been as she had two of

her children with her when she attended before Ellis and needed to get back to her home in Bluffton

which is near Rimbey, Alberta. She admitted further on cross-examination that if asked she might

possibly have even told Ellis that the contents to which she was swearing were true. She stated

however that she was not told by Ellis to take her time as this was an important transaction. It is my

view however, given all of the evidence on this Count, that even if Ellis asked the perfunctory

questions, Ellis really did not care what the responses were with respect to this transaction.

[295] I find that it was Ellis who provided MCAP with the false statement of adjustments,

demonstrating a sale of Kapeller’s first property to Sandra Schmidt for $137,000 made up of a

deposit, mortgage assumption and required cash to close. Ellis commissioned Kapeller’s statutory

declaration stating that she would reside on the property and it was mailed to the lender from the

Venkatraman law office on November 20, 2003. Ellis provided a false statement of adjustments

pertaining to the sale of 12050-65 St. by 978742 Alberta Ltd. to Kapeller, showing Kapeller as

having deposited $2,500 and paying cash to close this transaction of $4,200.

[296] I find that the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Ellis committed the actus

reus of fraud in providing false information to the lender in support of the mortgage application

which put the lender’s economic interests at risk.

[297] With respect to Ellis’ awareness at the time, I also note that in October or November of 2003,

Madan (the straw buyer of 11447-90 St., the subject of Count 5) telephoned Kahlon and advised that

he wanted to be taken off the title of 11447-90 St. Pervez instructed Ellis to prepare transfer

Page: 60

documents for the sale of this property by Madan (which he had bought for $128,000) to Twila

Larson (“Larson”). Ellis did not question receipt of these instructions from a third party, who was

not a lawyer nor the vendor or the purchaser of the property, and prepared transfer documents in

accordance with Pervez's instructions.

[298] On November 24, 2003 (four days afer Ellis mailed Kapeller’s false statutory declaration),

Madan attended at the Venkatraman law office, met with Ellis and signed the transfer of land to

Larson. Ellis witnessed Madan's signature on the transfer of land. On November 26, 2003, Larson

signed the affidavit of transferee, attesting that she paid $135,000, by way of cash and assumption

of Madan's mortgage, to purchase 11447-90 Street. Her affidavit was also commissioned by Ellis.

This information was false as Larson provided no cash toward the purchase of this property, and

Madan did not receive any of the proceeds that should have been associated with this sale.

[299] I find that Ellis was responsible for the documentation emanating from the Venkatraman law

firm in that all of the documents on real estate files she worked on were prepared by her or at her

direction. I find that the statement of adjustments on this deal was misleading in that it would lead

the lender to believe that the cash to close reflected therein would pass through the trust account.

Ellis knew by this point in time that cash to close did not pass through the trust account on these

deals where recruiters had found buyers, and she knew, as bookkeeper, what monies were passing

through the account on this file. Ellis testified that she prepared statements of adjustments based on

real estate purchase contracts provided to her, but in her position as conveyancer and bookkeeper

she was in a position to verify the accuracy of the information she was providing. I find that she

knew, at a minimum, there was a risk that the statement of adjustments provided on this deal did not

reflect the true state of affairs, and she knew that the lender would rely on it. However, she also

testified that if the purchaser did not provide the cash to close, she would check with Pervez who

would tell her not to worry about it. In this particular case, Pervez’s company was the vendor.

[300] I find that Ellis was probably aware that some of the information she provided to MCAP in

relation to Count 11 was untrue, or at the very least, that she provided the information knowing that

there was a risk that it was untrue. I also find that her suspicions were probably aroused by this time,

as she was being asked to complete unusual tasks in relation to Pervez’s files and she knew they

were unusual as she was an experienced conveyancer. At all times, she knew due to her experience

as a conveyancer that lenders rely on truthful information in deciding whether to grant and fund

mortgages, and that provision of false information may very well put the lender at risk.

[301] The fact that Ellis was involved around the same time in a second transfer of 11447-90 St.

within months of the first transfer, and did not question instructions from Pervez to transfer the

property from Madan to Larson is in my view significant.

[302] I am convinced that Ellis is probably guilty on this Count by generating and forwarding the

false statement of adjustments regarding the sale of 12024-43 St. to Sandra Schmidt and the false

statement of adjustments pertaining to the sale of 12050-65 St. by 978742 Alberta Ltd. showing

Kapeller as having deposited $2,500 and paying cash to close of $4,200. However, on the entirety

of the evidence, I am not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt.

Page: 61

Count 12

[303] Count 12 alleges that Ellis, between September 1, 2003 and November 30, 2003, defrauded

Bridgewater of $114,762.38 by providing false information in support of a mortgage application in

the name of Dhoedt for 11616-96 Street.

[304] Paragraphs 197 to 212 of the Agreed Statement of Facts pertain to this Count. 11616-96

Street was purchased by 978742 Alberta Ltd. (Pervez was the sole director at the time) on October

21, 2003. On October 3, 2003, Pervez signed the affidavit of transferee as agent for 978742 Alberta

Ltd., attesting that 978742 Alberta Ltd. paid cash to the vendors, Karel and Frances Puffer and that

the property value was, in his opinion, $67,888. Bindon commissioned Pervez's affidavit. On

November 10, 2003, title was transferred from978742 Alberta Ltd. to Dhoedt. On October 29, 2003,

Pervez signed the transfer of land on behalf of 978742 Alberta Ltd. The consideration received by

978742 Alberta Ltd. was represented to be $117,000. Bindon witnessed Pervez's signature on this

transfer of land. On October 31, 2003, Dhoedt signed the affidavit of transferee, attesting that he

paid consideration, by way of cash and new mortgage, for the purchase of 11616-96 Street. Ellis

commissioned Dhoedt's affidavit. Also on October 31, 2003, Dhoedt signed a mortgage in favour

of Bridgewater in the amount of $114,762.38, and Ellis witnessed his signature.

[305] Dhoedt was recruited into this transaction by Knight, who was dating Dhoedt's friend at that

time. Knight advised Dhoedt that he could not obtain a mortgage in his own name. The stated

purpose of buying this property was to renovate it and sell it at a profit. In exchange for obtaining

mortgage financing in his name, Dhoedt was to receive $10,000 out of the resale revenue. Dhoedt

was not to incur any expenses associated with this purchase. Dhoedt did not deal with any bankers

or mortgage brokers, and provided all of his personal information to Knight.

[306] The mortgage on 11616-96 Street was brokered by Gorn. The application tendered for this

mortgage included various false representations: Dhoedt did not provide a down payment toward

the purchase of this property; the down payment was falsely represented to have been generated by

a way of $6,500 gift provided to Dhoedt by his brother, Brent Dhoedt; the mortgage application

included a false gift letter; Dhoedt provided no funds toward the purchase; as proof of receipt of this

gift, Knight provided Dhoedt with a cheque in the amount of $6,500 to deposit into his personal

bank account, and Dhoedt then provided Knight with a copy of the slip reflecting the deposit;

Dhoedt did not intend to and did not reside at 11616-96 St.; Dhoedt signed a false statutory

declaration attesting that the property would be his principal residence; Ellis commissioned this

statutory declaration which was mailed to the lender from the Venkatraman law office on November

20, 2003; a false Real Estate Purchase Contract was tendered to the lender representing that the

vendor was care of the listing broker; 978742 Alberta Ltd. was the vendor of the property; this

document falsely represented that Dhoedt provided the vendor with a $2,000 deposit toward the

purchase of this property; Dhoedt provided no funds by way of deposit or otherwise toward the

purchase of this property; the document indicated that the sale was to be completed by November

2, 2003; this document bears the forged signature of Dhoedt; an MLS sheet was tendered to the

lender representing that the property was listed on the MLS system with a real estate agent, Knight,

that the sale was an arm’s length transaction, and that the purchaser was a bona fide purchaser for

Page: 62

value; Dhoedt did not deal with Knight except as part of this scheme and this was not an arm's

length transaction.

[307] Bridgewater relied on all of these representations in considering the Dhoedt mortgage

application. Had Bridgewater been aware of the false representations in this application, it would

not have approved the Dhoedt mortgage. As a result of its reliance on the misrepresentations in this

mortgage application, the economic interest of the Bridgewater was put at risk in the amount of

$114,762.38.

[308] Dhoedt signed the purchase documents at the Venkatraman law office where he met with

Ellis. He did not pay any of the legal fees associated with this purchase. The proceeds from this

mortgage, $114,762.38 were provided to the Venkatraman law firm. These funds would not have

been sufficient cash to close this purchase based on the purchase price of $117,000. No funds were

provided by Dhoedt to make up the shortfall.

[309] The time lines with respect to this transaction are very close to those discussed with respect

to Kapeller in Count 11 but some of the facts, while similar, do not point to her guilt in such a

blatant manner as those in Count 11 where I have given Ellis the benefit of the doubt. Further,

Doehdt did not testify at trial and thus there is no evidence as to their interactions during his signing

of documents. While the circumstances of her involvement are suspicious, on the entirety of the

evidence, I am left with a reasonable doubt regarding Ellis’ guilt on Count 12.

Count 13

[310] Count 13 alleges that Ellis, between November 1, 2003 and January 30, 2004, defrauded the

TD Bank of $85,500 by providing false information in support of a mortgage application in the

name of Palwinder Kahlon for 11814-50 Street.

[311] Paragraphs 213 to 229 of the Agreed Statement of Facts are relevant to this Count. 11814-50

Street was purchased by 978742 Alberta Ltd. on June 11, 2003 (Pervez was sole director at the

time). On May 25, 2003, Pervez signed the affidavit of transferee as agent for 978742 Alberta Ltd.

on the purchase of 11814-50 Street, attesting that 978742 Alberta Ltd. paid cash to the vendor,

Darrell Langevin, and that the value of 11814-50 Street was $69,888. Bindon commissioned

Pervez's affidavit. On December 15, 2003, title was transferred from 978742 Alberta Ltd. to

Palwinder Kahlon. On December 4, 2003, Pervez signed the transfer of land associated with this

transaction on behalf of 978742 Alberta Ltd. The consideration received by him was represented to

be $114,000. Ellis witnessed Pervez's signature on this transfer. On December 4, 2003, Ellis signed

the affidavit of transferee as agent for Palwinder Kahlon, attesting that Kahlon paid consideration,

by way of cash and a new mortgage, for the purchase of 11814-50 Street. Kahlon provided no cash

toward the purchase of this property. On December 4, 2003, Palwinder Kahlon's signature appears

on a mortgage in favour of the TD Bank in the amount of $85,500, and Ellis signed as witness.

[312] Palwinder Kahlon is the brother of Kahlon. Between April 2001 and January 2005,

Palwinder Kahlon obtained ten mortgages in his name as part of this scheme. The mortgage on

11814-50 Street was the sixth of ten properties of which Palwinder Kahlon became the titular owner

Page: 63

during that time frame. Palwinder Kahlon was initiallyapproachedbyKahlon about getting involved

in an investment opportunity. Palwinder Kahlon was told that his brother was working with Pervez,

who was buying properties, fixing them up and selling them at a profit. Palwinder Kahlon had no

responsibility to manage any of the properties in his name. Palwinder Kahlon received none of the

proceeds in the sales of properties in his name. The mortgage on 11814-50 Street was applied for

through a mortgage broker employed by the TD Bank named Tim Uppal who attended university

with Kahlon.

[313] The application tendered for this mortgageincludedvarious false representations: Palwinder

Kahlon did not provide a down payment toward the purchase of this property; the down payment

was represented to have been generated by the sale of his residence at 3316-30 A Avenue in

Edmonton, Alberta; the lender was provided with a false Real Estate Purchase Contract that

represented a sale of this property by Palwinder Kahlon to Jeff Smith for a price of $260,000;

Palwinder Kahlon does not know Jeff Smith, and did not sell his property at 3316-30 A Avenue; this

document provided the lender with false information of the source of Palwinder Kahlon's down

payment, and represented false information aboutPalwinder Kahlon'sdebt load since JeffSmithwas

to have assumed the mortgage on this property; Palwinder Kahlon did not intend to and did not

reside at 11814-50 St.; false information was provided to the TD Bank indicating that Palwinder

Kahlon and his wife were separating; a false Real Estate Purchase Contract was tendered to the

lender, representing that the vendor was care of the listing broker when in fact 978742 Alberta Ltd.

was the vendor; the document falsely represented that Palwinder Kahlon provided the vendor with

a $1,000 initial deposit and would provide the cash to close the transaction of $27,500; Palwinder

Kahlon provided no funds by way of deposit or otherwise toward the purchase of this property; the

sale was not completed by December 5, 2003; Palwinder Kahlon's signature was forged on this

document; a false MLS sheet was provided to the lender representing that the property was listed

on the MLS system with a real estate agent, that the sale was an arm’s length transaction, and that

the purchaser was a bona fide purchaser for value; Palwinder Kahlon did not deal with any realtor

in the purchase of this property and this was not an arm's length transaction.

[314] The TD Bank relied on all of these representations in making the decision to approve the

Palwinder Kahlon mortgage. Had the TD Bank been aware of these false representations, it would

not have approved this mortgage application. As a result of its reliance on the material

misrepresentations in this mortgage application, the economic interest of the TD Bank was put at

risk in the amount of $85,500.

[315] Palwinder Kahlon signed the mortgage at his home with Ellis. She came to his residence for

that purpose. Palwinder Kahlon did not pay any of the legal fees associated with this purchase. He

was not asked about the cash required to close this transaction, nor any other questions associated

with the conditions of mortgage financing. The proceeds from this mortgage, $85,500, were

provided to the Venkatraman law firm. These funds would not have been sufficient cash to close this

purchase based on the purchase price of $114,000. No funds were provided by Palwinder Kahlon

to make up the shortfall.

[316] Palwinder Kahlon appeared at times to be a reluctant witness, which is perhaps

understandable given his brother’s involvement in this scheme. It is my view that he felt he had been

Page: 64

duped by his brother. Further, it was apparent from his evidence that because of the numerous

transactions he was involved in, he did not have a perfect memory of events.

[317] Palwinder Kahlon testified with respect to the dower affidavit on the mortgage which states

that he is not married. He testified that he signed it without reading it. He cannot explain why it says

he is not married. He stated that he knew Ellis from some of the prior purchases and that she knew

he was married. I accept his evidence on this point. Ellis testified that she attended at his house

(which he shared with his wife and infant child) four times to sign documents and did not recall him

ever coming to the office.

[318] Ellis was involved as witness of Pervez’s signature on the transfer. I accept the evidence that

she signed the affidavit of transferee as agent forPalwinder Kahlon without his consent attesting that

he paid cash and new mortgage toward the purchase of the property.

[319] I find that the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Ellis committed the actus

reus of fraud by providing false information to the lender in support of the mortgage application

which put the lender’s economic interests at risk.

[320] As for her state of mind, Ellis made no inquiries of Palwinder Kahlon about the cash to close

this transaction. She was privy to the trust account information on this file. She knew she did not

have Palwinder Kahlon's consent to sign the affidavit of transferee. She also knew he was married.

She knew he was not paying cash toward purchase of the property.

[321] By this time, Ellis had had significant involvement in other questionable transactions, as

outlined above.

[322] As mentioned above, in October or November of 2003, Madan telephoned Kahlon and

advised that he wanted to be taken off the title of 11447-90 Street (Count 5). Pervez instructed Ellis

to prepare transfer documents for the sale of this property by Madan to Larson. Ellis did not question

receipt of these instructions from a third party, who was neither the vendor nor the purchaser of the

property, and prepared transfer documents in accordance with Pervez's instructions. On November

24, 2003, Madan attended at the Venkatraman law office, where he met with Ellis. Madan signed

the transfer of land associated with this transaction. The consideration received by him was

represented to be $135,000. Ellis witnessed Madan's signature on the transfer of land. On November

26, 2003, Larson signed the affidavit of transferee, attesting that she paid $135,000, by way of cash

and assumption of Madan's mortgage, to purchase 11447-90 Street. Her affidavit was commissioned

by Ellis. This information was false. Larson provided no cash toward the purchase of this property,

and Madan did not receive any of the proceeds that should have been associated to this sale.

[323] As well, around this time, Ellis had subsequent dealings with 12661-72 Street which had

supposedly been purchased by Oberoi (Count 10). Oberoi met with Ellis to sign transfer documents

transferring title to Dream Estates. This transfer followed the request by Ellis on November 24, 2003

in a letter to TD on Venkatraman letterhead for a mortgage assumption statement. In this letter she

stated, “I am the solicitor for Oberoi with respect to the sale of the above noted property”. This

request was made without instructions from Oberoi. Oberoi received no cash from this sale.

Page: 65

[324] Further, it was around this time that Ellis was involved in subsequent dealings with the

property which is the subject of Count 3. On December 10, 2003, 9331-107A Avenue (which

Lindberg had purportedly bought) was transferred into Rashid's name. On December 1, 2003, Ellis

met with Lindberg and witnessed her signature on the transfer of land. The purchase price was

represented to be $118,000. On December 1, 2003, Ellis signed as Rashid's agent on the affidavit

of transferee, attesting that Rashid paid consideration for this property, by way of cash and

assumption of Lindberg's mortgage, and that the value of the property was, in her opinion, $118,000.

Rashid provided no funds toward the purchase of this property.

[325] Ellis testified that she had numerous files open all the time and sought to give the impression

in giving her evidence that she was so busy she did not have time to attend to detail. However, she

was a Commissioner for Oaths, and an experienced conveyancer. At a certain point, the

coincidences in the evidence are simply too compelling.

[326] On the entirety of the evidence, I do not have a reasonable doubt regarding Ellis’ guilt on

Count 13. She signed the affidavit of transferee as agent without Palwinder Kahlon’s consent. She

knew he was married when she commissioned the dower affidavit. I find that she knew no cash to

close would be paid by Palwinder Kahlon. She was aware of the requirements of the lender prior to

advancing the mortgage funds and that the lender relied on the veracity of information provided and

contained in the documents filed at Land Titles in order to register the lender's security. On the

entirety of the evidence with respect to this transaction and Ellis’ relationship and involvement with

Pervez and his mortgage fraud scheme at this time, I find that the Crown has proven beyond a

reasonable doubt that Ellis not only committed dishonest acts in relation to obtaining this mortgage

which put the lender at risk, as required under s. 380(1)(a), but also that she had subjective

knowledge that she was committing a dishonest act and that the performance of the act could have

as a consequence the deprivation of the lender.

[327] I further find that there were many indicia at this point in time which were apparent to Ellis,

that the transactions that Pervez was bringing to the Venkatraman firm were out of the ordinary and

had consistent irregularities which should have been explored. I find that if Ellis failed to make

meaningful inquiries, and there is no evidence that she did so on this Count 13, then she was wilfully

blind to these irregularities including those in relation to the transaction, and the resulting risks to

the lenders. If I am wrong in finding on the evidence that she had subjective knowledge of the

dishonest act or that her suspicions were aroused, then she was reckless in that she was aware, in her

position as both conveyancer and Commissioner for Oaths, that there was a danger that her conduct

could bring about the deprivation, but she nevertheless persisted despite the risk.

Count 14

[328] Count 14 alleges that Ellis, between November 1, 2003 and January 30, 2004, defrauded the

TD Bank of $95,250 by providing false information in support of a mortgage application in the

name of Aziz for 11502-82 Street.

Page: 66

[329] Paragraphs 230 to 245 pertain to this allegation. Many misrepresentations similar to those

made to the lenders in Counts 3 to 13 were made to the TD Bank in this case. Aziz signed the

mortgage on December 10, 2003 and title transferred into his name on December 19, 2003. Ellis

commissioned Venkatraman’s signature on the affidavit of execution on the mortgage.

[330] Aziz testified that the arrangement was that he would purchase a property and Sekhon would

assure him that he would take care of the rent. Sekhon would give Aziz rent money and Aziz would

deposit this money into his account, from which the mortgage payments would be deducted. This

scheme worked until Aziz wanted out because the rent payments were not forthcoming. Aziz

testified that if he needed money to cover mortgage payments, Sekhon would direct him to go see

Ellis. Aziz identified cheques from Terry Ellis Consulting to Aziz, one of which was dated January

3, 2004. Aziz testified that Ellis only gave cheques to Aziz for mortgage payment purposes. In my

view it is inconceivable that Ellis could possibly have considered this to be a legitimate transaction.

[331] It is noteworthy, as mentioned above, that on December 10, 2003, the date Aziz signed the

mortgage, 9331-107A Avenue (Count 3 - Lindberg) was transferred into Rashid's name. On

December 1, 2003, Ellis met with Lindberg and witnessed her signature on the transfer. On

December 1, 2003, Ellis signed as Rashid's agent on the affidavit of transferee, attesting that Rashid

paid consideration for this property, by way of cash and assumption of Lindberg's mortgage, and that

the value of the property was, in her opinion, $118,000. Rashid provided no funds toward the

purchase of that property.

[332] Further, on December 9, 2003, 12661-72 Street (Count 10, Oberoi) was transferred into the

name of Dream Estates Inc. (Letwled Tessma (“Tessma”) was the sole director of this corporation -

see Count 16 for his subsequent involvement in the scheme). On November 26, 2003, Ellis met with

Oberoi and witnessed his signature on the transfer of land document. The purchase price was

represented to be $140,000. On November 25, 2003, Ellis signed the affidavit of transferee as agent

for Dream Estates Inc., attesting that the company paid consideration, by way of cash and

assumption of Oberoi's mortgage, for this property. This information was false. Oberoi received

none of the proceeds that should have been generated by this sale.

[333] Nevertheless, on the entirety of the evidence, I do have a reasonable doubt regarding Ellis'

guilt on this count. On an objective assessment of what the evidence reveals about Ellis’ conduct

with respect to this particular transaction, I find that the Crown has not proven beyond a reasonable

doubt that Ellis committed dishonest acts in relation toobtaining this particular mortgage as required

under s. 380(1)(a). I infer that Ellis’ suspicions were aroused when she saw the same properties

being flipped with questionable characteristics and similarities on each sale, given her experience

as a conveyancer, and she had already provided false information to lenders. However, with respect

to the transaction underlying this Count 14, her involvement amounted to witnessing Venkatraman’s

signature and probably forwarding mortgage related documentation to the lender. Her preparation

of documents creates suspicion, however, in my view the evidence relating to this mortgage points

to shoddy conveyancing and legal work at the Venkatraman firm, but is not enough to establish

Ellis’ own guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Count 15

Page: 67

[334] Count 15 alleges that Ellis, between November 1, 2003 and January 30, 2004, defrauded Co-

Operative Trust Company of Canada of $115,645.16 by providing false information in support of

a mortgage application in the name of Dhoedt for 11610 Fort Road.

[335] Paragraphs 246 to 260 pertain to this allegation. 11610 Fort Road was purchased by 978742

Alberta Ltd. (Pervez was sole director) on July 10, 2003. On July 2, 2003, Pervez signed the

affidavit of transferee as agent for 978742 Alberta Ltd. on the purchase, attesting that 978742

Alberta Ltd. paid consideration, by way of cash and assumption of the RBC mortgage held by the

vendor, Hui Xian Yee, and that the value of 11610 Fort Road was $75,000. Bindon commissioned

Pervez's affidavit. On January 12, 2004, title was transferred from 978742 Alberta Ltd. to Dhoedt.

On December 31, 2003, Pervez signed the transfer of land associated with this transaction on behalf

of 978742 Alberta Ltd. The consideration received by him was represented to be $117,900. Bindon

witnessed Pervez's signature on this transfer of land.

[336] On December 31, 2003, Ellis signed the affidavit of transferee as agent for Dhoedt, attesting

that Dhoedt paid consideration, by way of cash and new mortgage for the purchase of 11610 Fort

Road. On December 30, 2003, Dhoedt signed a mortgage in favour of the Co-operative Trust

Company in the amount of $115,645.16. Dhoedt's signature was witnessed by Ellis. This mortgage

was signed approximately two months after Dhoedt obtained the mortgage on 11616-96 Street, the

transaction that forms the basis of Count 12.

[337] The mortgage on 11610 Fort Road was brokered by Iris Ten-Eyck, who received all of

Dhoedt's documents from Knight. Absent from the mortgage application were documents

confirming Dhoedt's down payment on this property. After having made several unreturned calls

to both Knight and Dhoedt requesting this confirmation, Ten-Eyck cancelled this mortgage

application on January 14, 2004. When Ten-Eyck received a brokerage fee for brokering the Dhoedt

mortgage, she contacted Knight. Knight advised Ten-Eyck not to worry about it, the mortgage had

been approved. Ten-Eyck never received any information confirming Dhoedt's down payment.

[338] The application tendered to the lender for this mortgage included various false

representations: Dhoedt did not provide a down payment toward the purchase of this property; the

down payment was represented to have been generated by way of a $6,000 gift provided to Dhoedt

by his father, Louie Dhoedt; the mortgage application included a false gift letter evidencing this

monetary gift; Dhoedt provided no funds toward the purchase; as proof of receipt of this gift, the

Co-operative Trust Company was provided with a letter on the letterhead of Park Law Offices

falsely confirming that the law firm held $6,000 in trust to Dhoedt's credit, representing the deposit

and cash to close this transaction; not disclosed to the Co-operative Trust Company was the fact that

Dhoedt held a mortgage on the property located at 11616-96 St.; Dhoedt did not intend to and did

not reside at 11610 Fort Road; Dhoedt signed a statutory declaration attesting that 11610 Fort Road

would be occupied by him and Ellis commissioned this statutory declaration; Ellis had

commissioned a nearly identical statutory declaration for Dhoedt approximately two months earlier,

with regard to the property at 11616-96 St.; tendered as part of the mortgage application was a false

Real Estate Purchase Contract representing that the vendor of 11610 Fort Road was Pervez whereas

978742 Alberta Ltd. was the vendor of the property; this document falsely represented that Dhoedt

provided the vendor with a $2,000 initial deposit, and a $2,000 additional deposit, and would

Page: 68

provide the cash required to close the transaction of $1,895; Dhoedt provided no funds by way of

deposit or otherwise toward the purchase of this property; the sale was not completed on January

10, 2004; Dhoedt's signature on this document was forged; also tendered was a false MLS sheet

representing that 11610 Fort Road was listed on the MLS system with a real estate agent, the sale

was an arm’s length transaction, and the purchaser was a bona fide purchaser for value; Dhoedt did

not deal with any realtor in the purchase of this property and this was not an arm's length transaction.

[339] Co-operative Trust Company relied on all of these representations in making the decision

to provide mortgage financing. Had the Co-operative Trust Company been aware of these false

representations, it would not have approved the Dhoedt mortgage application. As a result of its

reliance on the material misrepresentations in this mortgage application, the economic interest of

the Co-operative Trust Company was put at risk in the amount of $115,645.16.

[340] The proceeds from this mortgage, $115,645.16, were provided to the Venkatraman law firm.

These funds would not have been sufficient cash to close this purchase based on the purchase price

of $117,900. No funds were provided by Dhoedt to make up the shortfall.

[341] Dhoedt continues to be the owner of 11610 Fort Road, and has now assumed control of this

property having borrowed several thousand dollars from his father to renovate the property, pay

mortgage arrears, and secure tenants in the property.

[342] I find that the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Ellis committed the actus

reus of fraud in providing false information in support of the mortgage application to Co-Operative

Trust Company which put the lender’s economic interests at risk.

[343] As for her state of mind, Ellis knew of Dhoedt’s prior mortgage on 11616-96 Street (Count

12) on December 31, 2003 when she signed the affidavit of transferee as agent for Dhoedt, attesting

that Dhoedt paid consideration, by way of cash and new mortgage for the purchase of 11610 Fort

Road. Ellis witnessed Dhoedt’s signature on this mortgage approximately two months after he

obtained the mortgage on 11616-96 Street.

[344] Materials seized during the execution of a search warrant at Terry Ellis’ residence included

a document dated December 20, 2003, wherein Pervez, president of 978742 Alberta Ltd. granted

Ellis a power of attorney for 978742 Alberta Ltd.

[345] As noted above, Ellis was involved in other questionable transactions prior to and around

this time which I conclude at least raised questions in her mind about the propriety of the

transactions relating to Pervez. In addition to the evidence set out above in relation to prior counts,

on December 23, 2003, Heinrichs signed a transfer for 8409-118 Avenue (Count 4) to Knight. The

purchase price was represented to be $110,000. On that same date, Heinrichs signed a transfer of

land for 11828-54 Street. This property was also transferred to Knight. Both transfers of land were

witnessed by Ellis. The transfers signed by Heinrichs were not registered until the transfer was

approved by Pervez. Title for 8409-118 Avenue was eventually transferred only on June 2, 2004.

Page: 69

[346] Dhoedt did not testify with respect to this transaction. However, this transaction occurred

approximately two months after Dhoedt’s other transaction. Although I found that transaction to be

suspicious I was not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Ellis was guilty on Count 12 and gave

her the benefit of the doubt.

[347] However, it is my view taking into consideration the above facts, that Ellis knew that this

transaction underlying Count 15 was not a bona fide transaction. On the entirety of the evidence, I

do not have a reasonable doubt regarding Ellis’ guilt on this Count. On an objective assessment of

what the evidence reveals about her conduct with respect to this transaction and her relationship and

involvement with Pervez at this time, I find that the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt

that Ellis committed dishonest acts in relation to obtaining this mortgage as required under s.

380(1)(a), and that she had subjective knowledge of the dishonest act and that the performance of

the act could have as a consequence the deprivation of the lender. In particular, I find that she knew

that the property would not be occupied by Dhoedt when she commissioned his declaration to this

effect, and she knew no cash to close would be paid by him. Due to her position, she knew that in

her capacity as agent, she had a responsibility to verify the information to which she was attesting.

If I am wrong in finding on the evidence that she had subjective knowledge of the dishonest acts,

there were many indicia at this point in time that the transactions that Pervez was bringing to the

Venkatraman law firm were out of the ordinary and had consistent irregularities which merited

further exploration. I find that Ellis knew of these irregularities or was wilfully blind to them,

including irregularities in relation to the transaction on this Count, and that she failed to make

inquiries to satisfy herself that the transaction was bona fide and was as represented to the lender.

If I am wrong in finding that her suspicions were raised, then she was reckless in that she was aware,

in her position as both conveyancer and Commissioner for Oaths, that there was a danger that the

information she was providing was false, and that her conduct could bring about the deprivation of

the lender, but she nevertheless persisted despite the risk.

Count 16

[348] Count 16 alleges that Ellis, between February 1, 2004 and April 30, 2004, defrauded MCAP

of $116,352 by providing false information in support of a mortgage application in the name of

Jindal for 11245-94 Street.

[349] Paragraphs 261 to 277 of the Agreed Statement of Facts are relevant to this allegation.

11245-94 Street was purchased by 978742 Alberta Ltd. on October 21, 2003 (Pervez was sole

director at the time). On September 30, 2003, Pervez signed the affidavit of transferee on behalf of

978742 Alberta Ltd. on the purchase of 11245-94 Street, attesting that 978742 Alberta Ltd. paid cash

and assumed the mortgage of the vendors, Advanced Holdings Inc., and that the value was $98,000.

The vendors' mortgage was held by First Marathon Mortgage Corporation. Bindon commissioned

Pervez's affidavit. On January 19, 2004, title transferred to Tessma. On January 8, 2004, Pervez

signed the transfer on behalf of 978742 Alberta Ltd. The consideration received by the company was

represented to be $144,000. Bindon witnessed Pervez's signature on the transfer of land. On January

8, 2004, Tessma signed the affidavit of transferee attesting that he paid consideration in the amount

of $144,000, by way of cash and new mortgage, for the purchase of 11245-94 Street. Tessma's

affidavit was commissioned by Bindon. On January 8, 2004, Tessma also signed a mortgage in

Page: 70

favour of Bridgewater in the amount of $141,246. Tessma's signature was witnessed by Park. This

transaction did not proceed, and the Tessma mortgage was not funded by Bridgewater.

[350] On March 13, 2004, title transferred from 978742 Alberta Ltd. to Jindal. (That was the same

date on which title on 11933-78 Street (subject of Count 7) transferred out of Jindal’s name to

Larson, as further discussed below. There was a delay between the preparation of the transfer

documents and the registration of the transfer.)

[351] On March 10, 2004, Ellis signed the transfer of 11245-94 St. under power of attorney for

978742 Alberta Ltd. The consideration received by the company was represented to be $144,000.

On March 10, 2004, Worrell signed the affidavit of transferee as agent for Jindal. In this document,

Worrell attested that Jindal paid consideration by way of cash and new mortgage for the purchase.

This information was false. Jindal provided no cash toward the purchase of this property. Worrell

testified that Ellis regularly gave her batches of real estate documents to sign or commission. I find

that Ellis was the one who prepared or directed preparation of the transfer. On March 10, 2004,

Jindal's signature appears on a mortgage in favour of MCAP in the amount of $116,352. Ellis

witnessed Jindal's signature on this document. Jindal provided none of the cash to close this

transaction. This was approximately eight months after the mortgage obtained in Jindal's name on

11933-78 St. (Count 7).

[352] Jindal signed the legal documents at the Venkatraman law office. He went to the law firm

with Kahlon, and dealt with Ellis.

[353] The mortgage on 11245-94 Street was brokered by Nina Tran (“Tran”). The application

tendered for these mortgage proceeds included various false representations: Jindal did not provide

a down payment toward the purchase of this property; the down payment was represented to have

been generated by the sale of 11838-91 St.; that was the first property that Jindal obtained a

mortgage on as part of this real estate scheme, and was the same sale that was represented to have

generated the down payment for 11933-78 St.; this property did not sell in the manner represented

to MCAP although Jindal was removed from title; Jindal received no money in the sale of this

property to Kahlon; a letter signed by Ellis on the letterhead of Venkatraman & Purewal was

provided to INVIS on March 5, 2004, confirming the existence of an agreement for the sale of

11838-91 St.; it was a condition of the mortgage approval that Jindal sell 11933-78 St. (Count 7),

which was to have generated sufficient resources to provide a down payment toward the purchase

of 11245-94 St.; as evidence of this sale, the lender was provided with an anticipated statement of

adjustments and Disbursements on the letterhead of Park Law Offices showing a sale of 11933-78

St. to Shyla Bassam for $155,600; this document is false, as the sale never took place in the manner

described, nor in the time described; this document was faxed from the Venkatraman law firm; as

proof that this sale had been completed, MCAP was provided with a copy of a trust cheque payable

to Venkatraman & Purewal in the amount of $27,569.01 drawn on the trust account of Park,

represented to be the cash to close the sale at 11933-78 St.; this document was faxed from the

Venkatraman law office; the lender was provided with a Real Estate Purchase Contract pertaining

to the supposed sale of 11933-78 St. showing an unconditional offer to purchase 11933-78 St. by

Shyla Bassam for $155,600; Jindal does not know a Shyla Bassam, and reasonable inquiries of the

police have not identified Shyla Bassam; the shortfall between the purchase price of $144,000 and

Page: 71

the mortgage of $116,352 was not provided by Jindal nor by anyone acting on Jindal's behalf; Jindal

did not intend to, and did not reside at 11245-94 Street; his residence was and continues to be 135

Kiniski Cresc.; the mortgage on this property was an undisclosed liability on the mortgage

application for 11245-94 St.; on March 10, 2004, Ellis commissioned Jindal’s false statutory

declaration declaring that he would use 11245-94 St. as his principal residence; tendered to the

lender was a Real Estate Purchase Contract representing that 978742 Alberta Ltd. was the vendor

of 11245-94 St. and representing that Jindal provided the vendor with a $5,000 initial deposit, and

would provide the cash to close of $31,000 but Jindal provided no funds by way of deposit or

otherwise toward the purchase of this property; the sale was not completed by March 7, 2004; also

tendered was a false MLS sheet representing that 11245-94 St. was listed on the MLS system with

a real estate agent, that the sale was an arm’s length transaction, and that the purchaser was a bona

fide purchaser for value; Jindal did not deal with any real estate agent in the purchase of this

property, and this was not an arm's length transaction; also tendered was the appraisal of Angus

MacInnes indicating a market value of $144,000; this appraisal was prepared for Home Placement,

Pervez's company; Jindal had no involvement in the preparation of this appraisal.

[354] MCAP relied on all of these representations in making the decision to provide mortgage

financing. Had MCAP been aware of the false nature of these representations, it would not have

provided mortgage funds to complete this real estate transaction. As a result of its reliance on the

misrepresentations in this mortgage application, the economic interests of MCAP were put at risk

in the amount of $116,352.

[355] Ellis’ involvement in this transaction included her preparation and signing of the transfer of

land containing false information, under power of attorney for 978742 Alberta Ltd. on March 10,

2004, and witnessing Jindal's signature onthemortgage, inaddition to the usual conveyancing duties

including communicating with the lender, filing documents and preparation of reporting

documentation.

[356] I find that the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Ellis committed the actus

reus of fraud by providing false information to MCAP in support of the mortgage application which

put the lender’s economic interests at risk.

[357] In assessing her state of mind at the relevant time, I note that this was approximately eight

months after the mortgage obtained in Jindal's name on 11933-78 St. (Count 7). Jindal provided

none of the cash to close the transaction underlying Count 16.

[358] Jindal’s mortgage on 11245-94 Street was the third of four mortgages that Jindal secured on

properties in Edmonton between February 2003 and March 2004. The first property, 11838-91

Street, was transferred out of Jindal's name on March 13, 2004, and into the name of Kahlon. The

second property, 11933-78 St. (Count 7), was transferred out of Jindal's name on March 13, 2004,

and into the name of Larson. Jindal received none of the proceeds represented in these sales. Ellis

witnessed Jindal's signature on the transfer of land documents associated with both of these sales,

both on January 13, 2004. Ellis signed as agent for the transferees (neither of which was Shyla

Bassam) on both of these transactions on February 10, 2004. These properties were transferred out

of Jindal's name on the same date that 11245-94 Street was transferred into his name.

Page: 72

[359] In relationto 11933-78St., Ellis had witnessed Pervez's signature on the transfer of 11933-78

St. to Jindal in July 2003, commissioned Jindal's signature on the affidavit of transferee, attesting

that he paid consideration by way of "cash to close" for the purchase, and witnessed Jindal's

signatures on the mortgage. At some point in 2004, Jindal began to get telephone calls from lenders

with regard to mortgage arrears. Jindal contacted Ellis in an effort to locate Kahlon, who had

stopped making mortgage payments. Ellis completed documents to transfer the properties into the

names of other parties. Pervez provided Ellis with the funds to service these mortgages. On January

18, 2004, Jindal attended at the Venkatraman law office, where he met with Ellis and signed a

transfer of land for 11933-78 St. The consideration received by him was represented to be $130,000.

Ellis witnessed Jindal's signature on the transferof land document. On January 10, 2004, Ellis signed

the affidavit of transferee as agent for the purchaser, Larson, attesting that Larson paid

consideration, by way of cash and assumption of Jindal's mortgage, for the purchase of 11933-78

Street. Larson provided no cash toward the purchase of this property, and Jindal did not receive any

of the proceeds that should have been generated from the sale. On March 13, 2004, this property was

registered in Larson's name. There was a delay between the preparation of the transfer documents

and the registration of the transfer.

[360] This was the second mortgage assumed by Larson in less than two months. The first was the

Madan mortgage (Count 5). In October or November of 2003, Madan telephoned Kahlon and

advised that he wanted to be taken off the title of 11447-90 St. Pervez instructed Ellis to prepare

transfer documents for the sale of this property by Madan to Larson. Ellis did not question receipt

of these instructions from a third party, who was neither the vendor nor the purchaser of the

property, and prepared transfer documents in accordance with Pervez's instructions.

[361] On November 24, 2003, Madan attended at the Venkatraman law office, where he met with

Ellis. He signed the transfer of land representing that the consideration received by him was

represented to be $135,000. Ellis witnessed Madan's signature on the transfer of land. On November

26, 2003, Larson signed the affidavit of transferee, attesting that she paid $135,000, by way of cash

and assumption of Madan's mortgage, to purchase 11447-90 Street. Her affidavit was commissioned

by Ellis. This information was false. Larson provided no cash toward the purchase of this property,

and Madan did not receive any of the proceeds that should have been associated to this sale.

[362] Evidence of Ellis’ further involvement with 11245-94 Street begins in July and August 2004,

when she transferred title to herself. That evidence is relevant to Ellis’ knowledge at that time in

relation to later counts.

[363] As mentioned above, materials seized during the execution of a search warrant at Ellis’

residence included a document dated December 20, 2003, wherein Pervez, president of 978742

Alberta Ltd. granted Ellis power of attorney for 978742 Alberta Ltd.

[364] Bischoff’s evidence further demonstrates Ellis’ involvement in the scheme around this time.

Bischoff detected a false deposit being Transaction #16788, ostensibly posted on February 4, 2004

in the amount of $43,500 to the BMO trust account client file 25013 (978742 Alberta Ltd. re

purchase of 11915-77 Street). Although it is indicated to be a “trust transfer”, it was a one sided

Page: 73

entry. Transaction #16789, also dated February 4, 2004 was a cheque to McKay Anderson Haak in

the amount of $43,484.90. The next transaction was a trust transfer on March 23, 2004 from client

file 25106 to client file 25013 of $43,500 to create a positive balance of $43,515. A posting dated

April 1, 2004 reversed the transfer of $43,500 leaving a balance of $15.10. In other words, between

February 4, 2004 and the proper transfer of $43,500 on March 23, 2004, 978742 Alberta ltd. had the

use of $43,500 for the purchase of 11915-77 Street.

[365] Copy of title to that property shows a transfer on February 4, 2004 in the amount of $48,500.

978742 Alberta Ltd. transferred the property to Kahlon one week later. Ellis signed the affidavit of

transferee on January 28, 2004 for 978742 Alberta Ltd. The transfer on February 9, 2004 to Kahlon

was for $115,000. Ellis signed the affidavit of transferee for Kahlon. Kahlon sold the property on

April 19, 2005 to Lally who obtained a TD mortgage in the amount of $89,250. The transfer in of

$43,500 on March 23, 2004 came from client file 25106. A client inquiry report for client file 25106

shows that it related to Jindal regarding the purchase of 6904-127 Avenue. The first item posted on

that client file is a TD draft of $129,035. Therefore, this TD draft provided the resources for the

purchase of 11915-77 Street.

[366] The evidence shows that 6904-127 Avenue was owned by 978742 in April of 2003. In

January 2004 it was transferred to Kahlon, then Jindal went on title in March 2004, and obtained a

TD mortgage. Some of those mortgage proceeds went to the benefit of 978742 Alberta Ltd. to

purchase 11915-77 Street, but the seller of that property was Kahlon, not 978742 Alberta Ltd. The

TD draft also appears to have been the source of a transfer on the same date to client file 20153 in

the amount of $5,022.96. The client inquiry report for client file 20153 shows that this was the

account for 996649 Alta Ltd. regarding the sale of 9328-106A Ave “to Tony”, which the evidence

demonstrated was Kahlon. The evidence shows that this latter property was owned by 996649

Alberta Ltd. (director Johanne Hickling), transferred to Kahlon, and transferred back to the

numbered company in February. In April 2004, it was transferred to 978742 Alberta Ltd., then

transferred to Kahlon again, then Oberoi and ultimately Aparjit Kahlon went on title and secured

a mortgage.

[367] Returning to the client inquiry report for client file 25106 (Jindal), this record also shows a

transfer to client file 25050 (912715 Alberta Ltd. re purchase of 11330-84 Street). The client inquiry

report for client file 25050 also shows the transfer from client file 25106 to client file 25050

ostensibly posted on March 23, 2004 in the amount of $61,262.09 (proceeds of Jindal’s mortgage).

The next transaction on client file 25050 is a cheque to Cleall Pahl for $60,862.09 for the purchase

of 11330-84 Street. The evidence shows that this property was purchased in March 2004 by 1090316

Alberta Ltd. for $63,000, then transferred to H. Kahlon and subsequently transferred to Palwinder

Kahlon in July 2004 with a TD mortgage. Eventually it was transferred to Aparjit Kahlon with a

Royal Bank mortgage and ultimately it was foreclosed.

[368] Client inquiry report for client file 25106 shows that a payment to Kahlon in the amount of

$10,000 was posted with a date of March 23, 2004. Additional transfers show on client inquiry

report for client file 25106 to client file 20146 (978742 Alberta Ltd.). Transaction #16985 was a

transfer to client file 25063 (Jindal re purchase of 11245-94 Street, the subject of this Count 16,

purchased on March 13, 2004) in the amount of $6,807.40. Transaction #17285 was a transfer to

Page: 74

client file 25106 from client file 25063 in the amount of $6,807.40. A third transfer (#17287)

ostensibly made on March 17, 2004 transferred $5,760.95 to client file 25063. The transfer of $200

on July 5, 2004 for title insurance came from client file 25342 (Rai re purchase of 11149-97 Street).

The report inquiry for client file 25342 shows an initial TD draft for $81,750 and numerous trust

transfers following, mostly out of the account.

[369] The report inquiry for client file 25063 (pertaining to the transaction underlying this Count

16) shows in addition to numerous trust transfers, a payment to Pervez dated March 17, 2004 in the

amount of $20,000 and a payment to Vinci Phillips on March 18, 2004 in the amount of $94,187.99,

which roughly total the amount of the MCAP draft on the mortgage. A posting dated March 15,

2004 shows receipt of funds from Park in the amount of $27,569.01 and a further posting dated

March 12, 2004 (but posted later in time as the transaction number is subsequent to the March 15,

2004 posting) shows a payment to Park in the amount of $27,569.01.

[370] Bischoff’s evidence clearly establishes that Ellis, through her position as bookkeeper, was

inappropriately transferring fundsbetween files, including mortgageproceeds, andherbookkeeping

in relation to client file 25063 which pertains to this transaction evidences her knowledge of the

fraudulent representations made to the lender on this Count 16.

[371] As noted above, it was a condition of the mortgage approval that Jindal sell 11933-78 St.

(Count 7), which was to have generated sufficient resources to provide a down payment toward the

purchase of 11245-94 St. The information provided to MCAP was that 11933-78 St. was sold to

Shyla Bassam for $155,600. This document was faxed from the Venkatraman law firm, and as proof

that this sale had been completed, MCAP was provided with a copy of a trust cheque payable to

Venkatraman & Purewal in the amount of $27,569.01 drawn on the trust account of Park,

represented to be the cash to close the sale at 11933-78 St. This was faxed from the Venkatraman

law office. Thus, according to Bischoff’s evidence, the “down payment” went back to Park and the

mortgage proceeds were paid out to Pervez and Vinci Phillips. I find that Ellis either faxed this

information, or it was done at her direction.

[372] Penney identified a reporting letter to Jindal dated April 20, 2004 that she had prepared and

signed on behalf of the firm which was seized from Ellis’ home on July 14, 2005 relating to the

purchase and mortgage of 11245-94 St. In my view, the fact that Ellis still had this in her possession

indicates that Ellis understood Jindal was no more than a straw buyer.

[373] Ellis controlled the bookkeeping at the Venkatraman law firm at the relevant time. Given all

of the above evidence, including Ellis’ knowledge of Jindal and Larson’s prior involvements, her

acting under power of attorney for 978742 Alberta Ltd., the evidence of false bookkeeping entries,

inappropriate payments out of the mortgage funds, and bookkeping postings and representations in

relation to the alleged cash to close (Park trust cheque for $27,569.01) the evidence establishes that

Ellis at this time was using her position at the Venkatraman law firm in order to work for the benefit

of Pervez and his numbered companies. Given her position as conveyancer and bookkeeper, I find

beyond a reasonable doubt that she had a fraudulent intent in that she knew of the dishonest

representations with which she was involved in relation to this transaction and knowingly provided

fraudulent information to the lender, being aware of the risk to MCAP’s economic interests.

Page: 75

Count 17

[374] Count 17 alleges that Ellis, between February 1, 2004 and April 30, 2004, defrauded TD

Bank of $133,399 by providing false information in support of a mortgage application in the name

of Jindal for 6904-127 Avenue.

[375] Paragraphs 278 to 292 of the Agreed Statement of Facts are relevant to this allegation.

6904-127 Avenue was purchased by Alberta numbered company 978742 Alberta Ltd. (sole director

was Pervez at the time) on December 4, 2003. On November 24, 2003, Pervez signed the affidavit

of transferee on behalf of 978742 Alberta Ltd., attesting that 978742 Alberta Ltd. paid $40,000 cash

to the vendor, Bartz Inc. and that the value was $40,000. Bindon commissioned Pervez's affidavit.

On January 9, 2004, title transferred to Kahlon. On December 23, 2003, Pervez signed the transfer

of land associated with this transaction on behalf of 978742 Alberta Ltd. The consideration received

by the company was represented to be $135,000. Ellis witnessed Pervez's signature on this transfer

of land. On December 23, 2003, Kahlon signed the affidavit of transferee falsely attesting that he

paid consideration by way of cash for the purchase of 6904-127 Avenue. Ellis commissioned

Kahlon's affidavit. No money changed hands between Kahlon and 978742 Alberta Ltd.

[376] On March 26, 2004, title to 6904-127 Avenue was transferred from Kahlon to Jindal. On

March 22, 2004, Kahlon signed the transfer of land. The consideration received by him was

represented to be $136,000. Ellis witnessed Kahlon's signature. On March 22, 2004, Ellis signed the

affidavit of transferee as agent for Jindal, attesting that Jindal paid consideration by way of cash and

new mortgage. Jindal provided no cash toward the purchase of this property. Jindal's signature

appears on a mortgage dated March 22, 2004, in favour of the TD Bank in the amount of $133,399.

Ellis witnessed Jindal's signature on this document. Jindal provided none of the cash to close this

transaction. This was approximately two weeks after the signing of the mortgage that had been

obtained in Jindal's name on 11245-94 St. (Count 16).

[377] This was the fourth of four mortgages that Jindal secured on properties in Edmonton between

February 2003 and March 2004. The first property, 11838-91 Street, was transferred out of Jindal's

name on March 13, 2004, and into Kahlon's name. The second property, 11933-78 Street, was

transferred out of Jindal's name on March 13, 2004, and into Larson's name. Jindal did not receive

any proceeds from these sales. Ellis witnessed Jindal's signature on the transfer documents

associated with these sales, both signed on January 13, 2004. Ellis signed as agent for both of the

transferees on February 10, 2004. These two properties were transferred out of Jindal's name two

weeks before 6904-127 Ave. was transferred into his name.

[378] Jindal signed legal documents at the Venkatraman law office, attended there with Kahlon.

At the law firm, Jindal dealt with Ellis.

[379] The mortgage on 6904-127 Avenue was brokered by Krishna Gupta. Jindal's mortgage

application included various false representations: Jindal did not provide a down payment toward

the purchase of this property; the down payment was represented to have been generated by the sale

of 135 Kiniski Crescent; as evidence of this sale, the TD was provided with a Real Estate Purchase

Page: 76

Contract pertaining to the sale of 135 Kiniski Crescent showing an unconditional offer to purchase

by Jaswinder Oberoi for $165,000; Jindal does not know Jaswinder Oberoi, and never sold, nor

intended to sell, his residence; all of the information contained on this document was false; as further

evidence of this sale, the TD was provided with an anticipated statement of adjustments pertaining

to the sale of 135 Kiniski Crescent to Jaswinder Oberoi for $165,000; this document was also false,

as this sale never took place, nor was it anticipated; these documents also provided false information

about Jindal's debt load, as they represented that the purchaser would assume Jindal's mortgage; a

Real Estate Purchase Contract was provided to the lender evidencing the sale of 11838-91 St. by

Jindal to Larson; this was the first property that Jindal obtained as part of this scheme, and was the

same sale that was represented to have generated the down payments for 11933-78 Street and

11245-94 Street; this property did not sell in the manner represented to the TD, and although Jindal

was removed from the title of that property, he received no money from the sale; 11838-91 Street

was transferred to Kahlon; the TD Bank was provided with an anticipated statement of adjustments

and disbursements that represented a sale of 11838-91 Street to Larson for $140,000; this document

was also false; the shortfall between the purchase price of $136,000 and the mortgage of $133,399

was not provided by Jindal or anyone acting on Jindal's behalf; Jindal did not intend to, and did not

reside at 6904-127 Avenue; the mortgage on his true residence was an undisclosed liability on the

mortgage application for 11245-94 Street; Jindal signed a false statutory declaration, declaring that

6904-127 Avenue would be used as his principal residence; Ellis commissioned Jindal's statutory

declaration; this statutory declaration was completed approximately two weeks after the identical

statutory declarationwithregard to 11245-94 Street (Count 16); a Real Estate Purchase Contract was

tendered to the lender falsely representing that Jindal provided the vendor, Kahlon, with a $1,000

initial deposit, and would provide the cash to close of $4,800; Jindal provided no funds, by way of

deposit or otherwise, toward the purchase of this property; the sale was not completed by February

24, 2004; a false MLS sheet was also tendered, representing that 6904-127 Avenue was listed on the

MLS system with a real estate agent, that the sale was an arm’s length transaction, and that the

purchaser was a bona fide purchaser for value; Jindal did not deal with any real estate agent in the

purchase of this property, and this was not an arm's length transaction.

[380] The TD Bank relied on all of these representations in making the decision to provide

mortgage financing. Had the TD Bank been aware of the false representations, it would not have

approved the Jindal mortgage. As a result of its reliance on the material misrepresentations in the

Jindal mortgage application, the economic interest of the TD Bank was put at risk in the amount of

$133,399.

[381] I find that the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Ellis committed the actus

reus of fraud in providing false information to the TD Bank in support of this mortgage application

which put the lender’s economic interests at risk.

[382] Ellis’ further involvement with this property occurred from July 2004 onward, and is not

relevant to this Count, but is referred to where it is relevant to other Counts pertaining to that time

period.

[383] Ellis referred to Jindal as a “whiner”. When he went to Ellis to find out when property would

come out of his name, she said she would speak to Tony (Kahlon). Jindal was eventually sued by

Page: 77

the TD Bank and lost about $88,000 plus legal fees. He had to sell his home on Kiniski Crescent to

pay the debt and then bought another house with a much larger mortgage (payments now $1,800 per

month as opposed to $600 per month on the BMO mortgage on the Kiniski property.) One can

understand why he was whining.

[384] The evidence recounted above in relation to Count 16 is relevant to this Count in terms of

determining Ellis’ knowledge of the scheme and the false information being provided to the

mortgage company at this point in time. I have noted in relation to Count 16 Bischoff’s evidence

regarding Transaction #16788, and the trail of trust transfers which also involved the client file for

this Jindal transaction, 25106. The client inquiry report on client file 25106 shows that following

the deposit to that account of the TD draft in the amount of $129,035 on March 23, 2004, eleven

trust transfers were made out of the account, four on the same date as the deposit. The transactions

immediately following the deposit are as follows: $5,000 to client file 20153 (996649 Alberta Ltd.

(director Joanne Hickling) re transfer of 9328-106 A Avenue to “Tony” Kahlon); $3,000 to client

file 20146 (978742 Alberta Ltd. general file); $43,500 to client file 25013 (978742 Alberta Ltd. re

purchase of 11915-77 St.); $61,262 to client file 25050 (912715 Alberta Ltd. re purchase of 11330-

84 St.); $3,000 to client file 20146 (978742 Alberta Ltd. general file); $6,807 to client file 25063

(Jindal re purchase of 11245-94 St.); and $10,000 to Kahlon.

[385] Ellis commissioned Jindal’s statutory declaration declaring that he would occupy the

property as his principal resident two weeks after he signed an identical document with respect to

11245-94 Street. I find that Ellis knew this declaration to be false. I further find that Ellis knew at

this point that Jindal was not receiving money from Oberoi or from any other sale of property. The

evidence is overwhelming with respect to Ellis’ involvement in the scheme at this point in time and

I infer from this evidence that she knew that much of the information being provided to the TD Bank

was false in that Jindal was being put on title in order to obtain mortgage funds, and that she also

knew that confection and provision of this false information put the Bank at a risk of economic loss

or prejudice.

[386] On the entirety of the evidence I find that the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt

that Ellis committed one or more dishonest acts in relation to obtaining this mortgage as required

under s. 380(1)(a) and that she had the requisite mens rea.

Count 18

[387] Count 18 alleges that Ellis, between February 1, 2004 and April 30, 2004, defrauded MCAP

of $119,584 by providing false information in support of a mortgage application in the name of Aziz

for 11935-91 Street.

[388] Paragraphs 293 to 307 of the Agreed Statement of Facts are relevant to this allegation.

11935-91 Street was purchased by 978742 Alberta Ltd. (Pervez was director at that time) on October

21, 2003. On September 30, 2003, Pervez signed the affidavit of transferee as agent for 978742

Alberta Ltd. attesting that 978742 Alberta Ltd. paid cash and assumed the mortgage held by the

vendors, Advanced Holdings Inc. as consideration in this purchase, and that the value of 11935-91

Street was $95,000. The vendors Advanced Holdings Inc. held a mortgage on this property with

Page: 78

CIBC. Bindon commissioned Pervez's affidavit. On March 15, 2004, title to 11935-91 Street was

transferred to Aziz. On March 10, 2004, Pervez signed the transfer on behalf of 978742 Alberta Ltd.

The consideration received by 978742 Alberta Ltd. was represented to be $148,000. Ellis witnessed

Pervez's signature on this transfer. On March 10, 2004, Ellis signed the affidavit of transferee as

agent for Aziz, attesting that Aziz paid consideration by way of cash and new mortgage for the

purchase of 11935-91 Street. On March 10, 2004, Aziz signed a mortgage in favour of MCAP in the

amount of $119,584, and Ellis witnessed Aziz's signature on this document. This mortgage was

signed approximately three months after the mortgage on 11502-82 Street (Count 14). This was the

third of five mortgages obtained by Aziz on Edmonton properties between October 2002 and

December 2004.

[389] The mortgage on 11935-91 Street was brokered by Tran. Aziz's mortgage application

contained various false representations: Aziz did not provide a down payment toward the purchase

of this property; the down payment was represented to have been generated by the sale of Aziz's

property at 285 Redwood Avenue in Winnipeg; as evidence of this sale a Real Estate Purchase

Contract was tendered representing a sale of this property by Aziz to James Johnson (“Johnson”)

for $100,000 by way of deposit of $5,000, assumption of Aziz's mortgage on the property and cash

to close of $28,000; this unconditional sale was to have been completed in March 2004; this same

document was provided to the TD Bank in the mortgage application for 11502-82 Street, with an

amended completion date; Aziz did not know Johnson, and did not sell his property at 285 Redwood

Avenue in the manner described, nor in this time frame; this document represented false information

with regard to Aziz's debt load as Johnson was to have assumed the mortgage on this property;

MCAP was also provided with an anticipated statement of adjustments on Park Law Offices'

letterhead pertaining to the sale of 285 Redwood Avenue; not disclosed to MCAP was the fact that

Aziz was responsible for a mortgage on 11502-82 St.; Aziz did not intend to and did not reside at

11935-91 St.; Aziz resided, and continued to reside throughout, at his family home located at

9630-80 St. in Fort Saskatchewan; a Real Estate Purchase Contract was also tendered, falsely

representing that Aziz provided a $5,000 initial deposit toward the purchase of this property, and

would provide the cash required to close the transaction of $32,000; Aziz provided no funds by way

of deposit or otherwise toward the purchase of this property; also tendered was the appraisal of

Angus MacInnes showing a market value of $148,000.

[390] MCAP relied on all of these representations in making the decision to provide mortgage

financing. Had MCAP been aware of these false representations, it would not have approved the

Aziz mortgage. As a result of its reliance on the material misrepresentations in the Aziz mortgage

application, the economic interest of MCAP was put at risk in the amount of $119,584.

[391] The proceeds of this mortgage were provided to the Venkatraman law firm. These funds

would not have been sufficient cash to close this purchase based on the purchase price of $148,000.

No funds were provided by Aziz to make up the shortfall.

[392] I find that the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Ellis committed the actus

reus of fraud by providing false information to MCAP in support of the mortgage application, as this

was a sham transaction using Aziz as a straw buyer in order to obtain mortgage proceeds, and that

the provision of false information put MCAP’s economic interests at risk.

Page: 79

[393] Ellis’ further involvement in this property dates from June 8, 2004 and is not relevant to this

allegation of providing false information in order to obtain the mortgage in question.

[394] I must also consider whether the Crown has established that Ellis possessed the requisite

mens rea. I found Aziz to be a credible but unsophisticated witness with respect to real estate

transactions. He candidly admitted that he entered into the transactions to make money and that he

would virtually sign anything and swear to anything to advance his business dealings. For her part,

Ellis insisted that she asked the proper questions in a perfunctory manner and that it was not her job

to determine whether what an individual swore to as being true was in fact true. However, in the

circumstances of this case, Aziz’s admissions do not in my view exonerate Ellis. I find that by this

point in time Ellis was not only aware of the scheme to defraud mortgage companies but also was

an active participant. By this point in time she was already providing him with money for his

mortgage payments with respect to the property that is the subject of Count 14.

[395] I find that by this point in time, the evidence is overwhelming with respect to Ellis’

involvement in the scheme and I infer from this evidence, and her prior involvement with Aziz, that

she knew that much of the information being provided to MCAP was false and that this false

information put this lender at a risk of economic loss or prejudice. She knew of the falsity of the

information contained in the affidavit of transferee which she signed as agent for Aziz. She knew

that his name was going on title and the mortgage for convenience only. If I am wrong, then she

certainly knew enough that she would be suspicious that Aziz was being used for convenience, and

failed to make meaningful inquiries with respect to her suspicions.

[396] On the entirety of the evidence, I find that the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt,

as required under s. 380(1)(a), that Ellis committed dishonest acts in relation to obtaining this

mortgage, knowing or being wilfully blind to the falsity of the information provided to MCAP in

support of the mortgage application and to the fact that it would put MCAP’s economic interests at

risk.

Count 19

[397] Count 19 alleges that Ellis, between February 1, 2004 and April 30, 2004, defrauded London

Life Insurance Company (“London Life”) of $122,511.29 by providing false information in support

of a mortgage application in the name of Correia for 11920-77 Street.

[398] Paragraphs 308 to 323 of the Agreed Statement of Facts pertain to this allegation. 11920-77

St. was purchased by 978742 Alberta Ltd. (Pervez was sole director at the time) on December 1,

2003. On November 14, 2003, Pervez signed the affidavit of transferee as agent for 978742 Alberta

Ltd. on the purchase of 11920-77 Street, attesting to a value of $67,000, which was the consideration

paid to the Lefebvres. On that same date, Pervez signed a vendor take-back mortgage on behalf of

978742 Alberta Ltd. in favour of the vendors, the Lefebvres, in the amount of $50,000. Pervez's

signature on this mortgage was witnessed by Park. Pervez's affidavit was commissioned by Park.

Page: 80

[399] On April 1, 2004, title was transferred from 978742 Alberta Ltd. to Brito. On March 25,

2004, Pervez signed the transfer of land associated with this transaction on behalf of 978742 Alberta

Ltd. The consideration received by him was represented to be $90,000. Ellis witnessed Pervez's

signature on this transfer of land. On March 25, 2004, Ellis signed the affidavit of transferee as agent

for Brito. In this document, Ellis attested that Brito paid consideration by way of cash for the

purchase of 11920-77 Street. Ellis' affidavit was commissioned by Worrell.

[400] On the same date title was transferred to Brito, April 1, 2004, title to 11920-77 St. was

transferred from Brito to Correia. On March 25, 2004, the date Ellis witnessed Pervez’s signature

on the transfer to Brito, Brito signed the transfer of land associated with this transaction. The

consideration received by him was represented to be $124,900. Ellis witnessed Brito's signature. On

March 25, 2004, Correia signed the affidavit of transferee, attesting that he paid consideration in the

amount of $124,900 for the purchase by way of cash and a new mortgage on the property. Correia's

affidavit was commissioned by Ellis. On March 25, 2004, Correia signed a mortgage in favour of

the London Life in the amount of $122,511.29. Correia's signature on this document was witnessed

by Ellis. This was the second of three mortgages obtained by Correia on Edmonton properties

between December 2003 and August 2004.

[401] Correia is a long-time family friend of Brito. Correia was approached by Brito with an

opportunity to make some extra money. Correia was told that Brito had poor credit and accordingly

could not obtain a mortgage in his own name. Brito inquired whether Correia might be prepared to

obtain mortgages in Correia's name, Correia's only involvement being the signing of mortgage

documents. Correia was paid between $2,000 and $4,000 for each mortgage that he obtained in his

name. He was paid by Brito either in cash or by certified cheque. Correia provided all of his personal

documents to Brito, and dealt only with Brito on these transactions. Correia had no dealings with

mortgage brokers or with bankers. Brito attended at the Venkatraman law office with Correia on

each occasion that Correia attended there. Correia recalled dealing with a lawyer later identified by

description as Pubalagan Venkatraman. Brito reimbursed Correia for all mortgage payments that

were debited to his personal bank account.

[402] The mortgage on 11920-77 Street was brokered by David Humeniuk. This Correia mortgage

was the last mortgage that Humeniuk brokered. Humeniuk was initially approached by Brito, who

advised him that he was in the business of purchasing, renovating, and selling homes for a profit.

Humeniuk understood Caroca to be one ofBrito’s business associates, and occasionally had dealings

with Caroca. The majority of his dealings were with Brito. Early in his dealings with Brito,

Humeniuk began receiving mortgage applicationsfromPervez. Humeniuk understoodthat Britohad

referred him to Pervez, and that Pervez was in the same business as Brito. Humeniuk brokered

mortgages for Pervez for a short time, and then declined to accept any further applications from

Pervez because of serious issues with the applications, including undisclosed liabilities and

problematic evidence confirming down payments of applicants. On the applications that he received

from Brito, Humeniuk dealt directly with Brito and not the applicant. With regard to this Correia

mortgage, Humeniuk received the application package from Brito. Brito was directly involved with

preparing false gift letters, false employment letters, and providing other false documents to secure

mortgages on properties in the names of his straw buyers.

Page: 81

[403] The application tendered for this mortgage included various false representations: Correia

did not provide a down payment toward the purchase of this property; the down payment was

represented to have been generated by the sale of Correia's property at 11443-101 Street; this is the

first property that Correia purchased after his introduction to this scheme by Brito; as evidence of

this sale, a Real Estate Purchase Contract was tendered, suggesting a sale of this property by Correia

to Judy and Carol Buyers for a price of $122,000 by way of $2,000 deposit, assumption of mortgage

and cash to close of $10,200; Correia does not know Judy or Carol Buyers, and did not sell the

property at 11443-101 St.; Correia continues to be the titular owner of 11443-101 St.; this document

represented false information with regard to Correia's debt load given that it was represented that

the Buyers were to have assumed the mortgage on 11443-101 St.; it was not disclosed that Correia

was responsible for a mortgage on 11443-101 St.; Judy Buyers was a property manager employed

by Brito and Caroca; she does not know a Carol Buyers, and did not purchase 11443-101 St.;

Buyers' signature on the Real Estate Purchase Contract is forged; Correia did not intend to reside

at 11920-77 Street, and did not reside there; a Real Estate Purchase Contract was tendered

representing that the vendor of 11920-77 Street was Josh McDerman rather than Brito, and that

Correia provided the vendor with a $1,000 initial deposit toward the purchase of this property, and

would provide the cash required to close the transaction of $5,235; Correia provided no funds by

way of deposit or otherwise toward the purchase of this property; also tendered was an MLS sheet

representing to the lender that 11920-77 Street was listed on the MLS system with a real estate

agent, that the sale was an arm’s length transaction, and that the purchaser was a bona fide purchaser

for value; Correia did not deal with any real estate agent in the purchase of this property and this was

not an arm's length transaction.

[404] London Life relied on all ofthese representations in making the decision to provide mortgage

financing. Had London Life been aware of the false nature of these representations, it would not

have provided mortgage funds to complete this real estate transaction. As a result of its reliance on

the misrepresentations in this mortgage application, the economic interests of the London Life were

put at risk in the amount of $122,511.29.

[405] I find that the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Ellis committed the actus

reus of fraud by providing false information to London Life in support of the mortgage application

which put its economic interests at risk.

[406] In considering Ellis’ state of mind, I note that the proceeds of this mortgage, provided to the

Venkatraman law firm, would not have been sufficient cash to close this purchase based on the

purchase price of $124,900. No funds were provided by Correia to make up the shortfall.

[407] Correia’s first dealing with the Venkatraman law firm and Ellis was with respect to the

purchase of 11443-101 St. in December of 2003. At that time he obtained a mortgage from Resmor.

He clearly was not a stranger to Ellis in March and April of 2004 when he purchased 11920-77

Street and obtained a mortgage from London Life.

[408] Ellis witnessed the transfer from Pervez’s numbered company to Brito, the transfer from

Brito to Correia and Correia’s execution of the mortgage on March 25, 2004. The Certificate of Title

Page: 82

confirming registration in Correia’s name is dated April 1, 2004 and the net mortgage proceeds were

advanced on that date.

[409] However it is apparent that Ellis had need for the mortgage proceeds prior to April 1, 2004.

As noted by Bischoff, a false deposit in the amount of $118,440.16 was posted to the BMO trust

account on March 1, 2004 and on March 4, 2004 there was a transfer in the amount of $96,500 from

Correia’s file 25125 to another client file 25070 (978742 Alberta Ltd. purchase of 10730-92 St.).

Ellis was using the Venkatraman firm’s trust funds to facilitate these transactions.

[410] Further, the analysis by Bischoff indicates that following the April 1, 2004 valid deposit on

client file 25125, was a payout dated April 1, 2004 to the Lefebvres for $50,000, a cheque to

Millwoods Honda in the amount of $16,000 (transaction #14491) dated April 1, 2004, a cheque to

Brito for $21,219.16 (transaction #14492), a payment for title insurance, and payment of a

Venkatraman bill. The balance at that point was $52,440, which was not enough to reverse the

double deposit. There was a subsequent transfer in from client file 25127 (Aziz re purchase of

10811-152 Street) in the amount of $49,215.97 and from client file 20146 of $784.03. Then the

double posting was reversed and the Millwoods Honda cheque was reversed (transaction #14491),

bringing the account to zero. This reversal of the Millwoods Honda cheque might initially suggest

that the cheque had not gone through, but the cheque had in fact cleared and had been certified. A

subsequent payment to Scott Thorne's law firm overdrew the account by $600. This was covered by

a transfer from client file 20146 in the same amount.

[411] As mentioned, on the client inquiry report for the Correia client file 25125, transaction

#16888 on March 4, 2004 was a transfer in the amount of $96,500 from client file 25125 to another

client file 25070 (978742 Alberta Ltd. re purchase of 10730-92 Street). A cheque was written on

client file 25070 on March 4, 2004 to Fraser Milner for $66,793.62. A general power of attorney

dated May 12, 2004 was seized at Terry Ellis’ residence. It indicates that Pervez, president of

1090316 Alberta Ltd., granted Ellis power of attorney.

[412] The evidence shows that 10730-92 Street was transferred in April 2004 to 1090316 Alberta

Ltd. for $70,000. Ellis signed the affidavit of transferee dated March 29, 2004 for the company. A

mortgage was filed on title on April 17, 2004 in the amount of $40,000. On the client inquiry report

for client file 25125 (Correia), the next transaction (#17033) was a real deposit dated April 1, 2004

in the same amount as previous posting for London Life. Transaction #17166 was a reverse double

posting of $118,440.16 on April 1, 2004.

[413] The false London Life deposit posting was dated March 1, 2004. The affidavit of transferee

for Correia's signature was commissioned by Ellis and dated March 25, 2004, after the posting of

the false London Life deposit. The mortgage application signed by someone purporting to be R.

Correia dated March 13, 2004 was also after posting of the false London Life deposit, and before

the real deposit.

[414] On the client inquiry report for client file 25127 (Aziz re purchase of 10811-152 Street), the

initial transaction (#16887) appears to be a deposit of $97,125 from ING Mortgages on March 1,

2004. This was found by Bischoff to be another false deposit. The next item (#16888) is a transfer

Page: 83

in the amount of $33,674.80 from client file 25127 to client file 25069 (978742 Alta Ltd. re purchase

of 12807-127 Street). Following this was a real ING deposit in the amount of $97,125 (#17034), and

a reversal of the initial false deposit (#17079). The next item is a transfer of April 2, 2004 to another

client file 25006 (978742 Alberta Ltd. re sale of 11225-89 Street) in the amount of $13,804

(#17085). A transfer dated April 1, 2004 to client file 25125 in the amount of $49,215.97 (#17164)

was the transfer to the Correia account that allowed for reversal of the double posting on that

account as discussed above.

[415] On March 25, 2004, Ellis witnessed Pervez’s signature on behalf of 978742 Alberta Ltd. on

the transfer of land to Brito for $90,000. She signed the affidavit of transferee as agent for Brito. On

the same date, she witnessed Brito’s signature on the transfer of land to Correia representing

consideration to be $124,900. On the same date, she commissioned Correia’s affidavit of transferee

attesting that Correia paid consideration in the amount of $124,900 for the purchase of 11920-77

Street by way of cash and a new mortgage on the property. On the same date, she witnessed

Correia’s signature on a mortgage in favour of London Life in the amount of $122,511.29.

[416] Defence counsel submitted that it is not for the law firm to question the value of property on

a real estate transaction. That may be an accurate statement in relation to an isolated transaction.

However, I need not make that determination. In this case, Ellis’ knowledge must be considered in

light of all of the evidence and her involvement in the mortgage fraud scheme.

[417] I find that on March 25, 2004, when Ellis witnessed Brito’s signature on the transfer to

Correia for $124,900 and commissioned Correia’s affidavit of transferee, she knew the value that

day to be no more than $90,000. Also, she clearly knew that the statement of the circumstances of

the transfer to Correia as cash to new mortgage, was not true.

[418] By this time, Ellis was clearly actively involved in Pervez’s mortgage fraud scheme, as

indicated by the evidence on prior counts and Bischoff’s evidence of bookkeeping irregularities and

false deposits.

[419] I am satisfied that Ellis knew that this was a sham transaction. I find that she knew that

Correia was simply a straw buyer used by Brito and Pervez to perpetrate a fraud on London Life.

She knew that the provision of false information to London Life put its economic interests at risk.

[420] On the entirety of the evidence, I do not have a reasonable doubt regarding Ellis' guilt on this

Count. I find that the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Ellis knowingly committed

dishonest acts in relation to obtaining this mortgage which she knew risked the economic interests

of London Life as required under s. 380(1)(a).

Count 20

[421] Count 20 alleges that Ellis, between February 1, 2004 and April 30, 2004, defrauded ING

Mortgage Broker Services Inc. (“ING”) of $97,125.00 by providing false information in support of

a mortgage application in the name of Aziz for 10811-152 Street.

Page: 84

[422] Paragraphs 324 to 344 of the Agreed Statement of Facts pertain to this allegation. 10811-152

Street was purchased by 968703 Alberta Ltd. (director Kiran Ahmad, sister-in-law of Pervez) on

August 1, 2003. On July 21, 2003, Venkatraman signed the affidavit of transferee as agent for

968703Alberta Ltd. on thepurchaseof 10811-152 Street. Venkatraman attested that 968703 Alberta

Ltd. paid cash for this property and that the value was $84,500. This affidavit was commissioned

by Ellis.

[423] On December 4, 2003, title to this property was transferred to 978742 Alberta Ltd. (Pervez

was sole director at the time). On November 20, 2003, Kiran Ahmad signed the transfer of land on

behalf of 968703 Alberta Ltd. representing consideration received as $90,000. Bindon witnessed

Ahmad's signature on this transfer of land. On November 21, 2003, Pervez signed the affidavit of

transferee as agent for 978742 Alberta Ltd. on the purchase of 10811-152 Street. Pervez attested that

978742 Alberta Ltd. paid cash as consideration in this purchase. This information is false. No

monies were exchanged between 968703 Alberta Ltd. and 978742 Alberta Ltd. in this transaction.

Pervez attested that the value of 10811-152 Street was, in his opinion, $90,000. This affidavit was

commissioned by Bindon. On February 20, 2004, Pervez signed a mortgage secured by this property

and one other property in favour of Safe Self Storage Inc. in the amount of $100,000. His signature

was witnessed by Ellis.

[424] On April 5, 2004, title was transferred from 978742 Alberta Ltd. to Aziz. On March 26,

2004, Ellis signed the transfer of land associated with this transaction under power of attorney for

978742 Alberta Ltd. The consideration received by the numbered company was represented to be

$129,500. Worrell witnessed Ellis' signature. Worrell purportedly signed the affidavit of transferee

as agent for Aziz. In this document, Worrell attested that Aziz paid consideration by way of cash

and new mortgage for the purchase of 10811-152 Street. Worrell's affidavit was commissioned by

Gayani Lokugamage, an employee with the Venkatraman law firm. On March 30, 2004, Aziz signed

a mortgage in favour of ING in the amount of $97,125. Aziz's signature on this document was

witnessed by Ellis. This mortgage was signed approximately three weeks after the mortgage on

11935-91 St. (Count 18), also witnessed by Ellis. This was the fourth of five mortgages obtained by

Aziz on Edmonton properties between October 2002 and December 2004 as part of this scheme.

[425] The mortgage on 10811-152 Street was brokered by Kay Khosah. The application tendered

for this mortgage included various false representations: Aziz did not provide a down payment

toward the purchase of this property; the down payment was represented to have been generated by

the sale of Aziz's property at 285 Redwood Avenue in Winnipeg, the same property that was

represented to have sold to generate the down payments for 11502-82 Street and 11935-91 Street

(Count 18); as evidence of this sale a Real Estate Purchase Contract was tendered that suggested a

sale of this property by Aziz to Johnson for a price of $100,000 by way of deposit of $5,000,

assumption of mortgage, and cash to close of $28,000, the sale to be completed in March 2004; this

is the same document as was provided to the TD Bank in the mortgage application for 11502-82

Street, with an amended completion date; and is identical to the Real Estate Purchase Contract

provided to MCAP in the mortgage application for 11935-91 Street; Aziz does not know Johnson,

and did not sell his property at 285 Redwood Avenue in the manner described, nor in this time

frame; this document represents false information with regard to Aziz's debt load given that it was

represented that Johnson was to have assumed the mortgage on this property; ING was provided

Page: 85

with an anticipated statement of adjustments pertaining to the sale of 285 Redwood Ave.; also

provided was a letter signed by Ellis dated March 25, 2004 on Venkatraman & Purewal letterhead

falsely confirming their receipt of $30,253.17 from the sale of the Winnipeg property; it was not

disclosed to ING that Aziz was responsible for two mortgages on 11502-82 Street and 11935-91

Street; Aziz did not intend to reside at 10811-152 Street, and did not reside there; a statutory

declaration was provided stating that Aziz intended to use 10811-152 Street as his principal

residence and not as a rental property; this document was commissioned by Ellis on March 30, 2004;

this statutory declaration also falsely attested that Aziz's down payment came from his own

resources; Aziz resided, and continued to reside throughout, at his family home located at 9630-80

Street in Fort Saskatchewan; a Real Estate Purchase Contract was tendered falsely representing that

Aziz provided the vendor with a $5,000 initial deposit toward the purchase of this property, and

would provide the cash required to close the transaction of $27,375; Aziz provided no funds by way

of deposit or otherwise toward the purchase of this property; an MLS sheet was tendered, falsely

representing to the lender that 10811-152 Street was listed on the MLS system with a real estate

agent, that the sale was an arm’s length transaction, and that the purchaser was a bona fide purchaser

for value; Aziz did not deal with any real estate agent in the purchase of this property, and this was

not an arm's length transaction; also tendered was the appraisal of Gordon Chapman (“Chapman”)

at a value of $130,000; Chapman was introduced to Pervez in approximately 2002 by a Calgary

mortgage broker; Chapman completed several property appraisals between 2002 and 2004 having

been retained by Pervez and all were conducted on the assumption that incomplete renovations were

complete; Chapman never re-attended any of the properties to ascertain the status of renovations.

[426] ING relied on all of these representations in making the decision to provide mortgage

financing. Had ING been aware of the false nature of these representations, it would not have

provided mortgage funds to complete this real estate transaction. As a result of its reliance on the

misrepresentations in this mortgage application, the economic interests of ING were put at risk in

the amount of $97,125.

[427] I find that the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Ellis committed the actus

reus of fraud by providing false information to ING which put its economic interests at risk.

[428] I must also consider Ellis’ state of mind at the time. The proceeds of this mortgage were

provided to the Venkatraman law firm. These funds would not have been sufficient cash to close this

purchase based on the purchase price of $129,500. No funds were provided by Aziz to make up the

shortfall.

[429] On the client inquiry report for client file 25127 (Aziz re purchase of 10811-152 Street), the

initial transaction (#16887) appears to be a deposit of $97,125 from ING Mortgages on March 1,

2004. This was found by Bischoff to be another false deposit. The next item (#16888) is a transfer

in the amount of $33,674.80 from client file 25127 to client file 25069 (978742 Alta Ltd. re purchase

of 12807-127 Street). Following this was a real ING deposit in the amount of $97,125 (#17034), and

a reversal of the initial false deposit (#17079). The next item is a transfer on April 2, 2004 to another

client file 25006 (978742 Alberta Ltd. re sale of 11225-89 Street) in the amount of $13,804

(#17085). A transfer dated April 1, 2004 to client file 25125 in the amount of $49,215.97 (#17164)

Page: 86

was the transfer to the Correia account that allowed for reversal of the double posting on that

account as discussed above.

[430] The client inquiry report for client file 25069 (978742 Alta Ltd. re purchase of 12807-127

Street) shows that the transfer in of $33,674.80 (#16888) from file 25127 left a positive balance of

$74,202. This was followed by a cheque on March 31, 2004 for cash to close for 12807-127 Street

to Alexander Pozniak in the amount of $73,802.17. The client inquiry report for client file 25006

(978742 Alberta Ltd. re sale of 11225-89 Street) shows that prior to the above mentioned transfer

of $13,804 (transaction #17085), this account was in overdraft by $13,804.23, so this transfer

brought the account to a zero balance.

[431] With respect to the mortgage in the name of Aziz against 10811-152 Street for $97,125, the

affidavit of Aziz purports to be sworn before Ellis on March 30, 2004 after the initial false deposit.

The mortgage approval from ING dated March 20, 2004 indicates a closing date of March 27, 2004,

also after the posting of the false deposit.

[432] Ellis signed a letter dated March 25, 2004 on Venkatraman & Purewal letterhead stating “we

are the solicitors for Mr. Aziz”, and falsely confirming receipt of $30,253.17 in trust from the sale

of the Winnipeg property. The client inquiry report for client file 25127 indicates that she was aware

there was no money held in trust on this file at that time. In fact, she had transferred $33,000 out of

that account to a 978742 Alberta Ltd. purchase file on the strength of her false ING deposit. She

testified that Pervez received the money for the sale of the Winnipeg property and it went into his

file because he was dealing with all of the Winnipeg properties and either Pervez or Aziz told her

part of the money was for Aziz’s property. There was no legitimate explanation as to why Pervez

would be receiving money for the sale of Aziz's property in Winnipeg, although this would be

consistent with Aziz being simply a straw buyer. Ellis also testified that she would usually look at

the file cover to see if there was money in the trust account for the client file for the particular

transaction. I find that Ellis had no basis for confirming receipt of this money in trust from the sale

of the Winnipeg property and that she knew at the time she sent the letter that there was no money

in trust on this file representing sale of the Winnipeg property.

[433] On March 26, 2004, Ellis signed the transfer relating to 10811-152 St. under power of

attorney for 978742 Alberta Ltd. On March 30, 2004, she witnessed Aziz signing the mortgage. This

mortgage was signed approximately three weeks after the mortgage on 11935-91 Street (Count 18).

On March 10, 2004, Ellis had witnessed Pervez’s signature on behalf of 978742 Alberta Ltd. on the

transfer of 11935-91 St. to Aziz. On March 10, 2004, she had signed the affidavit of transferee as

agent for Aziz, attesting that Aziz paid consideration by way of cash and new mortgage for the

purchase of 11935-91 St. and she witnessed Aziz's signature on the MCAP mortgage.

[434] The statement of adjustments provided to the lender as proof of Aziz’s down payment was

found in Ellis’ house. Also seized from Ellis’ house on July 14, 2005 was a list of mortgage

payments including “10811-152 Aziz” and calculation of total amounts owing on Aziz mortgages.

As well, a statement of adjustments relating to the sale of 285 Redwood to Johnson was found at her

residence.

Page: 87

[435] Penney identified a reporting letter to Aziz dated May 27, 2004 regarding the purchase and

mortgage of 10811-152 St. She had prepared this and signed it on behalf of the firm, and it was

subsequently seized from Ellis’ home on July 14, 2005. Further, as discussed in Count 18 it is

apparent that Ellis was providing money for Aziz’s mortgage payments as early as January of 2004.

In my view, this evidence establishes that Ellis understood Aziz was no more than a straw buyer.

[436] The further evidence regarding Ellis’ involvement in this property relates to the period from

June 2004 onward. Although that evidence may be pertinent to Ellis’ awareness of and involvement

in the scheme at that time, I find that it is not relevant to Count 20 and the false representations made

to ING in obtaining the Aziz mortgage.

[437] I find that the evidence establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that Ellis knew that much of

the information being provided to ING was false as she knew Aziz was holding title and was on the

mortgage for the convenience of Pervez and his associates, and that she also knew that confection

and provision of this false information put the Bank at a risk of economic loss or prejudice.

Count 21

[438] Count 21 alleges that Ellis, between June 1, 2004 and August 30, 2004, defrauded TD Bank

of $56,250 by providing false information in support of a mortgage application in the name of

Palwinder Kahlon for 11330-84 Street.

[439] Paragraphs 345 to 363 of the Agreed Statement of Facts pertain to this allegation. 11330-84

Street was purchased by 1090316 Alberta Ltd. (Pervez was the sole director at the time) on March

27, 2004. On March 23, 2004, Ellis signed the affidavit of transferee as agent for 1090316 Alberta

Ltd. on the purchase of 11330-84 St. Ellis attested that 1090316 Alberta Ltd. paid consideration by

way of cash to the vendor, Leo Belland, and that the value of 11330-84 Street was, in her opinion,

$63,000. This affidavit was commissioned by Worrell. On May 7, 2004, title was transferred from

1090316 Alberta Ltd. to Kahlon. On April 30, 2004, Pervez signed the transfer on behalf of 1090316

Alberta Ltd. The consideration received by him was represented to be $120,000. Ellis witnessed

Pervez's signature on this transfer of land. On April 30, 2004, Kahlon signed the affidavit of

transferee, attesting that he paid consideration by way of cash. Kahlon's affidavit was commissioned

by Ellis. No monies changed hands between Kahlon and 1090316 Alberta Ltd. at the time of this

transaction.

[440] On July 19, 2004, title to 11330-84 Street was transferred from Kahlon to Palwinder Kahlon.

On July 8, 2004, Kahlon signed the transfer reflecting consideration received by him as being

$75,000. Ellis witnessed Kahlon's signature on this transfer. On July 8, 2004, Palwinder Kahlon

signed the affidavit of transferee attesting that he paid consideration by way of cash and new

mortgage. This affidavit is false as no monieschanged hands between Kahlon and Palwinder Kahlon

at the time of this transaction. On July 8, 2004, Palwinder Kahlon's signature appears on a mortgage

in favour of the TD in the amount of $56,250, witnessed by Ellis.

[441] The mortgage on 11330-84 Street was applied for directly at a TD branch office in

Edmonton. The application tendered for this mortgage included various false representations:

Page: 88

Palwinder Kahlon did not provide a down payment toward the purchase of this property; the down

payment was represented to have been generated by the sale of Palwinder Kahlon's residence at

3316-30 Avenue; as evidence of this sale, the TD Bank was provided with a Real Estate Purchase

Contract that suggested a sale of this residence by Palwinder Kahlon to Pinky Sailopal for a price

of $295,000; according to this document, Pinky Sailopal paid a deposit of $2,500 toward the

purchase of this property, would assume Palwinder Kahlon's mortgage and would provide the cash

to close of $112,050 with the sale to close on July 14, 2004; Pinky Sailopal was the former fiancé

of Kahlon; Palwinder Kahlon did not sell his matrimonial home at 3316-30 Ave. to Pinky Sailopal;

this document provided the lender with information pertaining to the source of Palwinder Kahlon's

down payment, and represented false information with regard to Palwinder Kahlon's debt load given

that Pinky Sailopal was to have assumed the mortgage on this property; Palwinder Kahlon did not

intend to reside at 11330-84 St., and did not reside there, contrary to the information represented to

the TD; Palwinder Kahlon resided, and continued to reside, at 3316-30 Ave.; a Real Estate Purchase

Contract was tendered falsely representing the vendor of 11330-84 St. as Bindon; this document

represented that Palwinder Kahlon provided the vendor with a $1,000 initial deposit toward the

purchase of this property, and would provide the cash required to close the transaction of $28,250;

Palwinder Kahlon provided no funds by way of deposit or otherwise toward the purchase of this

property; also tendered was a false MLS sheet representing that 11330-84 St. was listed on the MLS

system with a real estate agent, that the sale was an arm’s length transaction, and that the purchaser

was a bona fide purchaser for value; Palwinder Kahlon did not deal with any realtor in the purchase

of this property and this was not an arm's length transaction.

[442] The TD Bank relied on all of these representations in making the decision to provide

mortgage financing. Had the TD Bank been aware of these false representations, it would not have

provided mortgage funds to complete this real estate transaction. As a result of its reliance on the

misrepresentations in this mortgage application, the economic interests of the TD Bank were put at

risk in the amount of $56,250.

[443] The further evidence regarding Ellis’ involvement in this property relates to the period from

December 2004 onward. Although that evidence may be pertinent to Ellis’ awareness of and

involvement in the scheme at that time, I find that it is not relevant to Count 21 and the false

representations made to TD in obtaining the Palwinder Kahlon mortgage.

[444] I find that the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Ellis committed the actus

reus of fraud by providing false information to the TD Bank in support of the mortgage application

which put its economic interests at risk.

[445] Evidence regarding Ellis’ state of mind includes the following. Palwinder Kahlon signed the

mortgage at his home with Ellis. Ellis attended at Palwinder Kahlon's residence for that purpose. He

did not pay any of the legal fees associated with this purchase.

[446] Ellis signed an affidavit of transferee as agent for 1090316 Alberta Ltd. on March 23, 2004,

attesting that the value of the property was $63,000. She knew this was the market value, as

Bischoff’s evidence establishes that Ellis transferred to client file 25050 (912715 Alberta Ltd. re

purchase of 11330-84 St.) from client file 25106 (Jindal re purchase of 6904-127 Ave.) on March

Page: 89

23, 2004 the amount of $61,262.09 (proceeds of Jindal’s mortgage) and recorded a cheque to Cleall

Pahl for $60,862.09 for the purchase of 11330-84 Street. She witnessed Pervez’s signature on a

subsequent transfer on April 30, 2004 when title was transferred from 1090316 Alberta Ltd. to

Kahlon, and commissioned Kahlon’s signature on the same date on the affidavit of transferee, the

transfer showing a value of $120,000. She again witnessed Kahlon’s signature on the transfer on

July 8, 2004, reflecting consideration received by him as being $75,000, and commissioned what

purports to be Palwinder Kahlon’s signature. On July 8, 2004, Palwinder Kahlon's signature appears

on a mortgage in favour of the TD Bank in the amount of $56,250, witnessed by Ellis.

[447] I find that at a minimum, Ellis was reckless as to the value of this property. Further, she had

already been involved in a purchase and mortgage on part of Palwinder Kahlon in December and

more importantly she knew he did not live in the property he had previously purchased. In fact Ellis

testified that she had gone to Palwinder Kahlon’s home on four occasions and never recalled him

coming into the office. One might accept that she believed he would live in a purchased property

as a principal residence the first time she went to his house to have documents signed but on

subsequent transactions, she clearly knew he was not living in the property in which he had

previously sworn to reside as his principal residence.

[448] Evidence with respect to Ellis’ activity in this time period or prior to it regarding properties

which are the subject of other counts reveals Ellis’ awareness at this time of the nature of the

mortgage fraud scheme. On April 15, 2004, MCAP was granted a final order of foreclosure on

11447-90 Street (Count 5, Madan). The value of this property at the time of foreclosure was

determined to be $90,000. On July 23, 2004, MCAP sold the property at 11447-90 Street to 1112360

Alberta Ltd. for $77,000. At the time of this transaction, Pervez was the sole director of this

corporation. Ellis deposed the affidavit of transferee as agent for 1112360 Alberta Ltd. on July 8,

2004. The funds required to purchase this property were provided by Pervez. This yielded a loss to

MCAP of approximately $50,000, the shortfall between the mortgage advanced and the proceeds

of the sale of the property after foreclosure.

[449] Further, on June 2, 2004, title to 8409-118 Avenue (Count 4, Heinrichs) was transferred to

Knight. On December 23, 2003, Heinrichs signed a transfer of land for 8409-118 Avenue. The

purchase price was represented to be $110,000. On that same date, Heinrichs signed a transfer for

11828-54 Street. This property was also transferred to Knight. Both transfers of Land were

witnessed by Ellis. The transfers signed by Heinrichs were not registered until the transfer was

approved by Pervez. On May 28, 2004, Ellis signed as Knight's agent on the affidavit of transferee,

attesting that consideration by way of cash and the assumption of Heinrichs' mortgage was paid for

both of these properties.

[450] Further, on June 8, 2004, title to 11502-82 Street (Count 14, Aziz) was transferred from Aziz

to Ellis. The purchase price for this property was represented to be $127,000 but no money changed

hands between Ellis and Aziz in this transaction. On June 1, 2004, Aziz signed the transfer of land

indicating that he received consideration in the amount of $127,000 on this sale. On the same date,

Ellis signed the affidavit of transferee attesting that she paid consideration by way of cash and

assumption of mortgage for the purchase of 11502-82 Street. Ellis provided no cash toward the

Page: 90

purchase of this property. Ellis assumed this mortgage at Pervez's direction, and Pervez provided

her with funds to service the TD Bank mortgage on the property.

[451] Also on June 8, 2004, title to 11935-91 Street (Count 18, Aziz) transferred to the name of

Ellis. The purchase price for this property wasrepresented to be $148,000. No money changed hands

between Ellis and Aziz in this transaction. On June 1, 2004, Aziz signed the transfer of land

associated with this transaction. The consideration received by him was represented to be $148,000.

On June 1, 2004, Ellis signed the affidavit of transferee, attesting that she paid consideration by way

of cash and assumption of mortgage, for the purchase of 11935-91 Street. Ellis assumed this

mortgage at Pervez's direction, and Pervez provided her with funds to service the MCAP mortgage

on this property that had been assumed by Ellis.

[452] On the same date, title to 10811-152 Street (Count 20, Aziz) transferred to Ellis. The

purchase price for this property was represented to be $129,500. No monies changed hands between

Ellis and Aziz in this transaction. On June 1, 2004, Aziz signed the transfer of land associated with

this transaction. The consideration received by him was represented to be $129,500. Penney

witnessed Aziz's signature on this transfer of land. On June 1, 2004, Ellis signed the affidavit of

transferee. In this document, Ellis attested that she paid consideration in the amount of $129,500 for

the purchase of 10811-152 Street. Ellis further attested that this consideration was provided by way

of cash and assumption of mortgage on the property. Ellis' affidavit was commissioned by Penney.

No monies were exchanged between Ellis and Aziz. On June 15, 2004, an unsigned letter on

Venkatraman & Purewal letterhead was sent to ING confirming the transfer of 10811-152 Street to

Ellis. This transfer was not approved by the lender, and ING did not approve of the assumption of

the Aziz mortgage by Ellis.

[453] Ellis purchased all three of these properties from Aziz and assumed the mortgages because

according to her “he wanted them out of his name”. Ellis discussed Aziz’ difficulties with the

mortgage payments with Pervez “because he [Pervez] would look after the properties”. She

explained in her testimony that most lenders do not like mortgages to be assumed by numbered

companies, and that she probably assumed properties on behalf of Pervez.

[454] As well, on June 23, 2004, title to 11933-78 Street (Count 7, Jindal) was transferred from

Larson to 1101867 Alberta Ltd. Kahlon was the sole director of this corporation. On May 26, 2004,

Larson signed the transfer of land. The consideration received by Larson was represented to be

$130,000. Ellis witnessed Larson’s signature on this transfer of land. On May 5, 2004, Kahlon

signed the affidavit of transferee on behalf of 1101867 Alberta Ltd, attesting that the company paid

consideration by way of cash and assumption of Jindal’s mortgage. This information was false.

1101867 Alberta Ltd. provided no cash toward the purchase of this property.

[455] On the entirety of the evidence, I find that Ellis was aware of and involved in Pervez’s

mortgage fraud scheme at the time she witnessed and commissioned the documents in relation to

the transaction underlying Count 21. I further find on the evidence that she knew that Palwinder

Kahlon, in keeping with the scheme and her previous involvement with him, would not live on the

property as his principal residence. She knew the transaction was a sham. I find that the Crown has

proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Ellis knowingly committed dishonest acts in relation to

Page: 91

obtaining this mortgage as required under s. 380(1)(a), and that she knew that it would put the TD’s

economic interests at risk.

Count 22

[456] Count 22 alleges that Ellis, between June 1, 2004 and August 30, 2004, defrauded TD Bank

of $99,750 by providing false information in support of a mortgage application in the name of

Correia for 10712-103 Street.

[457] Paragraphs 364 to 383 of the Agreed Statement of Facts pertain to this allegation. 10712-103

Street was purchased by 978742 Alberta Ltd. (Pervez was sole director at the time) on February 27,

2004. On February 19, 2004, Pervez signed the affidavit of transferee as agent for 978742 Alberta

Ltd. on the purchase of 10712-103 Street, attesting that 978742 Alberta Ltd. paid consideration by

way of cash and assumption of the vendors' mortgage held by the RBC. This affidavit was

commissioned by Bindon.

[458] On April 19, 2004, title was transferred from 978742 Alberta Ltd. to Brito. On April 8, 2004,

Pervez signed the transfer of land associated with this transaction on behalf of 978742 Alberta Ltd.

The consideration received by him was represented to be $105,000. Ellis witnessed Pervez's

signature on this transfer of land. On April 8, 2004, Ellis signed the affidavit of transferee as agent

for Brito, attesting that Brito paid consideration by way of cash for the purchase of 10712-103

Street. Ellis' affidavit was commissioned by Worrell. No monies changed hands between Brito and

978742 Alberta Ltd. in completion of this transaction.

[459] On April 30, 2004, title was transferred from Brito back to 978742 Alberta Ltd. On April 22,

2004, Brito signed the transfer of land indicating receipt of $1 in consideration. Ellis witnessed

Brito's signature on this transfer of land. On April 22, 2004, Ellis signed the affidavit of transferee

as agent for 978742, attesting that the "deal fell through". Ellis' affidavit was commissioned by

Worrell.

[460] On August 5, 2004, title was transferred from 978742 Alberta Ltd. to 1101858 Alberta Ltd.

(a company created on April 8, 2004 which operated as Natista Investment Corporation; sole

director at the time was Caroca). Brito and Caroca were partners with Brito the leader of the

partnership. On July 23, 2004, Ellis signed the transfer of land on behalf of 978742 Alberta Ltd. The

consideration received by the company was represented to be $110,000. Worrell witnessed Ellis'

signature on this transfer of land. On July 23, 2004, Caroca signed the affidavit of transferee,

attesting that 110858 Alberta Ltd. paid cash for the purchase. Caroca's affidavit was commissioned

by Ellis. No monies changed hands between 978742 Alberta Ltd. and 1101858 Alberta Ltd. in

completion of this transaction.

[461] On the same date, August 5, 2004, title was transferred from 1101858 Alberta Ltd. to

Correia. On July 23, 2004, the same date Ellis signed the transfer on behalf of 978742 Alberta Ltd.,

Caroca signed the transfer indicating that 1101858 AlbertaLtd. receivedconsideration inthe amount

of $135,000. Ellis witnessed Caroca's signature on this transfer of land. On July 23, 2004, Ellis

signed the affidavit of transferee as agent for Correia, attesting that Correia paid by way of cash and

Page: 92

new mortgage for the purchase. Ellis'affidavit was commissioned by Lauri Remin. Correia provided

no cash toward this purchase. On July 23, 2004, Brito signed a mortgage in favour of the TD Bank

in the amount of $99,750, under power of attorney for Correia. Brito's signature on this document

was witnessed by Ellis. This was the third of three mortgages obtained by Correia on Edmonton

properties between December 2003 and August 2004 as part of this scheme. Correia's introduction

to these transactions is described in the discussion regarding Count 19.

[462] The mortgage on 10712-103 Street was applied for through a mortgage broker employed by

the TD Bank named Carmela Grozic. The application tendered for this mortgage included various

false representations: Correia did not provide a down payment toward the purchase of this property;

the down payment was represented to have been generated from Correia's personal investments held

with CIBC and a gift from his brother, Alex Correia; as evidence of the gift, the TD Bank was

provided with a gift letter that falsely stated that Correia had received a $17,000 gift from his brother

on July 2, 2004; Correia does not have a brother named Alex Correia, and did not receive a cash gift

from anyone to be used as a down payment on this property; while Correia's had investments as

represented to the TD Bank, he did not use any of these assets toward the purchase of 10712-103

St.; not disclosed to the TD Bank were the mortgages in Correia's name on title to 11443-101 St. and

11920-77 St.; Correia did not intend to and did not reside at 10712-103 Street, and did not reside

there, contrary to the information represented to the TD Bank; tendered as part of the mortgage

application was a Real Estate Purchase Contract falsely indicating that the vendor of 10712-103

Street was Alex Silva rather than 1101858 Alberta Ltd.; Alex Silva is an alias for Brito; this

document falsely represented that Correia provided the vendor with a $2,600 initial deposit toward

the purchase of this property, and would provide the cash required to close the transaction of

$30,650; Correia provided no funds by way of deposit or otherwise toward the purchase of this

property; the document indicates that the sale was to be completed by June 25, 2004; also tendered

was a false MLS sheet representing to the lender that 10712-103 St. was listed on the MLS system

with a real estate agent, that the sale was an arm’s length transaction, and that the purchaser was a

bona fide purchaser for value; Correia did not deal with any real estate agent in the purchase and this

was not an arm's length transaction.

[463] The TD Bank relied on all of these representations in making the decision to provide

mortgage financing. Had the TD Bank been aware of the false nature of these representations, it

would not have provided mortgage funds to complete this real estate transaction. As a result of its

reliance on the misrepresentations in this mortgage application, the economic interest of the TD

Bank was put at risk in the amount of $99,750.

[464] I find that the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Ellis committed the actus

reus of fraud by providing false information to the TD Bank in support of the mortgage application,

which false information put its economic interests at risk.

[465] The proceeds of this mortgage were provided to the Venkatraman law firm. These funds

would not have been sufficient cash to close this purchase based on the purchase price of $135,000.

No funds were provided by Correia to make up the shortfall.

Page: 93

[466] On February 7, 2005, Colleen Hinch, a certified property appraiser employed with CDC

Consulting Services Inc., prepared an appraisal of this property, having been retained by the TD to

assess the market value of 10712-103 Street. Hinch concluded that this property had a market value

of between $79,000 and $80,000 at that time.

[467] This was Correia’s third dealing with the Venkatraman law firmand Ellis. He had previously

purchased and obtained mortgages on 11443-101 St. in December of 2003 and on 11920-77 St.

(Count 19) in March/April of 2004. He testified that he granted Brito his power of attorney as in July

of 2004 he was on holidays in Europe for four weeks. Brito gave him $3,000 before he left. Correia

stated that he never gave Ellis authority to act as his agent. However, as stated above Ellis swore the

affidavit of transferee as agent for Correia which stated that she knew the circumstances of the

transfer, that the true consideration was cash to new mortgage and that the current value of the land

in her opinion was $135,000. Although Correia was unsophisticated with respect to real estate

transactions, I found him to be a credible witness and accept his testimony that he did not give Ellis

authority to act as his agent.

[468] Correia also testified that he never borrowed $20,250 from Ellis. He knew nothing of an

unregistered second mortgage with respect to 10712-103 Street signed by Brito under power of

attorney for Correia which stated that Ellis had loaned the above amount to him. This document was

seized from Ellis’ home pursuant to the search warrant.

[469] With respect to the purchase and mortgage of 10712-103 St. it is apparent that Ellis knew

that Correia had no interest in this transaction other than as a straw buyer. Penney confirmed that

when working as an assistant to Ellis she prepared reporting letters to purchasers and the statements

of receipts and adjustments. She stated that after preparing the reporting letters she gave them to

Ellis as she understood that Ellis would deliver them. Penney identified a reporting letter to Correia

dated September 24, 2004 regarding the purchase and mortgage of 10712-103 St. which she had

prepared and signed on behalf of the firm. It was subsequently seized from Ellis’ home on July 14,

2005. In my view, this is further evidence that Ellis understood Correia was no more than a straw

buyer and had no interest in receiving a reporting letter.

[470] Further, I find that Ellis knew the value of the property was not $135,000, given her

involvement in the prior transfers.

[471] On the entirety of the evidence, including that referenced in relation to prior counts, I do not

have a reasonable doubt regarding Ellis' guilt on this Count. I find that the Crown has proven beyond

a reasonable doubt that Ellis committed dishonest acts in providing false information to the TD Bank

in support of the mortgage application which put the TD Bank at economic risk, and further that she

knew that her acts were dishonest and that they put the Bank at risk.

Count 23

[472] Count23allegesthatEllis, between November 1, 2004 and January 30, 2005, defrauded ING

of $106,500 by providing false information in support of a mortgage application in the name of Aziz

for 11710-92 Street.

Page: 94

[473] Paragraphs 384 to 398 of the Agreed Statement of Facts pertain to this allegation. 11710-92

Street was purchased by Ellis on September 30, 2004. On September 29, 2004, Pillay signed the

affidavit of transferee as agent for Ellis attesting that she paid cash and assumed the mortgage held

by the vendors, Wayne and Sharon McCormick as consideration in this purchase. The vendors held

a mortgage on this property with Capital City Savings and Credit Union. Pillay attested to a value

of $78,000.

[474] On December 15, 2004, title was transferred from Ellis to 1131029 Alberta Ltd. (director

was Pervez; Ellis and Esmail were later added as directors retroactively to October 2004). On

December 10, 2004, Ellis signed the transfer of land representing that she received $78,000

consideration in this sale. Ellis' signature was witnessed by Worrell. On December 8, 2004, Worrell

signed the affidavit of transferee on behalf of 1131029 Alberta Ltd. attesting that 1131029 Alberta

Ltd. paid consideration by way of cash to Ellis in this purchase. No monies were exchanged between

1131029 Alberta Ltd. and Ellis in this transaction.

[475] On the same date, December 15, 2004, title was transferred from 1131029 Alberta Ltd. to

Aziz. On December 9, 2004, Pervez signed the transfer of land on behalf of 1131029 Alberta Ltd.

The consideration received by1131029 Alberta Ltd. was represented tobe$142,000. Elliswitnessed

Pervez's signature on this transfer of land. On December 10, 2004, Aziz signed the affidavit of

transferee, attesting that he paid consideration by way of cash and new mortgage. Aziz's affidavit

was commissioned by Ellis. Aziz paid no cash toward the purchase of this property. On December

10, 2004, Aziz signed a mortgage in favour of ING in the amount of $106,500. Aziz's signature on

this document was witnessed by Ellis. This mortgage was signed approximately nine months after

the mortgage on 11935-91 St. (Count 18) and approximately eight months after the mortgage on

10811-152 Street (Count 20). This was the fifth of five mortgages obtained by Aziz on Edmonton

properties between October 2002 and December 2004.

[476] The mortgage on 11710-92 Street was brokered by Bethell. He received the four mortgage

applications he processed for Pervez, including the Aziz mortgage application, from Pervez by fax.

With regard to the Aziz mortgage applicationon 11710-92 Street, Bethell had no dealings with Aziz,

but dealt only with Pervez.

[477] The application tendered for this mortgage included various false representations: Aziz did

not provide a down payment toward the purchase of 11710-92 St.; the down payment was

represented to have been generated by the sale of Aziz's property at 10811-152 St. (Count 20); as

evidence of this sale, a Real Estate Purchase Contract was tendered reflecting a sale of this property

by Aziz to George and Catherine Sweeney for a price of $140,000 by way of deposit of $5,000,

assumption of mortgage, and cash to close of $38,416.63; this sale was to have been completed on

November 22, 2004; Aziz does not know George and Catherine Sweeney; Aziz did not sell the

property at 10811-152 St. in the manner described, nor in this time frame; this document represented

false information with regard to Aziz's debt load given that the Sweeneys were to have assumed the

mortgage on this property; as further evidence of this sale, ING was provided with a statement of

adjustments demonstrating a sale of this property to George and Catherine Sweeney for $140,000;

Aziz did not intend to and did not reside at 11710-92 St.; he resided, and continued to reside

Page: 95

throughout, at his family home located at 9630-80 Street in Fort Saskatchewan; tendered as part of

the mortgage application, and as a condition of mortgage financing, was a Real Estate Purchase

Contract representing that the vendor was Ali Investments (one of the trade names for 912715

Alberta Ltd. - director Pervez) rather than 1131029 Alberta Ltd.; the document represented that Aziz

provided the vendor with a $5,000 initial deposit toward the purchase of this property, and would

provide the cash required to close the transaction of $30,500; Aziz provided no funds by way of

deposit or otherwise toward the purchase of this property; the document indicated that the sale was

to be completed by November 5, 2004; also tendered was the appraisal of Chapman indicating a

market value of $142,000; on December 8, 2004, Chapman sent correspondence to ING confirming

that renovations on 11710-92 Street had been completed.

[478] ING relied on all of these representations in making the decision to provide mortgage

financing. Had ING been aware that these representations were false, it would not have provided

mortgage funds to complete this real estate transaction. As a result of its reliance on the

misrepresentations in this mortgage application, the economic interest of ING was put at risk in the

amount of $106,500.

[479] I find that the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Ellis committed the actus

reus of fraud by providing false information to ING in support of the mortgage application, the

provision of which put its economic interests at risk.

[480] The following evidence relates to Ellis’ state of mind at the time. The proceeds of this

mortgage were provided to the Venkatraman law firm. These funds would not have been sufficient

cash to close this purchase based on the purchase price of $142,000. No funds were provided by

Aziz to make up the shortfall.

[481] It was in the fall of 2004 that Penney went to a title insurance seminar where one of the

topics was mortgage fraud. Penney stated that when she heard the details she came to the realization

that “this is exactly what is happening at my office with the clients we have”. She stated that she was

all excited and went back to the office and told the lawyers and staff what she had learned. She told

Ellis that it did not seem right and that it seemed to her that Pervez and the others might be

committing mortgage fraud. Penney stated that she persisted but Ellis became annoyed with her for

asking so many questions and gave her less and less work to do.

[482] Ellis’ son, DeAgostini, testified that he thought George and Catherine Sweeney were a great

uncle and great aunt on his mother’s side living in Ontario. When questioned about the Sweeneys,

Ellis was purposely obtuse in her responses but essentially denied having any relatives by that name.

Ellis did acknowledge having used the name Karen Sweeney on documents. She stated that it was

a family name and that she used it as a pseudonym for 1176587 Alberta Ltd. DeAgostini testified

that he witnessed his mother sign the name Karen Sweeney in 2005.

[483] Ellis had purchased this property on September 30, 2004 for $78,000. She signed a transfer

to 1131029 Alberta Ltd. (director was Pervez; Ellis and Esmail were later added as directors

retroactively to October 2004) on December 10, 2004, representing that she received $78,000

consideration in this sale. This was a sham transaction, as no monies changed hands. Ellis witnessed

Page: 96

Pervez’s signature on behalf of 1131029 Alberta Ltd. on December 9, 2004 on the transfer to Aziz

and a day later commissioned Aziz’ affidavit of transferee indicating consideration by way of cash

and new mortgage and a value of $142,000. I find that she knew this value was very inflated. On the

same date, Ellis witnessed Aziz’ signature on the ING mortgage in the amount of $106,500. I find

that she knew the value of the mortgage exceeded the market value.

[484] Aspreviously mentioned, Ellis assumed Aziz’s mortgage on 11502-82 St. (Count 14) in June

2004. The purchase price for this property was represented to be $127,000 but no money changed

hands between Ellis and Aziz in this transaction. On June 1, 2004, Aziz signed the transfer of land

indicating that he received consideration in the amount of $127,000 on this sale and Ellis signed the

affidavit of transferee attesting that she paid consideration by way of cash and assumption of

mortgage for the purchase. Ellis assumed this mortgage at Pervez's direction, and Pervez provided

her with funds to service the TD Bank mortgage on the property.

[485] Ellis also assumed Aziz’ mortgage on 11935-91 St. (Count 18) in June 2004 on the same date

as the title to 11502-82 Street transferred to her. The purchase price for this property was

represented to be $148,000 but no money changed hands between Ellis and Aziz in this transaction.

On June 1, 2004, Aziz signed the transfer of land associated with this transaction, indicating

consideration received by him of $148,000, and Ellis signed the affidavit of transferee, attesting that

she paid consideration by way of cash and assumption of mortgage, for the purchase. Ellis assumed

this mortgage at Pervez's direction, and Pervez provided her with funds to service the MCAP

mortgage on this property that had been assumed by Ellis.

[486] As well, Ellis tried to assume the mortgage on 10811-152 St. (Count 20) in June 2004, and

no cash was provided. Title transferred to Ellis on the same date as the two transfers mentioned

above. The purchase price for this property was represented to be $129,500 but no monies changed

hands between Ellis and Aziz in this transaction. On June 1, 2004, Aziz signed the transfer of land

associated with this transaction indicating consideration received by him of $129,500, and Ellis

signed the affidavit of transferee filed with the Land Titles Office attesting that she paid

consideration in the amount of $129,500 for the purchase by way of cash and assumption of

mortgage on the property. On June 15, 2004, an unsigned letter on Venkatraman & Purewal

letterhead was sent to ING confirming the transfer of 10811-152 Street to Ellis. This transfer was

not approved by ING Accordingly, on November 9, 2004, title to this property was transferred back

to Aziz. (The property was eventually transferred to Ellis on February 16, 2005. Ellis assumed that

mortgage at Pervez's direction, and Pervez provided Ellis with funds to service the ING mortgage

on this property.)

[487] Aziz testified that he wanted these properties out of his name. He had entered the

arrangement on the understanding that money would be provided to him to service the mortgages.

Ellis and Sekhon provided money to him to make mortgage payments. When these funds were not

forthcoming, he decided he wanted the properties transferred out of his name. This is why Ellis

transferred title and assumed the mortgages.

[488] Further, Worrell’s signature was forged as witness of transferor Aziz, as Commissioner on

the affidavit of transferee of Ellis, on the affidavit of execution and as Commissioner of the dower

Page: 97

affidavit of Aziz on a transfer of land dated November 12, 2004 of 10811-152 Street from Aziz to

Ellis for $140,000 cash. I find that Ellis forged Worrell’s signature on these documents.

[489] Based on this evidence, I conclude that Ellis knew that no down payment was to be generated

by the sale of Aziz's property at 10811-152 St. (Count 20) as title was in her name at that time, and

that the Real Estate Purchase Contract and statement of adjustments reflecting a sale of this property

by Aziz to George and Catherine Sweeney (which I accept may be the names of Ellis’ relatives in

Ontario) for a price of $140,000 to be completed on November 22, 2004 were false. As she knew

no money would be forthcoming from 10811-152 St., I find that she knew that Aziz would provide

no funds to close this transaction. Further, Ellis had already had experience with at least three

mortgages where Aziz did not reside on the property as he purported to intend to do.

[490] As well, at some point in 2004, Jindal began to get telephone calls from lenders with regard

to mortgage arrears on 11245-94 Street (Count 16). On July 18, 2004, a letter from the Venkatraman

law firm requested a mortgage assumption statement for this property. On July 26, 2004, a cheque

in the amount of $2,481.84 drawn on the Venkatraman law firm trust account was sent to MCAP

to provide for the arrears on the Jindal mortgage. On August 10, 2004, title to 11245-94 Street

transferred to Ellis. In July 2004, no specific date indicated, Jindal signed the transfer of land

associated with this transaction. The consideration received by him was represented to be $144,000.

Heather Robson, an employee at the Venkatraman law firm, witnessed Jindal's signature on this

transfer of land document. On July 27, 2004, Ellis signed the affidavit of transferee pertaining to this

purchase. In this document, Ellis attested that she paid consideration by way of cash and assumption

of mortgage for the purchase of 11245-94 Street. Ellis provided no cash toward the purchase of this

property, and Jindal did not receive any of the proceeds that should have been associated to this sale.

[491] On September 7, 2004, title to 11447-90 Street (Count 5, Madan) was transferred from

1112360 Alberta Ltd. (Pervez sole director) to 1101867 Alberta Ltd. (Kahlon sole director). On

August 5, 2004, Pervez signed the transfer of land on behalf of 1112360 Alberta Ltd. The

consideration received by the company was represented to be $135,000. Ellis signed the affidavit

of transferee, attesting that 1101867 Alberta Ltd. paid cash for the purchase of 11447-90 Street. On

September 16, 2004, title to 11447-90 Street was transferred to Lally, who was recruited into this

transaction by Kahlon. On August 5, 2004, Kahlon signed the transfer of land associated with this

transaction on behalf of 1101867 Alberta Ltd. This was the same day that Pervez signed the transfer

of land that sold this property to 1101867 Alberta Ltd. The consideration received by 1101867

Alberta Ltd. was represented to be $135,000. On September 3, 2004, Lally signed the affidavit of

transferee, attesting that he paid $135,000, by way of cash and new mortgage, to purchase 11447-90

Street. This information was false. No cash was provided by Lally toward the purchase of this

property. Lally's affidavit was commissioned by Ellis. Also on September 3, 2004, Lally signed a

mortgage in favour of ING in the amount of $132,418.12. Lally provided none of the cash to close

this transaction.

[492] As well, on November 24, 2004, title to 6904-127 Avenue (Count 17, Jindal) had transferred

to 1101867 Alberta Ltd. At the time of this transaction, Kahlon was the sole director of 1101867

Alberta Ltd. On July 28, 2004, Jindal signed the transfer of land. The consideration received by

Jindal was represented to be $136,000. Ellis witnessed Jindal's signature on the transfer of land. On

Page: 98

July 28, 2004, Ellis signed the affidavit of transferee as agent for 1101867 Alberta Ltd., attesting

that 1101867 Alberta Ltd. paid consideration by way of cash and assumption of mortgage for the

purchase of 6904-127 Avenue. 1101867 Alberta Ltd. provided no cash toward the purchase of this

property, and Jindal did not receive any of the proceeds were represented to have been generated

by this sale.

[493] It was around the time of the signing of the 11710-92 St. sale documentation underlying this

Count 23 that Venkatraman learned that Ellis was opening real estate files in his name without his

knowledge, and that these files were not being billed.

[494] Furthermore, in November, 2004 Ellis named Pervez as the beneficiary of optional life

insurance of $70,000. Pervez had bought the Lexus for her by this time, as she stated in her

testimony that she owed Pervez money for the Lexus when she put him on as beneficiary. She also

put Pervez on her Blue Cross Plan in November 2004 as her common law spouse. Ellis signed on

behalf of both the employer and employee, certifying that all of the information was true and

complete. In my view, this is evidence that Ellis’ relationship with Pervez, at least by November

2004, was much more involved than the usual one between law firm conveyancer and law firm

client.

[495] Given all of the above evidence regarding Ellis’ involvement in the mortgage fraud,

including evidence in relation to previous counts, what I have found to be her knowledge of the true

circumstances in relation to 10811-152 St. and transfer of title of that property into her name, and

her knowledge of the true value of the property at 11710-92 St., I am convinced beyond a reasonable

doubt that Ellis committed dishonest acts in relation to provision of information to ING for the

purpose of Aziz obtaining the ING mortgage on the 11710-92 Street property which put ING at

economic risk, and that she did so knowing of the falsity of the information and the consequent

economic risk to ING.

Count 24

[496] Count 24 alleges that Ellis, between November 1, 2004 and January 30, 2005, defrauded

RBC of $84,000 by providing false information in support of a mortgage application in the name

of Palwinder Kahlon for 11925-78 Street.

[497] Paragraphs 399 to 413 of the Agreed Statement of Facts are relevant to this allegation.

11925-78 Street was purchased by 978742 Alberta Ltd. (Pervez was sole director at the time) on

June 4, 2003. On May 26, 2003, Pervez signed the affidavit of transferee as agent for 978742

Alberta Ltd. on the purchase of 11925-78 Street. Pervez attested that 978742 Alberta Ltd. paid cash

to the vendor, GrahamHarbak, and that thevalue was $48,000. Pervez's affidavit was commissioned

by Bindon. On December 22, 2004, title was transferred from 978742 Alberta Ltd. to Palwinder

Kahlon. On December 20, 2004, Ellis signed the transfer of land associated with this transaction

under power of attorney. The consideration received by 978742 Alberta Ltd. was represented to be

$112,000. Worrell witnessed Ellis' signature on this transfer of land. On December 20, 2004,

Palwinder Kahlon signed the affidavit of transferee associated with this transaction, attesting that

he paid consideration by way of cash and new mortgage for the purchase of this property. No monies

Page: 99

changed hands between Palwinder Kahlon and 978742 Alberta Ltd. at the time of this transaction.

On December 20, 2004, Palwinder Kahlon's signature appears on a mortgage in favour of the RBC

in the amount of $84,000, witnessed by Ellis.

[498] The mortgage on 11925-78 Street was applied for directly at a RBC branch office in

Edmonton, Alberta. The application tendered for this mortgage included various false

representations: Palwinder Kahlon did not provide a down payment toward the purchase of this

property; the down payment was represented to have been generated by the sale of one of Palwinder

Kahlon's properties; Palwinder Kahlon did not generate any monies from the sale of any of the

properties that he owned; it was represented to the RBC that 11925-78 Street was purchased as an

investment property, and intended to be used as a rental property; as evidence of the income that

would be generated by this property, the RBC was provided with a rental agreement dated October

1, 2004 representing that Palwinder Kahlon had rented the property to Karen Hislop for $850 per

month; Palwinder Kahlon never had any involvement in the rental of any of the properties in his

name; he has never met Karen Hislop; his signature on this rental agreement is forged; Karen Hislop

is an employee at Capital Heath who has conducted numerous inspections on properties owned by

Pervez and his co-conspirators; Hislop never entered into any rental agreement with regard to

11925-78 Street; this document provided false information with regard to Palwinder Kahlon'sability

to service the mortgage that was applied for; a Real Estate Purchase Contract was tendered

representing that Palwinder Kahlon provided 978742 Alberta Ltd. with a $5,000 initial deposit

toward the purchase of this property, and would provide the cash required to close the transaction

of $23,000; Palwinder Kahlon provided no funds by way of deposit or otherwise toward the

purchase of this property; also provided was the appraisal of Chapman indicating a market value of

$112,000.

[499] The RBC relied on all of these representations in making the decision to provide mortgage

financing. Had the RBC been aware of the false nature of these representations, it would not have

provided mortgage funds to complete this real estate transaction. As a result of its reliance on the

misrepresentations in this mortgage application, the economic interest of the RBC was put at risk

in the amount of $84,000.

[500] Palwinder Kahlon testified that he wanted this property for rental property. Ellis at this point

in time had already been involved in a purchase and mortgage on part of Palwinder Kahlon (Counts

13, and 21). In fact Ellis testified that she had gone to Palwinder Kahlon’s home on four occasions

and never recalled him coming into the office.

[501] While Ellis was by this point in time clearly involved in the mortgage fraud scheme, the facts

with respect to this transaction are that Kahlon appears to have intended to purchase this as a rental

property. He apparently did not indicate that he intended to live in it. At most, one can say Ellis was

aware that Kahlon was involved in other sham transactions. She probably knew that no money

changed hands between Palwinder Kahlon and 978742 Alberta Ltd. However, it is conceivable that

legitimate transactions were entered into by some of the participants and that she believed this to

be one such transaction.

Page: 100

[502] While it is arguable that Ellis was reckless with respect to information provided to RBC on

this transaction, given her knowledge of and involvement in the mortgage fraud scheme at this time,

I find on the facts peculiar to this transaction that I am left with a reasonable doubt as to whether

Ellis is guilty as charged on Count 24.

Count 25

[503] Count 25 alleges that Ellis, between January 1, 2005 and March 30, 2005, defrauded ING

Bank of Canada (“ING Bank”) of $83,250 by providing false information in support of a mortgage

application in the name of Rai for 11904-96 Street.

[504] Paragraphs 415 to 432 of the Agreed Statement of Facts are relevant to this allegation.

11904-96 Street was purchased by 923080 Alberta Ltd. (Monahan and Javaid were directors at the

time) on August 9, 2001. In July 2001, Park signed the affidavit of transferee as agent for 923080

Alberta Ltd. on the purchase of 11904-96 Street. Park attested that 923080 Alberta Ltd. paid cash

to the vendor, Nancy Smolcec, and that the value was $42,000. Park's affidavit was not

commissioned. On September 5, 2001, title was transferred from923080 Alberta Ltd. to Dos Santos.

On July 7, 2001, Pervez signed the transfer of land on behalf of 923080 Alberta Ltd. reflecting

consideration received of $97,000. Bindon witnessed Pervez's signature on this transfer. On August

20, 2001, Park signed the false affidavit of transferee as agent for Dos Santos, attesting that she paid

consideration, by way of cash and new mortgage, for the purchase; Dos Santos paid no cash toward

the purchase. On August 28, 2001, Dos Santos' signature, witnessed by Park, appeared on a

mortgage in favour of the National Bank of Canada in the amount of $72,750.

[505] Dos Santos was one of several straw buyers that Monahan recruited on Pervez's behalf as

part of this scheme. Between September 2001 and January 2003, Dos Santos applied for and

obtained mortgages on six properties in Edmonton, Alberta. Pervez received the profits associated

with all of the mortgages that she obtained. Dos Santos was paid a fee of between $800 and $1,000

for each mortgage. Every mortgage that Dos Santos obtained was secured by the lender's reliance

on material misrepresentations that were consistent with those described in all of the other fraud

allegations. Specifically, Dos Santos put no money toward down payments on these properties, she

had no connection to these properties, she did not reside in these properties, she was not responsible

for mortgage payments on these properties, and she had no involvement in the purchase of these

properties except to permit her name and credit rating to be used to secure mortgage financing.

[506] On June 12, 2002, title was transferred from Dos Santos to Home Steader Inc. At the time

of this purchase, Mehnga Matharu was the sole director of Home Steader Inc. This purchase was

part of a bulk purchase of several properties by Home Steader Inc. from Pervez. Home Steader Inc.

was later directed by Brito and Caroca. On May 31, 2002, Dos Santos signed the transfer of land

indicating that she received consideration in the amount of $97,000 on the sale of 11904-96 Street.

Monahan witnessed Dos Santos' signature. However, Dos Santos received no cash from the sale of

11904-96 Street. On May 31, 2002, Matharu signed the affidavit of transferee as agent for Home

Steader Inc., attesting that the company paid consideration by way of assumption of mortgage in this

purchase.

Page: 101

[507] On May 29, 2003, Capital Health authorities filed a Notice of Health Hazard on the title of

11904-96 Street. On June 9, 2004, the National Bank of Canada filed a final order of foreclosure on

this property. On August 6, 2004, the National Bank of Canada sold 11904-96 St. to 1112360

Alberta Ltd. (Pervez was the sole director at the time) for $58,250. Bischoff’s evidence shows a

client inquiry report for client file 25329 (1090316 Alberta Ltd. purchase of 11904-96 St., contact

Carman Gohar). The trust details show posting of a transfer from client file 20146 (978742 Alberta

Ltd. general file) to client file 25329 on July 30, 2004 in the amount of $53,537.33 and a payment

to Duncan & Craig on client file 25329 posted on the same date for $53,537.33.

[508] On February 11, 2005, title was transferred to Rai. On February 8, 2005, Pervez signed the

transfer of land on behalf of 1112360 Alberta Ltd. The consideration received by 1112360 Alberta

Ltd. was represented to be $111,000. Ellis witnessed Pervez's signature. On February 8, 2005, Ellis

signed the affidavit of transferee as agent for Rai, attesting that Rai paid consideration by way of

cash and new mortgage for the purchase of this property. Rai paid no cash toward the purchase. On

February 8, 2005, Rai's signature, witnessed by Ellis, appeared on a mortgage in favour of the ING

Bank in the amount of $83,250.

[509] Rai was Kahlon's childhood friend. He was recruited into this scheme by Kahlon, who

offered him the opportunity to invest in real estate for a profit. Rai purchased two properties as part

of this scheme. This was the second property that he purchased. With regard to 11904-96 Street,

Kahlon asked Rai to qualify for a mortgage. Rai had never seen this property, and had no connection

to it other than applying for and signing documents associated to the mortgage. Kahlon paid Rai

$1,000 for participating in this transaction.

[510] The Rai mortgage on 11904-96 Street was brokered by Bethell. The application tendered for

this mortgage included various false representations: Rai did not provide a down payment toward

the purchase of this property; the down payment was represented to have been generated by the sale

of 12032-96 Street, the first property that Rai purchased as part of this scheme; as evidence of this

sale, ING was provided with a Real Estate Purchase Contract representing a sale of 12032-96 Street

by Rai to Pinky Mangat for $160,000 to close on December 28, 2004; the contract indicated that Rai

received a $5,000 deposit from the purchase, and would receive $27,000 cash to close this

transaction; Pinky Mangat is a fictitious person; Kahlon had a fiancé named Pinky Sailopal; as

further evidence of this sale, a statement of adjustments was provided representing a sale of this

property by Rai to Pinky Mangat for $160,000 to close on December 28, 2004; the statement of

adjustments was faxed from the Venkatraman law office; by December 2004, the lender had already

foreclosed on Rai's property at 12032-96 Street, and Rai no longer owned this property; Rai did not

know Pinky Mangat, and he did not, nor could he, sell the property at 12032-96 Street; Rai did not

intend to and did not reside at 11904-96 St.; a Real Estate Purchase Contract was tendered

representing that Rai provided 1112360 Alberta Ltd. with a $5,000 initial deposit toward the

purchase of this property, and would provide the cash required to close the transaction of $22,750;

Rai provided no funds by way of deposit or otherwise toward the purchase of this property; also

tendered was the appraisal of Chapman which appraised 11904-96 Street as having a market value

of $111,000.

Page: 102

[511] ING Bank relied on all of these representations when considering the Rai mortgage

application. Had ING Bank been aware of that these representations were false, it would not have

approved the Rai mortgage application. As a result of its reliance on the misrepresentations in this

mortgage application, the economic interest of ING Bank was put at risk in the amount of $83,250.

[512] I find that the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Ellis committed the actus

reus of fraud by providing false information to ING in support of the mortgage application which

put its economic interests at risk.

[513] As for Ellis’ state of mind, I note that Rai signed the mortgage documents associated with

this purchase at Ellis' home. Rai did not pay any of the legal fees associated with this purchase. Rai

was not asked about the cash required to close this transaction, nor any other questions associated

with the conditions of mortgage financing. Rai met with Ellis on three occasions to sign documents

while she was still employed with the Venkatraman firm. All three meetings were outside the office.

Rai testified that he never read the documents, but just signed where directed by Ellis. I accept Rai’s

evidence, and find that Rai’s failure to read the documents would have been obvious to Ellis.

[514] Rai testified that Ellis signed the affidavit of transferee as Rai’s agent on February 8, 2005

without his knowledge or consent. On the same date, she witnessed Rai’s signature on the mortgage.

She commissioned his false dower affidavit stating he was not married, however he was married on

June 26, 2004 and I find that Ellis knew this, as Ellis had met with him during his wedding week in

June 2004.

[515] An envelope addressed to Rai from Venkatraman & Purewal was seized from Ellis’

residence on July 14, 2005. It contained a reporting letter to Rai dated February 22, 2005 and Rai’s

statutory declaration, dated February 8, 2005, commissioned byEllis, statingthatthepropertywould

be occupied as his principal residence and the down payment was from his own resources and not

borrowed. Penney identified this reporting letter as she had prepared this on Ellis’ direction and

signed it on behalf of the firm. In my view, this is further evidence that Ellis understood Rai was no

more than a straw buyer.

[516] Also seized was a cheque stub number 0064 dated February 8, 2005 to Rai for $1,000, and

cancelled cheque number 0064 dated February 8, 2005 to Rai from Terry Ellis o/a Terry Ellis

Consulting, in the amount of $1,000. This was the same date that Pervez signed the transfer of land,

Ellis witnessed Pervez's signature, signed the affidavit of transferee as agent for Rai, and witnessed

Rai’s signature on the mortgage.

[517] It is noteworthy with respect to Ellis’ knowledge and awareness of the fraudulent scheme

that on November 26, 2004, Firstline was granted a final order of foreclosure on 8409-118 Avenue

(Count 4, Heinrichs). The property's value at the time of foreclosure was stated to be $55,000. On

February 1, 2005, Firstline sold the property at 8409-118 Avenue to 1131029 Alberta Ltd. for

$64,000, resulting in a loss of approximately $40,000, the difference between the mortgage

advanced and the proceeds of the sale of the property after foreclosure. At the time of the purchase

of 8409-118 Avenue, Pervez, Ellis and Esmail were directors of 1131029 Alberta Ltd. Ellis swore

Page: 103

the affidavit of transferee filed in the purchase of this property on behalf of 1131029 Alberta Ltd.

on January 27, 2005. The funds required for the purchase of this property were provided by Pervez.

[518] Also, at some point in 2004, Jindal began to get telephone calls from lenders with regard to

mortgage arrears on 11933-78 Street (Count 7). Jindal contacted Ellis in an effort to locate Kahlon,

who had stopped making mortgage payments. Ellis completed documents to transfer the properties

into the names of other parties. Pervez provided Ellis with the funds to service these mortgages. On

January 18, 2004, Jindal attended at the Venkatraman law office, where he met with Ellis. Jindal

signed the transfer of land associated with this transaction. The consideration received by him was

represented to be $130,000. Ellis witnessed Jindal's signature on the transfer of land document. On

January 10, 2004, Ellis signed the affidavit of transferee as agent for the purchaser, Larson, attesting

that Larson paid consideration, by way of cash and assumption, of Jindal's mortgage, for the

purchase of 11933-78 Street. Larson provided no cash toward the purchase of this property, and

Jindal did not receive any of the proceeds that should have been generated from the sale. The

transfer was not filed until March 13, 2004. There was a delay between the preparation of the

transfer documents and the registration of the transfer.

[519] Further, in late 2004, Pervez proposed to Kydd that he "give" several properties to her. Kydd

understood this to be a business proposition, and that she and Pervez were going to renovate these

properties and sell them at a profit. Kydd understood that Pervez wanted to assist her to enter the

real estate business. Kydd believed that Pervez was offering to do her a favour. Kydd made an

appointment with Jason Daniel (“Daniel”), a branch manager with the RBC, with whom she had a

long-standing business relationship. The purpose of this appointment was to discuss the Pervez

proposal. On December 23, 2004, Daniel met with Pervez and Kydd. Pervez did most of the talking

during this meeting. He explained to Daniel that he intended to transfer four or five properties into

Kydd's name. Kydd would secure a line of credit with the RBC in the amount of 75% of the

appraised value of each property. Pervez and Kydd would then renovate and sell the properties at

a profit. Pervez presented the same proposal to Daniel for two other persons, identified as Esmail

and Aziz.

[520] After this meeting, Pervez provided Daniel with appraisals on the properties, as well as

transfer documents evidencing the transfer of these properties into Kydd's name. The properties that

Pervez proposed to transfer into Kydd's name were:

I.

10630-95 Street

Pervez provided Daniel with an appraisal on this property completed by Chapman.

This appraisal valued this property at $145,000. In furtherance of Pervez's proposal,

Ellis faxed correspondence to Daniel confirming the transfer of this property to

Kydd. A 75% line of credit would secure a loan of approximately $108,000. This

property was initially purchased by 923080 Alberta Ltd. in October 2002 for

$57,500. In December 2002, title to this property transferred to Keith Rayner for

$165,000. Secured on title was a mortgage in favour of Maple Trust Company in the

amount of $144,789. Rayner was a straw buyer recruited by Brito and Caroca.

Rayner had no interest in this property. On February 6, 2004, title to this property

Page: 104

transferred to Caroca with a represented purchase price of $163,000. On April 22,

2004, Capital Health authorities registered a Notice of Health Hazard on title to this

property, declaring the premises unfit for human habitation. On May 5, 2004, Maple

Trust Company was granted a final order of foreclosure on this property. On

November10, 2004, 1131029Alberta Ltd. purchased this property fromMaple Trust

Company. At the time of this purchase, this company was directed by Pervez, Ellis

and Esmail. The purchase price was $73,500. Ellis signed the purchase documents

as agent for 1131029 Alberta Ltd. Maple Trust Company lost approximately $70,000

as a result of the fraudulently obtained Rayner mortgage. On January 5, 2005, this

property was transferred into Kydd's name. Ellis signed the transfer of land

documents on behalf of 1131029 Alberta Ltd. The sole purpose of the transfer to

Kydd was to facilitate the RBC line of credit on this property.

II.

9613-106A Avenue

Pervez provided Daniel with an appraisal on this property completed by Chapman.

This appraisal valued this property of $122,000. In furtherance of Pervez's proposal,

Ellis faxed correspondence to Daniel confirming the transfer of this property to

Kydd. A 75% line of credit would secure a loan of approximately $91,500. This

property was initially purchased by 1112360 Alberta Ltd. in September 2004 for

$65,500. At the time of this purchase, Pervez was the director of 1112360 Alberta

Ltd. In September 2004, title to this property was transferred to Pervez, with a

represented purchase price of $145,000. No funds changed hands in this transaction.

On October 27, 2004, title to this property was transferred to 1090316 Alberta Ltd.,

with a represented purchase price of $145,000. At the time of this transaction, Pervez

and Ellis were directors of this company. On January 12, 2005, this property was

transferred into Kydd's name. Ellis signed the transfer documents on behalf of

1090316 Alberta Ltd. The sole purpose of this transfer was to facilitate the RBC line

of credit on this property.

III.

12930-71 Street

Pervez provided Daniel with an appraisal on this property completed by Chapman.

This appraisal valued this property at $118,000. In furtherance of Pervez's proposal,

Ellis faxed correspondence to Daniel confirming the transfer of this property to

Kydd. A 75% line of credit would secure a loan of approximately $88,500. This

property was initially purchased by 1112360 Alberta Ltd. in November 2004 for

$61,500. At the time of this transaction, Pervez and Ellis were directors of this

company. On January 21, 2005, this property was transferred into Kydd's name. Ellis

signed the transfer of land documents on behalf of 1112360 Alberta Ltd. The sole

purpose of this transfer was to facilitate the RBC line of credit on this property.

IV.

9620-110 Avenue

Page: 105

Pervez provided Daniel with an appraisal on this property completed by Chapman.

This appraisal valued this property at $157,000. In furtherance of Pervez's proposal,

Ellis faxed correspondence to Daniel confirming the transfer of this property to

Kydd. A 75% line of credit would secure a loan of approximately $117,750. This

property was initially purchased by 1131029 Alberta Ltd. in January 2005 for

$91,000. At the time of this purchase, Pervez, Ellis and Esmail were directors of this

company. This property was never registered in Kydd's name.

[521] Daniel was suspicious about the legitimacy of these transactions. Accordingly, on behalf

of the RBC, he declined the applications for the secured lines of credit on these properties, as well

as the similar applications for Esmail and Aziz. Daniel advised his client, Kydd, not to involve

herself in this Pervez proposal. Had the Kydd applications been approved, Kydd would have been

responsible for lines of credit totalling approximately $405,750. Based on the purchase price paid

by the companies for each of the properties, this credit application would have generated a net profit

to Pervez of approximately $114,250.

[522] Pillay identified a letter dated January 6, 2005 on Venkatraman & Purewal letterhead to

Jason at RBC (Re: Kydd, file No: 85000-65/MP/TLE) prepared by Ellis where his signature had

been forged. I have found that this forgery was perpetrated by Ellis.

[523] Further, I find that Kydd’s signature was forged on three transfers of land dated January 28,

2005 from Kydd to 1131029 Alberta Ltd. of 10630-95 Street, 9613-106A Avenue and 12930-71

Street. Ellis was the witness to those signatures.

[524] As well, on December 29, 2004, title to 11330-84 Street (Count 21, Palwinder Kahlon) had

transferred to 1131029 Alberta Ltd. (Pervez was the sole director at the time). The purchase price

for this property was represented to be $75,000. No monies changed hands between 1131029

Alberta Ltd. and Palwinder Kahlon in this transaction. On December 21, 2004, Palwinder Kahlon

signed the transfer of land associated with this transaction. The consideration received by him was

represented to be $75,000. Ellis witnessed Palwinder Kahlon's signature on this transfer of land. On

December 20, 2004, Ellis, signed the affidavit of transferee as agent for 1090316 Alberta Ltd. She

attested that the company paid consideration by way of cash for the purchase of this property. In

fact, 1131029 Alberta Ltd. assumed Palwinder Kahlon's mortgage. Palwinder Kahlon testified, and

I accept, that his signature was forged on this transfer. Ellis signed as his witness and commissioned

his dower affidavit.

[525] On February 4, 2005, title to 11330-84 Street (Count 21) transferred to the name of 1101867

Alberta Ltd. (Kahlon was the sole director of 1101867 Alberta Ltd. at the time). The purchase price

for this property was represented to be $75,000. No monies changed hands between 1101867

Alberta Ltd. and 1131029 Alberta Ltd. in this transaction. On January 21, 2005, Ellis signed the

transfer of land associated with this transaction on behalf of 1131029 Alberta Ltd., indicating that

the consideration received by the vendor was $75,000. On January 21, 2005, Worrell signed the

affidavit of transferee as agent for 1101867 Alberta Ltd. She attested that the company paid

consideration by way of cash. In fact, 1101867 Alberta Ltd. assumed Palwinder Kahlon's mortgage.

Page: 106

Worrell's affidavit was commissioned by Kathleen George, an employee with the Venkatraman law

firm.

[526] On February 4, 2005, title to 11330-84 Street (Count 21) transferred to the name of Aparjit

Kahlon. The purchase price for this property was represented to be $115,000. No monies changed

hands between 1101867 Alberta Ltd. and Aparjit Kahlon in this transaction. On January 21, 2005,

Kahlon signed the transfer of land associated with this transaction on behalf of 1101867 Alberta Ltd.

The consideration received by that company was represented to be $115,000. Ellis witnessed

Kahlon's signature on this transfer of land. On January 21, 2005, Ellis signed the affidavit of

transferee associated with this transaction as agent for Aparjit Kahlon. She attested that Aparjit

Kahlon paid consideration by way of cash for the purchase of this property. In fact, a mortgage in

Aparjit Kahlon's name provided the funding for this purchase, and Aparjit Kahlon provided no cash.

On February 4, 2005, a RBC mortgage in the name of Aparjit Kahlon was secured on the title of this

property. The amount of the mortgage was $86,250. Aparjit Kahlon is the elder brother of Kahlon.

He is a resident of Calgary, Alberta. Aparjit Kahlon testified, and I accept, that he had no knowledge

of this transaction, of this property or of this mortgage. He did not apply for a mortgage from any

financial institution, and became aware of this property only when he received materials from

Venkatraman & Purewal pertaining to this purchase. Aparjit Kahlon paid this mortgage for several

months in order to avoid foreclosure and damage to his credit rating.

[527] Ellis testified that she met with both of Kahlon’s (Tony’s) brothers, or at least she was told

by Kahlon that they were his brothers. I find that if such representation was made to her with respect

to Aparjit, she was reckless as to its veracity. She testified that her usual practice was to require a

driver’s licence to verify identity. If no driver’s licence was provided to her with respect to Aparjit,

as was her usual practice, then she was reckless in processing this documentation. She testified that

she thought Aparjit’s driver’s licence was faxed in to her. However, given the volume of files she

stated she was working on and the number of people she met in relation to those files, I find that she

knew full well that having such evidence after the fact would essentially be useless. I do not believe

Ellis’ evidence that she ever met anyone purporting to be Aparjit Kahlon, however even if I did

accept this evidence, then I find that Ellis, in processing the mortgage documentation, proferred

documents with respect to Aparjit with the knowledge that there was a risk that the documents in

relation to this transaction were not authentic.

[528] Also in evidence was a document dated February 4, 2005 wherein Aziz granted Ellis power

of attorney. Ellis admitted that she forged Worrell’s name on the document as Commissioner for

Oaths on the affidavit of execution of DeAgostini, and on the affidavit of Aziz verifying corporate

signing authority.

[529] As noted above, Ellis also had forged Worrell’s signature as witness of transferor Aziz, as

Commissioner of affidavit of transferee of Ellis, on the affidavit of execution and as Commissioner

of the dower affidavit of Aziz on a transfer of land dated November 12, 2004 of 10811-152 Street

from Aziz to Ellis.

[530] The evidence points unmistakeably to Ellis’ intimate involvement in the mortgage fraud

scheme during the time period relevant to Count 25. I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that

Page: 107

Ellis committed dishonest acts in relation to Rai the mortgage application to ING Bank on the

11904-96 Street property, which put ING at economic risk. Ellis signed the affidavit of transferee

as Rai’s agent without his knowledge or consent, knowing that no money would change hands on

the transaction. She witnessed Rai’s signature on the mortgage and commissioned his false dower

affidavit knowing he was married. She paid Rai $1,000 through Terry Ellis Consulting on the date

the mortgage was signed which I conclude was either a fee or an advance to cover mortgage

amounts coming due. Given all of the above evidence regarding Ellis’ involvement in the mortgage

fraud, including evidence in relation to this Count, previous counts, and related matters, I am

convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Ellis committed fraudulent acts as alleged in Count 25

knowing of the falsity of the information provided and the consequent economic risk to ING.

Count 26

[531] Count 26 alleges that Ellis, between January 1, 2005 and March 30, 2005, defrauded ING

Bank of $90,000 by providing false information in support of a mortgage application in the name

of Palwinder Kahlon for 11331-93 Street.

[532] Paragraphs 433 to 447 of the Agreed Statement of Facts pertain to this allegation. 11331-93

Street was purchased by 1131029 Alberta Ltd. (Pervez was director at the time) on November 25,

2004. On November 19, 2004, Pillay signed the affidavit of transferee as agent for 1131029 Alberta

Ltd. on the purchase, attesting that 1131029 Alberta Ltd. paid cash in the amount of $69,500 to the

vendor, Jared Topilko, and that the value was $69,500. This affidavit was commissioned by Worrell.

[533] On February 16, 2005, title was transferred from 1131029 Alberta Ltd. to Palwinder Kahlon.

On February 14, 2005, Pervez signed the transfer of land associated with this transaction. The

consideration received by 1131029 Alberta Ltd. was represented to be $120,000. Ellis witnessed

Pervez's signature on this transfer. On February 14, 2005, Ellis signed the affidavit of transferee as

agent for Palwinder Kahlon, attesting that Kahlon paid consideration by way of cash and new

mortgage. No monies changed hands between Palwinder Kahlon and 1131029 Alberta Ltd. at the

time of this transaction. On February 14, 2005, Palwinder Kahlon's signature appears on a mortgage

in favour of ING Bank in the amount of $90,000. His signature was witnessed by Ellis. Palwinder

Kahlon's signature was forged on this mortgage.

[534] The ING mortgage was advanced after the same application to Resmor was declined. The

application to Resmor was made in January 2005, and was for the same dollar amount. Resmor

declined this mortgage application on the basis that the property was not worth the value attributed

to it in the appraisal.

[535] The mortgage on 11331-93 Street was brokered by Bethell. The application tendered for this

mortgage included various false representations:Palwinder Kahlon did not provide a down payment

toward the purchase of this property; the down payment was represented to have been generated by

the sale of 11330-84 Street (Count 21); as proof of the down payment, ING was provided with a

Real Estate Purchase Contract that represented that 11330-84 Street was sold to Greg Atwal on

December 30, 2004 for $115,000; a statement of adjustments outlining the specifics of this sale was

also provided; these documents falsely represented that Palwinder Kahlon received a deposit of

Page: 108

$3,000 from Atwal, and that Atwal would provide the cash to close the transaction after assuming

Palwinder Kahlon's mortgage on the property; the property at 11330-84 Street did not sell in the

manner represented in either of these documents; Greg Atwal is a fictitious name; Palwinder Kahlon

received none of the proceeds of the sale of 11330-84 Street, when it did sell in December 2004 to

1131029 Alberta Ltd. for $75,000; ING was provided a letter on the letterhead of Venkatraman &

Purewal dated February 4, 2005 signed by Ellis on behalf of Pillay, confirming funds in trust to the

credit of Palwinder Kahlon in the amount of $54,348.19, funds that represent the profit from the sale

of 11330-84 St.; Palwinder Kahlon did not intend to reside at 11331-93 Street, and did not reside

there; ING was provided with a statement dated December 27, 2004, purportedly authored by

Palwinder Kahlon, falsely representing that he intended to reside at 11331-93 St.; Palwinder

Kahlon's signature was forged on this document; Palwinder Kahlon resided, and continued to reside,

at 3316-30 Ave., the matrimonial home that he shared with his wife; a Real Estate Purchase Contract

was also tendered, falsely representing that Palwinder Kahlon provided 1131029 Alberta Ltd. with

a $5,000 initial deposit toward the purchase of this property, and would provide the cash required

to close the transaction of $25,000; Palwinder Kahlon provided no funds by way of deposit or

otherwise toward the purchase of this property; the document indicates that the sale was to be

completed by December 27, 2004; also tendered was the appraisal of Chapman indicating a market

value of $120,000.

[536] ING Bank relied on all of these representations in making the decision to provide mortgage

financing. Had ING Bank been aware of these false representations, it would not have provided

mortgage funds to complete this real estate transaction. As a result of its reliance on the

misrepresentations in this mortgage application, the economic interest of ING Bank was put at risk

in the amount of $90,000.

[537] Ellis’ further involvement in this property dates from August 2005 onward.

[538] Palwinder Kahlon gave evidence that he had no knowledge of this entire transaction. He

testified that his signature was forged on several documents, and that this property was put into his

name without his consent. In particular, his signature was forged on the mortgage witnessed by Ellis

and on the dower affidavit. He testified that he did not authorize Ellis to act as his agent on the

affidavit of transferee. He also testified that his signature was forged on documents relating to the

later transfer of this property out of his name. I accept this evidence.

[539] I find that the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Ellis committed the actus

reus of fraud by providing false information to ING Bank in support of the mortgage application

which put its economic interests at risk.

[540] In assessing Ellis’ state of mind, I also take into account the following evidence. Ellis

witnessed Pervez’s signature on February 14, 2005 on the transfer to 1131029 Alberta Ltd. where

the value was represented to be $120,000. She signed the affidavit of transferee as agent for

Palwinder Kahlon on the same date, and Palwinder Kahlon's forged signature appears on the

mortgage purportedly signed the same date, which signature was witnessed by Ellis. I accept the

evidence that Palwinder Kahlon did not sign this document. Either Ellis forged Palwinder Kalhon’s

Page: 109

signature on this document, or she saw someone else do it, who she knew not to be Palwinder

Kahlon as by this point in time she knew very well who Palwinder Kahlon was.

[541] The down payment was represented to have been generated by the sale of 11330-84 Street

(Count 21). Ellis knew that 11330-84 St. was transferred to 1131029 Alberta Ltd. (Pervez sole

director) on December 29, 2004. Ellis signed the affidavit of transferee as agent for 1090316 Alberta

Ltd., when in fact 1131029 Alberta Ltd. assumed the mortgage. No money was paid by Ellis. The

same property was transferred to 1101867 Alberta Ltd. (Kahlon sole director) on February 4, 2005.

On January 21, 2005, Ellis signed the transfer for this sale on behalf of 1131029 Alberta Ltd.

indicating consideration received as $75,000, but no money changed hands. The property was

transferred a second time on February 4, 2005 to Aparjit Kahlon with a purchase price of $115,000.

Again, no monies changed hands. On January 21, 2005, Kahlon signed the transfer on behalf of

1101867 Alberta Ltd. with consideration represented as being $115,000. Ellis witnessed Kahlon’s

signature on this transfer and signed the affidavit of transferee on the same date as agent for Aparjit

Kahlon. On February 4, 2005, a RBC mortgage for $86,250 in the name of Aparjit Kahlon was

secured on the title of this property. I have accepted that Aparjit Kahlon has no knowledge of this

transaction, of this property or of this mortgage and became aware of this property only when he

received materials from the Vekatraman firm pertaining to this purchase.

[542] I find Ellis was involved in preparation of the statement of adjustments provided to ING

showing Greg Atwal as purchaser of 11330-84 St., and that she knew Palwinder Kahlon would

receive none of the proceeds of the sale of 11330-84 St. when it did sell in December 2004 to

1131029 Alberta Ltd. for $75,000. Ellis knew there were no funds in trust to the credit of Palwinder

Kahlon in the amount of $54,348.19 as profit from the sale of 11330-84 St. at the time she signed

a letter to that effect on Venkatraman letterhead. She knew Palwinder Kahlon did not intend to

reside at 11331-93 St.

[543] I find that the evidence on this Count 26 is overwhelming and that the Crown has proven

beyond a reasonable doubt that Ellis committed dishonest acts in relation to obtaining this mortgage

which put ING at economic risk, and that she knew the acts were dishonest and that they put ING

at economic risk.

General Comments

[544] Before moving on to Counts 27 and 28, it is appropriate to address Defence counsel’s

argument that Ellis is not guilty on any of the foregoing individual fraud charges as she thought her

work was being reviewed by the lawyers of the firm. She did testify quite adamantly that

Venkatraman at one point reviewed all of her conveyancing files and found nothing out of order.

However, I have found that there were very few controls over Ellis’ work, and in fact as previously

mentioned by late 2004, Venkatraman learned that Ellis was opening her own files. As well, many

of the bookkeeping irregularities pointed out in Bischoff’s evidence were clearly calculated to fend

off the suspicions of the lawyers in the firm regarding shortfalls in the trust accounts. Those entries

began occurring in early 2004, shortly after the documentation referred to in Count 13 (the first one

on which I have found Ellis to be guilty) was prepared, executed and filed. Ellis testified, as did

Bischoff, that the bookkeeping was not only irregular, but it was not current. Furthermore, the

Page: 110

impugned acts are not necessarily in the nature of simple mistakes which one might expect a

responsible lawyer to note and have her correct. Obviously, they did not prevent registration of the

transfers and mortgages in question at the Land Titles Office. In brief, I reject the argument that Ellis

is absolved of guilt on this basis as suggested by Defence counsel.

[545] The defence of mistake of fact applies where an accused agreed to do an act which on the

facts known to her was not unlawful. In her testimony Ellis suggested that she was unaware of the

illegal nature of her acts, for example in swearing false affidavits and forging documents. For

example, she stated that she had never heard the phrase "utter a forged document" or "straw buyer".

[546] While I accept that Ellis may not have known all of the details of Pervez's mortgage fraud

scheme, I find beyond a reasonable doubt that during the time frame alleged by the Crown she

acquired an understanding of the unlawful nature of the scheme and voluntarily and intentionally

joined and participated in it. Nothing in the evidence, including Ellis' testimony, raises a reasonable

doubt that she was aware that her acts were unlawful in relation to the counts on which I have found

her to be guilty. Her assertions in this regard simply defy belief, having regard to the all of the

relevant evidence, in addition to her work over the years in law firms, her forgeries, and her

calculated attempts through her bookkeeping to conceal the acts she and others committed in

furtherance of the mortgage fraud scheme.

[546] Finally, in considering the foregoing charges, I have interpreted the wording in the Crown’s

indictment (“providing false information in support of mortgage applications”) according to its

ordinary meaning, which I have held to include acts done in relation to the mortgages prior to funds

actually being advanced by the lenders. Certainly, Ellis was not prejudiced at trial by some

misunderstanding as to what was being alleged against her. However, Defence counsel submitted

that the mortgage application process was completed in all cases by the time the law firm received

instructions from the lender. If I am wrong in my interpretation of the wording of the charges, then

in my view, Ellis is guilty of those counts which I have found to have been proven by the Crown

beyond a reasonable doubt on the basis of s. 21(1)(b), in that Ellis knowingly assisted in

perpetuating, furthering and bringing to completion the frauds perpetrated by others in the

application process prior to the firm receiving instructions.

Uttering Forged Documents, Possession of Property obtained by Crime

Count 27

[547] Count 27 alleges that around June 24, 2005, Ellis unlawfully used, dealt with or acted upon

affidavits of execution of witnesses attached to mortgages or affidavits in support of caveats

associated with these same mortgages pertaining to 42 different properties, as if they were genuine,

knowing that the documents were forged, contrary to s. 368(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

[548] Defence counsel concedes that the accused has admitted all essential elements of the offence

under s. 368(1)(a). In paras. 448 to 450 of the Agreed Statement of Facts, it is agreed that on June

24, 2005, Ellis attended at the Land Titles Registry Office in Edmonton and presented 43 mortgages

and associated caveats for registration against 42 different properties. Ellis returned to the counter

Page: 111

four times that day, having corrected errors that were identified on some of these materials. She

commented that she had worked until 2 a.m. that morning preparing the materials that she presented

for registration. The mortgages filed against the 42 properties totalled $5,275,000. Ellis prepared

every mortgage and associated affidavit and uttered each document at the Alberta Registries office.

The witness to every mortgagee's signature was Ellis’ son, DeAgostini. Every mortgage included

an affidavit in support of caveat deposed to by Ellis, and purportedly commissioned by Worrell.

Worrell's signature is forged on every document.

[549] Ellis testified that Pervez asked her to prepare these mortgages. Where the registered owners

were numbered companies, she signed under power of attorney. She met with Pervez’s family

members where their signatures were required. She testified that she did not ask why this was being

done.

[550] It is agreed that Ellis intended that Alberta Government Services act upon these false

mortgages as if they were genuine.

[551] Therefore, I find beyond a reasonable doubt that Ellis, knowing that Worrell’s signature on

the affidavits of execution attached to the mortgages or affidavits in support of caveats regarding

the same mortgages pertaining to 42 different properties was forged, unlawfully used, dealt with or

acted upon the said documents as if they were genuine.

Count 28

[552] With respect to the charge under s. 355(b), the Crown alleges that Ellis around July 14, 2005

had in her possession a self-inking Commissioner for Oaths stamp in the name of Worrell, of a value

not exceeding $5,000, knowing that the property was obtained by the commission of an indictable

offence. Ellis admitted that on or about July 14, 2005 she had in her possession the Commissioner

for Oaths stamp in the name of Worrell. She says that Worrell left it at her home. However, Ellis

used the stamp and defence counsel concedes that upon converting it to her own use without

consent, it became the subject of theft. I find that Ellis appropriated the stamp, probably while

Worrell was absent on vacation, specifically between April 1, 2005 and Ellis’ last day of work, April

12, 2005, and I accept Worrell’s evidence that Ellis lied to her about the missing stamp after

Worrell’s return from vacation. The stamp was still in her possession when it was seized from the

bedroom office in her home on July 14, 2005. On the whole of the evidence, I have no reasonable

doubt that Ellis stole the stamp and used it in forging Worrell’s name as Commissioner for Oaths,

and therefore all of the elements of this offence have been established.

Conspiracy and Criminal Organization Charges

[553] In analyzing the evidence in relation to Counts 1 and 2, I take into account the evidence set

out above as being relevant with respect to those counts on which I have found Ellis guilty of fraud.

Although I refer below to specific cogent evidence, I have considered all of the evidence in its

entirety.

Count 2

Page: 112

[554] Count 2 alleges that Ellis, between January 1, 2003 and December 19, 2005, conspired with

Pervez, Kahlon, Brito, Caroca, Rashid, Bindon, Sekhon, Knight, Aziz, and with other persons

unknown, or other persons known but not named, to commit fraud, contrary to s. 380(1)(a) of the

Criminal Code and did thereby commit an offence contrary to s. 465(1)(c) of the Criminal Code.

[555] I have found Ellis guilty of fraud, contrary to s. 380(1)(a) as set out above.

[556] The Crown asserts that the frauds in evidence before the Court could not have happened

without the agreement of the vendor of the property mortgaged, the recruiter of the straw buyer and

the straw buyer to a lesser extent.

[557] The evidence is that Pervez chose the properties to be sold, and who would get the

properties. Pervez obtained appraisals on the properties. The recruiters recruited the straw buyers

on the properties. Pervez dealt with the mortgage brokers in applying for mortgages. False

supporting documentation was provided by employees at law firms to banks, mortgage brokers and

to Pervez. This evidence is not in dispute.

[558] The Supreme Court in R. v. Carter, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 938 (and R. v. Mapara, [2005] 1 S.C.R.

358) set out the manner in which the trier of fact is to proceed in relation to a charge of conspiracy.

The actus reus of this offence is proof of the agreement.

[559] I find beyond a reasonable doubt on the evidence before this Court, including the facts

contained in the Agreed Statement of Facts, that there was an agreement between Pervez and others

to defraud the mortgage companies in question. This is conceded by the defence. I also find that

various persons joined the ongoing scheme from time to time, and others dropped out, but there was

a continuing, overall, dominant plan. I find beyond a reasonable doubt that the named alleged co-

conspirators acted in concert in pursuit of a common goal, that goal being the defrauding of

mortgage companies which constitutes an indictable offence.

[560] As to whether Ellis was a member of this conspiracy, I am mindful that it is not necessary

in order to conclude that Ellis is guilty of conspiracy, that there be evidence that her participation

was formalized, nor that every detail of the agreement was worked out between Ellis and the other

members of the conspiracy. It is not necessary for the Crown to prove that all participants knew each

other, nor that they all came together at one time or place.

[561] The Crown must establish as a first step, on the basis of Ellis’ own words and conduct, that

she was probably a member of the conspiracy. I have no difficulty in reaching this conclusion on

the basis of the clear evidence of her fraudulent acts which benefitted Pervez and other named co-

conspirators, her participation in the fraud scheme through ownership of a number of the properties,

assumptions of mortgages, payment of strawbuyers’ mortgages, falsedepositsandother bookkeping

irregularities, and her admission that she committed many of these acts on Pervez’s instructions.

Having reached this conclusion, I may consider the evidence of what other members of the

conspiracy said and did while the conspiracy was ongoing and to further its purpose. This evidence

was adduced mostly in the form of the Agreed Statement of Facts, although the witnesses provided

some additional evidence.

Page: 113

[562] In this case, Ellis denied any involvement in the mortgage frauds committed by the co-

conspirators. However, the evidence of her actions in this case speaks much louder than her words.

It would defy imagination to conclude that Ellis’ involvement in the mortgage fraud scheme as

outlined above occurred by chance, or that she committed the frauds independently of any

agreement with the named co-conspirators. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Ellis used

her position as a conveyancer at the Venkatraman firm to assist Pervez in executing his fraudulent

scheme, including forging of trust cheques and other documents. Furthermore, during the time

period of her alleged involvement in the conspiracy, she had ongoing contact with all of the alleged

co-conspirators, and knew them to be involved with Pervez in the flipping of properties and

obtaining of mortgages using names of individuals who were simply holding title to the property for

Pervez or other named co-conspirators.

[563] Ellis testified that she was so busy that she did not have time to worry about some of these

irregularities and the veracity of the information, and she suggested in her evidence that the

operations at the Venkatraman law firm were fast and loose. That may be so, however, as alluded

to in the analysis of the various counts, there is a distinction between shoddy conveyancing and

bookkeeping, and conspiracy to commit fraud, and the evidence in this case clearly establishes

beyond a reasonable doubt that Ellis devoted her efforts in and outside of the office to furthering

Pervez’s operation, at the expense of the Venkatraman law firm, and with no regard to the risk to

the lenders, of which she was well aware. Although I accept that she may not have understood the

nature of the named co-conspirators’ dealings when she first became involved, it is impossible to

conclude that she was not well aware of, and had actively participated in the same, within the time

frame as alleged by the Crown in Count 2.

[564] The evidence as recounted in relation to the individual counts of fraud above leaves

absolutely no doubt in my mind that Ellis eventually understood the scheme, assisted Pervez through

her position as conveyancer and bookkeeper at the Venkatraman law firm in perpetrating the frauds,

and was aware that her acts in numerous cases were dishonest and would assist in obtaining

mortgages from lenders who would not have advanced funds had they been apprised of the true

facts.

[565] I come to this conclusion on the entirety of the evidence, however I note that the Crown

adduced an abundance of evidence completely aside from that relating to the specific individual

counts of fraud, and I would have no reasonable doubt about Ellis’ guilt on Count 2 on the basis of

that evidence alone.

[566] The evidence recited above also establishes thatEllisconvertedfunds fromthe Venkatraman

law firm trust accounts for use by Pervez in acquiring properties that were later mortgaged by way

of fraudulent mortgages. I find that the evidence establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that Ellis

had no regard for veracity in her dealings with land title or mortgage documents generally, including

acting as agent for purchasers without instructions from those purchasers, creating a numbered

company with a fictitious director, and granting herself power of attorney, falsely inferring she was

a barrister and solicitor on communications with lenders and documents filed with Land Titles,

preparing mortgages containing false and misleading information, providing false information to

Page: 114

lenders, forging the signatures of other persons on documents sent for registration at the Land Titles

Office, and providing funds to straw buyers to service mortgages. She also transferred titles into her

own name without paying any consideration andassumedmortgages originallypurportedlyobtained

by straw buyers.

[567] I find that Ellis was aware of irregularities in each of the transactions relating to counts on

which I have found her guilty. She failed to make meaningful or appropriate inquiries about the

irregularities, and failed to alert the lenders to any of these issues. She disbursed proceeds of

fraudulently obtained mortgages to others involved in the scheme, and through inappropriate

bookkeeping entries, managed to finance a good part of Pervez’s activities with the Venkatraman

law firm’s trust accounts. Her knowledge of the nature of her involvement in a larger illegal scheme

is evidenced in her dealings with the law firm, her meetings with clients at her home and theirs, and

her failure to explain the documents being signed by straw buyers. There was evidence of ongoing

dealings by Ellis with the properties after the straw buyers’ purchases had closed. Ellis continued

to participate in the fraud without questioning the unusual aspects of the transactions which I find

would have appeared improper to a conveyancer with only minimal experience.

[568] I find that Ellis had a relationship with each of the named co-conspirators, and in particular

with Pervez. Among other evidence as outlined above, I note in particular Pervez’s purchase of the

cars for Ellis and her son, the provision of a residence to Ellis by Pervez, the trip to Winnipeg and

birthday gifts, the powers of attorney extended to Ellis by Pervez over numerous of his corporations,

her directorship of several corporations, her duties of conducting the banking of those corporations,

the affection that was noted to exist between them as observed by several employees at the

Venkatraman law firm, the gift of the ring, the pictures of Pervez in Ellis’ office and home, her

assumption of several of the fraudulently obtained mortgages, her fraudulent addition of Pervez to

her medical benefits, and her designation of Pervez as her beneficiary of life insurance benefits, her

provision to Pervez of access to restricted areas in the Venkatraman law firm, her fraudulent

activities while employed by the firm, her request to consult with Pervez after she met with Bischoff

to discuss the significant issues with the trust accounts, her employment with Pervez after leaving

the Venkatraman law firm, her co-directorship with him of numbered companies implicated in the

fraudulent scheme, and her continuing fraudulent activities unrelated to Venkatraman law firm files

after leaving the firm, and forging of documents that were timed to attach a security to houses that

would be and were attached as part of the Venkatraman & Purewal lawsuit.

[569] I find that Ellis eventually acted exclusivelyat the directionofPervez andhis co-conspirators

to the detriment of her employer, which included removal of property of the firm upon her departure

knowing that she would not return, and failure to return material that belonged to that firm and

members of that firm after her departure. Ellis had no explanation for the fact that she had so much

of the Venkatraman firm’s property at her house at the time the search warrant was executed. She

said she had gradually accumulated boxes and electronic files at her home while working on

transactions, but could not say why she did not return the property when she decided she would not

return to the law firm.

[570] Based on all of this evidence, I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Ellis

participated in the conspiracy as alleged by the Crown.

Page: 115

[571] If I am wrong in finding that Ellis was part of the conspiracy proper, then I find that she

aided the members of the conspiracy, and in particular Pervez, knowing of and intending to assist

others to attain the unlawful object of fraudulently obtaining mortgage proceeds, and therefore is

guilty on the basis of s. 21(1)(b).

Count 1

[572] Count 1 alleges that Ellis, between January 1, 2003 and December 19, 2005, committed the

indictable offence of fraud exceeding $5,000, contrary to s. 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code for the

benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with, a criminal organization, contrary to s. 467.12

of the Criminal Code (in force January 7, 2002).

[573] Criminal organization is defined in s. 467.1(1):

...“criminal organization” means a group, however organized, that

(a) is composed of three or more persons in or outside Canada; and

(b) has as one of its main purposes or main activities the facilitation

or commission of one or more serious offences that, if committed,

would likely result in the direct or indirect receipt of a material

benefit, including a financial benefit, by the group or by any of the

persons who constitute the group.

It does not include a group of persons that forms randomly for the immediate

commission of a single offence.

“serious offence” means an indictable offence under this or any other Act of

Parliament for which the maximum punishment is imprisonment for five years or

more, or another offence that is prescribed by regulation.

...

(3) In this section and in sections 467.11 to 467.13, committing an offence means

being a party to it or counselling any person to be a party to it.

[574] In other words, in this case, to satisfy the requirements of s. 467.12, the Crown must

establish that Ellis committed:

-

fraud (s. 380(1))

for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with

a group, however organized, composed of three or more persons

Page: 116

-

which has as one of its main purposes or main activities

the facilitation or commission of one or more serious offences, including an

indictable offence under the Criminal Code punishable by a maximum of

five years' imprisonment or more

-

that would likely result in the direct or indirect receipt of a material benefit,

including a financial benefit

by the group or any of the persons who constitute the group.

[575] Defence counsel did not contest the constitutionality of either s. 467.12 or s. 467.1.

[576] The Crown has proven that Ellis committed fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud as set out

above. Both fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud fall within the definition of serious offence.

[577] Defence counsel submitted that the Crown has not established the existence of an

organization, rather it simply established “people doing business with one another”. In R. v. Lindsay

(2004), 70 O.R. (3d) 131 (S.C.), counsel advanced as inappropriately falling within the definition

of “criminal organization” the hypothetical of three elderly retirees who develop a plan to sell

fraudulent diamonds to fellow retirees, by presenting the scheme as a stable investment opportunity,

follow through with the plan, turn a hefty profit by passing off zirconia stones as diamonds, the

scheme becomes the trio's main activity, and they meet weekly to discuss their progress. Fuerst J.

commented at para. 48 that this scenario would appear to meet all of the components of a criminal

organization as an example of a group whose objective is the economic deprivation of others

through organized means.

[578] The evidence (including in particular the Agreed Statement of Facts, and the testimony of

Monahan, Bindon, Aziz and Knight) establishes that Pervez and others were involved in a mortgage

fraud scheme whereby Pervez and recruiters would receive proceeds of mortgage funds fraudulently

obtained by using “straw buyers”. (Monahan, Bindon Aziz and Knight all testified with respect to

their involvement of the scheme. In particular Monahan, Bindon and Aziz provided greater details

of their involvement than that which is encapsulated in paragraph 5 of the Agreed Statement of

Facts.) Those involved in the scheme were agreed to have included Pervez, Park, Brito, Sekhon,

Rashid, Caroca, Kahlon, Bindon, Monahan, Knight, and Quadri. The evidence establishes that at

least three persons were involved in this scheme during the time frame set out in Count 1. There was

no evidence before the Court that there was any legitimate activity in which the group was involved

as a group. The mortgage fraud scheme did result in direct benefit to Pervez and other members of

the group, as outlined in the Agreed Statement of Facts.

[579] The evidence as outlined above establishes that this group of persons did not form randomly

for the immediate commission of a single offence, but were in regular contact in relation to the

commission of the various acts of fraud. The evidence also establishes that the group was, in fact,

organized as a hierarchy, and that the roles in that hierarchy were understood by the group members

and by Ellis.

Page: 117

[580] I do not accept Defence counsel’s characterization of the scenario as merely “people doing

business with one another”. This group clearly fits within the definition of a “criminal organization”

for the purpose of s. 467.12.

[581] In R. v. Terezakis, [2007] B.C.J. No. 1592, 2007 BCCA 384, appl’n for leave to appeal filed

October 1, 2007: [2007] S.C.C.A. No. 487, MacKenzie J.A. notes that the definition of a criminal

organization presents a particular drafting challenge because illegal enterprises mutate and operate

outside the law, and that Bill C-24 was a response to shortcomings identified in the 1997 criminal

organization offence as criminal groups were able to reorganize to avoid the requirement in the

earlier offence that the group include at least one person who had committed a series of indictable

offences in the preceding five years punishable by imprisonment of five years or more. The 2001

amendments were intended to provide a more flexible definition of criminal organization, putting

the emphasis on flexibility in the description of the organization as a group, "however organized".

MacKenzie J.A. observes:

¶ 34 The underlying reality is that criminal organizations have no incentive to

conform to any formal structure recognized in law, in part because the law will not

assist in enforcing illegal obligations or transactions. That requires a flexible

definition that is capable of capturing criminal organizations in all their protean

forms. The Code provisions are a response to that reality. Nonetheless, the persons

who constitute "the group, however organized" cannot be interpreted so broadly as

to ensnare those who do not share its criminal objectives.

[582] In my view, there is nothing about this group, as established on the evidence, that would take

it outside of the definition of “criminal organization”. It was a hierarchical group of persons who

interacted regularly in order to illegally obtain money from lenders.

[583] The evidence also clearly establishes that Ellis’ fraud benefited this group of persons, that

she acted at the direction of Pervez and others, most notably Kahlon and Brito, and that she

committed the fraud in association with the members of the group in the sense that she played a role

which was dependent on fraudulent acts of others, and her fraudulent acts were depended upon by

others in the group to achieve the goal of perpetrating the mortgage fraud. I have concluded that the

only inference which can be drawn from the evidence of Ellis’ acts is that she understood how her

dishonest acts were integral to the functioning of the scheme.

[584] As for the mens rea requirements, the Crown has already proven that Ellis possessed the

mens rea for the counts of fraud with respect to which I have found her to be guilty beyond a

reasonable doubt, the conspiracy and the other charges.

[585] Pursuant to s. 467.12(2), it is not necessary for the Crown to prove that Ellis knew the

identity of any of the persons who constituted the criminal organization. I find, however, that she

did know the identity of those forming the group which was involved in the mortgage fraud scheme.

The Agreed Statement of Facts sets out the structure and involvement of the various named

members. Ellis herself also described the functioning of the group, the roles of various individuals,

Page: 118

and her relationships with and knowledge of the related activities of various members, including

Pervez, Kahlon, Monahan, Adil Quadri, Knight and Brito. For example, she testified that Kahlon

would buy houses from Pervez and bring “his person in; whoever was doing the mortgage”. She was

aware that Kahlon and Pervez were friends, and testified about her business and social interactions

with them. Ellis testified that Pervez let her live in 12330-67 Street without paying rent, but she

could not remember if her son or a numbered company was on title at the time. She testified that

Quadri, Brito and Knight also brought in purchasers.

[586] The Crown must also establish that Ellis committed the fraudulent acts for which she has

been found guilty, with the intent to do so in association with this group: R. v. Lindsay.

[587] I conclude that the only inference that can be drawn from Ellis’ fraudulent acts is that she

intended that her acts were in association with this group, and that they benefit the members of the

group. I find that she shared the group’s criminal objective of fraud. Ellis forged names on

documentation provided to mortgage companies and the Land Titles office. She assumed various

mortgages for various recruiters at the direction of Pervez. She posted false bookkeeping entries to

make it appear that funds had been deposited when that had not, thereby providing Pervez with

funds toward his mortgage fraud scheme. She was involved in providing cheques to various

recruiters out of mortgage proceeds. She paid mortgage payments to lenders out of her own funds

on behalf of recruiters when straw buyers who had title to the mortgaged property complained that

the lender was seeking payment from them. The entirety of the evidence points irrevocably to Ellis’

fraudulent acts on the individual counts being part and parcel of her larger role in the mortgage fraud

scheme, and I can only conclude that she intended to act in association and for the benefit of the

members of the group. Any doubt in this respect would not be a reasonable one given the strength

of the Crown’s case as set out herein.

[588] Having considered all of the evidence before this Court and the elements of s. 467.12, I find

that the Crown has established beyond a reasonable doubt that Ellis is guilty of committing fraud

for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with, a criminal organization.

Page: 119

CONCLUSION

[589] For the foregoing reasons, I find Ellis guilty on Counts 1, 2, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21,

22, 23, 25, 26, 27 and 28.

Heard on the 5^thday of September, 2007 to the 5^thday of October, 2007.

Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 29^thday of November, 2007.

Gerald A. Verville

J.C.Q.B.A.

Appearances:

Michelle Doyle, Orest Yereniuk and Cheryl Schlecker

Special Prosecutions

for the Crown

Paul L. Moreau

for the Accused

“SCHEDULE A”

Docket: 070391453Q1

IN THE COURT OF QUEENS BENCH OF ALBERTA

JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF EDMONTON

BETWEEN:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

- and -

TERRY LYNN ELLIS

__________________________________________________________________

AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS

Pursuant to section 655 of the Criminal Code of Canada, and with the consent of

the Crown, the following facts are admitted by the accused Terry Lynn ELLIS for

the purpose of dispensing with formal proof thereof in respect of a trial before this

Honourable Court on the following charges:

Count 1:

That she, between the 1st day of January 2003 and the 19th day of December, 2005, at or near

the City of Edmonton, in the Province of Alberta, did commit an indictable offence, to wit: the

offence of fraud exceeding $5000, contrary to Section 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada,

for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with, a criminal organization, contrary to s.

467.12 of the Criminal Code of Canada.

Count #2

That she, between the 1st day of January, 2003 and the 19th day of December, 2005, at or near

the City of Edmonton, in the Province of Alberta, did conspire with Gohar Pervez, Harkamaljit

Kahlon, Pedro Brito, Rodrigo Caroca, Zafir Rashid, Kelly Bindon, Kulwant Sekhon, O’Neil Knight,

Ali Aziz, and with other persons unknown, or other persons known but not named, to commit the

indictable offence of fraud, contrary to section 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada, and did

thereby commit an offence contrary to section 465(1)(c) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

Count 3

At or near the City of Edmonton, in the Province of Alberta, between the 1st day of

1

March, 2003 and the 30th day of May, 2003, did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means,

defraud Bridgewater Financial Services Ltd. of $99,630.00, more or less, by providing false

information to Bridgewater Financial Services Ltd. in support of a mortgage application in the name

of Natasha Lindberg for 9331-107A Avenue, Edmonton, Alberta, contrary to Section 380(1)(a) of

the Criminal Code of Canada.

Count 4

At or near the City of Edmonton, in the Province of Alberta, between the 1st day of April, 2003 and

the 30th day of June, 2003, did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, defraud Firstline

Mortgages of $104,040.00, more or less, by providing false information to Firstline Mortgages in

support of a mortgage application in the name of Jennifer Heinrichs for 8409-118 Avenue,

Edmonton, Alberta, contrary to Section 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

Count 5

At or near the City of Edmonton, in the Province of Alberta, between the 1st day of May, 2003 and

the 30th day of July, 2003, did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, defraud MCAP

Service Corporation of $126,160.00, more or less, by providing false information to MCAP Service

Corporation in support of a mortgage application in the name of Robbie Madan for 11447-90

Street, Edmonton, Alberta, contrary to Section 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

Count 6

At or near the City of Edmonton, in the Province of Alberta, between the 1st day of May, 2003 and

the 30th day of July, 2003, did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, defraud MCAP

Service Corporation of $68,250.00, more or less, by providing false information to MCAP Service

Corporation in support of a mortgage application in the name of Twyla Estall for 1516 – 69 Street,

Edmonton, Alberta, contrary to Section 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

Count 7

At or near the City of Edmonton, in the Province of Alberta, between the 1st day of June, 2003 and

the 30th day of August, 2003, did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, defraud Resmor

Trust Company of $123,203.13, more or less, by providing false information to Resmor Trust

Company in support of a mortgage application in the name of Naresh Jindal for 11933-78 Street,

Edmonton, Alberta, contrary to Section 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

Count 8

At or near the City of Edmonton, in the Province of Alberta, between the 1st day of June, 2003 and

the 30th day of August, 2003, did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, defraud

Bridgewater Financial Services Ltd. of $116,724.13, more or less, by providing false information to

Bridgewater Financial Services Ltd. in support of a mortgage application in the name of Mary Kydd

for 10920-92 Street, Edmonton, Alberta, contrary to Section 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code of

Canada.

Count 9

At or near the City of Edmonton, in the Province of Alberta, between the 1st day of June, 2003

and the 30th day of August, 2003, did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, defraud

Bridgewater Financial Services Ltd. of $111,375.00, more or less, by providing false information

2

to Bridgewater Financial Services Ltd. in support of a mortgage application in the name of Richard

Estall for 11322-93 Street, Edmonton, Alberta, contrary to Section 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code

of Canada.

Count 10

At or near the City of Edmonton, in the Province of Alberta, between the 1st day of September,

2003 and the 30th day of November, 2003, did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means,

defraud Toronto-Dominion Bank of $101,250.00, more or less, by providing false information to

Toronto-Dominion Bank in support of a mortgage application in the name of Manvinder Oberoi for

12661-72 Street, Edmonton, Alberta, contrary to Section 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code of

Canada.

Count 11

At or near the City of Edmonton, in the Province of Alberta, between the 1st day of September

2003 and the 30th day of November, 2003, did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means,

defraud MCAP Service Corporation of $131,437.25, more or less, by providing false information to

MCAP Service Corporation in support of a mortgage application in the name of Marie Kapeller for

12050-65 Street , Edmonton, Alberta, contrary to Section 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code of

Canada.

Count 12

At or near the City of Edmonton, in the Province of Alberta, between the 1st day of September

2003 and the 30th day of November, 2003, did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means,

defraud Bridgewater Financial Services Ltd. of $114,762.38, more or less, by providing false

information to Bridgewater Financial Services Ltd. in support of a mortgage application in the name

of Trent Dhoedt for 11616-96 Street , Edmonton, Alberta, contrary to Section 380(1)(a) of the

Criminal Code of Canada.

Count 13

At or near the City of Edmonton, in the Province of Alberta, between the 1st day of November,

2003 and the 30th day of January, 2004, did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means,

defraud Toronto-Dominion Bank of $85,500.00, more or less, by providing false information to

Toronto-Dominion Bank in support of a mortgage application in the name of Palwinder Kahlon for

11814-50 Street, Edmonton, Alberta, contrary to Section 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code of

Canada.

Count 14

At or near the City of Edmonton, in the Province of Alberta, between the 1st day of November,

2003 and the 30th day of January, 2004, did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means,

defraud Toronto-Dominion Bank of $95,250.00 more or less, by providing false information to

Toronto-Dominion Bank in support of a mortgage application in the name of Ali Aziz for 11502-82

Street , Edmonton, Alberta, contrary to Section 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

Count 15

At or near the City of Edmonton, in the Province of Alberta, between the 1st day of November,

2003 and the 30th day of January, 2004, did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means,

defraud Co-Operative Trust Company of Canada of $115,645.16, more or less, by providing false

3

information to Co-Operative Trust Company of Canada in support of a mortgage application in the

name of Trent Dhoedt for 11610 Fort Road , Edmonton, Alberta, contrary to Section 380(1)(a) of

the Criminal Code of Canada.

Count 16

At or near the City of Edmonton, in the Province of Alberta, between the 1st day of February 2004

and the 30th day of April, 2004, did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, defraud MCAP

Service Corporation of $116,352.00, more or less, by providing false information to MCAP Service

Corporation in support of a mortgage application in the name of Naresh Jindal for 11245-94 Street,

Edmonton, Alberta, contrary to Section 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

Count 17

At or near the City of Edmonton, in the Province of Alberta, between the 1st day of February, 2004

and the 30th day of April, 2004, did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, defraud

Toronto-Dominion Bank of $133,399.00, more or less, by providing false information to Toronto-

Dominion Bank in support of a mortgage application in the name of Naresh Jindal for 6904-127

Avenue , Edmonton, Alberta, contrary to Section 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

Count 18

At or near the City of Edmonton, in the Province of Alberta, between the 1st day of February 2004

and the 30th day of April, 2004, did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, defraud MCAP

Service Corporation of $119,584.00, more or less, by providing false information to MCAP Service

Corporation in support of a mortgage application in the name of Ali Aziz for 11935-91 Street ,

Edmonton, Alberta, contrary to Section 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

Count 19

At or near the City of Edmonton, in the Province of Alberta, between the 1st day of February, 2004

and the 30th day of April, 2004, did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, defraud

London Life Insurance Company of $122,511.29, more or less, by providing false information to

London Life Insurance Company in support of a mortgage application in the name of Rui Correia

for 11920-77 Street, Edmonton, Alberta, contrary to Section 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code of

Canada.

Count 20

At or near the City of Edmonton, in the Province of Alberta, between the 1st day of February 2004

and the 30th day of April, 2004, did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, defraud ING

Mortgage Broker Services Inc. of $97,125.00, more or less, by providing false information to ING

Mortgage Broker Services Inc. in support of a mortgage application in the name of Ali Aziz for

10811-152 Street , Edmonton, Alberta, contrary to Section 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code of

Canada.

Count 21

At or near the City of Edmonton, in the Province of Alberta, between the 1st day of June, 2004 and

the 30th day of August, 2004, did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, defraud Toronto-

Dominion Bank of $56,250.00, more or less, by providing false information to Toronto-Dominion

Bank in support of a mortgage application in the name of Palwinder Kahlon for 11330-84 Street,

Edmonton, Alberta, contrary to Section 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

4

Count 22

At or near the City of Edmonton, in the Province of Alberta, between the 1st day of June, 2004 and

the 30th day of August, 2004, did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, defraud Toronto-

Dominion Bank of $99,750.00, more or less, by providing false information to Toronto-Dominion

Bank in support of a mortgage application in the name of Rui Correia for 10712-103 Street,

Edmonton, Alberta, contrary to Section 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

Count 23

At or near the City of Edmonton, in the Province of Alberta, between the 1st day of November 2004

and the 30th day of January, 2005, did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, defraud

ING Mortgage Broker Services Inc. of $106,500.00, more or less, by providing false information to

ING Mortgage Broker Services Inc. in support of a mortgage application in the name of Ali Aziz for

11710-92 Street , Edmonton, Alberta, contrary to Section 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code of

Canada.

Count 24

At or near the City of Edmonton, in the Province of Alberta, between the 1st day of November,

2004 and the 30th day of January, 2005, did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means,

defraud Royal Bank of Canada of $84,000.00, more or less, by providing false information to Royal

Bank of Canada in support of a mortgage application in the name of Palwinder Kahlon for 11925-

78 Street, Edmonton, Alberta, contrary to Section 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

Count 25

At or near the City of Edmonton, in the Province of Alberta, between the 1st day of January, 2005

and the 30th day of March, 2005, did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, defraud ING

Bank of Canada of $83,250.00, more or less, by providing false information to ING Bank of

Canada in support of a mortgage application in the name of Charnkamal Rai for 11904-96 Street,

Edmonton, Alberta, contrary to Section 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada

Count 26

At or near the City of Edmonton, in the Province of Alberta, between the 1st day of January, 2005

and the 30th day of March, 2005, did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, defraud ING

Bank of Canada of $90,000.00, more or less, by providing false information to ING Bank of

Canada in support of a mortgage application in the name of Palwinder Kahlon for 11331-93 Street,

Edmonton, Alberta, contrary to Section 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

Count 27

At or near the City of Edmonton, in the Province of Alberta, on or about the 24thday of June, 2005

did knowing that a document, to wit: Affidavit of Execution of Witnesses attached to mortgages or

Affidavits in Support of Caveats associated to these same mortgages pertaining to 42 different

properties, was forged, did unlawfully use, deal with or act upon the said documents as if they

were genuine, contrary to Section 368(1)(a) of Criminal Code of Canada.

5

Count 28

At or near the City of Edmonton, in the Province of Alberta, on or about the 14thday of July, 2005

did have in her possession property, to wit a self-inking Commissioner For Oaths stamp in the

name of Rondah WORRELL, of a value not exceeding $5,000 knowing that the property was

obtained by the commission in Canada of an offence punishable by indictment, contrary to

Section 355 (b) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

1.

Terry Lynn Ellis [hereafter “Ellis”] is one of six persons charged with

committing fraud for the benefit of or at the direction of or in association with a

criminal organization, conspiring to commit fraud with named and unnamed co-

conspirators and 24 specific allegations of fraud. The other individuals charged

were Gohar Pervez [hereafter “Pervez”], Scott Park [hereafter “Park”], Harkamaljit

Kahlon [hereafter “Kahlon”], Pedro Brito [hereafter “Brito”] and Rodrigo Caroca

[herafter “Caroca”]. Ellis is also charged with knowingly using, dealing with or

acting on forged documents and with being in possession of a Commissioner of

Oaths stamp in the name of Rondah Worrell that was obtained by the commission

in Canada of an offence.

2.

The investigation of these allegations was called Project Infiltrate. This

project centered on the real estate dealings of various persons between 2001 and

2005. The investigation focused on the fraudulent activities of Pervez and named

co-accuseds and unindicted co-conspirators. Each specific allegation of fraud is

predicated upon evidence of fraudulent misrepresentations that were made in

mortgage applications by third parties (called “straw buyers”) in an effort to obtain

mortgages secured against properties in the name of several straw buyers.

3.

The basic format of the fraud scheme operated as follows:

a)

Pervez purchased marginal quality residences in Edmonton,

Alberta, and in Camrose, Alberta. The purchasers were represented to be one of

a series of Alberta numbered companies. These companies were registered with

6

directorship vested in various persons’ names, including co-accuseds, unindicted

co-conspirators and others who had an association to Pervez. The directors

typically had little or no control over the operation of these companies. De facto

control over the companies was held by Pervez throughout. Pervez provided the

cash for initial purchase of these properties, and typically signed on behalf of the

company that was named as the purchaser. Pervez would then plan, and

sometimes commence, superficial renovations to the properties.

b)

Shortly after the acquisition of properties, straw buyers were

recruited to obtain mortgages. Each property was reflected to have increased

property values at the time of sale. Straw buyers were recruited by Pervez

personally, or by persons associated to Pervez. Straw buyers have no

connection to the property that they purchase, other than having their name

placed on title. Straw buyers have rarely seen the property that they have

purchased, have put no money toward the purchase, and are often paid a fee for

their participation in this scheme. The only role of the straw buyer is to obtain

mortgage financing secured by the property that has been placed in their name;

c)

The mortgage applications of straw buyers were usually facilitated

by mortgage brokers. Many of the mortgage brokers dealt exclusively with

Pervez, although some brokers had additional dealings with co-accuseds or

unindicted co-conspirators. Some mortgage brokers were offered and some

accepted additional monies from Pervez, over their usual commission, as

additional payment to process the mortgage applications that Pervez brought to

them;

d)

In support of the straw buyers’ mortgage applications, Pervez

retained appraisers who based their appraisals of properties on renovations that

were either incomplete or never started. The appraisers were often pressured by

Pervez to increase the value of their appraisals. Ellis had no direct contact with

any of the property appraisers;

7

e)

All of the mortgage applications contained material

misrepresentations that were relied on by lenders when considering mortgage

applications. Several of these material misrepresentations were included in the

documents that were filed with Land Titles. These misrepresentations were

directly responsible for the creation of a risk of economic deprivation to the

lenders. The most common misrepresentations were:

i)

false claims that the straw buyer had put their own resources into

the purchase of a property predicated upon false gift letters,

acknowledgement letters, trust letters, property sales or bank

statements;

ii)

false claims that the straw buyer intended to reside at the property;

false representations of the straw buyer’s belief in the value of a

property;

iii)

iv)

false employment letters;

forged documents, including false and forged T-4’s outlining

earnings of a straw buyer;

v)

the fraudulent omission of information pertaining to the straw

buyer’s liabilities.

f)

Some time after the straw buyer was placed on title and mortgage

proceeds were advanced, the mortgage would be assumed by one of Pervez’s

associates – either personally or through a numbered company.

g)

Various persons played various roles in the commission of these offences.

Many of these persons were paid for their role. Pervez, however, received most

of the profits associated with the commission of these frauds.

4.

Over the course of the Project Infiltrate investigation, 280 real estate

transactions in Edmonton and Camrose were identified as connected to the

8

fraudulent mortgage scheme that was led by Pervez between 2001 and 2005.

Over that time period, it was revealed that $29,734,043.20 in mortgage proceeds

had been secured through the operation of this fraud scheme. In December

2005, charges were laid against 6 persons, including Ellis, alleging fraud in

securing mortgages on 119 properties in Edmonton and 6 properties in Camrose.

The mortgages on these properties were obtained from 19 different lending

institutions, and generated $14,428,133.95 in mortgage proceeds.

5.

Between 2001 and 2005, the constant was Pervez. Other indicted and

unindicted co-conspirators came in and out of this operation during that time.

Straw buyers were recruited by persons who formed their own cells with their

straw buyers as part of this operation. While Pervez recruited some of his own

straw buyers, including Nishad Altani, Harjit Judge, Mary Kydd and Norman

Rodanisky, the majority of the straw buyers were recruited by others who worked

on Pervez’s behalf. Pervez was in charge of dealing with mortgage brokers and

bankers, appraisers, realtors, and lawyers. Expenses that were required in order

to maintain this fraudulent operation were incurred by Pervez. At various times,

Pervez recruited straw buyers, paid straw buyers, participated in the creation of

forged documents, directly uttered false statements in order to secure mortgage

loans, and secured renters and collected rents in order to cover mortgage

payments for straw buyers. The recruiters were themselves all recruited by

Pervez. Some of the straw buyer recruits had direct dealings with Pervez, but

many did not. On each occasion where a straw buyer was recruited by another

person, Pervez determined the property that would be mortgaged and the share

that he would receive from the mortgage proceeds. A straw buyer recruiter was

typically paid a fee, as determined by Pervez, from the mortgages that were

extended. The recruiters were responsible to gather documents that were used

for mortgage applications. Typically Pervez would deal with securing the

mortgages, which included dealing with mortgage brokers, appraisers and

lawyers. Some of the recruiters managed the properties that their straw buyers

secured mortgages on, and were responsible for making the mortgage

9

payments. With regard to the charges laid against the accused persons in this

matters, the following cells were identified:

i)

Harkamaljit Kahlon – Kahlon was involved in this scheme from 2001 to

the time of his arrest in December 2005. Kahlon was a close associate of

Pervez, and worked for Pervez in Edmonton and in Winnipeg. Kahlon recruited

at least 13 straw buyers during his participation in this operation. Some of his

straw buyers were used to obtain multiple mortgages. Once Kahlon secured a

straw buyer mortgage, he was often responsible to manage the property that was

mortgaged, which included securing tenants, collecting rents and making

mortgage payments. Kahlon’s recruits included Robbie Madan, Manvinder

Oberoi, Michael Albert (2 mortgages), Faycal Khalil, Steven Young (2 mortgages),

Derek Duncombe (2 mortgages), Palwinder Kahlon (10 mortgages), Charnkamal

Rai (2 mortgages), Pinky Sailopal (2 mortgages), Mina Khoshnavaz, Naresh

Jindal (4 mortgages), Gary McDonald (1 mortgage), and Amanpreet Lally. Some

time after the straw buyers’ mortgages were secured, one of Kahlon’s numbered

companies typically assumed the straw buyer mortgage, and removed the straw

buyer’s name from title.

ii)

Kelly Bindon - Bindon met Pervez in April 2000 when she was a legal

assistant employed by the law firm of Scorgie Park. Pervez was a real estate

client of Scott Park’s, one of the principals of Scorgie Park. In October 2001,

Bindon became involved in a romantic relationship with Pervez, a relationship

that lasted until 2003. In December 2001, Bindon’s employment at Scorgie Park

was terminated by David Scorgie when he learned of the relationship between

Pervez and Bindon, and when he became aware of questionable real estate

transactions that Bindon was involved in conveyancing on Pervez’s behalf.

Despite Bindon’s termination, Park continued to represent Pervez, and continued

to employ Bindon as his assistant on Pervez’s real estate work. During her

relationship with Pervez, and as Park’s legal assistant, Bindon prepared

numerous false documents at Pervez’s direction that were used in support of

10

mortgage applications. These documents included false trust letters and false

Statements of Adjustments. In her position as a legal assistant and real estate

conveyancer, Bindon was involved in the preparation of property transfer and

mortgage documents. Bindon often met with straw buyers and occasionally

communicated with lenders and mortgage brokers. Bindon acted as a straw

buyer herself on 2 properties, and assumed a mortgage on a third property.

Bindon was also involved in the recruitment of 2 straw buyers. These recruits

were Lyle Petty, Bindon’s brother, and Marie Kapeller, Bindon’s sister-in-law (2

mortgages). Petty and Kapeller maintained control over the properties that they

obtained mortgages on, as did Bindon. Bindon’s relationship with Pervez ended

at approximately the same time that he stopped using the services of Park. By

2003, several lenders were no longer permitting their mortgages to be conveyed

by Park’s law firm. When Pervez stopped using the Park law office, he began

using the law office of Venkatraman & Purewal for his real estate files.

iii)

Scott Park – Park was involved in this scheme between 2000 and 2003.

Park met Pervez in early 2000 while he was a lawyer practicing in Edmonton with

the firm, Scorgie Park. Park was introduced to Pervez by a mutual friend named

Eehab Taliani, a mortgage broker in Edmonton. Shortly thereafter, Pervez

retained Park to represent him on his real estate transactions. Between 2001 and

2003, Park acted on numerous real estate transactions representing Pervez as

the vendor, the straw buyer, and the lender. He acted at times for the same straw

buyer on numerous purchases. Park secured mortgage financing for straw

buyers by providing trust cheques for deposit in straw buyers’ accounts, making

representations to lenders about funds on trust that he knew to be untruthful,

making payments to the recruiters of straw buyers, and was complicit in the

provision of documents to lenders that he knew to be either forged or false.

Throughout the time of his participation, Park worked to advance Pervez’s

operation and did not act in the interest of either the straw buyer or the lender.

When Park received mortgage proceeds advanced by a lender, he advanced

these funds to Pervez. On two occasions, Park assumed mortgages that were

11

obtained by straw buyers through his company, Lex Notitia. Those two

mortgages had been obtained by Shairose Esmail, one of Pervez’s girlfriends,

who acted as a straw buyer. Park also recruited at least 2 straw buyers into this

operation. Park’s recruits included Gregory Coates (4 mortgages) and Kerry

Park, Park’s brother. Pervez gradually stopped using Park in his operation, as

several lenders would no longer permit Park to act for them. For a period of time

in 2003, Pervez retained Park to act for him as the vendor of a property, and

retained Venkatraman & Purewal to act for the straw buyer and lender.

Eventually, Pervez stopped retaining Park for any of his real estate work, and

retained Venkatraman & Purewal for all parties in the transaction.

iv)

Judy Monahan/Elizabeth Holloway – Monahan and Holloway were

involved in this scheme from 2001 through 2003. Monahan was an insurance

agent at the time that she met Pervez. Monahan met Pervez through Harjit

Judge, who shared an office with Monahan, and was part-owner of the insurance

company that employed her. Judge operated “Judge and Associates”, a

business where Judge marketed his services as a notary public, where he

assisted persons with various matters including immigration applications and real

estate transactions. Judge is not, and has never been, a member of any Law

Society, however he performed several duties associated to the services

provided by a lawyer. In mid-2002, Monahan left her employment as an

insurance agent. At that time, the Alberta Insurance Council was involved in

investigating several fraudulent insurance binder letters that had been provided to

lenders to prove property insurance on mortgaged properties. Many of these

binder letters were from Supreme Insurance, the insurance company that

employed Monahan. Monahan acted as director of a numbered company that

was used to purchase several properties, although de facto control of that

company was held by Pervez. After she left her employment with Supreme

Insurance, Monahan worked for Pervez in Winnipeg. Monahan and Holloway

acted as straw buyers themselves on 4 properties. Monahan and Holloway also

recruited at least 6 straw buyers during their participation in this operation, all of

12

whom obtained several mortgages in their names. Once they recruited a straw

buyer, Monahan and Holloway had no further involvement in the mortgaged

property, and were not responsible for any property management or mortgage

payments. Pervez managed the properties that were placed in the named of

Monahan/Holloway recruits. The Monahan/Holloway recruits included Jayne

Sluchinski (2 mortgages), Sheila Holloway (10 mortgages), Sheila Straub (8

mortgages), Beverly Haugh (7 mortgages), Beverly Dos Santos (6 mortgages),

and Sylvia Parsons (2 mortgages). Many of the Monahan/Holloway recruits had

their mortgages assumed by companies associated to Pedro Brito and Rodrigo

Caroca.

v)

Zafir Rashid – Rashid was involved in this scheme from 2001 through

2003. Rashid was a long-time family friend of Pervez. Rashid obtained his

realtor’s license in Alberta, but conducted no business as a realtor that was

independent of this operation. As a realtor, Rashid represented Pervez in the

initial acquisition of several properties. In 2002-2003, Rashid worked as a

property manager for Pervez in Winnipeg. Rashid recruited at least 4 straw

buyers during his participation in this operation. Rashid’s recruits included

Royston Frederick (4 mortgages), Natasha Lindberg, Twyla Estall (4 mortgages),

and Richard Estall (3 mortgages). Once Rashid secured a straw buyer mortgage,

he was responsible to manage the property that was mortgaged, which included

securing tenants, collecting rents and making mortgage payments. Some time

after the straw buyers’ mortgages were secured, Rashid typically assumed the

straw buyer mortgage, and removed the straw buyer’s name from title.

vi)

Pedro Brito & Rodrigo Caroca – Brito and Caroca were partners in this

operation, with Brito the leader of the partnership. Brito knew Pervez for several

years before becoming involved in this scheme. Brito and Caroca first became

involved in mid-2002, when they negotiated with Pervez on the assumption of

several straw buyer mortgages. Brito and Caroca assumed these mortgages

13

through their company, Homesteader Inc. Most of the properties that were

purchased as a block in 2002 went into foreclosure before a new straw buyer

could be recruited to obtain a mortgage. Later in 2002 and through 2005, Brito

and Caroca recruited at least 11 straw buyers into this operation. The mortgages

that were obtained by Brito and Caroca’s straw buyers were usually high ratio,

insured mortgages. Brito dealt directly with mortgage brokers when applying for

his straw buyers’ mortgages. Brito was directly involved with preparing false gift

letters, false employment letters, and providing other false documents to secure

mortgages on properties in the names of his straw buyers. Brito used the same

connections as Pervez to operate his scheme; including some of the same

mortgage brokers, appraisers, and lawyers. On occasion, Brito referred Pervez to

connections that he had made. Once Brito and Caroca secured a straw buyer

mortgage, they were responsible to manage the property that was mortgaged,

which included securing tenants, collecting rents and making mortgage payments.

Brito and Caroca recruits included Anne Chiasson (3 mortgages), Keith Rayner (2

mortgages), Rui Correia (3 mortgages), Carlos Lunty, Jaime Zuniga, Kenneth

Lunty, Alejandro Rojas (3 mortgages), Eric Enge, Nilson Paez (3 mortgages),

Yolanda Ledda, and Marco Ramirez (2 mortgages). Brito paid his straw buyers

a fee; and secured renters and collected rents from tenants to cover mortgage

payments.

vii)

Donald & Johanne Hickling – the Hicklings were involved in this scheme

in 2002. They recruited at least 7 straw buyers during their participation in this

operation. In July 2002, several properties were placed in the name of Johanne

Hickling’s numbered company. Most of these properties had already been used

to secure a straw buyer mortgage, and had been transferred into the name of a

recruiter or a recruiter’s numbered company. The Hicklings negotiated their block

purchase of properties with Pervez. They did not pay Pervez at the time of sale;

instead Pervez received a share of the mortgage proceeds that were then

obtained by the Hickling straw buyers. Pervez worked with the Hicklings in

obtaining appraisals, referring and dealing with mortgage brokers, and the

14

Hicklings used the Park law office for most of their real estate conveyancing.

Once the Hicklings secured a straw buyer mortgage, they were responsible to

manage the property that was mortgaged, which included securing tenants,

collecting rents and making mortgage payments. The Hickling’s recruits included

David Flewelling, Christopher York (2 mortgages), David Cooper, Christopher

Wood, Emily Dalbec, Anna Czajowski, and Jason York (2 mortgages). The

Hicklings maintained control of the properties that were in their straw buyers’

names.

viii)

Kulwant Sekhon – Sekhon was involved in this scheme in 2003, but

worked for Pervez as a property manager in Winnipeg earlier in 2002. Sekhon

recruited Mohammed Ali Aziz (5 mortgages), who himself recruited Jennifer

Heinrichs (2 mortgages) into this operation. Aziz understood that Sekhon would

manage his and Heinrichs’ properties, which included securing tenants, collecting

rents and making mortgage payments. Sekhon quickly became delinquent on

mortgage payments, and Aziz spent several thousand dollars servicing the

mortgages in his name and in Heinrichs’ name. At Aziz’s insistence, several of

these properties were transferred out of Aziz’s and Heinrichs’ names. O’Neil

Knight assumed the Heinrichs mortgages. Ellis assumed five of the Aziz

mortgages.

ix)

Adil & Faycal Quadri – the Quadris were involved in this scheme in 2003.

They met Pervez through O’Neil Knight, whom they met in his capacity as a

realtor in Edmonton. Adil Quadri acted as a straw buyer himself on 4 properties.

The Quadris also recruited at least 6 straw buyers during their participation in this

operation. Once the Quadris secured a straw buyer mortgage, they were

responsible to manage the property that was mortgaged, which included securing

tenants, collecting rents and making mortgage payments. The Quadri’s recruits

included Paul Giampa, Luigi Giampa (2 mortgages), Jason Eklund and Roshan

Sheikh (co-mortgagors), Martin Tinney (2 mortgages), and Jawad Choudhary.

Some time after the straw buyers’ mortgages were secured, the Quadri’s

15

numbered company typically assumed the straw buyer mortgage, and removed

the straw buyer’s name from title. In exchange for their participation, the Quadris

received a share of the mortgage proceeds that their straw buyers obtained.

x)

O’Neil Knight – Knight was involved in this scheme in 2003. At that time,

he was a licensed realtor, practicing in Edmonton, Alberta. Knight met Pervez in

his capacity as a realtor. Knight assumed several straw buyer mortgages that

had been obtained as part of this operation. He also recruited at least 3 straw

buyers during his participation in this scheme, and recruited other recruiters such

as the Quadris. The Knight recruits included Trent Dhoedt (2 mortgages),

Carolyn Tinney and Andrea Hayden. In exchange for his participation, Knight

received a share of the mortgage proceeds that his straw buyers obtained.

16

Summary of Ellis’ Role

6.

Ellis was hired to work at the law firm of Venkatraman & Purewal in 2001.

She was hired initially as a litigation assistant.

7.

In May 2003, Ellis took over bookkeeping functions of Venkatraman &

Purewal, replacing an employee named Deanna McShane. In this capacity, Ellis

prepared trust cheques and was responsible for maintaining and balancing the

books for the law firm’s trust and general accounts. Ellis did not have exclusive

signing authority for trust account cheques, but signed cheques that she prepared

for the co-signature of the lawyers at the law firm. Lawyers were often prepared

to sign cheques presented to them by Ellis without question.

8.

Ellis met Pervez in approximately March of 2003. Pervez was known to

her as a client of Venkatraman & Purewal, and specifically a real estate client of

Pubalagan Venkatraman. After her introduction to Pervez, Ellis performed the

conveyancing work associated with Pervez’s real estate transactions.

9.

Ellis did not have dealings with some of Pervez’s co-conspirators. Ellis

had limited dealings with Park, Bindon, the Hicklings and Monahan. Her dealings

with Kahlon, Rashid, and Brito were later in the time of their involvement in this

operation.

10.

When Ellis initially began working on Pervez’s files, Pervez retained Park

as to act for the vendor on the sale of properties to straw buyers . Venkatraman

& Purewal was retained by Pervez to represent the straw buyers and lenders.

Accordingly, upon receipt of mortgage proceeds Venkatraman & Purewal

forwarded the proceeds to Park’s law office. Over time, Venkatraman & Purewal

was retained by Pervez to represent all parties in a real estate transaction, the

vendor, straw buyer and lender. Venkatraman & Purewal was also retained to

represent Pervez in the initial purchase of properties.

17

11.

12.

13.

Ellis handled a high volume of property transactions for Pervez including

the sale of Pervez properties. These transactions required that Ellis have direct

contact with several straw buyers.

14.

15.

After her employment ended with Venkatraman & Purewal, Ellis continued

to work for Pervez. Pervez instructed Ellis to transfer properties into one or more

companies that named Ellis as a Director. These companies assumed the

mortgages of various straw buyers. Pervez provided Ellis with the funds to

service these mortgages.

18

Admissions Pertaining to Specific Allegations of Fraud

Counts 3 through 26 of the Indictment before this Court contain specific

allegations contrary to section 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada. Each

allegation is predicated on evidence of the provision of false information for the

purpose of securing mortgage financing from various lenders as specified in each

individual allegation. It is admitted by the accused that each allegation is

supported by evidence of material false representations made to lenders for the

purpose of securing mortgage financing, that these misrepresentations were

relied on by the lenders, and that the economic interest of each lender was put at

risk as a result of their reliance on these false representations. It is admitted by

Ellis that each complainant was defrauded by deceit, falsehood or other

fraudulent means, in the manner and amount specified in each individual charge.

The accused denies involvement either as a party or as a principal to each fraud

allegation. Except where specifically indicated otherwise, the accused takes the

position that she had no knowledge of the facts at the time that the events

occurred.

19

Count 3 - At or near the City of Edmonton, in the Province of Alberta,

between the 1stday of March, 2003 and the 30thday of May, 2003, did by

deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, defraud Bridgewater Financial

Services Ltd. of $99,630.00, more or less, by providing false information to

Bridgewater Financial Services Ltd. in support of a mortgage application in

the name of Natasha Lindberg for 9331-107A Avenue, Edmonton, Alberta,

contrary to Section 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada

16.

Documents relevant to the transaction that forms the basis for the

allegation in Count 3 are contained in Exhibit 3. The accused does not contest

the admissibility of the contents of Exhibit 3.

17.

9331-107A Avenue is a residence located in Edmonton, Alberta. This

property was purchased by 923080 Alberta Ltd. on January 15, 2003. Corporate

Registry documents outlining the history of 923080 Alberta Ltd. are contained in

Exhibit 28. The accused does not contest the admissibility of the contents of

Exhibit 28. At the time of the purchase of 9331-107A Avenue, Imran Javaid was

the sole director of 923080 Alberta Ltd.

18.

Javaid is married to Pervez’s sister, Nosheen Ahmad. At the time that

923080 Alberta Ltd. was incorporated, Javaid was resident in Lahore, Pakistan.

Javaid had no knowledge of 923080 Alberta Ltd. or any of its dealings, and

provided no direction to 923080 Alberta Ltd., and received none of the profits

realized by 923080 Alberta Ltd. Between 2001 and 2003, 923080 Alberta Ltd.

purchased and sold numerous properties in Edmonton and Camrose, many of

which are contained on the Analytical Charts included in Exhibit 28.

19.

A Power of Attorney purporting to authorize Pervez to act on Javaid’s

behalf in the dealings of 923080 Alberta Ltd. is included with Exhibit 28. Javaid

has no knowledge of this document, and his signature is forged on this document.

This Power of Attorney was frequently proffered as evidence that Pervez had

authority to act on behalf of 923080 Alberta Ltd.

20

20.

On January 10, 2003, Pervez signed the Affidavit of Transferee on the

purchase of 9331-107A Avenue as agent for 923080 Alberta Ltd.. Pervez

attested that 923080 Alberta Ltd. paid cash to the vendors, the Onevathanas, and

that the value of 9331-107A Avenue was, in his opinion, $59,900.00. This

Affidavit was commissioned by Bindon.

21.

On April 29, 2003, title to 9331-107A Avenue was transferred from 923080

Alberta Ltd to Natasha Lindberg. On April 21, 2003, Pervez signed the Transfer

of Land as Power of Attorney for 923080 Alberta Ltd. The consideration received

by 923080 Alberta Ltd. was represented to be $123,000.00. Bindon witnessed

Pervez’s signature on this Transfer of Land. Pubalagan Venkatraman signed as

Lindberg’s agent on the Affidavit of Transferee, attesting that Lindberg paid

consideration by way of cash and new mortgage, for the purchase of 9331-107A

Avenue, and that the value of the land was, in his opinion, $123,000.00. Ellis

commissioned Venkatraman’s affidavit. On April 23, 2003, Lindberg attended to

the law office of Venkatraman & Purewal and signed a mortgage in favour of

Bridgewater Financial Services in the amount of $99,630.00.

22.

Lindberg was recruited into this transaction by Rashid, who was a friend

and co-worker of her fiancé, Royston Frederick. Rashid’s involvement in these

transactions is described in paragraph 5 (v) of this document. Lindberg was

advised that Rashid needed persons to “hold” properties in their name as he

could only have a certain number of properties in his own name. Lindberg

received no fee for her participation in this transaction. Lindberg understood that

a property would be purchased in her name, renovated and sold at a profit. She

did not expect to share in the profit; and she participated in this transaction as a

favour to Rashid. Lindberg signed all mortgage application documents with

Rashid. Lindberg attended twice to the law firm of Venkatraman & Purewal, once

to sign for the purchase of this property and once to sign for the sale of this

property. Lindberg was never asked for any money for a down payment on this

21

property, nor was she asked about any of the other conditions of mortgage

financing.

23.

The mortgage on this property was brokered by Allison Rice, a mortgage

broker with Mortgage Select in Calgary, Alberta. Rice was introduced to Pervez

in early 2003 by a property appraiser named Remie Belmonte. Pervez told Rice

that he was an investor who owned properties in Edmonton. Pervez advised Rice

that he was going to advertise for buyers through his business, Home Placement

Systems. Pervez indicated that he would be assisting his buyers to obtain

mortgage financing. Shortly after their introduction, Pervez began sending files to

Rice for mortgages.

24.

Between April and July 2003, Rice brokered 15 mortgages for Pervez’s

buyers, generating mortgage proceeds of approximately $1,679,958.70 from six

separate financial institutions. Every mortgage that Rice brokered was

precipitated by Pervez forwarding an application package to Rice. When Rice

required additional material, that material came to her through Pervez. Filed as

Exhibit 29 in these proceedings are analytical charts outlining the involvement of

Rice in these various transactions.

25.

True copies of the documents provided as part of this mortgage application

are contained as part of Exhibit 3, and were obtained from Bridgewater Financial

Services Ltd. The accused does not contest the admissibility of these

documents.

26.

The application tendered for Lindberg’s mortgage included various false

representations. The complainant, Bridgewater Financial Services Ltd., relied on

all of these representations in making the decision to provide mortgage financing.

In accordance with its lending practices, had Bridgewater Financial Services Ltd.

been aware of these false representations, it would not have approved the

Lindberg mortgage. As a result of its reliance on the material misrepresentations

22

in the Lindberg mortgage application, the economic interest of Bridgewater

Financial Services Ltd. was put at risk in the amount of $99,630.00.

27.

Specifically with respect to this transaction, Lindberg did not provide a

down payment toward the purchase of this property. The down payment was

represented to have been generated by a $25,000.00 gift from her father. This

was false. Lindberg did not receive a $25,000.00 gift from any member of her

family. As evidence of this gift, Bridgewater Financial Services Ltd. was provided

with a gift letter that was required to satisfy Bridgewater Financial Services Ltd.

that Lindberg had sufficient resources to make a down payment on the purchase

of this property. As further evidence of Lindberg’s receipt of this gift, Bridgewater

Financial Services Ltd. was provided with a letter on Park letterhead, signed by

Bindon, indicating that the firm held $25,000.00 in trust toward the purchase of

this property. This letter was false. This letter invited the lender to contact Park

for confirmation of its contents at 780-910-8806. Filed as Exhibit 30 in these

proceedings are telephone subscriber records demonstrating that Park was the

subscriber of this telephone number in March 2003. Had Bridgewater Financial

Services Ltd. known this information was false, it would not have advanced the

mortgage on 9331-107A Avenue.

28.

Second, Lindberg did not intend to and did not reside at 9331-107A

Avenue. Lindberg had no knowledge of this property. Mortgage approval was

conditional on owner occupancy, as this mortgage was insured by the Canadian

Mortgage and Housing Corporation [hereafter “CMHC”]. Had Bridgewater

Financial Services Ltd. known this information, it would not have advanced the

mortgage on 9331-107A Avenue.

29.

Third, tendered as part of the mortgage application was a Real Estate

Purchase Contract. This document represented that Tasneem Gohar was the

vendor of 9331-107A Avenue. This was false. 923080 Alberta Ltd. was the

vendor of the property. Tasneem Gohar is Pervez’s wife, and was never the

23

lawful owner of this property. This document represented that Lindberg provided

the vendor with a $5,000.00 deposit and would provide the cash to close this

transaction of $25,750.00. This was false. Lindberg provided no funds by way of

deposit or otherwise toward the purchase of this property. The document

indicated that the sale was to be completed by March 28, 2003. The sale was not

completed on that date. Had Bridgewater Financial Services Ltd. known this

information, it would not have advanced the mortgage on 9331-107A Avenue.

30.

Fourth, tendered as part of the mortgage application was a Multiple Listing

Service [hereafter “MLS”] sheet. This document represented to the lender that

9331-107A Avenue was listed on the MLS system with a real estate agent, which

supported the value of the property relative to the purchase price. This document

also indicated to the lender that the sale was an arm’s length transaction, and the

purchaser was a bona fide purchaser for value. The listing agent was

represented to be Harry Brar of All Banners Realty. The telephone number for

the vendor is indicated on this document to be 780-619-8663. Filed as Exhibit 31

are subscriber records demonstrating that Gohar Pervez was the subscriber of

this telephone number in March 2003. Lindberg did not deal with Harry Brar or

any other real estate agent in the purchase of this property. This was not an

arm’s length transaction. There is no evidence that this property was ever offered

for sale on the MLS system. Had Bridgewater Financial Services Ltd. known this

information, it would not have advanced the mortgage on 9331-107A Avenue.

31.

The mortgage proceeds of $99,630.00, were provided to the Park law

office by Venkatraman & Purewal because Park represented the vendor, 923080

Alberta Ltd in this transaction. The funds provided by the Venkatraman &

Purewal law firm to the Park law office would not have been sufficient cash to

close this purchase based on the purchase price of $123,000.00. The shortfall

between the purchase price of $123,000.00 and the mortgage of $99,630.00 was

not provided by Lindberg or anyone acting on Lindberg’s behalf. No funds were

24

provided to make up the shortfall between the purchase price and the mortgage

proceeds.

32.

On December 10, 2003, this property was transferred into Rashid’s name.

On December 1, 2003, Ellis met with Lindberg and witnessed her signature on the

Transfer of Land document. The purchase price was represented to be

$118,000.00. On December 1, 2003, Ellis signed as Rashid’s agent on the

Affidavit of Transferee, attesting that Rashid paid consideration for this property,

by way of cash and assumption of Lindberg’s mortgage, and that the value of the

property was, in her opinion, $118,000.00. Rashid provided no funds toward the

purchase of this property.

33.

On January 5, 2006, Bridgewater Financial Services Ltd. was granted a

final order of foreclosure on this property. The value of this property at the time of

foreclosure was stated to be $78,000.00. This yielded a loss to Bridgewater

Financial Services Ltd. of approximately $18,000.00, the shortfall between the

mortgage advanced and the value of the property as at foreclosure. This loss

was occasioned directly by the false representations tendered in the original

mortgage application, which Bridgewater Financial Services Ltd. relied on to their

detriment. Had Bridgewater Financial Services Ltd. been made aware that these

representations were false, it would not have advanced mortgage proceeds to the

Venkatraman & Purewal law firm, and the mortgage application would have been

declined. On May 2, 2007, Bridgewater Financial Services Ltd. sold the property

to Ricardo Moran for a stated price of $175,000.00, generating a profit of

approximately $75,000.00.

34.

Earlier attempts to broker a mortgage on this property had been made by

David Gorn, a mortgage broker then employed with the Mortgage Alliance

Company. Between 2001 and 2003, Gorn brokered 32 mortgages on Pervez’s

behalf, generating mortgage proceeds of approximately $3,265,606.00. Gorn

was introduced to Pervez through Ron Dinning, a property appraiser. Through

25

his association with Pervez, Gorn also became familiar with Harkamaljit Kahlon

and Shezad Ahmad. Mortgage applications and supporting documents were

provided to Gorn by Pervez, Kelly, Kahlon, Shezad Ahmad (Pervez’s brother),

Rashid, and Park. Gorn knew Pervez to be in charge of all of the transactions that

he participated in as broker, whether presented by Pervez or by one of his

associates. Gorn understood that Pervez was “the boss”, and that Kahlon,

Rashid, Bindon and others worked for Pervez. On occasion, Pervez gave Gorn

additional money for brokering his mortgages, once as much as $5000.00. These

monies were in addition to the commission that Gorn received from the lender.

The relationship between Gorn and Pervez ended when Gorn was investigated by

the Real Estate Council of Alberta [hereafter “RECA”]. Filed as Exhibit 32 in

these proceedings are analytical charts outlining the involvement of Gorn in these

transactions.

35.

On November 25, 2003, an investigator with RECA seized several

documents from Gorn. Among these documents were several materials specific

to Lindberg, and Gorn’s attempts to broker a mortgage on this property. These

materials are included as part of Exhibit 3. The documents include a gift letter

dated March 10, 2003 relative to the purchase of 9331-107A Avenue, evidencing

a gift of $31,000.00 to Lindberg by her cousin, Royston Frederick. This letter was

false. Frederick did not provide any monies to Lindberg to purchase this property.

Frederick was Lindberg’s fiancé, not her cousin. The telephone on the gift letter

of 619-8663 is Pervez’s cellular telephone number, as evidenced by the

subscriber records included as part of Exhibit 31. A letter on Park letterhead

purporting to confirm $31,000.00 in trust toward this purchase was also false.

The Park law office did not receive $31,000.00 from Frederick for the purchase of

9331-107A Avenue. The remainder of the documents seized from Gorn’s office

are duplicated in the mortgage application submitted by Allison Rice. Gorn

unsuccessfully attempted to broker a mortgage in Lindberg’s name on the

property at 9331-107A Avenue. When Gorn’s efforts failed, Pervez provided the

same mortgage application to Rice, who was able to secure mortgage financing.

26

36.

Included in the documents seized from Gorn’s office is a property appraisal

for 9331-107A Avenue completed by Leilani Belmonte. Belmonte is employed at

RL Ryan & Associates in Calgary. Belmonte appraised 14 properties on Pervez’s

behalf in late 2002 through early 2003. All appraisals were arranged on the

request of Pervez. On each occasion, Pervez met Belmonte for her appraisal of

the property. Prior to completing her appraisal, Pervez suggested a property

value that was consistently higher than market value. Once the appraisal was

completed, Belmonte provided the appraisal to Pervez. Pervez paid Belmonte

cash for her appraisals. Lending institutions relied on the accuracy of these

appraisals in determining the value of property.

37.

Also seized from Gorn were various documents related to an unsuccessful

mortgage application in Lindberg’s name at the address of 12923-70 Street.

These materials are included as part of Exhibit 3. These documents contained

various false representations including the representation that the down payment

was provided by way of gift from Royston Frederick, and a letter from the Park

law office indicating that the down payment monies were held in trust at that law

firm. The property at 12923-70 Street was purchased by another straw buyer

named David Luu on April 22, 2003. Luu purchased the property from 923080

Alberta Ltd. for $134,000. Included as part of Exhibit 3 are the Land Title

documents evidencing the transfers completed on 12923-70 Street.

38.

Included in Exhibit 3 are documents obtained from a mortgage broker

named David Humeniuk, who also made efforts to broker a mortgage on 9331-

107A Avenue for a straw buyer named Sadique Pathan. Humeniuk also made

efforts to broker a mortgage for Lindberg on another property located at 11315-96

Street. Humeniuk was a mortgage broker then employed with Power Mortgage

Center Ltd., in Calgary, Alberta. Humeniuk brokered 19 mortgages associated to

this operation between January 2003 and April 2004, generating mortgage

proceeds of approximately $2,347,509.80. Filed as Exhibit 33 in these

27

proceedings are analytical charts outlining Humeniuk’s involvement in this

scheme. Humeniuk’s materials show that Pervez made efforts to obtain a

mortgage in the name of Sadique Pathan on 9331-107A Avenue. At the time that

this mortgage application was made, Pathan was in Syria. He had no knowledge

of this mortgage application. Pathan was Zafir Rashid’s friend. Rashid was

looking after some of Pathan’s affairs while Pathan was in Syria. Humeniuk’s

materials also demonstrate that Pervez offered Lindberg as a potential mortgagor

on 11315-96 Street, where she was a co-applicant with Twyla Estall. Estall and

Lindberg do not know one another. Humeniuk was unable to broker either

mortgage, as the lender declined the applications. Like Gorn, Humeniuk was

investigated by RECA. The materials contained in Exhibit 3 are some of the

materials seized by RECA investigators in February 2005, during the course of

their investigation into Humeniuk’s office.

28

Count 4 - At or near the City of Edmonton, in the Province of Alberta,

between the 1stday of April, 2003 and the 30thday of June, 2003, did by

deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, defraud Firstline Mortgages of

$104,040.00, more or less, by providing false information to Firstline

Mortgages in support of a mortgage application in the name of Jennifer

Heinrichs for 8409-118 Avenue, Edmonton, Alberta, contrary to Section

380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

39.

Documents relevant to the transaction that forms the basis for the

allegation in Count 4 are contained in Exhibit 4. The accused does not contest

the admissibility of the contents of Exhibit 4

40.

8409-118 Avenue is a residence located in Edmonton, Alberta. This

property was purchased by 923080 Alberta Ltd. on November 6, 2002. Corporate

Registry documents outlining the history of 923080 Alberta Ltd. are contained in

Exhibit 28. At the time of this transaction, Javaid was the sole director of 923080

Alberta Ltd.

41.

On October 29, 2002, Pervez signed the Affidavit of Transferee as agent

for 923080 Alberta Ltd. on the purchase of 8409-118 Avenue. Pervez attested

that 923080 Alberta Ltd. paid cash in the amount of $45,000.00 to the vendors,

Phung and Tran, and that the value of 8409-118 Avenue was, in his opinion,

$45,000.00. Bindon commissioned Pervez’s affidavit.

42.

On May 9, 2003, title to 8409-118 Avenue was transferred from 923080

Alberta Ltd to Jennifer Heinrichs. On May 1, 2003, Pervez signed the Transfer of

Land associated with this transaction as the Power of Attorney for 923080 Alberta

Ltd. The consideration received by 923080 Alberta Ltd. was represented to be

$120,000.00. Bindon witnessed Pervez’s signature on this Transfer of Land. On

May 2, 2003, Heinrichs signed the Affidavit of Transferee attesting that she paid

consideration for this property, by way of cash and new mortgage, in the amount

of $120,000.00. Heinrichs’ affidavit was commissioned by Pubalagan

Venkatraman. On May 2, 2003, Heinrichs also signed a mortgage in favour of

29

Firstline Mortgages in the amount of $104,040.00. Heinrichs was not asked any

questions about the cash required to close this transaction, or any other questions

about the conditions of mortgage financing.

43.

Heinrichs was recruited into this scheme by her then boyfriend, Ali Aziz.

Heinrichs’ purchase of 8409-118 Avenue was her second purchase, the first

being approximately 6 weeks earlier on a property located at 11828-54 Street.

Heinrichs was placed on title of 11828-54 Street on February 24, 2003. The

mortgage application tendered on the 54^thStreet purchase contained numerous

false representations, including representations that Heinrichs paid the down

payment on 11828-54 Street, and that she intended to occupy 11828-54 Street.

That mortgage was brokered by David Gorn, whose involvement in this scheme is

outlined in paragraph 34 of this document.

44.

The mortgage on 8409-118 Avenue was brokered by Allison Rice, whose

involvement in this scheme is outlined in paragraphs 23-24 of this document.

45.

True copies of the documents provided as part of this mortgage application

and approval are contained as part of Exhibit 4, and were provided by Firstline

Mortgages. The accused does not contest the admissibility of these documents.

46.

The application tendered for these mortgage proceeds included various

false representations. The complainant, Firstline Mortgages, relied on all of these

representations in making the decision to provide mortgage financing. In

accordance with its lending practices, had Firstline Mortgages been aware of the

false representations in the Heinrichs mortgage application, it would not have

approved the mortgage application. As a result of its reliance on the material

misrepresentations in the Heinrichs mortgage application, the economic interest

of Firstline Mortgages was put at risk in the amount of $104,040.00.

30

47.

Specifically, Heinrichs did not provide a down payment toward the

purchase of this property. The down payment for 8409-118 Avenue was

represented to have been generated from the sale of 11828-54 Street. As

evidence of this sale, Firstline Mortgages was provided with a Real Estate

Purchase Contract purporting to show a sale of 11828-54 Street by Heinrichs to

Ali Aziz for $125,000.00, and a Statement of Disbursements on Park letterhead.

These documents were false, this sale never took place in the manner or time

described. These documents were provided to demonstrate that Heinrichs had

sufficient resources for the down payment on 8409-118 Avenue. These

documents also provided false information about Heinrichs’ debt load, as the

mortgage on 11828-54 Street was represented to be assumed by Aziz. Had

Firstline Mortgages known this information was false, it would not have approved

the mortgage on 8409-118 Avenue.

48.

Second, Heinrichs did not reside nor intend to and did not reside at 8409-

118 Avenue. Heinrichs had no knowledge of this property and had never seen it.

Mortgage approval was conditional on owner occupancy. Had Firstline

Mortgages known this information was false, it would not have approved the

mortgage on 8409-118 Avenue.

49.

Third, tendered as part of the mortgage application, as a condition of

mortgage funding, was a Real Estate Purchase Contract. This document

represented that Tasneem Gohar was the vendor of 8409-118 Avenue. This was

false. 923080 Alberta Ltd. was the vendor of this property. Tasneem Gohar is

Pervez’s wife and was never the lawful owner of this property. This document

also represented that Heinrichs provided the vendor with a $3,000.00 deposit

and would provide the cash to close of $3,000.00. This was false. Heinrichs

provided no funds by way of deposit or otherwise toward the purchase of this

property. Heinrichs’ signature on this document was forged. Had Firstline

Mortgages known this information was false, it would not have approved the

mortgage on 8409-118 Avenue.

31

50.

Fourth, tendered as part of the mortgage application, as a condition of

mortgage funding, was a MLS sheet. This document represented to the lender

that 8409-118 Avenue was listed on the MLS system with a real estate agent,

which supported the value of the property relative to the purchase price. This

document also indicated to the lender that the sale was an arm’s length

transaction, and that the purchaser was a bona fide purchaser for value. The

listing agent was represented to be Harry Brar of All Banners Realty. Heinrichs

did not deal with Harry Brar or any other real estate agent in the purchase of this

property. This was not an arm’s length transaction. There was no evidence that

this property was ever offered for sale on the MLS system. Had Firstline

Mortgages known this information was false, it would not have approved the

mortgage on 8409-118 Avenue.

51.

The proceeds from this mortgage, $104,040.00, were provided by the

lender to the Venkatraman & Purewal law firm. These funds would not have been

sufficient to close this purchase based on the purchase price of $120,000.00.

The shortfall between the purchase price of $120,000.00 and the mortgage of

$104,040.00 was never provided by Heinrichs or anyone acting on her behalf.

52.

On June 2, 2004, title to this property was transferred to O’Neil Knight.

Knight’s involvement in these transactions is described in paragraph 5 (x) of this

document. On December 23, 2003, Heinrichs signed a Transfer of Land for

8409-118 Avenue. The purchase price was represented to be $110,000.00. On

that same date, Heinrichs’ signed a Transfer of Land for 11828-54 Street. This

property was also transferred to Knight. Both Transfers of Land were witnessed

by Ellis. The transfers signed by Heinrichs were not registered until the transfer

was approved by Pervez. On May 28, 2004, Ellis signed as Knight’s agent on the

Affidavit of Transferee, attesting that consideration by way of cash and the

assumption of Heinrichs’ mortgage was paid for both of these properties.

32

53.

On November 26, 2004, Firstline Mortgages was granted a final order of

foreclosure on this property. The property’s value at the time of foreclosure was

stated to be $55,000.00. On February 1, 2005, Firstline Mortgages sold the

property at 8409-118 Avenue to 1131029 Alberta Ltd. for $64,000.00, resulting in

a loss of approximately $40,000.00, the difference between the mortgage

advanced and the proceeds of the sale of the property after foreclosure. This

loss was occasioned directly by the false representations contained in the

Heinrichs mortgage application, which Firstline Mortgages relied on to their

detriment.

54.

Filed as Exhibit 34 in these proceedings are Corporate Registry

documents for 1131029 Alberta Ltd. The accused does not contest the

admissibility of these documents. At the time of the purchase of 8409-118

Avenue, Pervez, Ellis and Shairose Esmail were directors of 1131029 Alberta

Ltd. Ellis deposed the Affidavit of Transferee filed in the purchase of this property

on behalf of 1131029 Alberta Ltd. on January 27, 2005. The funds required for

the purchase of this property were provided by Pervez.

33

Count 5 - At or near the City of Edmonton, in the Province of Alberta,

between the 1stday of May, 2003 and the 30thday of July, 2003, did by

deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, defraud MCAP Service

Corporation of $126,160.00, more or less, by providing false information to

MCAP Service Corporation in support of a mortgage application in the name

of Robbie Madan for 11447-90 Street, Edmonton, Alberta, contrary to

Section 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

55.

Documents relevant to the transaction that forms the basis for the

allegation in Count 5 are contained in Exhibit 5. The accused does not contest

the admissibility of the contents of Exhibit 5.

56.

11447-90 Street is a residence located in Edmonton, Alberta. This

property was purchased by 923080 Alberta Ltd. on August 30, 2001. Corporate

Registry documents outlining the history of 923080 Alberta Ltd. are contained in

Exhibit 28. At the time of this transaction, Judy Monahan and Javaid were

directors of this corporation.

57.

On August 2, 2001, Park signed the Affidavit of Transferee as agent for

923080 Alberta Ltd. on the purchase of 11447-90 Street. Park attested that

923080 Alberta Ltd. paid cash to the vendors, the Lawrences, and that the value

of 11447-90 Street was, in his opinion, $42,000.00. Park’s affidavit was

commissioned by Bindon.

34

A.

Michael Albert

58.

On November 27, 2001, title to 11447-90 Street transferred from 923080

Alberta Ltd to Michael Albert. On November 26, 2001, Pervez signed the

Transfer of Land as Power of Attorney for 923080 Alberta Ltd. The

consideration received by 923080 Alberta Ltd. was represented to be

$110,000.00. Bindon witnessed Pervez’s signature on this Transfer of Land.

Kahlon signed the Affidavit of Transferee as the Power of Attorney for Micheal

Albert, attesting that Albert paid consideration, by way of cash and new

mortgage, to purchase 11447-90 Street. Kahlon’s involvement in this operation

is described at paragraph 5 (i) of this document. Kahlon’s affidavit was

commissioned by Bindon. This information was false. Albert provided no cash

toward the purchase of this property. On November 26, 2001, Kahlon also

signed a mortgage in favour of Bank of Montreal in the amount of $82,500.00, as

Albert’s attorney.

59.

Albert was recruited into this scheme by Kahlon. Albert was introduced to

Kahlon through Suchi Kahlon, Kahlon’s cousin. Albert was asked by Suchi

Kahlon to purchase a house on Kahlon’s behalf. In exchange, Albert was told

that he would be paid a $500 fee for allowing his name to be used in the

purchase. Albert was told that Kahlon would pay the 25% down payment for the

house and would pay the mortgage payments while the property was in Albert’s

name. Albert was told that Kahlon would keep any profit after the house was

renovated and sold. Albert participated in two mortgage transactions, this

transaction was the second time that a property was placed in Albert’s name. In

October 2001, as part of this scheme, Albert obtained a mortgage on a property

located at 11443-101 Street . Park was Albert’s lawyer on both transactions.

When Albert signed for the documents on the 101^stStreet property, he also

signed the Power of Attorney naming Kahlon as his attorney.

35

60.

The mortgage on 11447-90 Street was obtained as a result of several false

representations in the Albert mortgage application. These representations were

relied on by Bank of Montreal when they advanced the mortgage proceeds.

These false representations included documents verifying Albert’s employment,

documents verifying the source of a down payment and the provision of a down

payment, and documents verifying insurance coverage on the property. As a

result of its reliance on these material misrepresentations, the economic interest

of the Bank of Montreal was put at risk in the amount of $82,500.00

36

B.

895238 Alberta Ltd.

61.

On September 25, 2002, title to this property was transferred to 895238

Alberta Ltd. Corporate Registry documents outlining the history of 895238

Alberta Ltd. are filed as Exhibit 35, and the accused does not contest their

admissibility. At the time of this transaction, Monahan and Javaid were the

directors of 895238 Alberta Ltd..

62.

On August 22, 2002, Albert signed the Transfer of Land representing that

the consideration in this sale was $110,000.00. Monahan signed the Affidavit of

Transferee as agent for 895238 Alberta Ltd., attesting that 895238 Alberta Ltd.

assumed the Albert mortgage as consideration for the purchase of 11447-90

Street.

63.

In early 2003, 895238 Alberta Ltd. fell into arrears on this mortgage. As a

result, the Bank of Montreal commenced foreclosure proceedings. On February

4, 2003, as part of the foreclosure action, this property was appraised to have a

market value of $83,000.00.

64.

Robbie Madan’s MCAP mortgage, described below, forming the basis for

the allegations contained in Count #5, was registered on title on July 2, 2003.

Madan’s mortgage proceeds provided the source for the payout of the Bank of

Montreal mortgage.

37

C.

Robbie Madan

65.

On July 2, 2003, title to this property was transferred to Madan. On June

23, 2003, Monahan signed the Transfer of Land on behalf of 895238 Alberta Ltd.

The consideration received by the company was represented to be $128,000.00.

Florence Brown was purported to have witnessed Monahan’s signature. Florence

Brown is Monahan’s mother and her signature was forged. Madan signed the

Affidavit of Transferee, attesting that he paid $128,000.00, by way of cash and

new mortgage, for the purchase of 11447-90 Street. This information was false.

Madan provided no cash toward the purchase of this property. Madan’s affidavit

was commissioned by Ellis. On June 20, 2003, Madan also signed a mortgage

in favour of MCAP Service Corporation in the amount of $126,160.00. Madan

provided none of the cash to close this transaction.

66.

Madan was recruited into this scheme by Kahlon. In May or June of 2003,

Madan was introduced to Kahlon through Madan’s friend and Kahlon’s cousin,

Suchi Kahlon. Madan was told that Kahlon had a construction company and was

engaged in home renovation. Madan was told that Kahlon was looking for

persons that were trustworthy to “hold houses” for him. Kahlon told Madan that

he had arrived from India five to ten years previous. Kahlon advised that his

liabilities were too high to qualify for a mortgage. Kahlon advised that he was in

the business of buying properties, renovating them and re-selling them for a profit.

Kahlon advised that he needed people to hold the homes for him for two to three

months, after which time Kahlon would buy back the property and assume the

mrotgage. Madan was promised and received $1,000.00 for his participation in

this scheme. Madan believed that he was buying 11447-90 Street from Kahlon.

In fact, Madan purchased this property from 895238 Alberta Ltd.

67.

Kahlon met with Madan and obtained Madan’s signature on mortgage pre-

approval documents. Approximately one week later, Kahlon telephoned Madan

38

and arranged to meet him at the law office of Venkatraman & Purewal. While at

the law office, Madan and Kahlon met with Ellis who presented Madan with all of

the documents that required signature.

68.

True copies of the documents provided as part of this mortgage application

and approval are contained as part of Exhibit 5, and were provided by MCAP

Service Corporation. The accused does not contest the admissibility of these

documents.

69.

Madan’s mortgage on 11447-90 Street was brokered by Allison Rice,

whose involvement in this scheme is outlined in paragraphs 23-24 of this

document.

70.

The application tendered for these mortgage proceeds included various

false representations. The complainant, MCAP Service Corporation, relied on all

of these representations in making the decision to provide mortgage financing. In

accordance with its lending practices, had MCAP Service Corporation been

aware that these representations were false, it would not have approved of

Madan’s application for mortgage. As a result of its reliance on the

misrepresentations in this mortgage application, the economic interest of MCAP

Service Corporation was put at risk in the amount of $126,160.00.

71.

Specifically, Madan did not provide a down payment toward the purchase

of this property. This down payment was represented to have been generated by

a gift from a relative. As evidence of that gift, a letter was provided to MCAP

Service Corporation indicating that Kamal Madan, Madan’s cousin, was giving a

non-repayable gift of $8000.00 to be used for the purchase of 11447-90 Street.

Robbie Madan does not have a cousin by the name of Kamal Madan, and did not

receive any money from any person for the purchase of this property. The

contact number provided for “Kamal Madan” was 780-450-0192. Filed as Exhibit

36 in these proceedings are telephone subscriber records demonstrating that

39

780-450-0192 was the residential telephone number of Amarjit Singh Kahlon,

Kahlon’s father. The representations contained in this false gift letter were relied

upon by MCAP Service Corporation in advancing the mortgage to Madan. Had

MCAP Service Corporation known that this gift letter was false, it would not have

advanced the mortgage to Madan.

72.

In an effort to demonstrate to the lender that Madan had received the

“gift”, Kahlon provided Madan with an $8000.00 bank draft. Included as part of

Exhibit 5 is a true copy of the bank draft. Madan was instructed by Kahlon to

deposit the draft into his bank account and obtain a record of the deposit, which

he did. This deposit record was provided with the mortgage application package,

and was relied upon by MCAP Service Corporation, as proof of receipt of the

$8000.00 gift referred to in the gift letter. Immediately after completing the

deposit and obtaining the record of the deposit, Madan, on the direction of

Kahlon, purchased a bank draft payable to Park in the amount of $8000.00. A

true copy of this draft, negotiated on June 3, 2003, is contained as part of Exhibit

5.

73.

Second, Madan never intended to and did not reside at 11447-90 Street.

This mortgage was insured by CMHC. As a condition of that insurance, Madan

was required to occupy the property as his principal residence. As proof of

satisfaction of that condition, Madan signed a Statutory Declaration,

commissioned by Ellis, declaring that he intended to use 11447-90 Street as his

principal residence. This declaration was false, Madan has never lived at this

property, nor does he know if anyone else did. Madan had no connection to this

property. This Statutory Declaration was faxed to the lender from the office of

Venkatraman & Purewal on July 2, 2003.

74.

Third, tendered as part of the mortgage application, as a condition of

mortgage funding, was a Real Estate Purchase Contract. This document

represented that Judy Monahan was the vendor of 11447-90 Street. This was

40

false. 895238 Alberta Ltd. was the vendor of the property. This document

represented that Madan provided the vendor with a $2,000.00 initial deposit, a

$1,000.00 additional deposit and would provide the cash to close of $3,400.00.

This was false. Madan provided no funds by way of deposit or otherwise toward

the purchase of this property. Madan’s signature on this document was forged.

The document indicated that the sale was to be completed by June 20, 2003.

75.

Fourth, tendered as part of the mortgage application, as a condition of

mortgage funding, was a MLS sheet. This document was provided to the lender

to represent that 11447-90 Street was listed on the MLS system with a real

estate agent, which supported the value of the property relative to the purchase

price. This document was also intended to represent to the lender that the sale

was an arm’s length transaction, and the purchaser was a bona fide purchaser

for value. These representations were false. This was not an arm’s length

transaction. The listing agent was represented to be Wes Kukiela of ReMax River

City. Madan did not deal with Wes Kukiela, or any other real estate agent in the

purchase of this property.

76.

A void cheque was provided to MCAP, which was to be the account used

to debit mortgage payments. This void cheque was provided to Ellis by Kahlon,

and by Ellis to MCAP Service Corporation. The account was held at the Royal

Bank of Canada, Tawa Center, Account #514178-3. Filed as Exhibit 37 in these

proceedings are true copies of banking records of this account as provided by

the Royal Bank of Canada. The accused does not contest the admissibility of

these banking records. The holder of this account was Harkamaljit Kahlon.

77.

The proceeds of this mortgage, $126,160.00, were provided to the

Venkatraman & Purewal law firm. These funds would not have been sufficient

cash to close this purchase based on the purchase price of $128,000.00. No

funds were provided by Madan or anyone acting on Madan’s behalf to make up

the shortfall between the purchase price and the mortgage proceeds.

41

42

D.

Twila Larson

78.

In October or November of 2003, Madan telephoned Kahlon and advised

that he wanted to be taken off the title of 11447-90 Street. Pervez instructed Ellis

to prepare transfer documents for the sale of this property by Madan to Twila

Larson. Ellis did not question receipt of these instructions from a third party, who

was neither the vendor nor the purchaser of the property, and prepared transfer

documents in accordance with Pervez’s instructions.

79.

On November 24, 2003, Madan attended to the office of Venkatraman &

Purewal, where he met with Ellis. Madan signed the Transfer of Land associated

with this transaction. The consideration received by him was represented to be

$135,000.00. Ellis witnessed Madan’s signature on the Transfer of Land. On

November 26, 2003, Larson signed the Affidavit of Transferee, attesting that she

paid $135,000.00, by way of cash and assumption of Madan’s mortgage, to

purchase 11447-90 Street. Her Affidavit was commissioned by Ellis. This

information was false. Larson provided no cash toward the purchase of this

property, and Madan did not receive any of the proceeds that should have been

associated to this sale.

80.

Twila Larson was, at the time of this purchase, a tenant at 11447-90

Street. Kahlon offered Larson the opportunity to purchase this property without

necessity of a down payment. Kahlon advised Larson that she was to continue

to pay rent to him, until the paperwork came from the bank. Larson continued to

pay her rent to Kahlon. No one made the mortgage payments. By the time that

Larson heard from MCAP Service Corporation, the mortgage was seriously in

arrears.

81.

On April 15, 2004, MCAP Service Corporation was granted a final order of

foreclosure on this property. The value of this property at the time of foreclosure

was determined to be $90,000. On July 23, 2004, MCAP Service Corporation

43

sold the property at 11447-90 Street to 1112360 Alberta Ltd. for $77,000. This

yielded a loss to MCAP Service Corporation of approximately $50,000, the

shortfall between the mortgage advanced and the proceeds of the sale of the

property after foreclosure. This loss was occasioned directly by the false

representations tendered in the Madan mortgage application, which MCAP

Service Corporation relied on to their detriment. Had MCAP Service Corporation

been made aware that these representations were false, it would not have

approved the Madan mortgage application.

44

E.

1112360 Alberta Ltd.

82.

Filed as Exhibit 38 in these proceedings are Corporate Registry

documents for 1112360 Alberta Ltd. The accused does not contest the

admissibility of these documents. At the time of this transaction Pervez was the

sole director of this corporation. Ellis deposed the Affidavit of Transferee as

agent for 1112360 Alberta Ltd. on July 8, 2004. The funds required to purchase

this property were provided by Pervez.

83.

On September 7, 2004, title to 11447-90 Street was transferred to 1101867

Alberta Ltd.

45

F.

1101867 Alberta Ltd.

84.

Filed as Exhibit 39 in these proceedings are Corporate Registry

documents for 1101867 Alberta Ltd. The accused does not contest the

admissibility of these documents. At the time of this transaction, Kahlon was the

sole director of 1101867 Alberta Ltd.

85.

On August 5, 2004, Pervez signed the Transfer of Land on behalf of

1112360 Alberta Ltd. The consideration received by the company was

represented to be $135,000.00. Ellis signed the Affidavit of Transferee, attesting

that 1101867 Alberta Ltd. paid cash for the purchase of 11447-90 Street.

86.

On September 16, 2004, title to 11447-90 Street was transferred to

Amanpreet Lally, who was recruited into this transaction by Kahlon.

46

G.

Amanpreet Lally

87.

On August 5, 2004, Kahlon signed the Transfer of Land associated with

this transaction on behalf of 1101867 Alberta Ltd. This was the same day that

Pervez signed the Transfer of Land that sold this property to 1101867 Alberta Ltd.

The consideration received by 1101867 Alberta Ltd. was represented to be

$135,000.00. On September 3, 2004, Lally signed the Affidavit of Transferee,

attesting that he paid $135,000.00, by way of cash and new mortgage, to

purchase 11447-90 Street. This information was false. No cash was provided by

Lally toward the purchase of this property. Lally’s affidavit was commissioned by

Ellis. Also on September 3, 2004, Lally signed a mortgage in favour of ING

Mortgage Broker Services Inc. in the amount of $132,418.12. Lally provided none

of the cash to close this transaction.

88.

Kay Khosah, a self-employed mortgage broker, brokered the Lally

mortgage with ING Mortgage Broker Services Inc. Khosah brokered three

mortgages in 2004 that were part of this scheme, which generated total mortgage

proceeds of approximately $315,793.00. These mortgage applications had been

referred to her through her husband, Tarsem Khosah, a realtor with All-Banners

Realty. Tarsem Khosah received these applications from Carman Pervez.

Tarsem Khosah met Pervez at a fitness facility in Edmonton. When Pervez

learned that Tarsem Khosah was a realtor, Pervez advised that he was in the

business of buying houses and helping people buy houses. When Tarsem

Khosah told Pervez that his wife was a mortgage broker, Pervez began to send

business to her. On occasion, Tarsem Khosah met Kahlon along with Pervez. In

the course of receiving mortgage applications, Tarsem Khosah also occasionally

met Ali Aziz and Shairose Esmail. With regard to the Lally mortgage, Kahlon

called Tarsem Khosah requesting their assistance with the mortgage. Kahlon

was told to fax Lally’s information to Kay Khosah. The mortgage application was

processed using the information received from Kahlon.

47

89.

The application tendered for this mortgage included various false

representations, that followed a consistent pattern in these transactions. Lally

did not provide a down payment as represented in the application, Lally did not

reside in the property, as represented in the application, Lally was recruited to

participate in this scheme by Kahlon, he was not a bona fide purchaser of this

property, as was represented in the application. The complainant, ING Mortgage

Broker Services Inc., relied on all of these false representations in making the

decision to approve the Lally mortgage. In accordance with its lending practices,

had ING Mortgage Broker Services Inc. been aware of these false

representations, it would not have approved the Lally mortgage application. As a

result of its reliance on the material misrepresentations in the Lally mortgage

application, the economic interest of ING Mortgage Broker Services was put at

risk in the amount of $132,418.12.

90.

On June 28, 2007, Lally sold this property to a third party for $174,000.00.

This sale generated sufficient revenue to enable Lally to discharge the ING

Mortgage Broker Services Inc. mortgage. As a result of the dramatically

increasing real estate market in Alberta, ING Mortgage Broker Services Inc. did

not suffer an actual economic loss as a result of the fraudulent misrepresentations

that were contained in the Lally mortgage application.

48

Count 6 - At or near the City of Edmonton, in the Province of Alberta,

between the 1stday of May, 2003 and the 30thday of July, 2003, did by

deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, defraud MCAP Service

Corporation of $68,250.00, more or less, by providing false information to

MCAP Service Corporation in support of a mortgage application in the name

of Twyla Estall for 1516 – 69 Street, Edmonton, Alberta, contrary to Section

380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

91.

Documents relevant to the transaction that forms the basis for the

allegation in Count 6 are contained in Exhibit 6. The accused does not contest

the admissibility of the contents of Exhibit 6.

92.

1516-69 Street is a residence located in Edmonton, Alberta. This

property was purchased by 978742 Alberta Ltd. on April 30, 2003. Corporate

Registry documents outlining the history of 978742 Alberta Ltd. are contained in

Exhibit 40. The accused does not contest the admissibility of these documents.

Included as part of Exhibit 40 is an analytical chart outlining several of the real

estate purchases completed by 978742 Alberta Ltd. between February 2001 and

April 2003. At the time of this transaction, Pervez was the sole director of this

corporation.

93.

On April 22, 2003, Pervez signed the Affidavit of Transferee as agent for

978742 Alberta Ltd. on the purchase of 1516-69 Street. Pervez attested that

978742 Alberta Ltd. paid cash to the vendor, Ravinderpal Aujla, and that the

value of the property was, in his opinion, $74,000.00. Bindon commissioned

Pervez’s affidavit.

94.

On July 3, 2003, title to 1516-69 Street was transferred from 978742

Alberta Ltd to Twyla Estall. On June 10, 2003, Pervez signed the Transfer of

Land on behalf of 978742 Alberta Ltd. The consideration received by the

company was represented to be $95,000.00. Bindon witnessed Pervez’s

signature on the Transfer of Land. Estall signed the Affidavit of Transferee,

attesting that she paid consideration, by way of cash and new mortgage, to

49

purchase 1516-69 Street. This information was false; Estall provided no cash

toward this purchase. Estall’s affidavit was commissioned by Ellis. On June 26,

2003, Estall also signed a mortgage in favour of MCAP Service Corporation in the

amount of $68,250.00. The shortfall between the purchase price of $95,000.00

and the mortgage of $68,250.00 was not provided by Estall or anyone acting on

Estall’s behalf.

95.

Estall was formerly married to Rashid, whose involvement in these

transactions is described in paragraph 5 (v) of this document. This was the 4^thof

4 mortgages that Estall secured on properties in Edmonton between November

2002 and April 2003. At the time that she obtained this mortgage, Estall

continued to hold mortgages on the other three properties that had been placed in

her name. This information was not disclosed to the lender, MCAP Service

Corporation. In accordance with their lending policy, MCAP Service Corporation

would not have advanced mortgage proceeds on this property had it been aware

of the other mortgages that Estall was responsible for.

96. Estall was recruited into real estate transactions in Edmonton and in

Winnipeg by Rashid. Estall was never aware of the number of properties that

were placed in her name. She was told by Rashid that his credit did not allow him

to obtain mortgages. Estall agreed to assist Rashid, and also recruited her father,

Richard Estall, to do the same. Estall was aware that Rashid was working with

Pervez in these real estate ventures. She was not paid a fee for her

participation.

97.

With regard to the Edmonton properties, Estall was sent to the law firms of

Scott Park and Venkatraman & Purewal. At the Venkatraman & Purewal office

she dealt with Ellis.

98.

The mortgage on 1516-69 Street was brokered by Allison Rice, whose

involvement in this scheme is outlined in paragraphs 23-24 of this document.

50

99.

The application tendered for these mortgage proceeds included various

false representations. The complainant, MCAP Service Corporation, relied on all

of these representations in making the decision to provide mortgage financing. In

accordance with its lending practices, had MCAP Service Corporation been

aware of the false representations in the Estall mortgage application, it would not

have approved the application. As a result of its reliance on the

misrepresentations in this mortgage application, the economic interest of MCAP

Service Corporation was put at risk in the amount of $68,250.00.

100. Specifically, Estall did not provide a down payment toward the purchase of

this property. The down payment for 1516-69 Street was represented to have

been generated by the sales of 10920-98 Street, 10205-159 Street and 11612-96

Street; all in Edmonton, Alberta. These three properties were the other Edmonton

properties that Estall purchased as part of this scheme. As evidence of these

three sales, MCAP Service Corporation was provided with three Real Estate

Purchase Contracts. These documents were false, the property sales never took

place in the manner or the time described. Estall’s signature was forged on all

three Real Estate Purchase Contracts. In addition to the false Real Estate

Purchase Contracts, MCAP Service Corporation was provided with false

Statements of Adjustments, duplicating the information contained in the Real

Estate Purchase Contracts. These documents served the purpose of persuading

the lender that Estall had sufficient resources to make a down payment on the

purchase of 1516-69 Street. The documents also provided false information to

the lender with regard to the Estall’s debt load, since they represent that the

mortgages on those three properties would be assumed by the purchasers. Had

MCAP Service Corporation known that this information was false, it would not

have advanced the mortgage on the property at 1516-69 Street.

101. Second, tendered as part of the mortgage application, as a condition of

mortgage funding, was a Real Estate Purchase Contract. This document

51

represented that Royston Frederick was the vendor of 1516-69 Street. This was

false. 978742 Alberta Ltd. was the vendor of the property. Royston Frederick

was the fiancé of Natasha Lindberg, whose involvement in these transactions is

described in the section dealing with Count 3 of the Indictment. The Real Estate

Purchase Contract represented that Estall provided the vendor with a $3,000.00

initial deposit, and would provide the cash to close of $20,750.00. This was false.

Estall provided no funds by way of deposit or otherwise toward the purchase of

this property. The document indicates that the sale was to be completed by June

16, 2003. Estall’s signature was forged on this document.

102. Third, tendered as part of the mortgage application, as a condition of

mortgage funding, was a MLS sheet. This document represented to the lender

that 1516-69 Street was listed on the MLS system with a real estate agent, which

supported the value of the property relative to the purchase price. This

document also indicated to the lender that the sale was an arm’s length

transaction, and that the purchaser was a bona fide purchaser for value. The

listing agent was represented to be Wes Kukiela of ReMax River City. Estall did

not deal with Wes Kukiela or any other real estate agent in the purchase of this

property. This was not an arm’s length transaction.

103. The mortgage on this property is current, and Estall continues to be on

title as the property owner, is resident at this property.

52

Count 7 - At or near the City of Edmonton, in the Province of Alberta,

between the 1stday of June, 2003 and the 30thday of August, 2003, did by

deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, defraud Resmor Trust

Company of $123,203.13, more or less, by providing false information to

Resmor Trust Company in support of a mortgage application in the name of

Naresh Jindal for 11933-78 Street, Edmonton, Alberta, contrary to Section

380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

104. Documents relevant to the transaction that form the basis for the allegation

in Count 7 are contained in Exhibit 7. The accused does not contest the

admissibility of the contents of Exhibit 7.

105.

11933-78 Street is a residence located in Edmonton, Alberta. This

property was purchased by 923080 Alberta Ltd. on April 24, 2003. Corporate

Registry documents outlining the history of 923080 Alberta Ltd. are contained in

Exhibit 28. At the time of this transaction, Javaid was the director of 923080

Alberta Ltd.

106. On April 17, 2003, Pervez signed the Affidavit of Transferee as agent for

923080 Alberta Ltd. on the purchase of 11933-78 Street. Pervez attested that

923080 Alberta Ltd. paid cash to the vendor, Bank of Montreal, and that the value

of 11933-78 Street was, in the transferee’s opinion, $63,888.00. Bindon

commissioned Pervez’s affidavit.

107. On July 28, 2003, title to 11933-78 Street was transferred from 923080

Alberta Ltd. to Naresh Jindal. On July 16, 2003, Pervez signed the Transfer of

Land on behalf of 923080 Alberta Ltd. The consideration received by the

company was represented to be $125,000.00. Ellis witnessed Pervez’s signature

on this Transfer of Land. Also on July 16, 2003, Naresh Jindal signed the

Affidavit of Transferee, attesting that he paid consideration by way of “cash to

close”, for the purchase of 11933-78 Street. Jindal’s affidavit was commissioned

by Ellis. On July 16, 2003, Jindal also signed a mortgage in favour of Resmor

Trust Company in the amount of $123,203.13. The shortfall between the

53

purchase price of $125,000.00 and the mortgage of $123,203.13 was not

provided by Jindal or anyone acting on Jindal’s behalf.

108. This was the second of four mortgages that Jindal secured on properties in

Edmonton between February 2003 and March 2004. At the time that he

obtained this mortgage, Jindal continued to hold a mortgage on a property

located at 11838-91 Street, a property that was placed in Jindal’s name on

February 5, 2003. This information was not disclosed to the lender, Resmor

Trust Company. In accordance with their lending policy, Resmor Trust Company

would not have approved the Jindal mortgage application had it been aware of

the other mortgage that Jindal held.

109. Jindal was recruited into this scheme by Amarjit Singh, Kahlon’s father

and former neighbour to Jindal. Singh asked Jindal if he would assist his son,

Kahlon, to get a house. Jindal understood that he was to obtain a mortgage on a

property that Kahlon would then assume. Jindal understood that Kahlon could

not qualify for his own mortgage. Although Jindal was offered $1,000.00 for his

participation, Jindal declined this offer as he believed that he was doing a favour

for his friend.

110. Jindal signed legal documents at Venkatraman & Purewal, he attended to

that law firm with Kahlon. At the law firm, Jindal dealt with Ellis.

111. The mortgage on 11933-78 Street was brokered by David Gorn, whose

involvement in this scheme is outlined in paragraph 34 of this document.

112. The application tendered for the mortgage on 11933-78 Street included

various false representations. The complainant, Resmor Trust Company, relied

on all of these representations in making the decision to provide mortgage

financing. In accordance with its lending practices, had Resmor Trust Company

been aware that various of the representations were false, it would not have

54

approved the Jindal mortgage application. As a result of its reliance on the

misrepresentations in this mortgage application, the economic interest of Resmor

Trust Company was put at risk in the amount of $123,203.13.

113. Specifically, Jindal did not provide a down payment toward the purchase of

this property. The down payment for 11933-78 Street was represented to have

been generated by the sale of 11838-91 Street. As evidence of this sale, Resmor

Trust Company was provided with a Real Estate Purchase Contract representing

the sale of this property to Judy Monahan. This document was false, the sale

never took place in the manner or the time described. This document served the

purpose of persuading the complainant lender that Jindal had sufficient resources

to make a down payment on the purchase of 11933-78 Street. This document

also provided false information to the lender with regard to the Jindal’s debt load,

as it demonstrates that the mortgage on 11838-91 Street would be assumed by

the purchaser. Had Resmor Trust Company known that this information was

false, it would not have advanced the mortgage on the property at 11933-78

Street.

114.

Second, Jindal did not intend to and did not reside at 11933-78 Street.

Jindal’s residence was and continues to be 135 Kiniski Crescent, Edmonton,

Alberta. The mortgage on 135 Kiniski Crescent was another undisclosed liability

on the mortgage application for 11933-78 Street. The Resmor Trust Company

mortgage was insured by CMHC. As a condition of that insurance, Jindal would

be required to reside at 11933-78 Street.

115. Third, tendered as part of the mortgage application, as a condition of

mortgage funding, was a Real Estate Purchase Contract. This document

represented that Harkamal Kahlon was the vendor of 11933-78 Street. This was

false. 923080 Alberta Ltd. was the vendor of this property. This document

represented that Jindal provided the vendor with a $2,000.00 initial deposit, and

would provide the cash to close of $4,250.00. This was false. Jindal provided no

55

funds by way of deposit or otherwise toward the purchase of this property. The

document indicates that the sale was to be completed by July 15, 2003.

116. Fourth, tendered as part of the mortgage application, as a condition of

mortgage funding, was a MLS sheet. This document represented to the lender

that 11933-78 Street was listed on the MLS system with a real estate agent,

which supported the value of the property relative to the purchase price. This

document also indicated to the lender that the sale was an arm’s length

transaction, and that the purchaser was a bona fide purchaser for value. The

listing agent was represented to be Wes Kukiela of ReMax River City. Jindal did

not deal with Wes Kukiela or any other real estate agent in the purchase of this

property. This was not an arm’s length transaction.

117. At some point in 2004, Jindal began to get telephone calls from lenders

with regard to mortgage arrears. Jindal contacted Ellis in an effort to locate

Kahlon, who had stopped making mortgage payments. Ellis completed

documents to transfer the properties into the names of other parties. Pervez

provided Ellis with the funds to service these mortgages.

118. On January 18, 2004, Jindal attended to the office of Venkatraman &

Purewal, where he met with Ellis. Jindal signed the Transfer of Land associated

with this transaction. The consideration received by him was represented to be

$130,000.00 Ellis witnessed Jindal’s signature on the Transfer of Land

document. On January 10, 2004, Ellis signed the Affidavit of Transferee as agent

for the purchaser, Twyla Larson, attesting that Larson paid consideration, by way

of cash and assumption, of Jindal’s mortgage, for the purchase of 11933-78

Street. Larson provided no cash toward the purchase of this property, and Jindal

did not receive any of the proceeds that should have been generated

from the sale. Larson’s involvement in this operation is described in paragraph

80 of this document.

56

119. On March 13, 2004, this property was registered in Larson’s name. There

was a delay between the preparation of the transfer documents and the

registration of the transfer. This was the second mortgage assumed by Larson in

less than 2 months, the first described in paragraph 80 of this document.

120. On June 23, 2004, title to 11933-78 Street was transferred from Larson to

1101867 Alberta Ltd. The Corporate Registry documents for 1101867 Alberta

Ltd. are filed as Exhibit 39 in these proceedings. At the time of this transaction,

Kahlon was the sole director of this corporation. On May 26, 2004, Larson signed

the Transfer of Land. The consideration received by Larson was represented to

be $130,000.00. Ellis witnessed Larson’s signature on this Transfer of Land. On

May 5, 2004, Kahlon signed the Affidavit of Transferee on behalf of 1101867

Alberta Ltd, attesting that the company paid consideration by way of cash and

assumption of Jindal’s mortgage. This information was false. 1101867 Alberta

Ltd. provided no cash toward the purchase of this property.

121. On September 21, 2005, title to 11933-78 Street was transferred from

1101867 Alberta Ltd. to 1183122 Alberta Ltd. Filed as Exhibit 41 in these

proceedings are Corporate Registry documents associated to 1183122 Alberta

Ltd. The accused does not contest the admissibility of these documents. At the

time of this transaction, Kahlon was the sole director of both 1183122 Alberta Ltd.

and 1101867 Alberta Ltd.

122. On September 29, 2005, Resmor Trust Company filed a lis pendens on the

title of 11933-78 Street. On December 14, 2005, Capital Health authorities filed

an order on title, declaring 11933-78 Street to be unfit for human habitation. On

March 31, 2007, Resmor Trust Company was granted a final order of

foreclosure on this property, with an appraised property value of $75,000.00.

The difference between the mortgage held on this property and the value of the

property represents a potential actual loss to Resmor Trust Company of

approximately $48,000.00.

57

Count 8 - At or near the City of Edmonton, in the Province of Alberta,

between the 1stday of June, 2003 and the 30thday of August, 2003, did by

deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, defraud Bridgewater Financial

Services Ltd. of $116,724.13, more or less, by providing false information to

Bridgewater Financial Services Ltd. in support of a mortgage application in

the name of Mary Kydd for 10920-92 Street, Edmonton, Alberta, contrary to

Section 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

123. Documents relevant to the transaction that form the basis for the

allegation in Count 8 are contained in Exhibit 8. The accused does not contest

the admissibility of the contents of Exhibit 8.

124.

10920-92 Street is a residence located in Edmonton, Alberta. This

property was purchased by 978742 Alberta Ltd. on June 20, 2003. Corporate

Registry documents outlining the history of 978742 Alberta Ltd. are filed as

Exhibit 40. At the time of this transaction, Pervez was the sole director of this

corporation.

125. On June 8, 2003, Pervez signed the Affidavit of Transferee as agent for

978742 Alberta Ltd. attesting that 978742 Alberta Ltd. paid cash to the vendor,

Hnatiuk, and that the value of 10920-92 Street was, in his opinion, $50,000.00.

Bindon commissioned Pervez’s affidavit.

126. On August 13, 2003, title to 10920-92 Street was transferred from 978742

Alberta Ltd to Mary Kydd. On July 29, 2003, Pervez signed the Transfer of Land

on behalf of 978742 Alberta Ltd, representing that 978742 Alberta Ltd. was paid

consideration of $119,000.00 in this sale. Ellis witnessed Pervez’s signature on

this Transfer of Land. Kydd signed the Affidavit of Transferee on July 30, 2003,

attesting that she paid consideration by way of cash and a new mortgage in the

purchase 10920-92 Street. Kydd provided no cash toward the purchase of this

property. Kydd’s affidavit was commissioned by Ellis. On July 30, 2003, Kydd

also signed a mortgage in favour of Bridgewater Financial Services Ltd. in the

amount of $116,724.13.

58

127. Kydd became familiar with Pervez through her employment at Habitat for

Humanity Restore This business sells donated building supplies to the public.

Pervez was a frequent customer of the store. Pervez persuaded Kydd to

purchase property, rather than rent. Pervez showed Kydd several houses that

were available for purchase. The property at 10920-92 Street was one of the

homes that Pervez showed Kydd. Kydd advised Pervez that she could not qualify

for a mortgage because of her present marital situation. Pervez advised Kydd

that he would take care of securing the mortgage.

128. The mortgage on 10920-92 Street was brokered by David Gorn, whose

involvement in this scheme is outlined in paragraph 34 of this document.

129. The application tendered for the mortgage on 10920-92 Street contained

various false representations. The complainant, Bridgewater Financial Services

Ltd., relied on all of these representations in making the decision to provide

mortgage financing. In accordance with its lending practices, had Bridgewater

Financial Services Ltd. been aware of these false representations, it would not

have approved the Kydd mortgage. As a result of its reliance on the material

misrepresentations in this mortgage application, the economic interest of

Bridgewater Financial Services Ltd. was put at risk in the amount of $116,754.13.

130. Specifically, Kydd did not provide a down payment toward the purchase of

this property. This down payment was represented to have been generated by

both the division of marital assets and by way of a gift provided to Kydd by her

sister. These representations were false. Kydd did not receive any monies from

her sister to put toward the purchase of this property. Kydd’s marital estate had

not been divided at the time of Kydd’s purchase of 10920-92 Street. These

representations served the purpose of persuading the lender that Kydd had

sufficient resources to make a down payment on the purchase of 10920-92

Street. These representations also provided false information about Kydd’s debt

59

load, as they demonstrated that Kydd had been released from matrimonial debts,

including a mortgage on her matrimonial home. Had Bridgewater Financial

Services Ltd. known that this information was false, it would not have advanced

the mortgage on the property at 10920-92 Street.

131. In an effort to demonstrate to the lender that Kydd had received the gift

from her sister, Pervez provided Kydd with $7000.00, the amount of the

represented gift from Kydd’s sister. Pervez instructed Kydd to deposit the

money into her personal bank account and to obtain a record of her deposit,

which she did. This deposit record was provided with the mortgage application

package, and was relied on by Bridgewater Financial Services Ltd., as proof of

the gift referred to. Kydd returned most of these funds to Pervez after they were

deposited into her account, Kydd understood that Pervez was lending her this

money.

132. Second, tendered as part of the mortgage application, was an

employment letter and T-4, purporting to confirm Kydd’s employment and income

at Habitat for Humanity. The letter represented that Kydd earned an annual

income of $43,200.00 and a T-4 was submitted to confirm this income. These

documents were false. Kydd earned an annual income of approximately

$24,000.00. The T-4 was forged. This representation was later brought to the

attention of Kydd’s employer; and Kydd’s employment at Habitat for Humanity

was terminated. Had Bridgewater Financial Services Ltd. known that this

information was false, it would not have advanced the mortgage on the property

at 10920-92 Street.

133. Third, tendered as part of the mortgage application, as a condition of

mortgage funding, was a Real Estate Purchase Contract. This document did not

name the vendor of 10920-92 Street, the vendor was described as being care of

the listing real estate agent. Kydd dealt throughout with Pervez, not a listing real

estate agent. 978742 Alberta Ltd. was the vendor of this property. This

60

document represented that Kydd provided the vendor with a $2,000.00 initial

deposit, and would provide the cash to close of $3,950.00. This was false. Kydd

provided no funds by way of deposit or otherwise toward the purchase of this

property. Had Bridgewater Financial Services Ltd. known that this information

was false, it would not have advanced the mortgage on the property at 10920-92

Street.

134. Fourth, tendered as part of the mortgage application, as a condition of

mortgage funding, was a MLS sheet. This document represented to the lender

that 10920-92 Street was listed on the MLS system with a real estate agent,

which supported the value of the property relative to the purchase price. This

document also indicated that the sale was an arm’s length transaction, and that

the purchaser was a bona fide purchaser for value. The listing agent was

represented to be Camille Doucette of Century 21. Kydd did not deal with Camille

Doucette or any other real estate agent in the purchase of this property. This was

not an arm’s length transaction. Had Bridgewater Financial Services Ltd. known

that this information was false, it would not have advanced the mortgage on the

property at 10920-92 Street.

135. The mortgage on this property is current, and Kydd continues to be on title

as the property owner, and continues to reside at this property.

61

A)

Royal Bank Line of Credit Application

136. In late 2004, Pervez approached Kydd with a business proposition.

Pervez’s proposed that he “give” several properties to Kydd. Kydd understood

this to be a business proposition. Kydd had no experience in the real estate

market, save the home purchase described earlier in this document. Kydd

understood that she and Pervez were going to renovate these properties and sell

them at a profit.

137.

138. Kydd understood that Pervez wanted to assist her to enter the real estate

business. Kydd believed that Pervez was offering to do her a favour.

139. Kydd made an appointment with Jason Daniel, a branch manager with the

Royal Bank of Canada, with whom she had a long-standing business

relationship. The purpose of this appointment was to discuss the Pervez

proposal.

140. On December 23, 2004, Jason Daniel met with Pervez and Kydd. Pervez

did most of the talking during this meeting. He explained to Daniel that he

intended to transfer 4-5 properties into Kydd’s name. Kydd would secure a line of

credit with the RBC in the amount of 75% of the appraised value of each property.

Pervez and Kydd would then renovate and sell the properties at a profit. Pervez

presented the same proposal to Daniel for two other persons, identified as

Shairose Esmail and Ali Aziz.

141. After this meeting, Pervez provided Daniel with appraisals on the

properties, as well as transfer documents evidencing the transfer of these

properties into Kydd’s name. Filed as Exhibit 42 in these proceedings are the

62

documents that Pervez presented to Daniel. The accused does not contest the

admissibility of these documents.

142. The properties that Pervez proposed to transfer into Kydd’s name were:

I.

10630-95 Street, Edmonton, Alberta

Pervez provided Daniel with an appraisal on this property completed by

Gordon Chapman. This appraisal valued this property at $145,000.00. In

furtherance of Pervez’s proposal, Ellis faxed correspondence to Daniel

confirming the transfer of this property to Mary Kydd. A 75% line of credit

would secure a loan of approximately $108,000.

Documents associated to the Land Title history of 10630-95 Street are filed

in these proceedings as part of Exhibit 42. This property was initially

purchased by 923080 Alberta Ltd. in October 2002 for $57,500. In

December 2002, title to this property transferred to Keith Rayner for

$165,000. Secured on title was a mortgage in favour of Maple Trust

Company in the amount of $144,789.00. Rayner was a straw buyer

recruited by Brito and Caroca. Rayner had no interest in this property. On

February 6, 2004, title to this property transferred to Caroca with a

represented purchase price of $163,000.00. On April 22, 2004, Capital

Health authorities registered a Notice of Health Hazard on title to this

property, declaring the premises unfit for human habitation. On May 5,

2004, Maple Trust Company was granted a final order of foreclosure on

this property. On November 10, 2004, 1131029 Alberta Ltd. purchased

this property from Maple Trust Company. At the time of this purchase, this

company was directed by Pervez, Ellis and Esmail. The purchase price

was $73,500.00. Ellis signed the purchase documents as agent for

1131029 Alberta Ltd. Maple Trust Company lost approximately $70,000 as

a result of the fraudulently obtained Rayner mortgage. On January 5,

63

2005, this property was transferred into Kydd’s name. Ellis signed the

Transfer of Land documents on behalf of 1131029 Alberta Ltd. The sole

purpose of the transfer to Kydd was to facilitate the RBC line of credit on

this property.

II.

9613-106A Avenue; Edmonton, Alberta

Pervez provided Daniel with an appraisal on this property completed by

Gordon Chapman. This appraisal valued this property of $122,000.00. In

furtherance of Pervez’s proposal, Ellis faxed correspondence to Daniel

confirming the transfer of this property to Kydd. A 75% line of credit would

secure a loan of approximately $91,500.00.

Documents associated to the Land Title history of 9613-106A Avenue are

included as part of Exhibit 42. This property was initially purchased by

1112360 Alberta Ltd. in September 2004 for $65,500. At the time of this

purchase, Pervez was the director of 1112360 Alberta Ltd. In September

2004, title to this property was transferred to Pervez, with a represented

purchase price of $145,000.00. No funds changed hands in this

transaction. On October 27, 2004, title to this property was transferred to

1090316 Alberta Ltd., with a represented purchase price of $145,000.00.

Filed as Exhibit 43 are the Corporate Registry documents associated to

1090316 Alberta Ltd. The accused does not contest the admissibility of

these documents. At the time of this transaction, Pervez and Ellis were

directors of this company. On January 12, 2005, this property was

transferred into Kydd’s name. Ellis signed the transfer documents on

behalf of 1090316 Alberta Ltd. The sole purpose of this transfer was to

facilitate the RBC line of credit on this property.

III.

12930-71 Street; Edmonton, Alberta

64

Pervez provided Daniel with an appraisal on this property completed by

Gordon Chapman. This appraisal valued this property at $118,000.00. In

furtherance of Pervez’s proposal, Ellis faxed correspondence to Daniel

confirming the transfer of this property to Kydd. A 75% line of credit would

secure a loan of approximately $88,500.00.

Documents associated to the Land Title history of 12930-71 Street are

included as part of Exhibit 42. This property was initially purchased by

1112360 Alberta Ltd. in November 2004 for $61,500. At the time of this

transaction, Pervez and Ellis were directors of this company. On January

21, 2005, this property was transferred into Kydd’s name. Ellis signed the

transfer of land documents on behalf of 1112360 Alberta Ltd. The sole

purpose of this transfer was to facilitate the RBC line of credit on this

property.

IV.

9620-110 Avenue; Edmonton, Alberta

Pervez provided Daniel with an appraisal on this property completed by

Gordon Chapman. This appraisal valued this property at $157,000. In

furtherance of Pervez’s proposal, Ellis faxed correspondence to Daniel

confirming the transfer of this property to Mary Kydd. A 75% line of credit

would secure a loan of approximately $117,750.00.

Documents associated to the Land Title history of 9620-110 Avenue are

included as part of Exhibit 42. This property was initially purchased by

1131029 Alberta Ltd. in January 2005 for $91,000.00. At the time of this

purchase, Pervez, Ellis and Esmail were directors of this company. This

property was never registered in Kydd’s name.

143. Jason Daniel was suspicious about the legitimacy of these transactions.

Accordingly, on behalf of the RBC, he declined the applications for the secured

65

lines of credit on these properties, as well as the similar applications for Shairose

Esmail and Ali Aziz. Daniel advised his client, Kydd, not to involve herself in this

Pervez proposal. Had the Kydd applications been approved, Kydd would have

been responsible for lines of credit totaling approximately $405,750.00. Based on

the purchase price paid by the companies for each of the properties, this credit

application would have generated a net profit to Pervez of approximately

$114,250.00.

144.

66

Count 9 - At or near the City of Edmonton, in the Province of Alberta,

between the 1stday of June, 2003 and the 30thday of August, 2003, did by

deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, defraud Bridgewater Financial

Services Ltd. of $111,375.00, more or less, by providing false information to

Bridgewater Financial Services Ltd. in support of a mortgage application in

the name of Richard Estall for 11322-93 Street, Edmonton, Alberta, contrary

to Section 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

145. Documents relevant to the transaction that forms the basis for the

allegation in Count 9 are contained in Exhibit 9. The accused does not contest

the admissibility of the contents of Exhibit 9.

146. 11322-93 Street is a residence located in Edmonton, Alberta. This

property was purchased by 923080 Alberta Ltd. on March 21, 2003. Corporate

Registry documents outlining the history of 923080 Alberta Ltd. are contained in

Exhibit 28. At the time of the purchase of 11322-93 Street, Javaid was the sole

director of 923080 Alberta Ltd.

147. On March 17, 2003, Pervez signed the Affidavit of Transferee as agent for

923080 Alberta Ltd. on the purchase of 11322-93 Street, attesting that 923080

Alberta Ltd. paid cash to the vendor, Peter Bischoff, and that the value of 11322-

93 Street was $57,000.00. This Affidavit was commissioned by Bindon.

148. On August 15, 2003, title to 11322-93 Street was transferred from 923080

Alberta Ltd to Richard Estall. On July 29, 2003, Pervez signed the Transfer of

Land associated with this transaction as the Power of Attorney for 923080 Alberta

Ltd. The consideration received by him was represented to be $113,000.00.

Bindon witnessed Pervez’s signature on this Transfer of Land. On July 31, 2003,

Richard Estall signed the Affidavit of Transferee, attesting that he paid

consideration, by way of cash and new mortgage for the purchase of 11322-93

Street. Ellis commissioned Estall’s affidavit. Also on July 31, 2003, Richard

Estall signed a mortgage in favour of Bridgewater Financial Services Ltd. in the

amount of $111,375.63.

67

149. Estall was recruited into this transaction by Zafir Rashid, who was

engaged at that time to his daughter, Twyla Estall. The property at 11322-93

Street was the third of three mortgages that Estall obtained as part of this

scheme. Estall understood that properties would be placed in his name, and that

Rashid would collect rents from the tenants in those properties to raise money for

the mortgage payments. Estall understood that Rashid was managing these

properties. Estall received no fee for his role in this transaction, but understood

that he would share in the profit when the properties were sold. Estall never

dealt with any bankers or mortgage brokers; he signed all documents with and

provided all requisite information to Rashid.

150. The mortgage on 11322-93 Street was brokered by David Gorn, whose

involvement in these proceedings is described at paragraph 34 of this document.

151. True copies of the documents provided as part of this mortgage

application and approval are contained as part of Exhibit 9, and were provided by

Bridgewater Financial Services Ltd. The accused does not contest the

admissibility of these documents.

152. The application tendered for this mortgage included various false

representations. The complainant, Bridgewater Financial Services Ltd., relied on

all of these representations in making the decision to approve the Estall

mortgage. In accordance with its lending practices, had Bridgewater Financial

Services Ltd. been aware of the false representations, it would not have approved

the Estall mortgage. As a result of its reliance on the material misrepresentations

in the Estall mortgage application, the economic interest of Bridgewater Financial

Services was put at risk in the amount of $111,375.63.

153. Specifically with respect to this transaction, Estall did not provide a down

payment toward the purchase of this property. The down payment was

68

represented to have been generated by the sale of Estall’s property at 12406-86

Street in Edmonton, Alberta. The property at 12406-86 Street is the first property

that Estall obtained a mortgage on as part of this scheme. Estall went on title to

12406-86 Street on February 17, 2003. Secured on title was a mortgage in

favour of the Toronto-Dominion bank in the amount of $86,250.00. Also on

February 17, 2003, Estall went on title to 11836-96 Street. Secured on title was

a mortgage in favour of the Toronto-Dominion bank in the amount of $90,000.00.

Undisclosed to the Toronto-Dominion bank at the time of obtaining these two

mortgages was the fact that Estall resided, and intended to continue to reside, at

his property at 11688-15 Avenue in Edmonton, Alberta, the matrimonial home that

he shared with his wife, Brenda Estall. The sale of 12406-86 Street was to have

generated sufficient resources to provide a down payment toward the purchase of

11322-93 Street, as well as sufficient resources to pay off a personal line of credit

in Estall’s name at the Royal Bank of Canada. As evidence of the sale of 12406-

86 Street, Bridgewater Financial Services Ltd. was provided with a Real Estate

Purchase Contract purporting to show the sale of this property to Rahine Wadji.

The sale price of 12406-86 Street was represented to be $118,000.00. This

document was false, the sale never took place in the manner described, nor in the

time described. This document served the purpose of persuading the lender that

Estall had sufficient resources to make a down payment on the purchase of

11322-93 Street. This document also provided false information to the lender

about Estall’s debt load, as it represented that the mortgage on 12406-86 Street

would be assumed by the purchaser. Bridgewater Financial Services Ltd., was

also not advised of other mortgages in Estall’s name at 11688-15 Avenue and

11836-96 Street. Had Bridgewater Financial Services Ltd. known that this

information was false, it would not have advanced the mortgage on the property

at 11312-93 Street.

154. Second, Estall did not intend to and did not reside at 11322-93 Street.

This mortgage was insured by was insured by the GE Capital Insurance

69

Company [hereafter “GE”].. As a condition of that insurance, Estall was required

to occupy 11322-93 Street. As proof of satisfaction of that condition, Estall

signed a Statutory Declaration, commissioned by Ellis, declaring that he intended

to use the property as his principal residence. This Statutory Declaration was

faxed to the lender from the office of Venkatraman & Purewal on August 15,

2003. Had Bridgewater Financial Services Ltd. known that this information was

false, it would not have advanced the mortgage on the property at 11312-93

Street.

155. Third, tendered as part of the mortgage application, as a condition of

mortgage financing, was a Real Estate Purchase Contract. This document

represented that Kevin Yee was the vendor of 11322-93 Street. This was false.

923080 Alberta Ltd. was the vendor of the property. This document represented

that Estall provided the vendor with a $3,000.00 deposit and would provide the

cash to close of $2,650.00. This was false. Estall provided no funds by way of

deposit or otherwise toward the purchase of this property. The document

indicates that the sale was to be completed by July 18, 2003. The sale was not

completed on that date. Had Bridgewater Financial Services Ltd. known that this

information was false, it would not have advanced the mortgage on the property

at 11312-93 Street.

156. Fourth, tendered as part of the mortgage application, a condition of

mortgage financing, was a MLS sheet. This document represented to the lender

that 11322-93 Street was listed on the MLS system with a real estate agent,

which supported the value of the property relative to the purchase price. This

document also indicated to the lender that the sale was an arm’s length

transaction, and that the purchaser was a bona fide purchaser for value. The

listing agent was represented to be Louise Violette of ReMax Realty. Estall did

not deal with Louise Violette or any other real estate agent in the purchase of this

property. This was not an arm’s length transaction.

70

157. The proceeds from this mortgage, $111,375.63, were provided to the

Venkatraman & Purewal law firm. These funds would not have been sufficient

cash to close this purchase based on the purchase price of $113,000.00. No

funds were provided by Estall or anyone acting on Estall’s behalf to make up the

shortfall between the purchase price and the mortgage proceeds.

158. Estall continues to be the titular owner of 11322-93 Street. Accordingly,

Bridgewater Financial Services Ltd. did not suffer an actual loss as a result of the

false representations tendered in the Estall mortgage application. Had

Bridgewater Financial Services Ltd. been made aware that these representations

were false, however, it would not have approved the Estall mortgage.

71

Count 10 At or near the City of Edmonton, in the Province of Alberta,

between the 1stday of September, 2003 and the 30thday of November,

2003, did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, defraud Toronto-

Dominion Bank of $101,250.00, more or less, by providing false information

to Toronto-Dominion Bank in support of a mortgage application in the

name of Manvinder Oberoi for 12661-72 Street, Edmonton, Alberta, contrary

to Section 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

159. Documents relevant to the transaction that forms the basis for the

allegation in Count 10 are contained in Exhibit 10. The accused does not contest

the admissibility of the contents of Exhibit 10.

160. 12661-72 Street is a residence located in Edmonton, Alberta. This

property was purchased by 978742 Alberta Ltd. on August 20, 2003. Corporate

Registry documents outlining the history of 978742 Alberta Ltd. are contained in

Exhibit 40. At the time of the purchase of 12661-72 Street, Pervez was the sole

director of 978742 Alberta Ltd.

161. On July 31, 2003, Pervez signed the Affidavit of Transferee as agent for

978742 Alberta Ltd. on the purchase of 12661-72 Street, attesting that 978742

Alberta Ltd. paid cash to the vendor, Kennedy, and that the value of the property

was $65,200.00. This Affidavit was commissioned by Bindon.

162. On October 20, 2003, title to 12661-72 Street was transferred from 978742

Alberta Ltd to Manvinder Oberoi. On October 7, 2003, Pervez signed the

Transfer of Land associated with this transaction on behalf of 978742 Alberta Ltd.

The consideration received by him was represented to be $135,000.00. Ellis

witnessed Pervez’s signature on this Transfer of Land. On October 7, 2003,

Oberoi signed the Affidavit of Transferee attesting that he paid consideration, by

way of cash and new mortgage, for the purchase of 12661-72 Street. Oberoi

provided no cash toward the purchase of this property. Ellis commissioned

Oberoi’s affidavit. Also on October 7, 2003, Oberoi signed a mortgage in favour

of the Toronto-Dominion bank in the amount of $101,250.00.

72

163. Oberoi was recruited into this transaction by Kahlon. Oberoi was

introduced to this scheme by a co-worker, Palwinder Kahlon - who is Kahlon’s

brother. Palwinder Kahlon advised Oberoi that Kahlon was in the business of

buying houses, fixing them up and selling them. Oberoi inquired whether Kahlon

would have contacts with flooring installers, as he needed flooring installed in his

residence. Palwinder Kahlon agreed to have Kahlon contact Oberoi.

164. Kahlon contacted Oberoi and offered Oberoi the opportunity to have his

flooring installed at a discounted rate. In exchange, Oberoi would obtain a

mortgage on Kahlon’s behalf. Kahlon advised Oberoi that he could not get a

mortgage himself because of the number of properties in his name. Kahlon

advised that he would assume Oberoi’s mortgage in a couple of months, once he

sold one of his other homes. Oberoi agreed to participate.

165. The mortgage on 12661-72 Street was brokered by Krishna Gupta, of

Alberta Mortgage & FS Centre in Edmonton. In 2003 and 2004, Gupta received

three mortgage applications for 2 straw buyers involved in this operation. One of

those applications, the second mortgage application in Oberoi’s name, was

declined. The two mortgages brokered by Gupta generated mortgage proceeds

of $364,124.50.

166. True copies of the documents provided as part of this mortgage application

and approval are contained as part of Exhibit 10, and were provided by the

Toronto-Dominion bank. The accused does not contest the admissibility of these

documents.

167. The application tendered for this mortgage included various false

representations. The complainant, the Toronto-Dominion bank, relied on all of

these representations when considering the Oberoi mortgage application. In

accordance with its lending practices, had the Toronto-Dominion bank been

73

aware of the false representations, it would not have approved the Oberoi

mortgage. As a result of its reliance on the material misrepresentations in the

Oberoi mortgage application, the economic interest of the Toronto-Dominion bank

was put at risk in the amount of $101,250.00.

168. Specifically with respect to this transaction, Oberoi did not provide a down

payment toward the purchase of this property. The down payment was

represented to have been generated by the sale of Oberoi’s home at 5426-17A

Avenue, Edmonton, Alberta. As evidence of this sale, the Toronto-Dominion

bank was provided with a Real Estate Purchase Contract that demonstrated an

unconditional sale of 5426-17A Avenue by Oberoi and his wife to Pinky Sailopal

for $190,000.00. Oberoi does not know Pinky Sailopal. At the time of this

transaction, Pinky Sailopal was engaged to Kahlon. Oberoi never agreed to sell

his residence, did not sell his residence, and continues to reside at 5426-17A

Avenue. The sale of 5426-17A Avenue was to have generated sufficient

resources to provide a down payment toward the purchase of 12661-72 Street.

Had the Toronto-Dominion Bank been aware of this false representation, it would

not have funded the Oberoi mortgage.

169. Included with the Oberoi mortgage application was a separation

agreement, dated September 26, 2003, between Oberoi and his wife, that

distributed the proceeds of sale of 5426-17A Avenue, the matrimonial home of

Oberoi and his wife. The separation agreement was notarized by Park and

witnessed by Amarjit Singh, Kahlon’s father. This document indicated that Park’s

telephone number is 910-8806. Filed as Exhibit 30 are telephone subscriber

records demonstrating that Park was the subscriber of 780-910-8806 in

September 2003. This document was false. The sale of 5426-17A Avenue was

never contemplated, never occurred, and the Oberois have never separated. The

signatures of Oberoi and his wife were forged. Oberoi has never met Park.

74

170. Second, Oberoi did not intend to nor did he reside at 12661-72 Street.

Oberoi had never seen and had no knowledge of 12661-72 Street. It was a

specific condition of this mortgage that the property be owner occupied. Had

Toronto-Dominion Bank been advised of this false representation, it would not

have approved the Oberoi mortgage application.

171. Third, tendered as part of the mortgage application, as a condition of

mortgage financing, was a Real Estate Purchase Contract. This document

represented that Harkamal Kahlon was the vendor of 12661-72 Street. This was

false. 978742 Alberta Ltd. was the vendor of this property. This document

represented that Oberoi provided the vendor with a $3,500.00 deposit and would

provide the cash to close of $30,750.00. This was false. Oberoi provided no

funds by way of deposit or otherwise toward the purchase of this property. The

document indicated that the sale was to be completed by September 21, 2003.

The sale was not completed on that date.

172. Fourth, tendered as part of the mortgage application, as a condition of

mortgage financing, was a MLS sheet. This document represented that 12661-72

Street was listed on the MLS system with a real estate agent, which supported

the value of the property relative to the purchase price. This document also

indicated to the lender that the sale was an arm’s length transaction, and that the

purchaser was a bona fide purchaser for value. The listing agent was

represented to be John Thomas of Sutton Group Realty. Oberoi did not deal with

John Thomas, or any other real estate agent in the purchase of this property.

This was not an arm’s length transaction. On the MLS sheet, the vendor of

12661-72 Street is represented to be “Hakamal”. Contrary to the MLS sheet, the

owner of this property was 978742 Alberta Ltd.

173. Sent with the mortgage application, as a condition of mortgage approval,

was the appraisal of Angus MacInnes. MacInnes is a property appraiser in

Edmonton, Alberta. In 2003, MacInnes was retained by Pervez to prepare

75

several residential property appraisals. Filed as Exhibit 44 in this proceeding is

an analytical chart outlining the appraisals MacInnes for Pervez in 2003.

MacInnes appraised this property as having a market value of $137,000.00.

MacInnes represented that the renovations required to 12661-72 Street had been

satisfactorily completed. There is no evidence that MacInnes took any steps to

confirm this information. The Toronto-Dominion bank relied on this appraisal

when considering the Oberoi mortgage application.

174. A void cheque intended to be used to debit mortgage payments was

provided to Toronto-Dominion bank. This void cheque was provided to

Venkatraman & Purewal by Kahlon, and forwarded to Toronto-Dominion bank.

The account was held at Royal Bank of Canada, Tawa Center, Account #514178-

3. Exhibit 37 contains true copies of banking records pertaining to this account as

provided by the Royal Bank of Canada. Kahlon is the holder of this bank account.

175. Oberoi signed all requisite documents with Ellis at the office of

Venkatraman & Purewal. Kahlon drove Oberoi to this law firm on the two

occasions that he attended there, and was present while Oberoi signed the

documents with Ellis. Oberoi did not pay any of the legal fees associated with this

purchase. Oberoi was not asked any questions about the conditions of mortgage

financing, including the cash required to close this transaction.

176. The proceeds of this mortgage, $101,250.00 were provided to the

Venkatraman & Purewal law firm. These funds would not have been sufficient

cash to close this purchase based on the purchase price of $135,000.00. No

funds were provided by Oberoi, or anyone acting on his behalf, to make up the

shortfall between the purchase price and the mortgage proceeds. A Statement

of Receipts and Disbursements was provided to Oberoi by Venkatraman &

Purewal, and is included as part of Exhibit 10. This Statement indicated that the

mortgage proceeds were distributed by a payment of $6000 to Kahlon, 2

76

payments totaling $68,000 to Pervez, and a payment of $27,000 to Home

Placement Systems, a company owned and controlled by Pervez.

177. On December 9, 2003, this property was transferred into the name of

Dream Estates Inc. On November 26, 2003, Ellis met with Oberoi and witnessed

his signature on the Transfer of Land document. The purchase price was

represented to be $140,000.00. On November 25, 2003, Ellis signed the

Affidavit of Transferee as agent for Dream Estates Inc., attesting that the

company paid consideration, by way of cash and assumption of Oberoi’s

mortgage, for this property. This information was false. Oberoi received none of

the proceeds that should have been generated by this sale. The Corporate

Registry history of Dream Estates Inc. is filed as Exhibit 45 in these proceedings.

The accused does not contest the admissibility of these documents. Letwled

Tessma was the sole director of this corporation.

178. On January 21, 2005, Toronto Dominion bank filed a final order of

foreclosure on this property. On July 15, 2005, Toronto Dominion bank sold this

property to a third party for $70,000.00. As a result of the fraudulent

misrepresentations made in the Oberoi mortgage application, Toronto Dominion

bank suffered an actual financial loss of approximately $30,000.00.

77

Count 11 At or near the City of Edmonton, in the Province of Alberta,

between the 1st day of September 2003 and the 30thday of November, 2003,

did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, defraud MCAP Service

Corporation of $131,437.25, more or less, by providing false information to

MCAP Service Corporation in support of a mortgage application in the name

of Marie Kapeller for 12050-65 Street , Edmonton, Alberta, contrary to

Section 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

179. Documents relevant to the transaction that forms the basis for the

allegation in Count 11 are contained in Exhibit 11. The accused does not contest

the admissibility of the contents of Exhibit 11.

180. 12050-65 Street is a residence located in Edmonton, Alberta. This

property was purchased by 978742 Alberta Ltd. on September 13, 2003.

Corporate Registry documents outlining the history of 978742 Alberta Ltd. are

contained in Exhibit 40. At the time of the purchase of 12050-65 Street, Pervez

was the sole director of 978742 Alberta Ltd.

181. On August 29, 2003, Pervez signed the Affidavit of Transferee as agent for

978742 Alberta Ltd., attesting that 978742 Alberta Ltd. paid cash to the vendor,

Asif Rizvi, for 12050-65 Street, and that the value of the property was $76,000.00.

Bindon commissioned Pervez’s affidavit.

182. On November 4, 2003, title to 12050-65 Street was transferred from

978742 Alberta Ltd to Marie Kapeller. On October 23, 2003, Pervez signed the

Transfer of Land on behalf of 978742 Alberta Ltd. The consideration received by

978742 Alberta Ltd. was represented to be $134,000.00. Bindon witnessed

Pervez’s signature on the Transfer of Land. On October 24, 2003, Kapeller

signed the Affidavit of Transferee attesting that she paid consideration, by way of

cash and new mortgage, for the purchase of 12050-65 Street. Ellis

commissioned Kapeller’s affidavit . Kapeller provided no cash toward the

purchase of this property. Also on October 24, 2003, Kapeller signed a mortgage

in favour of MCAP Service Corporation in the amount of $131,437.25.

78

183. Kapeller was recruited into this transaction. She is Bindon’s sister-in-law,

married to Bindon’s brother, Lyle Petty. Kapeller was introduced to this scheme

by Bindon. Kapeller was advised that there was an opportunity for her to obtain

revenue properties without putting down payments toward the purchase. Kapeller

understood that she would be required to obtain mortgage financing in her name.

The property at 12050-65 Street was the second of two properties that were

placed in Kapeller’s name.

184. At the time that Kapeller was approached about the property at 12050-65

Street, she was having financial difficulties associated with an automobile loan.

Pervez approached Kapeller at a Petty/Bindon family function. At that time,

Pervez was romantically involved with Bindon. Pervez advised Kapeller that he

had a property ready for sale, and offered to pay off Kapeller’s automobile loan if

she agreed to proceed with this transaction. Kapeller agreed to participate.

Kapeller’s husband, Lyle Petty, assisted with this transaction by delivering

documents between Pervez and Kapeller. After obtaining the mortgage on this

property in her name, Kapeller’s loan was paid in full.

185. While this property was in Kapeller’s name, she collected rents from

tenants and used those funds to make the required mortgage payments. Kapeller

noted that the property was in poor condition, and spent a significant amount of

money attempting to renovate it.

186. The mortgage on 12050-65 Street was brokered by David Gorn, whose

involvement in this scheme is outlined in paragraph 34 of this document.

187. True copies of the documents provided as part of this mortgage

application and approval are contained as part of Exhibit 11, and were provided

by MCAP Service Corporation. The accused does not contest the admissibility of

these documents.

79

188. The application tendered for this mortgage included various false

representations. The complainant, MCAP Service Corporation, relied on all of

these representations in making the decision to approve the Kapeller mortgage.

In accordance with its lending practices, had MCAP Service Corporation been

aware of these false representations, it would not have approved the Kapeller

mortgage. As a result of its reliance on the material misrepresentations in this

mortgage application, the economic interest of MCAP Service Corporation was

put at risk in the amount of $131,437.25.

189. Specifically, Kapeller did not provide a down payment toward the

purchase of this property. The down payment for 12050-65 Street was

represented to have been generated from the sale of Kapeller’s property at

12024-43 Street, Edmonton, Alberta. This was the first property that Kapeller

purchased as part of this mortgage scheme. In support of this representation, a

Real Estate Purchase Contract was tendered demonstrating an unconditional

sale of 12024-43 Street to Sandra Schmidt for $137,000.00. As further evidence

of this sale, MCAP Service Corporation was provided with a Statement of

Adjustments pertaining to the 43^rdStreet sale. This document demonstrated a

sale of this property to Sandra Schmidt for $137,000.00 made up of a deposit,

mortgage assumption and required cash to close. The Statement of Adjustments

was faxed to MCAP Service Corporation from Venkatraman & Purewal. The

provision of this Statement of Adjustments was a condition of mortgage

financing. Kapeller did not sell 12024-43 Street in the form or manner described

in the Statement of Adjustments. This document was false. Kapeller does not

know Sandra Schmidt, and received no funds from the sale of 12024-43 Street.

These documents also provided false information with regard to Kapeller’s debt

load, as the purchaser was represented to have assumed Kapeller’s mortgage at

12024-43 Street. Not disclosed to MCAP Service Corporation was the fact that

Kapeller resided at a property in Rimbey Alberta, where she and Petty were

responsible their own mortgage. MCAP Service Corporation relied on these

80

false representations in making their decision to grant Kapeller’s mortgage at

12050-65 Street. Had MCAP Service Corporation been aware of these false

representations, it would not have funded the Kapeller mortgage.

190. Second, Kapeller did not intend to nor did she reside at 12050-65 Street.

This property was used as a rental property, as was intended when Kapeller

went on title. This mortgage was insured by CMHC, and it was a specific

condition of that insurance that this property be occupied by the owner. As

evidence of the satisfaction of this condition, Kapeller signed a Statutory

Declaration attesting that 12050-65 Street would be her principal residence. Ellis

commissioned this Statutory Declaration. This Statutory Declaration was mailed

to the lender from the office of Venkatraman & Purewal on November 20, 2003.

Had MCAP Service Corporation been aware of this false representation, it would

not have approved Kapeller’s mortgage application.

191. Third, tendered as part of the mortgage application, as a condition of

mortgage financing, was a Real Estate Purchase Contract. This document

represented that the vendor of 12050-65 Street was care of the listing broker.

There was no listing broker involved in this purchase. 978742 Alberta Ltd. was

the vendor of the property. This document represented that Kapeller provided

the vendor with a $2,500.00 deposit and would provide the cash to close of

$4,200.00. This was false. Kapeller provided no funds by way of deposit or

otherwise toward the purchase of this property. The document indicated that the

sale was to be completed by November 7, 2003.

192. Provided in addition to the Real Estate Purchase Contract was a

Statement of Adjustments pertaining to the sale of 12050-65 Street by 978742

Alberta Ltd. to Kapeller. This document credited Kapeller with having deposited

$2500.00 and cash to close this transaction of $4200.00. This document was

false. Kapeller provided no funds toward the purchase of this property, and no

81

one asked her for any funds. The Statement of Adjustments was faxed from the

law firm of Venkatraman & Purewal.

193. Fourth, tendered as part of the mortgage application, as a condition of

mortgage financing, was a MLS sheet. This document represented to the lender

that 12050-65 Street was listed on the MLS system with a real estate agent,

which supported the value of the property relative to the purchase price. This

document also indicated to the lender that the sale was an arm’s length

transaction, and the purchaser a bona fide purchaser for value. The listing agent

was represented to be O’Neil Knight of Sutton Group North Star Realty. Knight’s

involvement in these transactions is described in paragraph 5 (x) of this

document. Kapeller did not deal with O’Neil Knight or any other real estate agent

in the purchase of this property. This was not an arm’s length transaction.

194. Kapeller signed all of the required purchase documents at the office of

Venkatraman & Purewal. She met with Ellis. Kapeller did not pay any of the

legal fees associated with this purchase.

195. The proceeds from this mortgage, $131,437.25 were provided to the

Venkatraman & Purewal law firm. These funds would not have been sufficient

cash to close this purchase based on the purchase price of $134,000.00. No

funds were provided by Kapeller to make up the shortfall between the purchase

price and the mortgage proceeds.

196. On April 7, 2005, Kapeller sold this property to a third party for

$130,600.00. This was an arm’s length transaction, involving an assumption of

mortgage and payment of property tax arrears. As a result of this sale, MCAP

Service Corporation did not suffer an actual financial loss as a result of its

reliance on the material misrepresentations contained in the Kapeller mortgage

application.

82

Count 12 At or near the City of Edmonton, in the Province of Alberta,

between the 1stday of September 2003 and the 30thday of November,

2003, did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, defraud

Bridgewater Financial Services Ltd. of $114,762.38, more or less, by

providing false information to Bridgewater Financial Services Ltd. in

support of a mortgage application in the name of Trent Dhoedt for 11616-96

Street , Edmonton, Alberta, contrary to Section 380(1)(a) of the Criminal

Code of Canada.

197. Documents relevant to the transaction that forms the basis for the

allegation in Count 12 are contained in Exhibit 12. The accused does not contest

the admissibility of the contents of Exhibit 12.

198. 11616-96 Street is a residence located in Edmonton, Alberta. This

property was purchased by 978742 Alberta Ltd. on October 21, 2003. Corporate

Registry documents outlining the history of 978742 Alberta Ltd. are contained in

Exhibit 40. At the time of the purchase of 11616-96 Street, Pervez was the sole

director of 978742 Alberta Ltd.

199. On October 3, 2003, Pervez signed the Affidavit of Transferee as agent for

978742 Alberta Ltd., attesting that 978742 Alberta Ltd. paid cash to the vendors,

Karel and Frances Puffer, for 11616-96 Street and that its value was, in his

opinion, $67,888.00. Bindon commissioned Pervez’s affidavit.

200. On November 10, 2003, title to 11616-96 Street was transferred from

978742 Alberta Ltd to Trent Dhoedt. On October 29, 2003, Pervez signed the

Transfer of Land on behalf of 978742 Alberta Ltd. The consideration received by

978742 Alberta Ltd. was represented to be $117,000.00. Bindon witnessed

Pervez’s signature on this Transfer of Land. On October 31, 2003, Dhoedt signed

the Affidavit of Transferee, attesting that he paid consideration, by way of cash

and new mortgage, for the purchase of 11616-96 Street. Ellis

commissioned Dhoedt’s affidavit. Also on October 31, 2003, Dhoedt signed a

mortgage in favour of Bridgewater Financial Services Ltd. in the amount of

$114,762.38.

83

201. Dhoedt was recruited into this transaction by O’Neil Knight, who was dating

a friend of Dhoedt’s at that time. Knight advised Dhoedt that he could not obtain

a mortgage in his own name. The purpose of buying this property was to

renovate it and sell it at a profit. In exchange for obtaining mortgage financing in

his name, Dhoedt was to receive $10,000.00 out of the resale revenue. Dhoedt

was not to incur any expenses associated with this purchase. Dhoedt did not

deal with any bankers or mortgage brokers, and provided all of his personal

information to Knight.

202. The mortgage on 11616-96 Street was brokered by David Gorn, whose

involvement in this scheme is outlined in paragraph 34 of this document.

203. True copies of the documents provided as part of this mortgage application

and approval are contained as part of Exhibit 12, and were provided by

Bridgewater Financial Services Ltd. The accused does not contest the

admissibility of these documents.

204. The application tendered for this mortgage included various false

representations. The complainant, Bridgewater Financial Services Ltd., relied on

all of these representations in considering the Dhoedt mortgage application. In

accordance with its lending practices, had Bridgewater Financial Services Ltd.

been aware of the false representations in this application, it would not have

approved the Dhoedt mortgage. As a result of its reliance on the

misrepresentations in this mortgage application, the economic interest of the

Bridgewater Financial Services Ltd. was put at risk in the amount of $114,762.38.

205. Specifically, Dhoedt did not provide a down payment toward the purchase

of this property. The down payment was represented to have been generated

from a way of gift provided to Dhoedt by his brother, Brent Dhoedt. The amount

of the gift was represented to be $6500.00. The mortgage application included a

84

gift letter, evidencing this monetary gift. This document was false. Dhoedt did

not receive a $6500.00 gift from his brother, and provided no funds toward the

purchase of 11616-96 Street. As proof of receipt of this gift, Knight provided

Dhoedt with a cheque in the amount of $6500.00 to deposit into his personal bank

account. Once deposited, Dhoedt then provided Knight with a copy of the slip

reflecting the deposit. The purpose of these documents was to persuade

Bridgewater Financial Services Ltd. that Dhoedt had sufficient funds to close this

transaction. Bridgewater Financial Services Ltd. relied on these false

representations in making their decision to grant Dhoedt’s mortgage at 11616-96

Street. Had Bridgewater Financial Services Ltd. been aware of these false

representations, they would not have funded the Dhoedt mortgage.

206. Second, Dhoedt did not intend to and did not reside at 11616-96 Street.

This mortgage was insured by GE Capital, and it was a specific condition of that

insurance that this property be occupied by the owner. As evidence of the

satisfaction of this condition, Dhoedt signed a Statutory Declaration attesting that

11616-96 Street would be his principal residence. Ellis commissioned this

Statutory Declaration. This Statutory Declaration was mailed to the lender from

the office of Venkatraman & Purewal on November 20, 2003. Had Bridgewater

Financial Services Ltd. been advised of this false representation, it would not

have approved Dhoedt’s mortgage application.

207. Third, tendered as part of the mortgage application, as a condition of

mortgage financing, was a Real Estate Purchase Contract. This document

represented that the vendor of 11616-96 Street was care of the listing broker.

978742 Alberta Ltd. was the vendor of the property. This document represented

that Dhoedt provided the vendor with a $2,000.00 deposit toward the purchase of

this property. This was false. Dhoedt provided no funds by way of deposit or

otherwise toward the purchase of this property. The document indicated that the

sale was to be completed by November 2, 2003. This document bears the

forged signature of Dhoedt.

85

208. Among the documents seized from Gorn’s office by RECA investigators on

was another copy of this same Real Estate Purchase Contract. This copy had

Pervez named as the vendor of 11616-96 Street.

209. Fourth, tendered as part of the mortgage application, as a condition of

mortgage financing, was a MLS sheet. This document represented that 11616-96

Street was listed on the MLS system with a real estate agent, which supported

the value of the property relative to the purchase price. This document also

indicated that the sale was an arm’s length transaction, and that the purchaser

was a bona fide purchaser for value. The listing agent was represented to be

O’Neil Knight of Sutton Group North Star Realty. Dhoedt did deal with Knight

except as part of this scheme. This was not an arm’s length transaction.

210. Dhoedt signed all of the required purchase documents at the office of

Venkatraman & Purewal. He met there with Ellis. Dhoedt did not pay any of the

legal fees associated with this purchase.

211. The proceeds from this mortgage, $114,762.38 were provided to the

Venkatraman & Purewal law firm. These funds would not have been sufficient

cash to close this purchase based on the purchase price of $117,000. No funds

were provided by Dhoedt to make up the shortfall between the purchase price

and the mortgage proceeds.

212. On September 6, 2006, Bridgewater Financial Services Ltd. filed a lis

pendens on the title of 11616-96 Street, their mortgage having fallen into arrears.

The foreclosure is not finalized.

86

Count 13 At or near the City of Edmonton, in the Province of Alberta,

between the 1stday of November, 2003 and the 30thday of January, 2004,

did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, defraud Toronto-

Dominion Bank of $85,500.00, more or less, by providing false information

to Toronto-Dominion Bank in support of a mortgage application in the name

of Palwinder Kahlon for 11814-50 Street, Edmonton, Alberta, contrary to

Section 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

213. Documents relevant to the transaction that forms the basis for the

allegation in Count 13 are contained in Exhibit 13. The accused does not contest

the admissibility of the contents of Exhibit 13.

214. 11814-50 Street is a residence located in Edmonton, Alberta. This

property was purchased by 978742 Alberta Ltd. on June 11, 2003. Corporate

Registry documents outlining the history of 978742 Alberta Ltd. are contained in

Exhibit 40. At the time of the purchase of 11814-50 Street, Pervez was the sole

director of 978742 Alberta Ltd.

215. On May 25, 2003, Pervez signed the Affidavit of Transferee as agent for

978742 Alberta Ltd. on the purchase of 11814-50 Street, attesting that 978742

Alberta Ltd. paid cash to the vendor, Darrell Langevin, and that the value of

11814-50 Street was $69,888.00. Bindon commissioned Pervez’s affidavit.

216. On December 15, 2003, title to 11814-50 Street was transferred from

978742 Alberta Ltd to Palwinder Kahlon. On December 4, 2003, Pervez signed

the Transfer of Land associated with this transaction on behalf of 978742 Alberta

Ltd. The consideration received by him was represented to be $114,000.00.

Ellis witnessed Pervez’s signature on this Transfer of Land. On December 4,

2003, Ellis signed the Affidavit of Transferee as agent for Palwinder Kahlon,

attesting that Kahlon paid consideration, by way of cash and a new mortgage,

for the purchase of 11814-50 Street. Kahlon provided no cash toward the

purchase of this property. On December 4, 2003, Palwinder Kahlon’s signature

87

appears on a mortgage in favour of the Toronto-Dominion bank in the amount of

$85,500.00.

217. Palwinder Kahlon is the brother of Harkamaljit Kahlon, whose involvement

in these transactions is described at paragraph 5 (i) of this document. Between

April 2001 and January 2005, Palwinder Kahlon obtained 10 mortgages in his

name as part of this scheme. The mortgage on 11814-50 Street was the sixth of

10 properties that Palwinder Kahlon became the titular owner of during that time

frame. Palwinder Kahlon was initially approached by Kahlon about getting

involved in an investment opportunity. Palwinder Kahlon was told that his brother

was working with Pervez, who was buying properties, fixing them up and selling

them at a profit.

218. Palwinder Kahlon had no responsibility to manage any of the properties in

his name. Palwinder Kahlon received none of the proceeds in the sales of

properties in his name.

219. The mortgage on 11814-50 Street was applied for through a mortgage

broker employed by the Toronto-Dominion bank named Tim Uppal. Tim Uppal

attended university with Harkamaljit Kahlon.

220. True copies of the documents provided as part of this mortgage application

and approval are contained as part of Exhibit 13, and were provided by the

Toronto-Dominion bank. The accused does not contest the admissibility of these

documents.

221. The application tendered for this mortgage included various false

representations. The complainant, the Toronto-Dominion bank, relied on all of

these representations in making the decision to approve the Kahlon mortgage. In

accordance with its lending practices, had the Toronto-Dominion bank been

aware of these false representations, it would not have approved of this

88

mortgage application. As a result of its reliance on the material

misrepresentations in this mortgage application, the economic interest of the

Toronto-Dominion bank was put at risk in the amount of $85,500.00.

222. Specifically, Kahlon did not provide a down payment toward the purchase

of this property. The down payment was represented to have been generated by

the sale of Kahlon’s residence at 3316-30A Avenue in Edmonton, Alberta. As

evidence of this sale, the Toronto-Dominion bank was provided with a Real Estate

Purchase Contract that represented a sale of this property by Kahlon to

Jeff Smith for a price of $260,000.00. According to this document, Smith paid a

deposit of $2500.00 in the purchase of this property, and would assume Kahlon’s

mortgage on the property. Smith was to provide the cash to close of $22,500.00.

This unconditional sale was to have been completed on December 5, 2003.

Palwinder Kahlon does not know Jeff Smith, and did not sell his property at 3316-

30A Avenue. This document provided the lender with false information of the

source of Palwinder Kahlon’s down payment, and represented false information

about Palwinder Kahlon’s debt load since Jeff Smith was to have assumed the

mortgage on this property. The Toronto-Dominion bank relied on these false

representations and in making their decision to grant Kahlon’s mortgage on

11814-50 Street. Had the Toronto-Dominion bank been aware of these false

representations, it would not have funded the Kahlon mortgage.

223. Second, Kahlon did not intend to and did not reside at 11814-50 Street.

This was contrary to the information represented to the Toronto-Dominion bank to

the effect that Kahlon would occupy the property. Kahlon resided at 3316-

30A Avenue, the matrimonial home that he shared with his wife. Information

provided to the Toronto-Dominion bank indicating that Kahlon and his wife were

separating was false.

224. Third, tendered as part of the mortgage application, and as a condition of

mortgage financing, was a Real Estate Purchase Contract. This document

89

represented that the vendor of 11814-50 Street was care of the listing broker.

978742 Alberta Ltd. was the vendor of the property. This document represented

that Palwinder Kahlon provided the vendor with a $1,000.00 initial deposit and

would provide the cash to close the transaction of $27,500.00. This was false.

Kahlon provided no funds by way of deposit or otherwise toward the purchase of

this property. The document indicated that the sale was to be completed by

December 5, 2003. Kahlon’s signature was forged on this document.

225. Fourth, tendered as part of the mortgage application, as a condition of

mortgage financing, was a MLS sheet. This document represented to the lender

that 11814-50 Street was listed on the MLS system with a real estate agent,

which supported the value of the property relative to the purchase price. This

document also indicated to the lender that the sale was an arm’s length

transaction, and that the purchaser was a bona fide purchaser for value. The

listing agent was indicated to be Tony Kailey of the Sutton Group North Star

Realty office. Kahlon did not deal with Kailey or any other realtor in the

purchase of this property. This was not an arm’s length transaction.

226. Kahlon signed the registered mortgage at his home with Ellis. Ellis

attended to Kahlon’s residence for that purpose. Kahlon did not pay any of the

legal fees associated with this purchase. Kahlon was not asked about the cash

required to close this transaction, nor any other questions associated with the

conditions of mortgage financing.

227. The proceeds from this mortgage, $85,500.00 were provided to the

Venkatraman & Purewal law firm. These funds would not have been sufficient

cash to close this purchase based on the purchase price of $114,000.00. No

funds were provided by Palwinder Kahlon to make up the shortfall between the

purchase price and the mortgage proceeds.

90

228. On June 23, 2004, title to this property transferred to the name of 1101867

Alberta Ltd. Corporate Registry documents associated with this numbered

company are filed as Exhibit 39 of these proceedings. At the time of this

transaction, Harkamaljit Kahlon was the sole director of 1101867 Alberta Ltd. The

purchase price for this property was represented to be $114,000.00. No money

changed hands between 1101867 Alberta Ltd. and Palwinder Kahlon in this

transaction.

229. On August 14, 2006, pursuant to an order of foreclosure, the Toronto-

Dominion bank sold 11814-50 Street to a third party for $93,000.00. As a result

of this sale, and the dramatically rising real estate market in Alberta, the Toronto-

Dominion bank was able to avoid suffering an actual loss in this transaction.

91

Count 14 At or near the City of Edmonton, in the Province of Alberta,

between the 1stday of November, 2003 and the 30thday of January, 2004,

did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, defraud Toronto-

Dominion Bank of $95,250.00 more or less, by providing false information to

Toronto-Dominion Bank in support of a mortgage application in the name of

Ali Aziz for 11502-82 Street , Edmonton, Alberta, contrary to Section

380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

230. Documents relevant to the transaction that forms the basis for the

allegation in Count 14 are contained in Exhibit 14. The accused does not contest

the admissibility of the contents of Exhibit 14.

231. 11502-82 Street is a residence located in Edmonton, Alberta. This

property was purchased by 978742 Alberta Ltd. on August 20, 2003. Corporate

Registry documents outlining the history of 978742 Alberta Ltd. are contained in

Exhibit 40. At the time of the purchase of 11502-82 Street, Pervez was the sole

director of 978742 Alberta Ltd.

232. On August 8, 2003, Pervez signed the Affidavit of Transferee as agent for

978742 Alberta Ltd. on the purchase of 11502-82 Street. attesting that 978742

Alberta Ltd. paid cash in the amount of $55,000.00 to the vendor, Mae Wong,

and that the value of the property was $55,000.00. Bindon commissioned

Pervez’s affidavit. On September 22, 2003, Pervez signed a mortgage on behalf

of 978742 Alberta Ltd. in favour of Premiere Canadian Mortgage Corp. and

Penticton Enterprises Ltd. in the amount of $665,000.00 secured by this property

and nine other properties. Pervez’s signature on this mortgage was witnessed by

Park. This mortgage could be discharged against individual properties upon

payment of the greater of $75,000.00 or 65% of the appraised value of any

individual property.

233. On December 19, 2003, title to 11502-82 Street was transferred from

978742 Alberta Ltd to Mohammad Ali Aziz. On December 10, 2003, Pervez

92

signed the Transfer of Land associated with this transaction on behalf of 978742

Alberta Ltd. The consideration received by him was represented to be

$127,000.00. Bindon witnessed Pervez’s signature on this Transfer of Land. On

December 10, 2003, Aziz signed the Affidavit of Transferee, attesting that he paid

consideration, by way of cash and new mortgage, for the purchase of 11502-82

Street. Aziz’s affidavit was commissioned by Pubalagan Venkatraman. On

December 10, 2003, Aziz signed a mortgage in favour of the Toronto-Dominion

bank in the amount of $95,250.00. This was the second of five mortgages

obtained by Aziz on Edmonton properties between October 2002 and December

2004 as part of this scheme. Aziz also obtained a mortgage on a property in

Winnipeg as part of this scheme. Aziz recruited others to participate in this

scheme, specifically his girlfriend, Jennifer Heinrichs.

234. Aziz became involved in these transactions initially through Kulwant

Sekhon, who worked for Pervez. Aziz met Sekhon through a former co-worker,

and was told that purchasing properties would be a way to improve his credit

rating. Sekhon was to be responsible for maintaining the mortgage payments on

the Aziz properties. Eventually, Sekhon became delinquent in mortgage

payments, and Aziz was required to provide his own resources to maintain the

mortgages.

235. The mortgage on 11502-82 Street was brokered by Allison Rice, whose

involvement in this scheme is outlined in paragraphs 23-24 of this document.

236. True copies of the documents provided as part of this mortgage application

and approval are contained as part of Exhibit 14, and were provided by the

Toronto-Dominion bank. The accused does not contest the admissibility of these

documents.

237. The application tendered for this mortgage included various false

representations. The complainant, the Toronto-Dominion bank, relied on all of

93

these representations in making the decision to provide mortgage financing. In

accordance with its lending practices, had the Toronto-Dominion bank been

aware of these false representations, it would not have approved the Aziz

mortgage application. As a result of its reliance on the material

misrepresentations in the Aziz mortgage application, the economic interest of the

Toronto-Dominion bank was put at risk in the amount of $95,250.00.

238. Specifically, Aziz did not provide a down payment toward the purchase of

this property. The down payment was represented to have been generated by

the sale of Aziz’s property at 285 Redwood Avenue in Winnipeg, Manitoba. This

is the first property that Aziz purchased after his introduction to Kulwant Sekhon.

As evidence of this sale, the Toronto-Dominion bank was provided with a Real

Estate Purchase Contract that represented a sale of this property by Aziz to

James Johnson for $100,000.00. According to this document, Johnson paid a

deposit of $5000.00 and would assume Aziz’s mortgage on the property.

Johnson was to provide the cash to close the transaction of $28,000.00. This

unconditional sale was to have been completed in December, 2003. Aziz does

not know James Johnson, and did not sell his property at 285 Redwood Avenue

in the manner described, nor in this time frame. This document provided the

lender with false information about the source of Aziz’s down payment, and

provided false information about Aziz’s debt load given that Johnson was to have

assumed the mortgage on this property. As further evidence of this sale, the

Toronto-Dominion bank was provided with a Statement of Adjustments pertaining

to the sale of 285 Redwood Avenue. This document demonstrated a sale of this

property to James Johnson for $100,000.00 made up of a deposit, mortgage

assumption and required cash to close. The Toronto-Dominion bank relied on

these false representations in making their decision to grant Aziz’s mortgage at

11502-82 Street. Had the Toronto-Dominion bank been aware of these false

representations, it would not have funded the Aziz mortgage.

94

239. Second, Aziz did not intend to and did not reside at 11502-82 Street. This

was contrary to the specific condition of owner occupancy imposed as part of the

approval of this mortgage. As evidence of the satisfaction of this condition, Aziz

completed a Statutory Declaration, attesting that 11502-82 Street would be his

principal residence and not used as a rental property. This Statutory Declaration

was commissioned by Pubalagan Venkatraman. Aziz resided, and continued to

reside throughout, at his family home located at 9630-80 Street in Fort

Saskatchewan, Alberta.

240. Third, tendered as part of the mortgage application, as a condition of

mortgage financing, was a Real Estate Purchase Contract. This document

represented that the vendor of 11502-82 Street was James Johnson, the same

unknown person represented to have purchased the Winnipeg property. This

was false. 978742 Alberta Ltd. was the vendor of the property. This document

represented that Aziz provided the vendor with a $3,000.00 deposit toward the

purchase of this property, and would provide the cash required to close the

transaction of $25,750.00. This was false. Aziz provided no funds by way of

deposit or otherwise toward the purchase of this property. The document

indicates that the sale was to be completed by December 15, 2003.

241. Fourth, tendered as part of the mortgage application was a MLS sheet.

This document represented to the lender that 11502-82 Street was listed on the

MLS system with a real estate agent, which supported the value of the property

relative to the purchase price. This document also indicated that the sale was an

arm’s length transaction, and that the purchaser was a bona fide purchaser for

value. The listing agent was indicated to be O’Neil Knight of the Sutton Group

North Star Realty office. Knight’s role in these transactions in described in

paragraph 5 (x) of this document. Aziz did not deal with Knight or any other

realtor in the purchase of this property. This was not an arm’s length transaction.

95

242. Sent with the mortgage application was the appraisal of Angus MacInnes.

MacInnes appraised 11502-82 Street as having a market value of $129,000.00.

MacInnes represented that the renovations required to this property had been

satisfactorily completed. The Toronto-Dominion bank relied on this appraisal

when deciding to approve this mortgage. The provision of this appraisal was a

condition of mortgage approval.

243. The proceeds from this mortgage, $95,250.00 were provided to the

Venkatraman & Purewal law firm. These funds would not have been sufficient

cash to close this purchase based on the purchase price of $127,000.00. No

funds were provided by Aziz to make up the shortfall between the purchase price

and the mortgage proceeds.

244. On June 8, 2004, title to this property transferred to Ellis. The purchase

price for this property was represented to be $127,000.00. No money changed

hands between Ellis and Aziz in this transaction. On June 1, 2004, Aziz signed

the Transfer of Land indicating that he received consideration in the amount of

$127,000.00 on this sale. Marlene Penney, an employee with Venkatraman &

Purewal, witnessed Aziz’s signature on this Transfer of Land. On June 1, 2004,

Ellis signed the Affidavit of Transferee attesting that she paid consideration by

way of cash and assumption of mortgage for the purchase of 11502-82 Street.

Ellis provided no cash toward the purchase of this property. Ellis assumed this

mortgage at Pervez’s direction, and Pervez provided her with funds to service the

Toronto-Dominion bank mortgage on the property.

245. On June 23, 2005, the law firm of Venkatraman & Purewal filed a lis

pendens on the title of this property, in pursuit of their civil action associated with

the conversion of trust monies. On November 14, 2005, the Toronto-Dominion

bank filed a lis pendens on the title of 11502-82 Street, indicating that foreclosure

proceedings were pending. On August 3, 2006, Capital Health Authorities filed a

Notice of Health Hazard on the title of this property. On September 14, 2006,

96

title to this property was transferred from Ellis to 1131029 Alberta Ltd. Corporate

Registry documents pertaining to 1131029 Alberta Ltd. are filed as Exhibit 34 in

these proceedings. At the time of this transaction, Pervez and Esmail were

directors of 1131029 Alberta Ltd. 1131029 Alberta Ltd. paid consideration of $1

and assumed the Aziz mortgage. On October 2, 2006, 1131029 Alberta Ltd. sold

this property to Danny Phan for $115,250.00. This sale permitted the Toronto-

Dominion bank mortgage to be discharged. Due to the dramatic increase in real

estate values in the City of Edmonton, the Toronto-Dominion bank did not suffer

an actual loss as a result of having relied on the false representations in the Aziz

mortgage application.

97

Count 15 At or near the City of Edmonton, in the Province of Alberta,

between the 1stday of November, 2003 and the 30th day of January, 2004,

did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, defraud Co-Operative

Trust Company of Canada of $115,645.16, more or less, by providing false

information to Co-Operative Trust Company of Canada in support of a

mortgage application in the name of Trent Dhoedt for 11610 Fort Road ,

Edmonton, Alberta, contrary to Section 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code of

Canada.

246. Documents relevant to the transaction that forms the basis for the

allegation in Count 14 are contained in Exhibit 15. The accused does not contest

the admissibility of the contents of Exhibit 15.

247. 11610 Fort Road is a property located in Edmonton, Alberta. This

property was purchased by 978742 Alberta Ltd. on July 10, 2003. Corporate

Registry documents outlining the history of 978742 Alberta Ltd. are contained in

Exhibit 40. At the time of the purchase of 11610 Fort Road, Pervez was the sole

director of 978742 Alberta Ltd.

248. On July 2, 2003, Pervez signed the Affidavit of Transferee as agent for

978742 Alberta Ltd. on the purchase of 11610 Fort Road, attesting that 978742

Alberta Ltd. paid consideration, by way of cash and assumption of the Royal Bank

of Canada mortgage held by the vendor, Hui Xian Yee, and that the value of

11610 Fort Road was $75,000.00. Bindon commissioned Pervez’s affidavit.

249. On January 12, 2004, title to 11610 Fort Road was transferred from

978742 Alberta Ltd to Trent Dhoedt. On December 31, 2003, Pervez signed the

Transfer of Land associated with this transaction on behalf of 978742 Alberta Ltd.

The consideration received by him was represented to be $117,900.00. Bindon

witnessed Pervez’s signature on this Transfer of Land. On December 31, 2003,

Ellis signed the Affidavit of Transferee filed with the Land Titles office as agent for

Dhoedt, attesting that Dhoedt paid consideration, by way of cash and new

mortgage for the purchase of 11610 Fort Road. On December 30, 2003, Dhoedt

98

signed a mortgage in favour of the Co-operative Trust Company in the amount of

$115,645.16. Dhoedt’s signature was witnessed by Ellis. This mortgage was

signed approximately 2 months after Dhoedt obtained the mortgage on 11616-96

Street, the transaction that forms the basis of Count 12 of the Indictment before

this Court.

250. Dhoedt’s recruitment and involvement in these proceedings is described in

paragraph 201 of this document.

251. The mortgage on 11610 Fort Road was brokered by Iris Ten-Eyck, a

mortgage broker employed at The Mortgage Center in Edmonton, Alberta. Ten-

Eyck received all of Dhoedt’s documents from O’Neil Knight. Absent from the

mortgage application were documents confirming Dhoedt’s down payment on this

property. After having made several unreturned calls to both Knight and Dhoedt

requesting this confirmation, Ten-Eyck cancelled this mortgage application on

January 14, 2004. When Ten-Eyck received a brokerage fee for brokering the

Dhoedt mortgage, she contacted Knight. Knight advised Ten-Eyck not to worry

about it, the mortgage had been approved. Ten-Eyck never received any

information confirming Dhoedt’s down payment.

252. True copies of the documents provided as part of this mortgage application

and approval are contained as part of Exhibit 15, and were provided by the Co-

operative Trust Company. The accused does not contest the admissibility of

these documents.

253. The application tendered for this mortgage included various false

representations. The complainant, the Co-operative Trust Company, relied on all

of these representations in making the decision to provide mortgage financing.

In accordance with its lending practices, had the Co-operative Trust Company

been aware of these false representations, it would not have approved the

Dhoedt mortgage application. As a result of its reliance on the material

99

misrepresentations in this mortgage application, the economic interest of the Co-

operative Trust Company was put at risk in the amount of $115,645.16.

254. Specifically, Dhoedt did not provide a down payment toward the purchase

of this property. The down payment was represented to have been generated by

way of a gift provided to Dhoedt by his father, Louie Dhoedt. The amount of the

gift was represented to be $6000.00. The mortgage application included a gift

letter evidencing this monetary gift. This document was false. Dhoedt did not

receive a $6000.00 gift from his father, and provided no funds toward the

purchase of 11610 Fort Road. As proof of receipt of this gift, the Co-operative

Trust Company was provided with a letter on the letterhead of Park Law Offices

confirming that the law firm held $6000.00 in trust to Dhoedt’s credit, representing

the deposit and cash to close this transaction. This information was false.

Neither Trent nor Louie Dhoedt deposited any money with the Park Law Offices.

The purpose of these documents was to persuade the Co-operative Trust

Company that Dhoedt had sufficient funds to close this transaction. The Co-

operative Trust Company relied on these false representations in making their

decision to grant Dhoedt’s mortgage at 11610 Fort Road. Not disclosed to the

Co-operative Trust Company was the fact that Dhoedt held a mortgage on the

property located at 11616-96 Street. Had the Co-operative Trust Company been

aware of these false representations, it would not have funded the Dhoedt

mortgage.

255. Second, Dhoedt did not intend to and did not reside at 11610 Fort Road.

This mortgage was insured by GE Capital, and it was a specific condition of that

insurance that this property be occupied by the owner. As evidence of the

satisfaction of owner occupancy, Dhoedt signed a Statutory Declaration attesting

that 11610 Fort Road would be occupied by him. Ellis commissioned this

Statutory Declaration. Ellis had commissioned a nearly identical Statutory

Declaration for Dhoedt approximately 2 months earlier, with regard to the

100

property at 11616-96 Street. Had the Co-operative Trust Company been aware

of this false representation, it would not have funded the Dhoedt mortgage.

256. Third, tendered as part of the mortgage application was a Real Estate

Purchase Contract. This document represented that the vendor of 11610 Fort

Road was G. Pervez. 978742 Alberta Ltd. was the vendor of the property. This

document represented that Dhoedt provided the vendor with a $2,000.00 initial

deposit, and a $2,000.00 additional deposit, and would provide the cash required

to close the transaction of $1,895.00. This was false. Dhoedt provided no funds

by way of deposit or otherwise toward the purchase of this property. The

document indicated that the sale was to be completed on January 10, 2004.

Dhoedt’s signature on this document was forged. Had the Co-operative Trust

Company been aware of this false representation, it would not have funded the

Dhoedt mortgage.

257. Fourth, tendered as part of the mortgage application was a MLS sheet.

This document represented to the lender that 11610 Fort Road was listed on the

MLS system with a real estate agent, which supported the value of the property

relative to the purchase price. This document also indicated to the lender that the

sale was an arm’s length transaction, and that the purchaser was a bona fide

purchaser for value. The listing agent was indicated to be Rick Walsh of the

Sutton Group Challenge Realty office. Dhoedt did not deal with Walsh or any

other realtor in the purchase of this property. This was not an arm’s length

transaction.

258. The proceeds from this mortgage, $115,645.16 were provided to the

Venkatraman & Purewal law firm. These funds would not have been sufficient

cash to close this purchase based on the purchase price of $117,900.00. No

funds were provided by Dhoedt to make up the shortfall between the purchase

price and the mortgage proceeds.

101

259. In the original purchase of this property by 978742 Alberta Ltd. in July

2003, a Royal Bank of Canada mortgage originally held by the vendor was

assumed by 978742 Alberta Ltd. Since the Co-operative Trust Company was to

be the first charge on title to 11610 Fort Road, the negotiation of a $45,000

Venkatraman & Purewal trust cheque provided to Park, was subject to a trust

condition that the Royal Bank of Canada mortgage would be paid out and

discharged. In breach of this trust condition, the Royal Bank of Canada mortgage

was not discharged and Pervez was provided with the entire $45,000. The Royal

Bank of Canada mortgage continued to be serviced until September 2006, when

it was finally paid out and discharged.

260. Dhoedt continues to be the owner of 11610 Fort Road, and has now

assumed control of this property having borrowed several thousand dollars from

his father to renovate the property, pay mortgage arrears, and secure tenants in

the property. As a result of Dhoedt’s efforts, the Co-operative Trust Company

has not suffered a loss as a result of their reliance on the false representations

contained in the Dhoedt mortgage application.

102

Count 16 At or near the City of Edmonton, in the Province of Alberta,

between the 1stday of February 2004 and the 30thday of April, 2004, did by

deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, defraud MCAP Service

Corporation of $116,352.00, more or less, by providing false information to

MCAP Service Corporation in support of a mortgage application in the name

of Naresh Jindal for 11245-94 Street, Edmonton, Alberta, contrary to Section

380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

261. Documents relevant to the transaction that forms the basis for the

allegation in Count 16 are contained in Exhibit 16. The accused does not contest

the admissibility of the contents of Exhibit 16.

262.

11245-94 Street is a residence located in Edmonton, Alberta. This

property was purchased by 978742 Alberta Ltd. on October 21, 2003. Corporate

Registry documents outlining the history of 978742 Alberta Ltd. are contained in

Exhibit 40. At the time of the purchase of 11245-94 Street, Pervez was the sole

director of 978742 Alberta Ltd.

263. On September 30, 2003, Pervez signed the Affidavit of Transferee on

behalf of 978742 Alberta Ltd. on the purchase of 11245-94 Street, attesting that

978742 Alberta Ltd. paid cash and assumed the mortgage of the vendors,

Advanced Holdings Inc., and that that the value of 11245-94 Street was

$98,000.00. The vendors’ mortgage was held by First Marathon Mortgage

Corporation. Bindon commissioned Pervez’s affidavit.

264. On January 19, 2004, title to 11245-94 Street transferred to Letwled

Tessma. On January 8, 2004, Pervez signed the Transfer of Land on behalf of

978742 Alberta Ltd. The consideration received by the company was

represented to be $144,000.00. Bindon witnessed Pervez’s signature on the

Transfer of Land. On January 8, 2004, Letwled Tessma signed the Affidavit of

Transferee attesting that he paid consideration in the amount of $144,000.00, by

way of cash and new mortgage, for the purchase of 11245-94 Street. Tessma’s

affidavit was commissioned by Bindon. On January 8, 2004, Tessma also signed

103

a mortgage in favour of Bridgewater Financial Services Ltd. in the amount of

$141,246.00. Tessma’s signature was witnessed by Park. This transaction did

not proceed, and the Tessma mortgage was not funded by Bridgewater Financial

Services Ltd.

265. On March 13, 2004, title to 11245-94 Street was transferred from 978742

Alberta Ltd to Naresh Jindal. On March 10, 2004, Ellis signed the Transfer of

Land as Power of Attorney for 978742 Alberta Ltd. The consideration received by

the company was represented to be $144,000.00. On March 10, 2004, Rondah

Worrell signed the Affidavit of Transferee as agent for Naresh Jindal. In this

document, Worrell attested that Jindal paid consideration by way of cash and new

mortgage for the purchase of 11245-94 Street. This information was false. Jindal

provided no cash toward the purchase of this property. On March 10, 2004,

Jindal’s signature appears on a mortgage in favour of MCAP Service Corporation

in the amount of $116,352.00. Ellis witnessed Jindal’s signature on this

document. Jindal provided none of the cash to close this transaction. This was

approximately 8 months after the mortgage obtained in Jindal’s name on 11933-

78 Street, underlying Count 7 of the Indictment before this Court.

266. This was the third of 4 mortgages that Jindal secured on properties in

Edmonton between February 2003 and March 2004. The first property, 11838-

91 Street, was transferred out of Jindal’s name on March 13, 2004, and into the

name of Harkamaljit Kahlon. The second property, 11933-78 Street, was

transferred out of Jindal’s name on March 13, 2004, and into the name of Twyla

Larson. Jindal received none of the proceeds represented in these sales. Ellis

witnessed Jindal’s signature on the transfer of land documents associated with

both of these sales, both on January 13, 2004. Ellis signed as agent for the

transferees on both of these transactions on February 10, 2004. These

properties were transferred out of Jindal’s name on the same date that 11245-94

Street was transferred into his name.

104

267. Jindal’s recruitment and involvement in these transactions was described

in paragraph 109 of this document. Jindal signed all of the legal documents at

Venkatraman & Purewal, he attended to that law firm with Kahlon. At the law

firm, Jindal dealt with Ellis.

268. The mortgage on 11245-94 Street was brokered by Nina Tran, a mortgage

broker then employed with INVIS mortgage brokerage. Tran brokered two

mortgages associated with this scheme, generating total mortgage proceeds of

approximately $235,936.00. Tran does not recall whom she dealt with in

processing either mortgage application.

269. The application tendered for these mortgage proceeds included various

false representations. The complainant, MCAP Service Corporation, relied on all

of these representations in making the decision to provide mortgage financing. In

accordance with its lending practices, had MCAP Service Corporation been

aware of the false nature of these representations, it would not have provided

mortgage funds to complete this real estate transaction. As a result of its reliance

on the misrepresentations in this mortgage application, the economic interests of

MCAP Service Corporation were put at risk in the amount of $116,352.00.

270. Specifically, Jindal did not provide a down payment toward the purchase

of this property. This down payment was represented to have been generated by

the sale of 11838-91 Street in Edmonton, Alberta. This was the first property that

Jindal obtained a mortgage on as part of this real estate scheme, and was the

same sale that was represented to have generated the down payment for 11933-

78 Street. This property did not sell in the manner represented to MCAP Service

Corporation, although Jindal was removed from title. Jindal received no money

in the sale of this property to Harkamaljit Kahlon. A letter on the letterhead of

Venkatraman & Purewal was provided to INVIS on March 5, 2004, confirming the

existence of an agreement for the sale of 11838-91 Street. This letter was

105

signed by Ellis. It was further a condition of this mortgage approval that Jindal

sell 11933-78 Street, the property concerned in Count 7 of the Indictment before

the Court. This sale was to have generated sufficient resources to provide a

down payment toward the purchase of 11245-94 Street. As evidence of this sale,

MCAP Service Corporation was provided with an Anticipated Statement of

Adjustments and Disbursements on the letterhead of Park Law Offices. This

document purported to show a sale of 11933-78 Street to Shyla Bassam. The

sale price of 11933-78 Street was represented to be $155,600.00. This

document is false, the sale never took place in the manner described, nor in the

time described. This document serves the purpose of persuading the

complainant lender that Jindal had sufficient resources to make a down payment

on the purchase of 11245-94 Street. This document was faxed from the law firm

of Venkatraman & Purewal. As proof that this sale had been completed, MCAP

Service Corporation was provided with a copy of a trust cheque payable to

Venkatraman & Purewal in the amount of $27,569.01 drawn on the trust account

of Scott Park. This cheque was represented to be the cash to close the sale at

11933-78 Street. This document was faxed from the law office of Venkatraman

& Purewal. As further evidence of this sale, MCAP Service Corporation was

provided with a Real Estate Purchase Contract pertaining to the supposed sale

of 11933-78 Street. This document shows an unconditional offer to purchase

11933-78 Street by Shyla Bassam for $155,600.00. Jindal does not know a Shyla

Bassam, and reasonable inquiries of the police have not identified Shyla

Bassam. Had MCAP Service Corporation known that the entirety of this

information was false, it would not have advanced the mortgage on the property

at 11245-94 Street. The shortfall between the purchase price of $144,000 and

the mortgage of $116,352.00 was not provided by Jindal or anyone acting on

Jindal’s behalf.

271.

Second, Jindal did not intend to, and did not reside at 11245-94 Street.

Jindal’s residence was and continues to be 135 Kiniski Crescent, in Edmonton,

Alberta. The mortgage on this property was an undisclosed liability on the

106

mortgage application for 11245-94 Street. It was a specific condition of the

mortgage approval that 11245-94 Street would be occupied by the owner and not

used as a rental property. This mortgage was insured by GE Capital, and it was

a condition of that insurance that 11245-94 Street be occupied by the owner and

not used as a rental property. As evidence of the satisfaction of this condition, on

March 10, 2004, Ellis commissioned a Statutory Declaration, attested to by

Jindal, declaring that Jindal would use 11245-94 Street as his principal

residence.

272. Third, tendered as part of the mortgage application was a Real Estate

Purchase Contract. This document represented that 978742 Alberta Ltd. was the

vendor of 11245-94 Street. This document represented that the purchaser,

Jindal provided the vendor with a $5,000 initial deposit, and would provide the

cash to close of $31,000. This is false. Jindal provided no funds by way of

deposit or otherwise toward the purchase of this property. The document

indicates that the sale was to be completed by March 7, 2004. The provision of

this document was a condition of mortgage funding.

273. Fourth, tendered as part of the mortgage application was an MLS sheet.

This document represented to the lender that 11245-94 Street was listed on the

MLS system with a real estate agent, which supports the value of the property

relative to the purchase price. This document also indicates to the lender that the

sale is an arm’s length transaction, and that the purchaser is a bona fide

purchaser for value. The listing agent was represented to be Rick Walsh of

Sutton Group Challenge Realty. Jindal did not deal with Rick Walsh, and did not

deal with any other real estate agent in the purchase of this property. This was

not an arm’s length transaction. The provision of this listing was a condition of

mortgage funding.

274. Sent with the mortgage application was the appraisal of Angus MacInnes.

MacInnes’ involvement in this scheme is described at paragraph 173 of this

107

document. MacInnes appraised this property as having a market value of

$144,000.00. MCAP Service Corporation relied on this appraisal when deciding

to approve this mortgage. The provision of this appraisal was a condition of

mortgage approval. This appraisal was prepared for Home Placement Services,

Pervez’s company. Jindal had no involvement in the preparation of this

appraisal.

275. At some point in 2004, Jindal began to get telephone calls from lenders

with regard to mortgage arrears. On July 18, 2004, a letter from the Venkatraman

& Purewal law firm requested a mortgage assumption statement for this property.

On July 26, 2004, a cheque in the amount of $2,481.84 drawn on the

Venkatraman & Purewal trust account was sent to the MCAP Service Corporation

to provide for the arrears on the Jindal mortgage.

276. On August 10, 2004, title to 11245-94 Street transferred to Ellis. In July

2004, no specific date indicated, Jindal signed the Transfer of Land associated

with this transaction. The consideration received by him was represented to be

$144,000.00. Heather Robson, an employee at Venkatraman & Purewal,

witnessed Jindal’s signature on this Transfer of Land document. On July 27,

2004, Ellis signed the Affidavit of Transferee pertaining to this purchase. In this

document, Ellis attested that she paid consideration by way of cash and

assumption of mortgage for the purchase of 11245-94 Street. Ellis provided no

cash toward the purchase of this property, and Jindal did not receive any of the

proceeds that should have been associated to this sale.

277. On April 6, 2006, Capital Health authorities filed a Notice of Health Hazard

on title to 11245-94 Street. On September 15, 2006, title to 11245-94 Street was

transferred to 1136260 Alberta Ltd. The value of the land at that time was

represented to be $150,000.00, with the consideration paid to Ellis noted as

“nominal”. Filed as Exhibit 46 in these proceedings are Corporate Registry

documents associated with 1136260 Alberta Ltd. At the time of this transaction,

108

Rukhsana Ahmed (Pervez’s mother) and Gregory De Agostini (Ellis’ son) were

the directors of this numbered company. On October 24, 2006, title to 11245-94

Street was transferred to Ana Fassman. The consideration paid in this transfer

was represented to be $125,000.00, by way of assumption of the MCAP Service

Corporation mortgage. To date, MCAP Service Corporation has not suffered an

actual loss as a result of their reliance on the false representations in the Jindal

mortgage application.

109

Count 17 At or near the City of Edmonton, in the Province of Alberta,

between the 1stday of February, 2004 and the 30th day of April, 2004, did

by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, defraud Toronto-Dominion

Bank of $133,399.00, more or less, by providing false information to

Toronto-Dominion Bank in support of a mortgage application in the name

of Naresh Jindal for 6904-127 Avenue , Edmonton, Alberta, contrary to

Section 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

278. Documents relevant to the transaction that forms the basis for the

allegation in Count 17 are contained in Exhibit 17. The accused does not contest

the admissibility of the contents of Exhibit 17.

279.

6904-127 Avenue is a residence located in Edmonton, Alberta. This

property was purchased by Alberta numbered company 978742 Alberta Ltd. on

December 4, 2003. Corporate Registry documents outlining the history of 978742

Alberta Ltd. are contained in Exhibit 40. At the time of the purchase of 6904-127

Avenue, Pervez was the sole director of 978742 Alberta Ltd.

280. On November 24, 2003, Pervez signed the Affidavit of Transferee on

behalf of 978742 Alberta Ltd., attesting that 978742 Alberta Ltd. paid $40,000.00

cash of to the vendor, Bartz Inc. and that the value of 6904-127 Avenue was

$40,000.00. Bindon commissioned Pervez’s affidavit.

281. On January 9, 2004, title to 6904-127 Avenue transferred to Harkamaljit

Kahlon. On December 23, 2003, Pervez signed the Transfer of Land associated

with this transaction on behalf of 978742 Alberta Ltd. The consideration received

by the company was represented to be $135,000.00. Ellis witnessed Pervez’s

signature on this Transfer of Land. On December 23, 2003, Kahlon signed the

Affidavit of Transferee attesting that he paid consideration by way of cash for the

purchase of 6904-127 Avenue. Ellis commissioned Kahlon’s affidavit. Kahlon’s

affidavit was false. No money changed hands between Kahlon and 978742

Alberta Ltd.

110

282. On March 26, 2004, title to 6904-127 Avenue was transferred from Kahlon

to Naresh Jindal. On March 22, 2004, Kahlon signed the Transfer of Land. The

consideration received by him was represented to be $136,000.00. Ellis

witnessed Kahlon’s signature. On March 22, 2004, Ellis signed the Affidavit of

Transferee as agent for Jindal, attesting that Jindal paid consideration by way of

cash and new mortgage for the purchase of 6904-127 Avenue. Jindal provided

no cash toward the purchase of this property. On March 22, 2004, Jindal’s

signature appears on a mortgage in favour of the Toronto-Dominion bank in the

amount of $133,399.00. Ellis witnessed Jindal’s signature on this document.

Jindal provided none of the cash to close this transaction. This was

approximately 2 weeks after the signing of the mortgage that had been obtained

in Jindal’s name on 11245-94 Street underlying the allegation in Count 16 of the

Indictment before this Court.

283. This was the fourth of 4 mortgages that Jindal secured on properties in

Edmonton between February 2003 and March 2004. The first property, 11838-

91 Street, was transferred out of Jindal’s name on March 13, 2004, and into

Kahlon’s name. The second property, 11933-78 Street, was transferred out of

Jindal’s name on March 13, 2004, and into Twyla Larson’s name. Jindal did not

receive any proceeds from these sales. Ellis witnessed Jindal’s signature on the

transfer documents associated with these sales, both signed on January 13,

2004. Ellis signed as agent for both of the transferees on February 10, 2004.

These two properties were transferred out of Jindal’s name two weeks before

6904-127 Avenue was transferred into his name.

284. Jindal’s recruitment and involvement in these transactions was described

in paragraph 109 of this document. Jindal signed all of the legal documents at

Venkatraman & Purewal, he attended to that law firm with Kahlon. At the law

firm, Jindal dealt with Ellis.

111

285. The mortgage on 6904-127 Avenue was brokered by Krishna Gupta, a

mortgage broker employed with Alberta Mortgage and FS Center, in Edmonton,

Alberta. Gupta’s involvement in these transactions is described in paragraph 165

of this document.

286. Jindal’s mortgage application included various false representations. The

complainant, the Toronto-Dominion bank, relied on all of these representations in

making the decision to provide mortgage financing. In accordance with its lending

practices, had the Toronto-Dominion bank been aware of the false

representations, it would not have approved the Jindal mortgage. As a result of

its reliance on the material misrepresentations in the Jindal mortgage application,

the economic interest of the Toronto-Dominion bank was put at risk in the

amount of $133,399.00.

287. Specifically, Jindal did not provide a down payment toward the purchase

of this property. This down payment was represented to have been generated by

the sale of 135 Kiniski Crescent in Edmonton, Alberta. This is Jindal’s personal

residence. As evidence of this sale, the Toronto-Dominion bank was provided

with a Real Estate Purchase Contract pertaining to the sale of 135 Kiniski

Crescent. This document showed an unconditional offer to purchase 135 Kiniski

Cresent by Jaswinder Oberoi for $165,000.00. Jindal does not know Jaswinder

Oberoi, and never sold, nor intended to sell, his residence. All of the information

contained on this document was false. As further evidence of this sale, the

Toronto-Dominion bank was provided with an Anticipated Statement of

Adjustments and Disbursements pertaining to the sale of 135 Kiniski Crescent to

Jaswinder Oberoi. The sale price of 135 Kiniski Crescent was represented to be

$165,000.00. This document was also false, this sale never took place, nor was it

anticipated. These documents served the purpose of persuading the lender that

Jindal had sufficient resources to make a down payment on the purchase of

6904-127 Avenue. They also provided false information about Jindal’s debt load,

as they represent that the purchaser would assume Jindal’s mortgage. Also

112

provided to the Toronto-Dominion bank was a Real Estate Purchase Contract

evidencing the sale of 11838-91 Street by Jindal to Twyla Larson. This was the

first property that Jindal obtained as part of this scheme, and was the same sale

that was represented to have generated the down payments for 11933-78 Street

and 11245-94 Street. This property did not sell in the manner represented to the

Toronto-Dominion bank, although Jindal was removed from the title of that

property, he received no money from the sale. 11838-91 Street was transferred

to Kahlon. As further evidence of the sale of 11838-91 Street, the Toronto-

Dominion bank was provided with an Anticipated Statement of Adjustments and

Disbursements that represented a sale of 11838-91 Street to Twyla Larson. The

sale price of 11838-91 Street was represented to be $140,000.00. This document

was also false. Had the Toronto-Dominion bank known that this information was

false, it would not have advanced the mortgage on the property at 6904-127

Avenue. The shortfall between the purchase price of $136,000.00 and the

mortgage of $133,399.00 was not provided by Jindal or anyone acting

on Jindal’s behalf.

288.

Second, Jindal did not intend to, and did not reside at 6904-127 Avenue.

Jindal’s residence was 135 Kiniski Crescent, in Edmonton, Alberta. The

mortgage on this property was an undisclosed liability on the mortgage

application for 11245-94 Street. It was a specific condition of the mortgage

approval that 6904-127 Avenue be occupied by the owner and not used as a

rental property. This mortgage was insured by CMHC, and it was a condition of

that insurance that 6904-127 Avenue be occupied by the owner and not used as

a rental property. As evidence of the satisfaction of this condition, Jindal signed a

Statutory Declaration, declaring that 6904-127 Avenue would be used as his

principal residence. This was false. Ellis commissioned Jindal’s Statutory

Declaration. This Statutory Declaration was completed approximately 2 weeks

after the identical Statutory Declaration with regard to 11245-94 Street, as

described in paragraph 271 of this document. Had the Toronto-Dominion bank

113

known that this information was false, it would not have advanced the mortgage

on the property at 6904-127 Avenue.

289. Third, tendered as part of the mortgage application, as a condition of

mortgage approval, was a Real Estate Purchase Contract. This document

represented that Jindal provided the vendor, Kahlon, with a $1,000.00 initial

deposit, and would provide the cash to close of $4,800.00. This was false.

Jindal provided no funds, by way of deposit or otherwise, toward the purchase of

this property. The document indicated that the sale was to be completed by

February 24, 2004, but it was not concluded March 2004. Had the Toronto-

Dominion bank known that this information was false, it would not have advanced

the mortgage on the property at 6904-127 Avenue.

290. Fourth, tendered as part of the mortgage application, as a condition of

mortgage approval, was a MLS sheet. This document represented that 6904-

127 Avenue was listed on the MLS system with a real estate agent, which

supports the value of the property relative to the purchase price. This document

also indicated that the sale was an arm’s length transaction, and that the

purchaser was a bona fide purchaser for value. The listing agent was

represented to be Tony Kailey of Sutton Group North Star Realty. Jindal did not

deal with Tony Kailey, or any other real estate agent in the purchase of this

property. This was not an arm’s length transaction. Had the Toronto-Dominion

bank known that this information was false, it would not have advanced the

mortgage on the property at 6904-127 Avenue.

291. On November 24, 2004, title to 6904-127 Avenue transferred to 1101867

Alberta Ltd. The Corporate Registry documents for 1101867 Alberta Ltd. are

filed as Exhibit 39 in these proceedings. At the time of this transaction, Kahlon

was the sole director of 1101867 Alberta Ltd. On July 28, 2004, Jindal signed the

Transfer of Land. The consideration received by Jindal was represented to be

$136,000.00. Ellis witnessed Jindal’s signature on the Transfer of Land. On

114

July 28, 2004, Ellis signed the Affidavit of Transferee as agent for 1101867

Alberta Ltd., attesting that 1101867 Alberta Ltd. paid consideration by way of cash

and assumption of mortgage for the purchase of 6904-127 Avenue. 1101867

Alberta Ltd. provided no cash toward the purchase of this property, and

Jindal did not receive any of the proceeds were represented to have been

generated by this sale.

292. On July 12, 2005, the Toronto-Dominion bank filed a lis pendens on the

title of this property, the mortgage having fallen into arrears. On February 8,

2006, MCAP Service Corporation filed a writ against the title of this property in

the amount of $72,618.00, in an effort to collect a judgment that they received

against 1101867 Alberta Ltd. On March 9, 2006, Amarjit Kahlon, the father of

Harkamaljit Kahlon, filed a caveat against the title of this property. On March 16,

2007, this property was sold to Iron Bull Construction Ltd. for $118,000. As a

result of the false representations contained in the Jindal mortgage application,

Toronto-Dominion bank suffered an actual loss of approximately $16,000.00.

MCAP Service Corporation was unable to collect on the writ that had been filed

on title.

115

Count 18 At or near the City of Edmonton, in the Province of Alberta,

between the 1stday of February 2004 and the 30thday of April, 2004, did by

deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, defraud MCAP Service

Corporation of $119,584.00, more or less, by providing false information to

MCAP Service Corporation in support of a mortgage application in the

name of Ali Aziz for 11935-91 Street , Edmonton, Alberta, contrary to

Section 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

293. Documents relevant to the transaction that forms the basis for the

allegation in Count 18 are contained in Exhibit 18. The accused does not contest

the admissibility of the contents of Exhibit 18.

294. 11935-91 Street is a residence located in Edmonton, Alberta. This

property was purchased by 978742 Alberta Ltd. on October 21, 2003. Corporate

Registry documents outlining the history of 978742 Alberta Ltd. are contained in

Exhibit 40. At the time of the purchase of 11935-91 Street, Pervez was the

director of 978742 Alberta Ltd.

295. On September 30, 2003, Pervez signed the Affidavit of Transferee as

agent for 978742 Alberta Ltd. attesting that 978742 Alberta Ltd. paid cash and

assumed the mortgage held by the vendors, Advanced Holdings Inc. as

consideration in this purchase, and that the value of 11935-91 Street was

$95,000.00. The vendors Advanced Holdings Inc. held a mortgage on this

property with the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce [“CIBC”]. Bindon

commissioned Pervez’s affidavit.

296. On March 15, 2004, title to 11935-91 Street was transferred from 978742

Alberta Ltd to Mohammad Ali Aziz. On March 10, 2004, Pervez signed the

Transfer of Land on behalf of 978742 Alberta Ltd. The consideration received by

978742 Alberta Ltd. was represented to be $148,000.00. Ellis witnessed

Pervez’s signature on this Transfer of Land. On March 10, 2004, Ellis signed the

Affidavit of Transferee as agent for Ali Aziz, attesting that Aziz paid

consideration by way of cash and new mortgage for the purchase of 11935-91

116

Street. On March 10, 2004, Aziz signed a mortgage in favour of MCAP Service

Corporation in the amount of $119,584.00. Ellis witnessed Aziz’s signature on

this document. This mortgage was signed approximately 3 months after the

mortgage on 11502-82 Street, underlying the allegations in Count 14 of the

Indictment before the Court. This was the third of five mortgages obtained by

Aziz on Edmonton properties between October 2002 and December 2004.

297. Aziz’s introduction to this scheme is described in paragraph 234 of this

document.

298. The mortgage on 11935-91 Street was brokered by Nina Tran, whose

involvement is outlined in paragraph 268 of this document.

299. True copies of the documents provided as part of this mortgage application

and approval are contained as part of Exhibit 18, and were provided by MCAP

Service Corporation. The accused does not contest the admissibility of these

documents.

300. Aziz’s mortgage application contained various false representations. The

complainant, MCAP Service Corporation, relied on all of these representations in

making the decision to provide mortgage financing. In accordance with its lending

practices, had MCAP Service Corporation been aware of these false

representations, it would not have approved the Aziz mortgage. As a result of its

reliance on the material misrepresentations in the Aziz mortgage application, the

economic interest of MCAP Service Corporation was put at risk in the amount of

$119,584.00.

301. Specifically, Aziz did not provide a down payment toward the purchase of

this property. The down payment was represented to have been generated by

the sale of Aziz’s property at 285 Redwood Avenue in Winnipeg, Manitoba. This

was the first property that Aziz purchased after his introduction to Sekhon, and

117

was the same property that was represented to have been sold to generate the

down payment for 11502-82 Street. As evidence of this sale, MCAP Service

Corporation was provided with a Real Estate Purchase Contract that represented

a sale of this property by Aziz to James Johnson for $100,000.00. According to

this document, Johnson paid a deposit of $5000.00 and would assume Aziz’s

mortgage on the property. Johnson was to provide cash to close the transaction

of $28,000.00. This unconditional sale was to have been completed in March,

2004. This same document was provided to the Toronto-Dominion bank in the

mortgage application for 11502-82 Street, with an amended completion date.

Aziz did not know James Johnson, and did not sell his property at 285 Redwood

Avenue in the manner described, nor in this time frame. This document provided

the lender with information pertaining to the source of Aziz’s down payment, and

represented false information with regard to Aziz’s debt load as Johnson was to

have assumed the mortgage on this property. As further evidence of this sale,

MCAP Service Corporation was provided with an Anticipated Statement of

Adjustments on Park Law Offices’ letterhead pertaining to the sale of 285

Redwood Avenue. This document represented a sale to James Johnson for

$100,000.00 made up of a deposit, mortgage assumption and cash to close. The

completion date for this sale was reported as March 7, 2004. Not disclosed to

MCAP Service Corporation was the fact that Aziz was responsible for a mortgage

on 11502-82 Street. MCAP Service Corporation relied on these false

representations and in making their decision to grant Aziz’s mortgage at 11935-

91 Street. Had MCAP Service Corporation been aware of these false

representations, it would not have funded the Aziz mortgage.

302. Second, Aziz did not intend to and did not reside at 11935-91 Street.

This was contrary to the information represented to MCAP Service Corporation to

the effect that Aziz would occupy the property, and contrary to the specific

condition of insurance coverage imposed as part of the approval of this

mortgage. This mortgage was insured by GE Capital which imposed a condition

of owner occupancy to its insurance coverage. Aziz resided, and continued to

118

reside throughout, at his family home located at 9630-80 Street in Fort

Saskatchewan, Alberta. Had MCAP Service Corporation been aware of these

false representations, it would not have funded the Aziz mortgage.

303. Third, tendered as part of the mortgage application, and as a condition of

mortgage financing, was a Real Estate Purchase Contract. This document

represented that the vendor of 11935-91 Street was 978742 Alberta Ltd. This

document represented that Aziz provided the vendor with a $5,000 initial deposit

toward the purchase of this property, and would provide the cash required to

close the transaction of $32,000. This was false. Aziz provided no funds by way

of deposit or otherwise toward the purchase of this property. The document

indicated that the sale was to be completed by March 7, 2004. Had MCAP

Service Corporation been aware of these false representations, it would not have

funded the Aziz mortgage.

304. Sent with the mortgage application was the appraisal of Angus MacInnes.

MacInnes’ involvement in this scheme is described at paragraph 173 of this

document. MacInnes appraised 11935-91 Street as having a market value of

$148,000.00. MCAP Service Corporation relied on this appraisal when deciding

to approve this mortgage. The provision of this appraisal was a condition of

mortgage approval.

305. The proceeds of this mortgage were provided to the Venkatraman &

Purewal law firm. These funds would not have been sufficient cash to close this

purchase based on the purchase price of $148,000.00. No funds were provided

by Aziz to make up the shortfall between the purchase price and the mortgage

proceeds.

306. On June 8, 2004, title to this property transferred to the name of Ellis.

This is the same date as the title to 11502-82 Street transferred to Ellis. The

purchase price for this property was represented to be $148,000.00. No money

119

changed hands between Ellis and Aziz in this transaction. On June 1, 2004, Aziz

signed the Transfer of Land associated with this transaction. The consideration

received by him was represented to be $127,000.00. On June 1, 2004, Ellis

signed the Affidavit of Transferee, attesting that she paid consideration by way of

cash and assumption of mortgage, for the purchase of 11935-91 Street. Ellis

assumed this mortgage at Pervez’s direction, and Pervez provided her with funds

to service the MCAP Service Corporation mortgage on this property that had

been assumed by Ellis.

307. On February 1, 2007, title to 11935-91 Street was transferred into the

name of a third party, who purchased the property for $135,000. Due to the

dramatically increased value of real estate in Edmonton, the sale of this property

was able to generate sufficient revenue to discharge Aziz’s mortgage with MCAP

Service Corporation, allowing the lender to avoid suffering a financial loss as a

result of the false representations contained in the Aziz mortgage application.

120

Count 19 At or near the City of Edmonton, in the Province of Alberta,

between the 1stday of February, 2004 and the 30thday of April, 2004, did

by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, defraud London Life

Insurance Company of $122,511.29, more or less, by providing false

information to London Life Insurance Company in support of a mortgage

application in the name of Rui Correia for 11920-77 Street, Edmonton,

Alberta, contrary to Section 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

308. Documents relevant to the transaction that forms the basis for the

allegation in Count 19 are contained in Exhibit 19. The accused does not contest

the admissibility of the contents of Exhibit 19.

309. 11920-77 Street is a residence located in Edmonton, Alberta. This

property was purchased by Alberta numbered company 978742 Alberta Ltd. on

December 1, 2003. Corporate Registry documents outlining the history of 978742

Alberta Ltd. are contained in Exhibit 40. At the time of the purchase of 11920-77

Street, Pervez was the director of 978742 Alberta Ltd.

310. On November 14, 2003, Pervez signed the Affidavit of Transferee as agent

for 978742 Alberta Ltd. on the purchase of 11920-77 Street, attesting that the

value of 11920-77 Street was $67,000.00, which was the consideration paid to

the Lefebvres. On that same date, Pervez signed a vendor take-back mortgage

on behalf of 978742 Alberta Ltd. in favour of the vendors, the Lefebvres, in the

amount of $50,000. Pervez’s signature on this mortgage was witnessed by Park.

Pervez’s affidavit was commissioned by Park.

311. On April 1, 2004, title to 11920-77 Street was transferred from 978742

Alberta Ltd to Brito, whose involvement in these transactions is described in

paragraph 5 (vi) of this document. On March 25, 2004, Pervez signed the

Transfer of Land associated with this transaction on behalf of 978742 Alberta Ltd.

The consideration received by him was represented to be $90,000. Ellis,

witnessed Pervez’s signature on this Transfer of Land. On March 25, 2004, Ellis,

signed the Affidavit of Transferee filed with the Land Titles office, as agent for

121

Pedro Brito. In this document, Ellis attested that Brito paid consideration by way

of cash for the purchase of 11920-77 Street. Ellis’ affidavit was commissioned by

Rondah Worrell, an employee with Venkatraman & Purewal.

312. On April 1, 2004, title to 11920-77 Street was transferred from Pedro Brito

to Rui Correia. On March 25, 2004, Brito signed the Transfer of Land associated

with this transaction. The consideration received by him was represented to be

$124,900. Ellis, witnessed Brito’s signature on this Transfer of Land. On March

25, 2004, Rui Correia signed the Affidavit of Transferee filed with the Land Titles

office. In this document, Correia attested that he paid consideration in the

amount of $124,900 for the purchase of 11920-77 Street. Correia further attested

that this consideration was provided by way of cash and a new mortgage on the

property. Correia’s affidavit was commissioned by Ellis. On March 25, 2004,

Correia signed a mortgage in favour of the London Life Insurance Company in the

amount of $122,511.29. Correia’s signature on this document was witnessed by

Ellis. This was the second of three mortgages obtained by Correia on Edmonton

properties between December 2003 and August 2004.

313. Rui Correia is a long-time family friend of Pedro Brito. Correia was

approached by Brito with an opportunity to make some extra money. Correia was

advised by Brito that Brito had poor credit and accordingly could not obtain a

mortgage in his own name. Brito inquired whether Correia might be prepared to

obtain mortgages in Correia’s name, Correia’s only involvement being the signing

of mortgage documents. Correia was paid between $2000 and $4000 for each

mortgage that he obtained in his name. He was provided these payments by

Brito either in cash or by certified cheque. Correia provided all of his personal

documents to Brito, and dealt only with Brito on these transactions. Correia had

no dealings with mortgage brokers or with bankers. Brito attended to the law

office of Venkatraman & Purewal with Correia, on each occasion that Correia

attended there. Correia recalled dealing with a lawyer later identified by

122

description as Pubalagan Venkatraman. Brito reimbursed Correia for all

mortgage payments that were debited to his personal bank account.

314. The mortgage on 11920-77 Street was brokered by David Humeniuk,

whose involvement in this scheme is outlined in Exhibit 33, and described also in

paragraph 38 of this document. This Correia mortgage was the last mortgage

that Humeniuk brokered. Humeniuk was initially approached by Pedro Brito, who

advised him that he was in the business of purchasing, renovating, and selling

homes for a profit. Humeniuk understood Rodrigo Caroca to be a business

associate of Brito’s, and occasionally had dealings with Caroca. The majority of

his dealings were with Brito. Early in his dealings with Brito, Humeniuk began

receiving mortgage applications from Carman Pervez. Humeniuk understood that

Brito had referred him to Pervez, and that Pervez was in the same business as

Brito. Humeniuk brokered mortgages for Pervez for a short time, and then

declined to accept any further applications from Pervez because of serious issues

with the applications, including undisclosed liabilities and problematic evidence

confirming down payments of applicants. On the applications that he received

from Brito, Humeniuk dealt directly with Brito and not the applicant. With regard

to this Correia mortgage, Humeniuk received the application package from Brito.

315. True copies of the documents provided as part of this mortgage application

and approval are contained as part of Exhibit 19, and were provided by the

London Life Insurance Company. The accused does not contest the admissibility

of these documents.

316. The application tendered for this mortgage included various false

representations. The complainant, the London Life Insurance Company, relied

on all of these representations in making the decision to provide mortgage

financing. In accordance with its lending practices, had the London Life

Insurance Company been aware of the false nature of these representations, it

123

would not have provided mortgage funds to complete this real estate transaction.

As a result of its reliance on the misrepresentations in this mortgage application,

the economic interests of the London Life Insurance Company were put at risk in

the amount of $122,511.29.

317. Specifically with respect to this transaction, Correia did not provide a down

payment toward the purchase of this property. The down payment was

represented to have been generated by the sale of Correia’s property at 11443-

101 Street in Edmonton, Alberta. This is the first property that Correia purchased

after his introduction to this scheme by Brito. As evidence of this sale, the

London Life Insurance Company was provided with a Real Estate Purchase

Contract that suggested a sale of this property by Correia to Judy and Carol

Buyers for a price of $122,000.00. According to this document, the Buyers paid

a deposit to Correia of $2000.00 in the purchase of this property, and would

assume Correia’s mortgage on the property. The Buyers were to provide the

cash to close of $10,200.00. This unconditional sale was to have been completed

on March 29, 2004. Correia does not know Judy or Carol Buyers, and did not

sell the property at 11443-101 Street. Correia continues to be the titular owner of

11443-101 Street. This document provided the lender with information pertaining

to the source of Correia’s down payment, and represented false information with

regard to Correia’s debt load given that it was represented that the Buyers were

to have assumed the mortgage on 11443-101 Street. Not disclosed to the

London Life Insurance Company was the fact that Correia was responsible for a

mortgage on 11443-101 Street. The London Life Insurance Company relied on

these false representations and in making their decision to grant Correia’s

mortgage at 11920-77 Street. Had the London Life Insurance Company been

aware of these false representations, they would not have funded the Correia

mortgage.

318. Judy Buyers was a property manager employed by Pedro Brito and

Rodrigo Caroca. Judy Buyers does not know a Carol Buyers, and did not

124

purchase 11443-101 Street. Buyers’ signature on the Real Estate Purchase

Contract, provided to the London Life Insurance Company, is forged.

319. Second, Correia did not intend to reside at 11920-77 Street, and did not

reside there. This was contrary to the information represented to the London Life

Insurance Company to the effect that Correia would occupy the property, and

contrary to the specific condition of insurance coverage imposed as part of the

approval of this mortgage. This mortgage was insured by GE Capital which

imposes a condition of owner occupancy to its insurance coverage.

320. Third, tendered as part of the mortgage application was a Real Estate

Purchase Contract. This document represented that the vendor of 11920-77

Street was Josh McDerman. The vendor of this property was Pedro Brito. This

document represented that the purchaser, Correia, provided the vendor with a

$1,000 initial deposit toward the purchase of this property, and would provide the

cash required to close the transaction of $5,235. This is false. Correia provided

no funds by way of deposit or otherwise toward the purchase of this property.

The document indicates that the sale was to be completed by March 30, 2004.

The provision of this Real Estate Purchase Contract was a condition of mortgage

financing.

321. Fourth, tendered as part of the mortgage application was an MLS sheet.

This document represented to the lender that 11920-77 Street was listed on the

MLS system with a real estate agent, which supports the value of the property

relative to the purchase price. This document also indicates to the lender that the

sale is an arm’s length transaction, and that the purchaser is a bona fide

purchaser for value. The listing broker was represented to be Sutton Group North

Star Realty. Correia did not deal with any real estate agent in the purchase of

this property. This was not an arm’s length transaction. The provision of this

listing was a condition of mortgage funding.

125

322. The proceeds of this mortgage were provided to the Venkatraman &

Purewal law firm. These funds would not have been sufficient cash to close this

purchase based on the purchase price of $124,900. No funds were provided by

Correia to make up the shortfall between the purchase price and the mortgage

proceeds.

323. On November 17, 2006, the London Life Insurance Company registered a

final order of foreclosure on 11920-77 Street. The value of the property at the

time of the foreclosure was noted to be $99,000.00. On April 5, 2007, the London

Life Insurance Company sold this property to a third party for $107,500.00. As a

result of their reliance on the false representations in the Correia mortgage

application, the London Life Insurance Company suffered an actual loss of

approximately $15,000.00.

126

Count 20 At or near the City of Edmonton, in the Province of Alberta,

between the 1stday of February 2004 and the 30thday of April, 2004, did by

deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, defraud ING Mortgage Broker

Services Inc. of $97,125.00, more or less, by providing false information to

ING Mortgage Broker Services Inc. in support of a mortgage application in

the name of Ali Aziz for 10811-152 Street , Edmonton, Alberta, contrary to

Section 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

324. Documents relevant to the transaction that forms the basis for the

allegation in Count 20 are contained in Exhibit 20. The accused does not contest

the admissibility of the contents of Exhibit 20.

325. 10811-152 Street is a residence located in Edmonton, Alberta. This

property was purchased by Alberta numbered company 968703 Alberta Ltd. on

August 1, 2003. Corporate Registry documents outlining the history of 968703

Alberta Ltd. are filed as Exhibit 47 in these proceedings. The accused does not

contest the admissibility of these documents. 968703 Alberta Ltd. was

incorporated on January 10, 2002. The sole director at incorporation was Kiran

Ahmad, the sister-in-law of Gohar Pervez. At the time of this transaction, Kiran

Ahmad was the director of 968703 Alberta Ltd.

326. On July 21, 2003, Pubalagan Venkatraman signed the Affidavit of

Transferee as agent for 968703 Alberta Ltd. on the purchase of 10811-152 Street.

Venkatraman attested that 968703 Alberta Ltd. paid cash for this property.

Venkatraman attested that the value of 10811-152 Street was, in his opinion,

$84,500.00. This Affidavit was commissioned by Ellis.

327. On December 4, 2003, title to this property was transferred to 978742

Alberta Ltd. Corporate Registry documents outlining the history of 978742

Alberta Ltd. are filed as Exhibit 40 in these proceedings. At the time of the

purchase of 10811-152 Street, Pervez was the sole director of 978742 Alberta

Ltd.

127

328. On November 20, 2003, Kiran Ahmad signed the Transfer of Land

associated with this transaction on behalf of 968703 Alberta Ltd. The

consideration received by the numbered company was represented to be

$90,000.00. Kelly Bindon witnessed Ahmad’s signature on this Transfer of Land.

On November 21, 2003, Pervez signed the Affidavit of Transferee as agent for

978742 Alberta Ltd. on the purchase of 10811-152 Street. Pervez attested that

978742 Alberta Ltd. paid cash as consideration in this purchase. This information

is false. No monies were exchanged between 968703 Alberta Ltd. and 978742

Alberta Ltd. in this transaction. Pervez attested that the value of 10811-152

Street was, in his opinion, $90,000.00. This Affidavit was commissioned by Kelly

Bindon.

329. On February 20, 2004, Pervez signed a mortgage secured by this property

and one other property in favour of Safe Self Storage Inc. in the amount of

$100,000.00. His signature was witnessed by Ellis.

330. On April 5, 2004, title to 10811-152 Street was transferred from 978742

Alberta Ltd to Mohammad Aziz, also known as Ali Aziz. On March 26, 2004, Ellis

signed the Transfer of Land associated with this transaction as Power of Attorney

for 978742 Alberta Ltd. The consideration received by the numbered company

was represented to be $129,500.00. Rondah Worrell, an employee with

Venkatraman & Purewal, witnessed Ellis’ signature on this Transfer of Land. On

March 26, 2004, Rondah Worrell signed the Affidavit of Transferee filed with the

Land Titles office, as agent for Ali Aziz . In this document, Worrell attested that

Aziz paid consideration by way of cash and new mortgage for the purchase of

10811-152 Street. Worrell’s affidavit was commissioned by Gayani

Lokugamage, an employee with Venkatraman & Purewal. On March 30, 2004,

Aziz signed a mortgage in favour of ING Mortgage Broker Services Inc. in the

amount of $97,125.00. Aziz’s signature on this document was witnessed by Ellis.

This mortgage was signed approximately 3 weeks after the mortgage on 11935-

91 Street, as outlined in the allegations underlying Count 18 of the Indictment

128

before the Court. This was the fourth of five mortgages obtained by Aziz on

Edmonton properties between October 2002 and December 2004 as part of this

scheme.

331. The mortgage on 10811-152 Street was brokered by Kay Khosah, whose

involvement in these transactions is described in paragraph 88 of this document.

332. True copies of the documents provided as part of this mortgage application

and approval are contained as part of Exhibit 20, and were provided by ING

Mortgage Broker Services Inc. The accused does not contest the admissibility of

these documents.

333. The application tendered for this mortgage included various false

representations. The complainant, ING Mortgage Broker Services Inc., relied on

all of these representations in making the decision to provide mortgage financing.

In accordance with its lending practices, had ING Mortgage Broker Services Inc.

been aware of the false nature of these representations, it would not have

provided mortgage funds to complete this real estate transaction. As a result of

its reliance on the misrepresentations in this mortgage application, the economic

interests of ING Mortgage Broker Services Inc. were put at risk in the amount of

$97,125.00.

334. Specifically, Aziz did not provide a down payment toward the purchase of

this property. The down payment was represented to have been generated by

the sale of Aziz’s property at 285 Redwood Avenue in Winnipeg, Manitoba. This

is the first property that Aziz purchased after his introduction to Kulwant Sekhon,

and was the same property that was represented to have sold to generate the

down payments for 11502-82 Street and 11935-91 Street. As evidence of this

sale, ING Mortgage Broker Services Inc. was provided with a Real Estate

Purchase Contract that suggested a sale of this property by Aziz to a James

Johnson for a price of $100,000.00. According to this document, James

129

Johnson paid a deposit to Aziz of $5000.00 in the purchase of this property, and

would assume Aziz’s mortgage on the property. James Johnson was to provide

the cash to close of $28,000.00. This unconditional sale was to have been

completed in March, 2004. This is the same document as was provided to the

Toronto-Dominion bank in the mortgage application for 11502-82 Street, with an

amended completion date; and is identical to the Real Estate Purchase Contract

provided to MCAP Service Corporation in the mortgage application for 11935-91

Street. Aziz does not know James Johnson, and did not sell his property at 285

Redwood Avenue in the manner described, nor in this time frame. This document

provides the lender with information pertaining to the source of Aziz’s down

payment, and represents false information with regard to Aziz’s debt load given

that it was represented that James Johnson was to have assumed the mortgage

on this property. As further evidence of this sale, ING Mortgage Broker Services

Inc. was provided with an Anticipated Statement of Adjustments pertaining to the

sale of 285 Redwood Avenue. This document demonstrated a sale of this

property to James Johnson for $100,000.00 made up of a deposit, mortgage

assumption and required cash to close. The completion date for this sale was

reported as March 27, 2004. Also provided to ING Mortgage Broker Services Inc.

was a letter dated March 25, 2004 on Venkatraman & Purewal letterhead

confirming their receipt of $30,253.17 from the sale of the Winnipeg property,

held in trust to complete the purchase of 10811-152 Street. This letter is signed

by Ellis. This letter is false. Not disclosed to ING Mortgage Broker Services Inc.

was the fact that Aziz was responsible for two mortgages on 11502-82 Street and

11935-91 Street. ING Mortgage Broker Services Inc. relied on these false

representations and in making their decision to grant Aziz’s mortgage at 10811-

152 Street. Had ING Mortgage Broker Services Inc. been aware of these false

representations, they would not have funded the Aziz mortgage.

335. Second, Aziz did not intend to reside at 10811-152 Street, and did not

reside there. This was contrary to the information represented to ING Mortgage

130

Broker Services Inc. to the effect that Aziz would occupy the property. As proof

of satisfaction of this condition, ING Mortgage Broker Services Inc. was provided

with the Statutory Declaration stating that he intended to use 10811-152 Street

as his principal residence and not as a rental property. This document was

commissioned by Ellis on March 30, 2004. This Statutory Declaration also

attested that Aziz’s down payment came from his own resources. This was false.

Aziz resided, and continued to reside throughout, at his family home located at

9630-80 Street in Fort Saskatchewan, Alberta.

336. Third, tendered as part of the mortgage application was a Real Estate

Purchase Contract. This document represented that the vendor of 10811-152

Street was 978742 Alberta Ltd. This document represented that the purchaser,

Aziz, provided the vendor with a $5,000 initial deposit toward the purchase of this

property, and would provide the cash required to close the transaction of

$27,375. This was false. Aziz provided no funds by way of deposit or otherwise

toward the purchase of this property. The document indicates that the sale was

to be completed by March 27, 2004. The provision of this Real Estate Purchase

Contract was a condition of mortgage financing.

337. Fourth, tendered as part of the mortgage application was an MLS sheet.

This document represented to the lender that 10811-152 Street was listed on the

MLS system with a real estate agent, which supports the value of the property

relative to the purchase price. This document also indicates to the lender that

the sale is an arm’s length transaction, and that the purchaser is a bona fide

purchaser for value. The listing broker was represented to be Louise Violette of

ReMax Excellence. Aziz did not deal with any real estate agent in the purchase

of this property. This was not an arm’s length transaction. The provision of this

listing was a condition of mortgage funding.

338. Sent with the mortgage application was the appraisal of Gordon

Chapman. Chapman appraised 10811-152 Street as having a market value of

131

$130,000.00. ING Mortgage Broker Services Inc. relied on this appraisal when

deciding to approve this mortgage. The provision of this appraisal was a

condition of mortgage approval.

339. Chapman was introduced to Gohar Pervez in approximately 2002 by a

Calgary mortgage broker. Chapman completed several property appraisals

between 2002 and 2004 having been retained by Pervez. Chapman’s appraisals

were all conducted on the assumption that incomplete renovations were

complete. Chapman never re-attended any of the properties to ascertain the

status of renovations. Chapman was paid for his work by Pervez, and delivered

his completed appraisals to Pervez. Filed as Exhibit 48 is an analytical chart

outlining Chapman’s involvement during this time frame.

340. The proceeds of this mortgage were provided to the Venkatraman &

Purewal law firm. These funds would not have been sufficient cash to close this

purchase based on the purchase price of $129,500. No funds were provided by

Aziz to make up the shortfall between the purchase price and the mortgage

proceeds.

341. On June 8, 2004, title to this property transferred to Ellis. This is the same

date as title transferred to Ellis on 11502-82 Street and 11935-91 Street. The

purchase price for this property was represented to be $129,500. No monies

changed hands between Ellis and Aziz in this transaction. On June 1, 2004, Aziz

signed the Transfer of Land associated with this transaction. The consideration

received by him was represented to be $129,500. Marlene Penney, an

employee with Venkatraman & Purewal witnessed Aziz’s signature on this

Transfer of Land. On June 1, 2004, Ellis signed the Affidavit of Transferee filed

with the Land Titles office. In this document, Ellis attested that she paid

consideration in the amount of $129,500 for the purchase of 10811-152 Street.

Ellis further attested that this consideration was provided by way of cash and

132

assumption of mortgage on the property. Ellis’ affidavit was commissioned by

Marlene Penney. No monies were exchanged between Ellis and Aziz.

342. On June 15, 2004, an unsigned letter on Venkatraman & Purewal

letterhead was sent to ING Mortgage Broker Services Inc. confirming the transfer

of 10811-152 Street to Ellis. This transfer was not approved by the lender, and

specifically, ING Mortgage Broker Services Inc. did not approve of the assumption

of the Aziz mortgage by Ellis. Accordingly, on November 9, 2004, title to this

property transferred back to Aziz.

343. On February 16, 2005, title to 10811-152 Street was again transferred into

the name of Ellis. The purchase price for this property was represented to be

$140,000.00. No monies changed hands between Ellis and Aziz in this

transaction. On November 12, 2004, Aziz signed the Transfer of Land associated

with this transaction. The consideration received by him was represented to be

$140,000.00. Rondah Worrell, an employee with Venkatraman & Purewal

witnessed Aziz’s signature on this Transfer of Land. On November 12, 2004, Ellis

signed the Affidavit of Transferee attesting that she paid consideration by way of

cash for the purchase of 10811-152 Street. Ellis’ affidavit was commissioned by

Rondah Worrell. In fact, Ellis assumed Aziz’s mortgage at Pervez’s direction, and

Pervez provided Ellis with funds to service the ING Mortgage Broker Services Inc.

mortgage on this property.

344. On September 19, 2006, this property was sold to a third party for

$143,000.00. As a result of the dramatic increase in property values in Alberta,

the Aziz mortgage was able to be discharged from the sale proceeds, and ING

Mortgage Broker Services Inc. was able to avoid suffering an economic loss as a

result of the false representations contained in the Aziz mortgage application.

133

Count 21 At or near the City of Edmonton, in the Province of Alberta,

between the 1stday of June, 2004 and the 30thday of August, 2004, did by

deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, defraud Toronto-Dominion

Bank of $56,250.00, more or less, by providing false information to Toronto-

Dominion Bank in support of a mortgage application in the name of

Palwinder Kahlon for 11330-84 Street, Edmonton, Alberta, contrary to

Section 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

345. Documents relevant to the transaction that forms the basis for the

allegation in Count 21 are contained in Exhibit 21. The accused does not contest

the admissibility of the contents of Exhibit 21.

346. 11330-84 Street is a residence located in Edmonton, Alberta. This

property was purchased by 1090316 Alberta Ltd. on March 27, 2004. Corporate

Registry documents outlining the history of 1090316 Alberta Ltd. are contained in

Exhibit 43. At the time of the purchase of 11330-84 Street, Pervez was the sole

director of 1090316 Alberta Ltd.

347. On March 23, 2004, Ellis, signed the Affidavit of Transferee as agent for

1090316 Alberta Ltd. on the purchase of 11330-84 Street. Ellis attested that

1090316 Alberta Ltd. paid consideration by way of cash to the vendor, Leo

Belland, and attested that the value of 11330-84 Street was, in her opinion,

$63,000.00. This Affidavit was commissioned by Rondah Worrell, an employee of

Venkatraman & Purewal.

348. On May 7, 2004, title to 11330-84 Street was transferred from 1090316

Alberta Ltd to Harkamaljit Kahlon. On April 30, 2004, Pervez signed the Transfer

of Land associated with this transaction on behalf of 1090316 Alberta Ltd. The

consideration received by him was represented to be $120,000.00. Ellis

witnessed Pervez’s signature on this Transfer of Land. On April 30, 2004,

Harkamaljit Kahlon signed the Affidavit of Transferee associated with this

transaction. He attested that he paid consideration by way of cash for the

purchase of this property. Kahlon’s affidavit was commissioned by Ellis. No

134

monies changed hands between Kahlon and 1090316 Alberta Ltd. at the time of

this transaction.

349. On July 19, 2004, title to 11330-84 Street was transferred from Harkamaljit

Kahlon to Palwinder Kahlon. On July 8, 2004, Harkamaljit Kahlon signed the

Transfer of Land associated with this transaction. The consideration received by

him was represented to be $75,000.00. Ellis witnessed Harkamaljit Kahlon’s

signature on this Transfer of Land. On July 8, 2004, Palwinder Kahlon signed the

Affidavit of Transferee associated with this transaction. He attested that he paid

consideration by way of cash and new mortgage on the property. This affidavit is

false as no monies changed hands between Harkamaljit and Palwinder Kahlon at

the time of this transaction. On July 8, 2004, Palwinder Kahlon’s signature

appears on a mortgage in favour of the Toronto-Dominion bank in the amount of

$56,250.00.

350. Palwinder Kahlon’s involvement in these transactions is described at

paragraphs 217 and 218 of this document.

351. The mortgage on 11330-84 Street was applied for directly at a Toronto-

Dominion branch office in Edmonton, Alberta.

352. True copies of the documents provided as part of this mortgage application

and approval are contained as part of Exhibit 21, and were provided by the

Toronto-Dominion bank. The accused does not contest the admissibility of these

documents.

353. The application tendered for this mortgage included various false

representations. The complainant, the Toronto-Dominion bank, relied on all of

these representations in making the decision to provide mortgage financing. In

accordance with its lending practices, had the Toronto-Dominion bank been

aware of these false representations, it would not have provided mortgage funds

135

to complete this real estate transaction. As a result of its reliance on the

misrepresentations in this mortgage application, the economic interests of the

Toronto-Dominion bank were put at risk in the amount of $56,250.00.

354. Specifically, Kahlon did not provide a down payment toward the purchase

of this property. The down payment was represented to have been generated by

the sale of Kahlon’s residence at 3316-30 Avenue in Edmonton, Alberta. As

evidence of this sale, the Toronto-Dominion bank was provided with a Real Estate

Purchase Contract that suggested a sale of this residence by Kahlon to Pinky

Sailopal for a price of $295,000.00. According to this document, Pinky Sailopal

paid a deposit of $2500.00 in the purchase of this property, and would assume

Kahlon’s mortgage on the property. Pinky Sailopal was to provide the cash to

close of $112,050.00. This unconditional sale was to have been completed on

July 14, 2004. Pinky Sailopal was the former fiancé of Harkamaljit Kahlon.

Palwinder Kahlon did not sell his matrimonial home at 3316-30 Avenue to Pinky

Sailopal. This document provided the lender with information pertaining to the

source of Palwinder Kahlon’s down payment, and represented false information

with regard to Palwinder Kahlon’s debt load given that Pinky Sailopal was to have

assumed the mortgage on this property. The Toronto-Dominion bank relied on

these false representations and in making their decision to grant Kahlon’s

mortgage at 11330-84 Street. Had the Toronto-Dominion bank been aware of

these false representations, they would not have funded the Kahlon mortgage.

355. Second, Kahlon did not intend to reside at 11330-84 Street, and did not

reside there. This was contrary to the information represented to the Toronto-

Dominion bank to the effect that Kahlon would occupy the property. Kahlon

resided, and continued to reside, at 3316-30 Avenue in Edmonton, Alberta, the

matrimonial home that he shared with his wife.

136

356. Third, tendered as part of the mortgage application was a Real Estate

Purchase Contract. This document represented that the vendor of 11330-84

Street was Kelly Bindon. This is false. Harkamaljit Kahlon was the vendor of the

property. This document represented that the purchaser, Kahlon, provided the

vendor with a $1,000.00 initial deposit toward the purchase of this property, and

would provide the cash required to close the transaction of $28,250.00. This was

false. Kahlon provided no funds by way of deposit or otherwise toward the

purchase of this property. The document indicates that the sale was to be

completed by June 30, 2004. The provision of this Real Estate Purchase Contract

was a condition of mortgage financing.

357. Fourth, tendered as part of the mortgage application was a MLS sheet.

This document represented to the lender that 11330-84 Street was listed on the

MLS system with a real estate agent, which supports the value of the property

relative to the purchase price. This document also indicates to the lender that the

sale is an arm’s length transaction, and that the purchaser is a bona fide

purchaser for value. The listing agent was indicated to be Rick Walsh of the

Sutton Group Challenge Realty office. Kahlon did not deal with Walsh or any

other realtor in the purchase of this property. This was not an arm’s length

transaction. The provision of this MLS sheet was a condition of mortgage

financing.

358. Kahlon signed the mortgage at his home with Ellis. Ellis attended to

Kahlon’s residence for that purpose. Kahlon did not pay any of the legal fees

associated with this purchase.

359. On December 29, 2004, title to this property transferred to the name of

1131029 Alberta Ltd. Corporate Registry documents associated with this

numbered company are filed as Exhibit 34 in these proceedings. At the time of

this transaction, Pervez was the sole director of 1131029 Alberta Ltd. The

purchase price for this property was represented to be $75,000.00. No monies

137

changed hands between 1131029 Alberta Ltd. and Palwinder Kahlon in this

transaction. On December 21, 2004, Palwinder Kahlon signed the Transfer of

Land associated with this transaction. The consideration received by him was

represented to be $75,000.00. Ellis witnessed Kahlon’s signature on this Transfer

of Land. On December 20, 2004, Ellis, signed the Affidavit of Transferee

associated with this transaction as agent for 1090316 Alberta Ltd. She attested

that the company paid consideration by way of cash for the purchase of this

property. In fact, 1131029 Alberta Ltd. assumed Palwinder Kahlon’s mortgage.

Ellis’ affidavit was commissioned by Rondah Worrell.

360. On February 4, 2005, title to this property transferred to the name of

1101867 Alberta Ltd. Corporate Registry documents associated with this

numbered company are filed as Exhibit 39 in these proceedings. At the time of

this transaction, Harkamaljit Kahlon was the sole director of 1101867 Alberta Ltd.

The purchase price for this property was represented to be $75,000.00. No

monies changed hands between 1101867 Alberta Ltd. and 1131029 Alberta Ltd.

in this transaction. On January 21, 2005, Ellis signed the Transfer of Land

associated with this transaction on behalf of 1131029 Alberta Ltd., indicating that

the consideration received by the vendor was $75,000.00. Rondah Worrell

witnessed Ellis’ signature on this Transfer of Land. On January 21, 2005, Rondah

Worrell signed the Affidavit of Transferee as agent for 1101867 Alberta Ltd. She

attested that the company paid consideration by way of cash. In fact, 1101867

Alberta Ltd. assumed Palwinder Kahlon’s mortgage. Worrell’s affidavit was

commissioned by Kathleen George, an employee with Venkatraman & Purewal.

361. On February 4, 2005, title to this property transferred to the name of

Aparjit Kahlon. The purchase price for this property was represented to be

$115,000.00. No monies changed hands between 1101867 Alberta Ltd. and

Aparjit Kahlon in this transaction. On January 21, 2005, Harkamaljit Kahlon

signed the Transfer of Land associated with this transaction on behalf of

138

1101867 Alberta Ltd.. The consideration received by that company was

represented to be $115,000.00. Ellis witnessed Kahlon’s signature on this

Transfer of Land. On January 21, 2005, Ellis signed the Affidavit of Transferee

associated with this transaction as agent for Aparjit Kahlon. She attested that

Aparjit Kahlon paid consideration by way of cash for the purchase of this property.

In fact, a mortgage in Aparjit Kahlon’s name provided the funding for this

purchase, and Aparjit Kahlon provided no cash. Ellis’ affidavit was commissioned

by Rondah Worrell.

362. On February 4, 2005, a Royal Bank of Canada mortgage in the name of

Aparjit Kahlon was secured on the title of this property. The amount of the

mortgage was $86,250.00. Aparjit Kahlon is the elder brother of Harkamaljit

Kahlon. He is a resident of Calgary, Alberta. Aparjit Kahlon has no knowledge of

this transaction, of this property or of this mortgage. He did not apply for a

mortgage from any financial institution, and became aware of this property only

when he received materials from Venkatraman & Purewal pertaining to this

purchase. Aparjit Kahlon paid this mortgage for several months in order to avoid

foreclosure and damage to his credit rating.

363. The proceeds of the mortgage obtained from the Royal Bank of Canada

were used in part to discharge the Palwinder Kahlon mortgage from the Toronto-

Dominion bank. Accordingly, the Toronto-Dominion bank suffered no actual loss

as a result of their reliance on the misrepresentations contained in the Palwinder

Kahlon mortgage application. On April 29, 2006, the Royal Bank of Canada filed

a final order of foreclosure on this property. The property was valued at

$67,000.00. On June 7, 2006, Capital Health authorities filed a Notice of Health

Hazard on title of 11330-84 Street. On August 24, 2006, the Royal Bank of

Canada sold 11330-84 Street to a third party for $86,500.00. As a result of the

dramatically increasing real estate market in Edmonton, Alberta, the Royal Bank

of Canada was able to avoid suffering an actual loss as a result of the fraudulently

obtained Aparjit Kahlon mortgage.

139

140

Count 22 At or near the City of Edmonton, in the Province of Alberta,

between the 1stday of June, 2004 and the 30thday of August, 2004, did by

deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, defraud Toronto-Dominion

Bank of $99,750.00, more or less, by providing false information to Toronto-

Dominion Bank in support of a mortgage application in the name of Rui

Correia for 10712-103 Street, Edmonton, Alberta, contrary to Section

380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

364. Documents relevant to the transaction that forms the basis for the

allegation in Count 19 are contained in Exhibit 22. The accused does not contest

the admissibility of the contents of Exhibit 22.

365. 10712-103 Street is a residence located in Edmonton, Alberta. This

property was purchased by 978742 Alberta Ltd. on February 27, 2004. Corporate

Registry documents outlining the history of 978742 Alberta Ltd. are contained in

Exhibit 40. At the time of the purchase of 10712-103 Street, Pervez was the sole

director of 978742 Alberta Ltd.

366. On February 19, 2004, Pervez signed the Affidavit of Transferee as agent

for 978742 Alberta Ltd. on the purchase of 10712-103 Street. Pervez attested

that 978742 Alberta Ltd. paid consideration by way of cash and assumption of the

vendors’ mortgage held by the Royal Bank of Canada. This Affidavit was

commissioned by Kelly Bindon.

367. On April 19, 2004, title to 10712-103 Street was transferred from 978742

Alberta Ltd to Pedro Brito, whose involvement in these transactions is described

in paragraph 5 (vi) of this document. On April 8, 2004, Pervez signed the

Transfer of Land associated with this transaction on behalf of 978742 Alberta Ltd.

The consideration received by him was represented to be $105,000.00. Ellis

witnessed Pervez’s signature on this Transfer of Land. On April 8, 2004, Ellis

signed the Affidavit of Transferee as agent for Pedro Brito, attesting that Brito

paid consideration by way of cash for the purchase of 10712-103 Street. Ellis’

affidavit was commissioned by Rondah Worrell, an employee with Venkatraman

141

& Purewal. No monies changed hands between Brito and 978742 Alberta Ltd. in

completion of this transaction.

368. On April 30, 2004, title to 10712-103 Street was transferred from Pedro

Brito back to 978742 Alberta Ltd. On April 22, 2004, Brito signed the Transfer of

Land indicating receipt of $1 in consideration. Ellis witnessed Brito’s signature on

this Transfer of Land. On April 22, 2004, Ellis signed the Affidavit of Transferee

as agent for 978742, attesting that the “deal fell through”. Ellis’ affidavit was

commissioned by Rondah Worrell, an employee with Venkatraman & Purewal.

369. On August 5, 2004, title to 10712-103 Street was transferred from 978742

Alberta Ltd to 1101858 Alberta Ltd. Filed as Exhibit 49 in these proceedings are

Corporate Registry documents pertaining to the history of 1101858 Alberta Ltd.

The accused does not contest the admissibility of these documents. 1101858

Alberta Ltd. operated as Natista Investment Corporation. This company was

created on April 8, 2004, with the single director named as Rodrigo Caroca.

Caroca’s involvement in this scheme is described in paragraph 5 (vi) of this

document. On July 23, 2004, Ellis signed the Transfer of Land on behalf of

978742 Alberta Ltd. The consideration received by the company was

represented to be $110,000.00. Rondah Worrell witnessed Ellis’ signature on this

Transfer of Land. On July 23, 2004, Caroca signed the Affidavit of

Transferee, attesting that 110858 Alberta Ltd. paid consideration by way of cash

for the purchase of 10712-103 Street. Caroca’s affidavit was commissioned by

Ellis. No monies changed hands between 978742 Alberta Ltd. and 1101858

Alberta Ltd. in completion of this transaction.

370. On August 5, 2004, title to 10712-103 Street was transferred from

1101858 Alberta Ltd. to Rui Correia. On July 23, 2004, Caroca signed the

Transfer of Land indicating that the company received consideration in the

amount of $135,000.00 in this sale. Ellis witnessed Caroca’s signature on this

Transfer of Land. On July 23, 2004, Ellis signed the Affidavit of Transferee as

142

agent for Correia, attesting that Correia paid consideration by way of cash and

new mortgage for the purchase of 10712-103 Street. Ellis’ affidavit was

commissioned by Lauri Remin. Correia provided no cash toward this purchase.

On July 23, 2004, Brito signed a mortgage in favour of the Toronto-Dominion

bank in the amount of $99,750.00, as Power of Attorney for Correia. Brito’s

signature on this document was witnessed by Ellis. This was the third of three

mortgages obtained by Correia on Edmonton properties between December 2003

and August 2004 as part of this scheme.

371. Correia’s introduction to these transactions is described in paragraph 313

of this document.

372. The mortgage on 10712-103 Street was applied for through a mortgage

broker employed by the Toronto-Dominion bank named Carmela Grozic. Grozic

had previously been introduced to Pedro Brito, and he promised to send work to

her.

373. True copies of the documents provided as part of this mortgage application

and approval are contained as part of Exhibit 22, and were provided by the

Toronto-Dominion bank. The accused does not contest the admissibility of these

documents.

374. The application tendered for this mortgage included various false

representations. The complainant, the Toronto-Dominion bank, relied on all of

these representations in making the decision to provide mortgage financing. In

accordance with its lending practices, had the Toronto-Dominion bank been

aware of the false nature of these representations, it would not have provided

mortgage funds to complete this real estate transaction. As a result of its

reliance on the misrepresentations in this mortgage application, the economic

interest of the Toronto-Dominion bank was put at risk in the amount of

$99,750.00.

143

375. Specifically, Correia did not provide a down payment toward the purchase

of this property. The down payment was represented to have been generated

from Correia’s personal investments held with the Canadian Imperial Bank of

Commerce, and a gift from his brother, Alex Correia. As evidence of the gift, the

Toronto-Dominion bank was provided with a gift letter that stated that Correia had

received a $17,000.00 gift from his brother on July 2, 2004. This was false,

Correia does not have a brother named Alex Correia, and did not receive a cash

gift from anyone to be used as a down payment on this property. With regard to

Correia’s personal investments, while he had investments as represented to the

Toronto-Dominion bank, he did not use any of these assets toward the purchase

of 10712-103 Street.

376. Not disclosed to the Toronto-Dominion bank were the mortgages in

Correia’s name on title of 11443-101 Street and 11920-77 Street. Had the

Toronto-Dominion bank been aware of these undisclosed liabilities, it would have

declined Correia’s mortgage application.

377. Second, Correia did not intend to and did not reside at 10712-103 Street,

and did not reside there. This was contrary to the information represented to the

Toronto-Dominion bank which was that Correia would occupy the property.

378. Third, tendered as part of the mortgage application, and as a condition of

mortgage financing, was a Real Estate Purchase Contract. This document

indicated that the vendor of 10712-103 Street was Alex Silva. Alex Silva is an

alias for Pedro Brito. This information was false. The vendor of 10712-103

Street was 1101858 Alberta Ltd.. This document represented that Correia,

provided the vendor with a $2,600.00 initial deposit toward the purchase of this

property, and would provide the cash required to close the transaction of

$30,650.00. This was false. Correia provided no funds by way of deposit or

144

otherwise toward the purchase of this property. The document indicates that the

sale was to be completed by June 25, 2004.

379. Fourth, tendered as part of the mortgage application, as a condition of

mortgage financing, was an MLS sheet. This document represented to the lender

that 10712-103 Street was listed on the MLS system with a real estate agent,

which supported the value of the property relative to the purchase price. This

document also indicated to the lender that the sale was an arm’s length

transaction, and that the purchaser was a bona fide purchaser for value. The

listing broker was represented to be Rick Walsh of Sutton Group Challenge

Realty. Correia did not deal with Rick Walsh or any real estate agent in the

purchase of this property. This was not an arm’s length transaction.

380. The proceeds of this mortgage were provided to the Venkatraman &

Purewal law firm. These funds would not have been sufficient cash to close this

purchase based on the purchase price of $135,000.00. No funds were provided

by Correia to make up the shortfall between the purchase price and the mortgage

proceeds.

381. On February 7, 2005, Colleen Hinch, a certified property appraiser

employed with CDC Consulting Services Inc., prepared an appraisal of this

property, having been retained by the Toronto-Dominion bank to assess the

market value of 10712-103 Street. Hinch concluded that this property had a

market value of between $79,000.00 and $80,000.00.

382. On December 6, 2005, Pervez filed a vendor’s lien on title to this property.

On August 11, 2006, the Toronto-Dominion bank registered a lis pendens on the

title of 10712-103 Street, indicating that foreclosure proceedings had been

initiated.

145

383. On March 28, 2007, this property was sold to 1195607 Alberta Ltd. for

$119,018.00. Filed as Exhibit 50 in these proceedings are Corporate Registry

documents pertaining to the history of 1195607 Alberta Ltd. The accused does

not contest the admissibility of these documents. At the time of this purchase,

Shairose Esmail was one of the directors of this company. The Toronto-Dominion

bank was able to generate a sufficient price for this property to discharge the

Correia mortgage. Accordingly, as a result of the dramatically increased cost of

real estate in Edmonton, the Toronto-Dominion bank was able to avoid suffering

an actual loss as a result of the false representations made in the Correia

mortgage application.

146

Count 23 At or near the City of Edmonton, in the Province of Alberta,

between the 1stday of November 2004 and the 30thday of January, 2005,

did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, defraud ING Mortgage

Broker Services Inc. of $106,500.00, more or less, by providing false

information to ING Mortgage Broker Services Inc. in support of a mortgage

application in the name of Ali Aziz for 11710-92 Street , Edmonton, Alberta,

contrary to Section 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

384. Documents relevant to the transaction that forms the basis for the

allegation in Count 23 are contained in Exhibit 23. The accused does not contest

the admissibility of the contents of Exhibit 23.

385. 11710-92 Street is a residence located in Edmonton, Alberta. This

property was purchased by Ellis on September 30, 2004. On September 29,

2004, Mahendra Pillay, a lawyer with Venkatraman & Purewal signed the Affidavit

of Transferee as agent for Ellis. attesting that she paid cash and assumed the

mortgage held by the vendors, Wayne and Sharon McCormick as consideration in

this purchase. The vendors held a mortgage on this property with the Capital City

Savings and Credit Union. Pillay attested that the value of 11710-92 Street was,

in his opinion, $78,000.00.

386. On December 15, 2004, title to 11710-92 Street was transferred from Ellis

to 1131029 Alberta Ltd. Corporate Registry documents pertaining to 1131029

Alberta Ltd. are filed as Exhibit 34 in these proceedings. At the time of this

transaction, the director of 1131029 Alberta Ltd. was Pervez, Ellis and Shairose

Esmail were later added as directors retroactively to October 2004. On

December 10, 2004, Ellis signed the Transfer of Land representing that she

received $78,000.00 consideration in this sale. Ellis’ signature was witnessed by

Rondah Worrell. On December 8, 2004, Worrell signed the Affidavit of

Transferee on behalf of 1131029 Alberta Ltd. attesting that 1131029 Alberta Ltd

paid consideration by way of cash to Ellis in this purchase. No monies were

exchanged between 1131029 Alberta Ltd. and Ellis in this transaction.

147

387. On December 15, 2004, title to 11710-92 Street was transferred from

1131029 Alberta Ltd. to Mohammad Aziz, also known as Ali Aziz. On December

9, 2004, Pervez signed the Transfer of Land on behalf of 1131029 Alberta Ltd.

The consideration received by 1131029 Alberta Ltd. was represented to be

$142,000.00. Ellis witnessed Pervez’s signature on this Transfer of Land. On

December 10, 2004, Aziz signed the Affidavit of Transferee, attesting that he

paid consideration by way of cash and new mortgage for the purchase of 11710-

92 Street. Aziz’s affidavit was commissioned by Ellis. Aziz paid no cash toward

the purchase of this property. On December 10, 2004, Aziz signed a mortgage

in favour of ING Mortgage Broker Services Inc. in the amount of $106,500.00.

Aziz’s signature on this document was witnessed by Ellis. This mortgage was

signed approximately 9 months after the mortgage on 11935-91 Street,

underlying the allegations in Count 18 of the Indictment before this Court, and

approximately 8 months after the mortgage on 10811-152 Street, underlying the

allegations in Count 20 of the Indictment before this Court. This was the fifth of

five mortgages obtained by Aziz on Edmonton properties between October 2002

and December 2004.

388. Aziz’s introduction to this scheme is described in paragraph 234 of this

document.

389. The mortgage on 11710-92 Street was brokered by Rhodri Bethell, a

mortgage agent employed by Mortgage One Corporation in Calgary Alberta.

Between December 2004 and February 2005, Bethell brokered four mortgages as

part of this scheme, generating mortgage proceeds of approximately

$396,474.00. Bethell was introduced to Pervez through another mortgage broker

that had passed her files on to him. Bethell did not meet Pervez personally, but

dealt with him over the telephone. He received the four mortgage applications,

including the Aziz mortgage application, from Pervez by fax. Further

documentation was requested as needed of Pervez, and Pervez provided that

documentation to Bethell. In March 2005, Bethell stopped accepting mortgage

148

applications from Pervez, when ING Mortgage Broker Services Inc. declined any

further applications from Bethell, having raised concerns about 1 of the 4

applications that Bethell had provided from Pervez. Pervez offered Bethell more

money in order to try to persuade Bethell to continue to broker his applications.

Bethell interpreted this comment as a bribe and refused to have further dealings

with Pervez.

390. With regard to the Aziz mortgage application on 11710-92 Street, Bethell

had no dealings with Aziz, but dealt only with Pervez.

391. True copies of the documents provided as part of this mortgage application

and approval are contained as part of Exhibit 23, and were provided

by ING Mortgage Broker Services Inc. The accused does not contest the

admissibility of these documents.

392. The application tendered for this mortgage included various false

representations. The complainant, ING Mortgage Broker Services Inc., relied on

all of these representations in making the decision to provide mortgage financing.

In accordance with its lending practices, had ING Mortgage Broker Services Inc.

been aware that these representations were false, it would not have provided

mortgage funds to complete this real estate transaction. As a result of its

reliance on the

misrepresentations in this mortgage application, the economic interest of ING

Mortgage Broker Services Inc. was put at risk in the amount of $106,500.00.

393. Specifically, Aziz did not provide a down payment toward the purchase of

11710-92 Street. The down payment was represented to have been generated

by the sale of Aziz’s property at 10811-152 Street in Edmonton, Alberta. This is

the property referred to in Count 20 of the Indictment before this Court. As

evidence of this sale, MCAP Service Corporation was provided with a Real

Estate Purchase Contract that suggested a sale of this property by Aziz to

149

George and Catherine Sweeney for a price of $140,000.00. According to this

document, the Sweeneys paid a deposit to Aziz of $5000.00 in the purchase of

this property, and would assume Aziz’s mortgage on the property. The

Sweeneys were to provide the cash to close of $38,416.63. This sale was to

have been completed on November 22, 2004. Aziz does not know George and

Catherine Sweeney. Aziz did not sell the property at 10811-152 Street in the

manner described, nor in this time frame. This document provided the lender with

information pertaining to the source of Aziz’s down payment, and also

represented false information with regard to Aziz’s debt load given that the

Sweeneys were to have assumed the mortgage on this property. As further

evidence of this sale, ING Mortgage Broker Services Inc. was provided with a

Statement of Adjustments pertaining to the sale of 10811-152 Street. This

document demonstrated a sale of this property to George and Catherine

Sweeney for $140,000.00 made up of a deposit, mortgage assumption and

required cash to close. The completion date for this sale was reported as

November 22, 2004. Had ING Mortgage Broker Services Inc. been aware of

these false representations, it would not have funded the Aziz mortgage.

394. Second, Aziz did not intend to and did not reside at 11710-92 Street. This

was contrary to the specific condition of mortgage financing imposed by ING

Mortgage Broker Services Inc. Aziz resided, and continued to reside throughout,

at his family home located at 9630-80 Street in Fort Saskatchewan, Alberta.

395. Third, tendered as part of the mortgage application, and as a condition of

mortgage financing, was a Real Estate Purchase Contract. This document

represented that the vendor of 11710-92 Street was Ali Investments. This is the

one of the trade names for 912715 Alberta Ltd. Filed as Exhibit 51 in these

proceedings are Corporate Registry documents pertaining to 912715 Alberta Ltd.

The accused does not contest the admissibility of these documents. The director

of this company is Pervez. The vendor of 11710-92 Street was, in fact, 1131029

Alberta Ltd. The Real Estate Purchase Contract represented that Aziz provided

150

the vendor with a $5,000.00 initial deposit toward the purchase of this property,

and would provide the cash required to close the transaction of $30,500.00. This

was false. Aziz provided no funds by way of deposit or otherwise toward the

purchase of this property. The document indicated that the sale was to be

completed by November 5, 2004.

396. Sent with the mortgage application was the appraisal of Chapman.

Chapman’s involvement in this scheme is described at paragraph 339 of this

document. Chapman appraised 11710-92 Street as having a market value of

$142,000.00. On December 8, 2004, Chapman sent correspondence to ING

Mortgage Broker Services Inc. confirming that renovations on 11710-92 Street

had been completed. ING Mortgage Broker Services Inc. relied on this appraisal

when deciding to approve this mortgage. The provision of this appraisal was a

condition of mortgage approval.

397. The proceeds of this mortgage were provided to the Venkatraman &

Purewal law firm. These funds would not have been sufficient cash to close this

purchase based on the purchase price of $142,000.00. No funds were provided

by Aziz to make up the shortfall between the purchase price and the mortgage

proceeds.

398. On September 16, 2006, title to 11710-92 Street was transferred into the

name of a third party, who purchased the property for $130,000.00. Due to the

dramatically increased value of real estate in Edmonton, the sale of this property

was able to generate sufficient revenue to discharge Aziz’s mortgage with ING

Mortgage Broker Services Inc., allowing the lender to avoid suffering a financial

loss as a result of the false representations contained in the Aziz mortgage

application.

151

Count 24 - At or near the City of Edmonton, in the Province of Alberta,

between the 1stday of November, 2004 and the 30thday of January, 2005,

did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, defraud Royal Bank of

Canada of $84,000.00, more or less, by providing false information to Royal

Bank of Canada in support of a mortgage application in the name of

Palwinder Kahlon for 11925-78 Street, Edmonton, Alberta, contrary to

Section 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

399. Documents relevant to the transaction that forms the basis for the

allegation in Count 24 are contained in Exhibit 24. The accused does not contest

the admissibility of the contents of Exhibit 24.

400. 11925-78 Street is a residence located in Edmonton, Alberta. This

property was purchased by 978742 Alberta Ltd. on June 4, 2003. Corporate

Registry documents outlining the history of 978742 Alberta Ltd. are contained in

Exhibit 40. At the time of the purchase of 11925-78 Street, Pervez was the sole

director of 978742 Alberta Ltd.

401. On May 26, 2003, Pervez signed the Affidavit of Transferee as agent for

978742 Alberta Ltd. on the purchase of 11925-78 Street. Pervez attested that

978742 Alberta Ltd. paid cash to the vendor, Graham Harbak, and attested that

the value of 11925-78 Street was, in his opinion, $48,000. Pervez’s affidavit was

commissioned by Kelly Bindon.

402. On December 22, 2004, title to 11925-78 Street was transferred from

978742 Alberta Ltd. to Palwinder Kahlon. On December 20, 2004, Ellis signed

the Transfer of Land associated with this transaction. The consideration received

by 978742 Alberta Ltd. was represented to be $112,000.00. Rondah Worrell

witnessed Ellis’ signature on this Transfer of Land. On December 20, 2004,

Palwinder Kahlon signed the Affidavit of Transferee associated with this

transaction, attesting that he paid consideration by way of cash and new

mortgage for the purchase of this property. No monies changed hands between

Palwinder Kahlon and 978742 Alberta Ltd. at the time of this transaction. On

152

December 20, 2004, Palwinder Kahlon’s signature appears on a mortgage in

favour of the Royal Bank of Canada in the amount of $84,000.00. His signature is

witnessed by Ellis.

403. Palwinder Kahlon’s involvement in these transactions is described at

paragraphs 217 and 218 of this document.

404. The mortgage on 11925-78 Street was applied for directly at a Royal Bank

of Canada branch office in Edmonton, Alberta.

405. True copies of the documents provided as part of this mortgage application

and approval are contained as part of Exhibit 24, and were provided by the Royal

Bank of Canada. The accused does not contest the admissibility of these

documents.

406. The application tendered for this mortgage included various false

representations. The Royal Bank of Canada, relied on all of these

representations in making the decision to provide mortgage financing. In

accordance with its lending practices, had the Royal Bank of Canada been aware

of the false nature of these representations, it would not have provided mortgage

funds to complete this real estate transaction. As a result of its reliance on the

misrepresentations in this mortgage application, the economic interest of the

Royal Bank of Canada was put at risk in the amount of $84,000.00.

407. Specifically, Kahlon did not provide a down payment toward the purchase

of this property. The down payment was represented to have been generated by

the sale of one of Kahlon’s properties. Palwinder Kahlon did not generate any

monies from the sale of any of the properties that he owned. Palwinder Kahlon

did not contribute a down payment toward the purchase of this property. The

Royal Bank of Canada relied on these false representations in making their

decision to grant Kahlon’s mortgage at 11925-78 Street. Had the Royal Bank of

153

Canada been aware of these false representations, it would not have funded the

Kahlon mortgage.

408. Second, it was represented to the Royal Bank of Canada that 11925-78

Street was purchased as an investment property, and intended to be used as a

rental property. As evidence of the income that would be generated by this

property, the Royal Bank of Canada was provided with a rental agreement dated

October 1, 2004. This rental agreement represented that Palwinder Kahlon had

rented the property at 11925-78 Street to Karen Hislop for $850.00 per month.

Palwinder Kahlon never had any involvement in the rental of any of the properties

in his name. He has never met Karen Hislop. His signature on this rental

agreement is forged. Karen Hislop is an employee at Capital Heath who has

conducted numerous inspections on properties owned by Pervez and his co-

conspirators. Hislop never entered into any rental agreement with regard to

11925-78 Street. This document provided false information with regard to

Kahlon’s ability to service the mortgage that was applied for. Had the Royal

Bank of Canada been aware of these false representations, it would not have

funded the Kahlon mortgage.

409. Third, tendered as part of the mortgage application was a Real Estate

Purchase Contract. This document represented that Kahlon provided 978742

Alberta Ltd. with a $5,000.00 initial deposit toward the purchase of this property,

and would provide the cash required to close the transaction of $23,000.00. This

was false. Kahlon provided no funds by way of deposit or otherwise toward the

purchase of this property. The document indicated that the sale was to be

completed by December 22, 2004. The Royal Bank of Canada relied on the

contents of this document when deciding whether to advance mortgage

proceeds.

410. Sent with the mortgage application was the appraisal of Chapman.

Chapman’s involvement in this scheme is described at paragraph 339 of this

154

document. Chapman appraised 11925-78 Street as having a market value of

$112,000.00. The Royal Bank of Canada relied on this appraisal when deciding

to approve this mortgage.

411. Kahlon signed the mortgage at his home with Ellis. Ellis attended to

Kahlon’s residence for that purpose. Kahlon did not pay any of the legal fees

associated with this purchase.

412. On September 21, 2005, title to this property transferred to the name of

1183122 Alberta Ltd. Filed as Exhibit 41 are Corporate Registry documents

associated to 1183122 Alberta Ltd. At the time of this transaction, Harkamaljit

Kahlon was the sole director of 1183122 Alberta Ltd. The consideration received

by Palwinder Kahlon, by way of assumption of mortgage, was represented to be

$112,000.00. No money changed hands between Palwinder Kahlon and

1183122 Alberta Ltd.

413. On January 28, 2006, the Royal Bank of Canada filed a final order of

foreclosure on 11925-78 Street. On August 11, 2006, the Royal Bank of Canada

sold 11925-78 Street to a third party purchaser for $89,000.00. As a result of the

dramatically increasing real estate market in Edmonton, Alberta, the Royal Bank

of Canada was able to avoid suffering an actual loss as a result of the fraudulently

obtained Palwinder Kahlon mortgage.

155

Count 25 At or near the City of Edmonton, in the Province of Alberta,

between the 1stday of January, 2005 and the 30thday of March, 2005, did

by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, defraud ING Bank of

Canada of $83,250.00, more or less, by providing false information to ING

Bank of Canada in support of a mortgage application in the name of

Charnkamal Rai for 11904-96 Street, Edmonton, Alberta, contrary to Section

380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada

414. Documents relevant to the transaction that forms the basis for the

allegation in Count 25 are contained in Exhibit 25. The accused does not contest

the admissibility of the contents of Exhibit 25.

415. 11904-96 Street is a residence located in Edmonton, Alberta. This

property was purchased by 923080 Alberta Ltd. on August 9, 2001. Corporate

Registry documents outlining the history of 923080 Alberta Ltd. are contained in

Exhibit 28. At the time of the purchase of 11904-96 Street, Judy Monahan and

Imran Javaid were directors of 923080 Alberta Ltd.

416. In July 2001, Scott Park signed the Affidavit of Transferee as agent for

923080 Alberta Ltd. on the purchase of 11904-96 Street. Park attested that

923080 Alberta Ltd. paid cash to the vendor, Nancy Smolcec, and attested that

the value of 11904-96 Street was, in his opinion, $42,000.00. Park’s affidavit was

not commissioned.

417. On September 5, 2001, title to 11904-96 Street was transferred from

923080 Alberta Ltd. to Beverly Dos Santos. On July 7, 2001, Pervez signed the

Transfer of Land on behalf of 923080 Alberta Ltd. The consideration received by

923080 Alberta Ltd. was represented to be $97,000.00. Bindon witnessed

Pervez’s signature on this Transfer of Land. On August 20, 2001, Park signed

the Affidavit of Transferee as agent for Dos Santos, attesting that she paid

consideration, by way of cash and new mortgage, for the purchase of 11904-96

Street. This affidavit was false. Dos Santos paid no cash toward the purchase of

11904-96 Street. On August 28, 2001, Dos Santos’ signature appeared on a

156

mortgage in favour of the National Bank of Canada in the amount of $72,750.00.

Her signature was witnessed by Park.

418. Dos Santos was recruited by Monahan to participate as a straw buyer as

part of this scheme. Between September 2001 and January 2003, Dos Santos

applied for and obtained mortgages on 6 properties in Edmonton, Alberta. Pervez

received the profits associated with all of the mortgages that she obtained. Dos

Santos was paid a fee of between $800.00 and $1000.00 for each mortgage that

she obtained. Every mortgage that Dos Santos obtained was secured by the

lender’s reliance on material misrepresentations that were consistent with those

described in all of the other fraud allegations. Specifically, Dos Santos put no

money toward down payments on these properties, she had no connection to

these properties, she did not reside in these properties, she was not responsible

for mortgage payments on these properties, and she had no involvement in the

purchase of these properties except to permit her name and credit rating to be

used to secure mortgage financing. Dos Santos was one of several straw buyers

that Monahan recruited on Pervez’s behalf.

419. On June 12, 2002, title to 11904-96 Street was transferred from Dos

Santos to Home Steader Inc. Filed as Exhibit 52 in these proceedings are

Corporate Registry documents outlining the history of Home Steader Inc. At the

time of this purchase, Mehnga Matharu was the sole director of Home Steader

Inc. This purchase was part of a bulk purchase of several properties by Home

Steader Inc. from Pervez. Home Steader Inc. was later directed by Brito and

Caroca, whose involvement in this scheme is described in paragraph 5 (vi) of this

document. On May 31, 2002, Dos Santos signed the Transfer of Land indicating

that she received consideration in the amount of $97,000.00.00 on the sale of

11904-96 Street. Monahan witnessed Dos Santos’ signature on this Transfer of

Land. On May 31, 2002, Matharu signed the Affidavit of Transferee as agent for

Home Steader Inc., attesting that the company paid consideration by way of

157

assumption of mortgage in this purchase. Dos Santos received no cash from the

sale of 11904-96 Street.

420. On May 29, 2003, Capital Health authorities filed a Notice of Health Hazard

on the title of 11904-96 Street.

421. On June 9, 2004, the National Bank of Canada filed a final order of

foreclosure on this property. On August 6, 2004, the National Bank of Canada

sold 11904-96 Street to 1112360 Alberta Ltd. for $58,250.00. As a result of the

misrepresentations contained in the Dos Santos mortgage application, the

National Bank of Canada suffered a loss of approximately $14,000.00. Filed as

Exhibit 38 in these proceedings are Corporate Registry documents for 1112360

Alberta Ltd. At the time of this purchase, Pervez was the sole director of

1112360 Alberta Ltd.

422. On February 11, 2005, title to 11904-96 Street was transferred to

Charnkamal Rai. On February 8, 2005, Pervez signed the Transfer of Land on

behalf of 1112360 Alberta Ltd. The consideration received by 1112360 Alberta

Ltd. was represented to be $111,000.00. Ellis witnessed Pervez’s signature on

this Transfer of Land. On February 8, 2005, Ellis signed the Affidavit of

Transferee as agent for Rai, attesting that Rai paid consideration by way of cash

and new mortgage for the purchase of this property. Rai paid no cash toward the

purchase of 11904-96 Street. On February 8, 2005, Rai’s signature appeared on

a mortgage in favour of the ING Bank of Canada in the amount of $83,250.00.

His signature was witnessed by Ellis.

423. True copies of the documents provided as part of the mortgage application

and approval are contained as part of Exhibit 25, and were provided by ING Bank

of Canada. The accused does not contest the admissibility of these documents.

158

424. Rai was Kahlon’s childhood friend. Rai was recruited into this scheme by

Kahlon, who offered Rai the opportunity to invest in real estate for a profit. Rai

purchased 2 properties as part of this scheme. 11904-96 Street was the second

property that he purchased. With regard to 11904-96 Street, Kahlon asked Rai to

qualify for a mortgage. Rai has never seen this property, and had no connection

to it other than applying for and signing documents associated to the mortgage.

Kahlon paid Rai $1000.00 for participating in this transaction.

425. The Rai mortgage on 11904-96 Street was brokered by Rhodri Bethell,

whose involvement in these transactions is described in paragraph 389 of this

document. Rai had no dealings with Bethell.

426. The application tendered for this mortgage included various false

representations. The complainant, ING Bank of Canada, relied on all of these

representations when considering the Rai mortgage application. In accordance

with its lending practices, had ING Bank of Canada been aware of that these

representations were false, it would not have approved the Rai mortgage

application. As a result of its reliance on the misrepresentations in this mortgage

application, the economic interest of ING Bank of Canada was put at risk in the

amount of $83,250.00.

427. Specifically, Rai did not provide a down payment toward the purchase of

this property. The down payment was represented to have been generated by

the sale of 12032-96 Street, the first property that Rai purchased as part of this

scheme. As evidence of this sale, ING Bank of Canada was provided with a

Real Estate Purchase Contract representing a sale of 12032-96 Street by Rai to

Pinky Mangat for $160,000.00. This unconditional sale was to close on

December 28, 2004. The Purchase Contract indicated that Rai received a

$5000.00 deposit from the purchase, and would receive $27,000.00 cash to close

this transaction. The purchaser was represented to be Pinky Mangat. This

is a fictitious person. Kahlon had a fiancé named Pinky Sailopal. As further

159

evidence of this sale, ING Bank of Canada was provided with a Statement of

Adjustments representing a sale of this property by Rai to Pinky Mangat for

$160,000.00. This sale was to close on December 28, 2004. The Statement of

Adjustments was faxed from the office of Venkatraman & Purewal. These

documents were false. By December 2004, the lender had already foreclosed on

Rai’s property at 12032-96 Street, and Rai no longer owned this property. Rai

did not know Pinky Mangat, and he did not, nor could he, sell the property at

12032-96 Street. ING Bank of Canada relied on these false representations in

making their decision to grant Rai’s mortgage at 11904-96 Street. Had ING

Bank of Canada been aware of these false representations, it would not have

funded the Rai mortgage.

428. Second, Rai did not intend to and did not reside at 11904-96 Street. This

was contrary to the specific condition of owner occupancy imposed by ING Bank

of Canada. Had ING Bank of Canada been aware of this false representation, it

would not have funded the Rai mortgage.

429. Third, tendered as part of the mortgage application was a Real Estate

Purchase Contract. This document represented that Rai provided 1112360

Alberta Ltd. with a $5,000.00 initial deposit toward the purchase of this property,

and would provide the cash required to close the transaction of $22,750.00. This

was false. Rai provided no funds by way of deposit or otherwise toward the

purchase of this property. The document indicates that the sale was to be

completed by December 28, 2004. ING Bank of Canada relied on the contents

of this document when deciding whether to advance mortgage proceeds.

430. Sent with the Rai mortgage application was the appraisal of Gordon

Chapman. Chapman’s involvement in this scheme is described at paragraph

339 of this document. Chapman appraised 11904-96 Street as having a market

value of $111,000.00. ING Bank of Canada relied on this appraisal when

160

deciding to approve this mortgage, and the provision of this appraisal was a

condition of mortgage financing.

431. Rai signed the mortgage documents associated with this purchase at Ellis’

home. Rai did not pay any of the legal fees associated with this purchase. Rai

was not asked about the cash required to close this transaction, nor any other

questions associated with the conditions of mortgage financing.

432. On March 3, 2006, ING Bank of Canada filed a final order of foreclosure on

11904-96 Street. On July 22, 2006, ING Bank of Canada sold this property to a

third party for $76,500.00. As a result of its reliance on misrepresentations

contained in the Rai mortgage application, ING Bank of Canada suffered a loss of

approximately $7,000.00.

161

Count 26 At or near the City of Edmonton, in the Province of Alberta,

between the 1stday of January, 2005 and the 30thday of March, 2005, did

by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, defraud ING Bank of

Canada of $90,000.00, more or less, by providing false information to ING

Bank of Canada in support of a mortgage application in the name of

Palwinder Kahlon for 11331-93 Street, Edmonton, Alberta, contrary to

Section 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

433. Documents relevant to the transaction that forms the basis for the

allegation in Count 26 are contained in Exhibit 26. The accused does not contest

the admissibility of the contents of Exhibit 26.

434. 11331-93 Street is a residence located in Edmonton, Alberta. This

property was purchased by 1131029 Alberta Ltd. on November 25, 2004.

Corporate Registry documents outlining the history of this corporation are filed as

Exhibit 34 in these proceedings. At the time of this transaction, Pervez was a

director of 1131029 Alberta Ltd.

435. On November 19, 2004, Mahendra Pillay of Venkatraman & Purewal

signed the Affidavit of Transferee as agent for 1131029 Alberta Ltd. on the

purchase of 11331-93 Street. Pillay attested that 1131029 Alberta Ltd. paid cash

in the amount of $69,500.00 to the vendor, Jared Topilko, and attested that the

value of 11331-93 Street was, in his opinion, $69,500.00. This Affidavit was

commissioned by Rondah Worrell.

436. On February 16, 2005, title to 11331-93 Street was transferred from

1131029 Alberta Ltd. to Palwinder Kahlon. On February 14, 2005, Pervez signed

the Transfer of Land associated with this transaction. The consideration received

by 1131029 Alberta Ltd. was represented to be $120,000.00. Ellis witnessed

Pervez’s signature on this Transfer of Land. On February 14, 2005, Ellis signed

the Affidavit of Transferee as agent for Palwinder Kahlon. She attested that

Kahlon paid consideration by way of cash and new mortgage for the purchase of

11331-93 Street. No monies changed hands between Palwinder Kahlon and

162

1131029 Alberta Ltd. at the time of this transaction. On February 14, 2005,

Palwinder Kahlon’s signature appears on a mortgage in favour of ING Bank of

Canada in the amount of $90,000.00. His signature was witnessed by Ellis.

Palwinder Kahlon’s signature was forged on this mortgage.

437. Palwinder Kahlon’s involvement in these transactions is described at

paragraphs 217 and 218 of this document.

438. The ING Bank of Canada mortgage was advanced after the same

application to Resmor Trust Company was declined. The application to Resmor

Trust Company was made in January 2005, and was for the same dollar amount.

Resmor Trust Company declined this mortgage application on the basis that the

property was not worth the value attributed to it in the appraisal.

439. The mortgage on 11331-93 Street was brokered by Rhodri Bethell, whose

involvement in these transactions is described in paragraph 389 of this document.

Palwinder Kahlon had no dealings with Bethell.

440. True copies of the documents provided as part of this mortgage application

and approval are contained as part of Exhibit 26, and were provided by ING Bank

of Canada and Resmor Trust Company. The accused does not contest the

admissibility of these documents.

441. The application tendered for this mortgage included various false

representations. The complainant, ING Bank of Canada, relied on all of these

representations in making the decision to provide mortgage financing. In

accordance with its lending practices, had ING Bank of Canada been aware of

these false representations, it would not have provided mortgage funds to

complete this real estate transaction. As a result of its reliance on the

misrepresentations in this mortgage application, the economic interest of ING

Bank of Canada was put at risk in the amount of $90,000.00.

163

442. Specifically, Kahlon did not provide a down payment toward the purchase

of this property. The down payment was represented to have been generated by

the sale of 11330-84 Street. This is the property addressed in Count 21 of the

Indictment before this Court. As proof of down payment, ING Bank of Canada

was provided with a Real Estate Purchase Contract that represented that 11330-

84 Street was sold to Greg Atwal on December 30, 2004 for $115,000.00. A

Statement of Adjustments outlining the specifics of this sale was also provided to

ING Bank of Canada. These documents represented that Kahlon received a

deposit of $3,000.00 from Atwal, and that Atwal would provide the cash to close

the transaction after assuming Kahlon’s mortgage on the property. These

documents were false. The property at 11330-84 Street did not sell in the manner

represented in either of these documents. Greg Atwal is a fictitious name.

Palwinder Kahlon received none of the proceeds of the sale of 11330-84

Street, when it did sell in December 2004 to 1131029 Alberta Ltd. for $75,000.00

. As further evidence of the satisfaction of this condition, ING Bank of Canada

was provided a letter on the letterhead of Venkatraman & Purewal dated

February 4, 2005. Ellis signed this letter on behalf of Mahendra Pillay. This letter

confirmed funds in trust to the credit of Palwinder Kahlon in the amount of

$54,348.19, funds that represent the profit from the sale of 11330-84 Street. The

effect of these documents is to provide evidence of the source of down payment.

ING Bank of Canada relied on these false representations in making their

decision to grant Kahlon’s mortgage at 11331-93 Street. Had ING Bank of

Canada been aware of these false representations, they would not have funded

the Kahlon mortgage.

443. Second, Kahlon did not intend to reside at 11331-93 Street, and did not

reside there. This was contrary to the specific condition of owner occupancy

imposed by ING Bank of Canada. As proof of satisfaction of this condition, ING

Bank of Canada was provided with a statement dated December 27, 2004,

purportedly authored by Kahlon, representing that he intended to reside at

164

11331-93 Street. This document was false, Palwinder Kahlon’s signature was

forged on this document. Kahlon resided, and continued to reside, at 3316-30

Avenue in Edmonton, Alberta, the matrimonial home that he shared with his wife.

Had ING Bank of Canada been aware of these false representations, it would not

have funded the Kahlon mortgage.

444. Third, tendered as part of the mortgage application, and as a condition of

mortgage financing, was a Real Estate Purchase Contract. This document

represented that Kahlon provided 1131029 Alberta Ltd. with a $5,000 initial

deposit toward the purchase of this property, and would provide the cash

required to close the transaction of $25,000. This was false. Kahlon provided

no funds by way of deposit or otherwise toward the purchase of this property.

The document indicates that the sale was to be completed by December 27,

2004. ING Bank of Canada relied on the contents of this document when

deciding whether to advance mortgage proceeds.

445. Sent with the mortgage application was the appraisal of Chapman.

Chapman’s involvement in this scheme is described at paragraph 339 of this

document. Chapman appraised 11331-93 Street as having a market value of

$120,000.00. ING Bank of Canada relied on this appraisal when deciding to

approve this mortgage, and the provision of this appraisal was a condition of

mortgage financing.

446. On April 5, 2005, title to this property transferred to 1151228 Alberta Ltd.

Filed as Exhibit 53 in these proceedings are Corporate Registry documents

outlining the history of 1151228 Alberta Ltd. At the time of this transaction, Ali

Aziz was the sole director of 1151228 Alberta Ltd. This transfer was represented

to be a deal that had fallen through. 1151228 Alberta Ltd. had no previous

ownership of this property. Ellis witnessed what was purported to be Kahlon’s

signature, and signed as agent for 1151228 Alberta Ltd. on the Affidavit of

165

Transferee. This real estate deal did not fall through, the ING Bank of Canada

mortgage was funded.

447. On August 24, 2005, title to this property transferred to Pedro Brito, whose

involvement in these transactions is described in paragraph 5 (vi) of this

document. The consideration received by 1151228 Alberta Ltd., by way of cash

and assumption of mortgage, was represented to be $1.00, with a land value of

$120,000.00. No money changed hands between 1151228 Alberta Ltd. and

Pedro Brito as part of this transaction. Brito continues to be the titular owner of

this property, having secured mortgage financing from various lenders that were

used to discharge the Kahlon mortgage held by ING Bank of Canada. As a

result, ING Bank of Canada suffered no actual loss as a result of its reliance on

the material misrepresentations contained in the Palwinder Kahlon mortgage

application.

166

167

Count 27 At or near the City of Edmonton, in the Province of Alberta, on or

about the 24thday of June, 2005 did knowing that a document, to wit:

Affidavit of Execution of Witnesses attached to mortgages or Affidavits in

Support of Caveats associated to these same mortgages pertaining to 42

different properties, was forged, did unlawfully use, deal with or act upon

the said documents as if they were genuine, contrary to Section 368(1)(a) of

Criminal Code of Canada.

448. On June 24, 2005, Ellis attended to the Land Titles Registry Office in the

Brownlee building in Edmonton, Alberta. She met there with Registry agents

Jane Saik and Don Thorpe. Ellis presented 43 mortgages and associated

caveats for registration against 42 different properties. Ellis returned to the

counter 4 separate times on June 24, 2005, having corrected errors that were

identified on some of these materials. Ellis commented that she had worked until

2 a.m. that morning preparing the materials that she presented for registration.

Copies of the mortgages filed and the titles of the attached properties are filed in

these proceedings as Exhibit 27. The accused does not contest the admissibility

of these documents. Below is a table describing the properties that were

attached with the 43 mortgages and caveats filed by Ellis.

ADDRESS OWNER

MORTGAGEE AMOUNT OF

MORTGAGE

DATE OF

FILING

10630-95 Street¹

10629-104 Street

11501-95 Street

12743-119 Street

11030-96 Street

1159877 Alberta

Ltd.²

1151228 Alberta

Ltd.⁴

Rukhsana Ahmad³

Rukhsana Ahmad

1176587 Alberta Ltd⁵.

Rukhsana Ahmad

$142,000.00

$135,000.00

125,000.00

$125,000.00

$115,000.00

June 24, 2005

Rukhsana

Ahmad

1151228 Alberta

Ltd.

1131029 Alberta

June 27, 2005

Ltd.⁶

June 23, 2005 - lis

____________________________________

¹Property described in Exhibit 42

²Corporate Registry documents filed as Exhibit 55 in these proceedings, sole director was Amarjit Kahlon,

father of Harkamaljit Kahlon

³Mother of Gohar Pervez

⁴Corporate Registry documents filed as Exhibit 53 in these proceedings, sole director was Ali Aziz

⁵Corporate Registry documents filed as Exhibit 56 in these proceedings, sole director was Karen Sweeney,

a fictitious person

168

pendens filed by V & P⁷

June 27, 2005

12316-82 Street

10730-92 Street

9613-106A Ave⁸

11911-96 Street

6116-131 Ave

11511-93 Street

8409-118 Ave⁹

9333-108 Ave

1131029 Alberta

Ltd.

Rukhsana Ahmad

$115,000.00

$130,000.00

$123,000.00

$117,000.00

$142,000.00

$125,000.00

$119,000.00

$111,000.00

June 25, 2005 – lis

pendens filed by V & P

June 27, 2005

1131029 Alberta

Ltd.

June 23, 2005 – lis

pendens filed by V & P

June 27, 2005

1131029 Alberta

Ltd.

June 23, 2005 – lis

pendens filed by V & P

June 27, 2005

1131029 Alberta

Ltd.

June 23, 2005 – lis

pendens filed by V & P

June 27, 2005

1131029 Alberta

Ltd.

June 23, 2005 – lis

pendens filed by V & P

June 27, 2005

1131029 Alberta

Ltd.

June 23, 2005 – lis

pendens filed by V & P

June 27, 2005

1131029 Alberta

Ltd.

June 23, 2005 – lis

pendens filed by V & P

June 27, 2005

1131029 Alberta

Ltd.

June 23, 2005 – lis

pendens filed by V & P

June 27, 2005

11331-93 Street¹⁰

11630-94 Street

1151228 Alberta

Rukhsana Ahmad

$120,000.00

$137,000.00

Ltd.

1131029 Alberta

June 27, 2005

Ltd.

June 23, 2005 – lis

pendens filed by V & P

June 27, 2005

13029-66 Street

11929-63 Street

11634-84 Street

11142-97 Street

1131029 Alberta

Ltd.

Rukhsana Ahmad

$124,000.00

$127,000.00

$125,000.00

$130,000.00

June 23, 2005 – lis

pendens filed by V & P

June 27, 2005

1131029 Alberta

Ltd.

June 23, 2005 – lis

pendens filed by V & P

June 27, 2005

1131029 Alberta

Ltd.

June 23, 2005 – lis

pendens filed by V & P

June 27, 2005

1131029 Alberta

Ltd.

June 23, 2005 – lis

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

⁶Corporate Registry documents filed as Exhibit 34 in these proceedings, director was Shairose Esmail

7

Venkatraman & Purewal

8

Property described in Exhibit 42

9

Property described in Exhibit 4

10

Property described in Exhibit 25

169

pendens filed by V & P

June 27, 2005

11532-91 Street

11916-80 Street

12070-94 Street

1131029 Alberta

Ltd.

Rukhsana Ahmad

$113,000.00

$65,000.00

$103,000.00

June 23, 2005 – lis

pendens filed by V & P

June 27, 2005

Shairose Esmail

June 25, 2005 – lis

pendens filed by V & P

June 27, 2005

1131029 Alberta

Ltd.

June 23, 2005 – lis

pendens filed by V & P

June 27, 2005

9640-109A Ave

9620-110 Ave¹¹

1131029 Alberta

Rukhsana Ahmad

$110,000.00

$157,000.00

Ltd.

1131029 Alberta

June 27, 2005

Ltd.

June 23, 2005 – lis

pendens filed by V & P

June 27, 2005

9411-112 Ave

1131029 Alberta

Ltd.

Rukhsana Ahmad

$111,000.00

June 23, 2005 – lis

pendens filed by V & P

June 27, 2005

11446-97 Street

11736-83 Street

11840-93 Street

1151228 Alberta

Rukhsana Ahmad

$135,000.00

$129,000.00

$225,000.00

$128,000.00

Ltd.

1151228 Alberta

June 27, 2005

Ltd.

1151228 Alberta

Ltd.

Rukhsana Ahmad 1176587 Alberta Ltd.

June 27, 2005

June 25, 2005 – lis

pendens filed by V & P

June 27, 2005

11535-85 Street

11533-97 Street

12330-67 Street

11909-80 Street

11338-96 Street

8407-118 Ave

1131029 Alberta

Ltd.

Rukhsana Ahmad

$129,000.00

$103,000.00

$130,000.00

$110,000.00

$125,000.00

June 23, 2005 – lis

pendens filed by V & P

June 27, 2005

1131029 Alberta

Ltd.

June 23, 2005 – lis

pendens filed by V & P

June 24, 2005

1176587 Alberta

Ltd.

June 23, 2005 – lis

pendens filed by V & P

June 24, 2005

1131029 Alberta

Ltd.

June 23, 2005 – lis

pendens filed by V & P

June 24, 2005

1131029 Alberta

Ltd.

June 23, 2005 – lis

pendens filed by V & P

June 27, 2005

1131029 Alberta

Ltd.

_____________________________________

11

Property described in Exhibit 42

170

9627-110A Ave

11611-94 Street

11848-90 Street

11905-93 Street

1131029 Alberta

Rukhsana Ahmad

$50,000.00

$129,000.00

$120,000.00

$123,000.00

June 27, 2005

Ltd.

1151228 Alberta

Ltd.

1131029 Alberta

Ltd.

Rukhsana Ahmad 1176587 Alberta Ltd.

June 27, 2005

June 23, 2005 – lis

pendens filed by V & P

June 27, 2005

12017-57 Street

11634-95 Street

12930-71 Street¹⁴

12008-95 Street

Kiran Ahmad¹²

Kiran Ahmad

Shezad Ahmad¹³

Shezad Ahmad

$120,000.00

$125,000.00

$118,000.00

$100,000.00

June 27, 2005

449. The mortgages filed against the 42 properties totalled $5,275,000.00.

Ellis prepared every mortgage and associated affidavit and uttered each

document at the Alberta Registries office. The witness to every mortgagee’s

signature was Greg DeAgostini. DeAgostini is Ellis’ son.

450. Every mortgage included an Affidavit in Support of Caveat. Every one of

these Affidavits were deposed by Ellis, and purportedly commissioned by

Rondah Worrell. Worrell’s signature is forged on every document. As detailed in

Count 28, Worrell’s Commissioner of Oaths stamp was in Ellis’ possession, was

improperly used by Ellis, and Worrell’s signature was forged by Ellis, without any

permission or justification. Ellis intended that Alberta Government Services act

upon these false mortgages as if they were genuine.

_____________________

12

Sister-in-law of Pervez

13

Brother of Pervez, husband of Kiran Ahmad

14

Property described in Exhibit 42

171

Count 28 At or near the City of Edmonton, in the Province of Alberta, on or

about the 14thday of July, 2005 did have in her possession property, to wit

a self-inking Commissioner For Oaths stamp in the name of Rondah

WORRELL, of a value not exceeding $5,000 knowing that the property was

obtained by the commission in Canada of an offence punishable by

indictment, contrary to Section 355 (b) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

451. Ellis’ last day of work at Venkatraman & Purewal was April 12, 2005. On

April 25, 2005, upon return to work at Venkatraman & Purewal from a vaction,

Rondah Worrell noticed that she was missing her Commissioner of Oaths stamp.

On June 17, 2005, Worrell reported her missing stamp to the Edmonton Police

Service. Worrell did not give her stamp to anyone, nor did she give anyone

permission to possess her stamp.

452.

On July 14, 2005, members of the Edmonton Police Service and the

Royal Canadian Mounted Police executed a search warrant at Ellis’ residence at

4224-86 Street in Edmonton, Alberta. One of the seized exhibits was Rondah

Worrell’s Commissioner of Oaths stamp. This exhibit was seized from the

shelving unit of a computer desk. This stamp is marked as Exhibit 105 in these

proceedings.

_____________________________

Michelle Doyle, Crown Counsel

________________________

Paul Moreau, Counsel for Ellis

________________________

Terry Lynn Ellis

172