Page: 137
of the straw buyers has to be approached with a great deal of caution in light of their
unreliability. Having said that, the evidence that was presented discloses that no inquiry would
likely have been required to be made. First, every Offer to Purchase had a pre-printed stamp in
the section dealing with deposits and additional deposits which stated that the deposits and
additional deposits (i.e., down payment) were being held in trust directly by the vendor, being
Pervez or his companies or co-conspirators. The evidence also disclosed that in addition to the
stamp on all of the Offers to Purchase, there was further documentation in the nature of a
document entitled Receipt and Acknowledgement. This document, signed by Pervez, stated that
he had received the deposits and down payments directly from the buyers (Exhibits 10, 11, 17,
36 and 37). In relation to the question of adjustments, the evidence of Bindon, if believed, was
that in most deals involving Pervez, there were no adjustments to be made because Pervez “liked
to give the buyer a turnkey operation.”
[645] As noted in the review of the evidence of the straw buyers, most have been found to be
unreliable or not trustworthy. However, in relation to those straw buyers whose evidence was
accepted by the Court, including Anne Chiasson and Jawad Choudhary, it was admitted that they
were told to lie by two different co-conspirators. One has to wonder why Caroca and Brito
would have told Anne Chiasson to anticipate a question about owner occupancy and how to
answer it, yet would not have done the same for another one of their recruits, Keith Rayner.
[646] As for the evidence of Beverly Haugh, Jayne Sluchinski and Sheila Holloway regarding
Scott Park’s response to their inquiries about the legitimacy of the mortgage transactions, I did
not find that it was their evidence that Scott Park did not respond to their inquiries. Sheila
Holloway stated that she was unsure of the inquiry being referred to; however, she stated that it
was hard for her to remember what she knew and when she knew it. Jayne Sluchinski stated she
asked Scott Park if it was legal, and Scott Park’s response was, “If it wasn’t, I wouldn’t be
involved.” If in fact this question and answer occurred, then his response is as consistent with an
inference that he believed the transaction to be legal, as it would be with the inference that he
was trying to hide some illegality. Further, if he was involved in the fraudulent scheme, he
would have known that Jayne Sluchinski was another straw buyer and there would have been no
need to hide his involvement. Beverly Haugh stated, in direct examination, that she asked Scott
Park if everything was okay before she signed the mortgage documents, and Scott Park said
“Yes.” However, Beverly Haugh told the police that it was Bindon who said it was fine and all
legal. As I have noted earlier in these reasons, I did not find any of these witnesses to be
particularly credible, and all had reason to minimize their responsibility for their acts.
[647] There was evidence of repeat straw buyers over a short time period. There was no
evidence that Scott Park was part of the mortgage application process. The evidence of some of
the lenders and mortgage brokers confirmed that the involvement of the lawyer was usually after
the mortgage had been approved and at the point that the lawyer received the solicitor’s
instructions from the lender. The only direct or apparent involvement of Scott Park appears to be
the issuing of trust cheques to buyers in order to prove a deposit of down payment into their
accounts. However, it should be noted that in almost all of those instances the mortgage had
already been approved, and this was after the fact. Further, some of the lender witnesses and
