Court of Queen=s Bench of Alberta  
Citation: R v MacMullin, 2014 ABQB 476  
Date: 20140820  
Docket: 110295011Q1  
Registry: Edmonton  
Between:  
Her Majesty the Queen  
- and -  
Crown  
Allan Dawson MacMullin and Roy Elander  
Accused  
_______________________________________________________  
Reasons for Judgment  
of the  
Honourable Mr. Justice A.W. Germain  
_______________________________________________________  
I. Introduction........................................................................................................................... 13  
II. The Position of the Parties .................................................................................................... 14  
A. The Crown......................................................................................................................... 14  
B. The Defence ...................................................................................................................... 15  
1. Mr. MacMullin.............................................................................................................. 15  
2. Mr. Elander ................................................................................................................... 16  
C. Admissions of Essential Elements .................................................................................... 17  
Page: 2  
III.  
The Layout of this Judgment ............................................................................................ 18  
A. The Schedules ................................................................................................................... 18  
B. The E-Trial Element.......................................................................................................... 19  
IV.  
Background Facts.............................................................................................................. 21  
A. Transaction Timing........................................................................................................... 21  
B. Who’s Who!...................................................................................................................... 22  
C. The Canadian Mortgage industry...................................................................................... 25  
D. The Alberta Law of Property Act...................................................................................... 26  
E. Other financing concepts .................................................................................................. 27  
1. Market Value................................................................................................................. 27  
2. Location! Location! Location!...................................................................................... 29  
3. Assessing Risk Factors ................................................................................................. 29  
4. Taking Equity Out of Property ..................................................................................... 31  
5. The No Down Payment, Down Payment...................................................................... 32  
6. The End of the Line ...................................................................................................... 33  
V. Real Estate 101...................................................................................................................... 33  
A. Introduction....................................................................................................................... 33  
B. The Real Estate Purchase Contract [REPC] ..................................................................... 34  
C. Transfer and Affidavit of Transferee ................................................................................ 35  
D. The Vendor’s Lien Caveat ................................................................................................ 35  
E. The Transfer Back............................................................................................................. 36  
F. The Intervening Purchaser ................................................................................................ 37  
G. Real Estate Math............................................................................................................... 37  
VI.  
The Indicia of ‘Deceit, Falsehood or other Dishonest’ Conduct ...................................... 40  
A. Straw Buyers who “Pulled Mortgages............................................................................ 40  
B. The Pitch........................................................................................................................... 42  
C. Deal Specific Indicators of ‘Deceit, Falsehood or Other Dishonest Conduct’ ................. 44  
D. Manipulation of the Real Estate Purchase Contract [REPC] ............................................ 44  
Page: 3  
1. Sale at Inflated Price ..................................................................................................... 44  
2. The Fictional Real Estate Sale to Assist a Homeowner................................................ 45  
3. The Sale of a MacMullin Property to a Straw Buyer.................................................... 46  
4. The ‘No Sale’ Sale ........................................................................................................ 46  
5. The ‘No Move In’ Leases ............................................................................................. 47  
E. Propping Up the Mortgage Application............................................................................ 47  
1. Pretend Employment..................................................................................................... 47  
2. Fictional Down Payments ............................................................................................. 48  
3. Erasing Credit Blemishes.............................................................................................. 49  
4. Creating Fictional Interpersonal Relationships............................................................. 49  
5. The Dishonorable Mentions.......................................................................................... 50  
F. Ignoring the Residency Requirement................................................................................ 51  
G. Reassuring the Straw Buyers ............................................................................................ 52  
VII. The Evidence of the Main Players .................................................................................... 53  
A. Mr. MacMullin’s Evidence............................................................................................... 53  
Page: 4  
1. Background ................................................................................................................... 53  
2. Scope of Mr. MacMullin’s Business ............................................................................ 54  
a. The Kathmarkham / Chickakoo Project.................................................................... 54  
b. The Blackfalds Project (Blackfalds, Alberta) ........................................................... 55  
c. The Liberty Building Project .................................................................................... 55  
3. Count Specifics ............................................................................................................. 56  
4. Deceitful Documentation Details.................................................................................. 56  
a. The Down Payment Issue ......................................................................................... 56  
b. The Principal (Primary) Residence Issue.................................................................. 57  
5. The Conclusion of Mr. MacMullin’s Direct Evidence ................................................. 57  
6. The Cross Examination of Mr. MacMullin................................................................... 58  
7. Applying the W(D) Analysis to Mr. MacMullin........................................................... 59  
a. Do I believe Mr. MacMullin’s Evidence Denying his Guilt?................................... 61  
b. Does his Evidence at Least Raise a Reasonable Doubt? .......................................... 63  
c. Has the Crown Proven the Case Beyond a Reasonable Doubt? ............................... 65  
B. Mr. Elander’s Evidence..................................................................................................... 66  
Page: 5  
1. Direct Evidence............................................................................................................. 66  
a. History....................................................................................................................... 66  
b. A Routine Real Estate Practice ................................................................................. 66  
c. Specific Denial of Knowledge .................................................................................. 67  
d. Evidence Applicable to All Counts........................................................................... 68  
e. Evidence on Specific Counts / Specific Straw Buyers ............................................. 69  
i. The Mark and Karla McClain Connection.............................................................. 69  
ii.  
Dealings with Lance Cipperley and Mr. Rauckman ........................................... 71  
The Lane Wiechnik Connection.......................................................................... 71  
The Russellell Campbell Connection.................................................................. 72  
The Anderson Connection................................................................................... 75  
Mr. Elander’s Relationship with Mr. MacMullin ..................................................... 76  
iii.  
iv.  
v.  
f.  
g. Countering the Evidence of Gaylene Juneau ............................................................ 78  
h. The Last Deals .......................................................................................................... 78  
i.  
The Denial Summary................................................................................................ 79  
2. The Cross-Examination................................................................................................. 80  
a. By Counsel for Mr. MacMullin ................................................................................ 80  
b. By the Crown............................................................................................................ 80  
c. Redirect Examination................................................................................................ 83  
3. Applying the W(D) Analysis to the Evidence of Mr. Elander ...................................... 83  
a. Do I believe the Evidence of Mr. Elander?............................................................... 84  
b. Does Mr. Elander’s Evidence at Least Raise a Reasonable Doubt? ......................... 87  
c. Has the Crown Proven Mr. Elander’s Guilt on Evidence I do Accept ..................... 87  
C. Mr. Seremet’s Evidence.................................................................................................... 88  
Page: 6  
1. Cautionary Approach to his Evidence .......................................................................... 88  
2. Back in Time................................................................................................................. 91  
3. Identifying Mr. MacMullin’s Business Activities ........................................................ 91  
4. Specifics of the Mortgage Business.............................................................................. 93  
5. Dealing with Professionals ........................................................................................... 94  
6. The Introduction of Russellell Campbell into the Business.......................................... 95  
7. Count-Specific Evidence............................................................................................... 96  
8. General Conclusions ..................................................................................................... 97  
D. The Supporting Role Participants ..................................................................................... 97  
1. Lam Developments International Inc............................................................................ 98  
2. Other Corporations........................................................................................................ 98  
3. John Dunne ................................................................................................................... 99  
4. Marko Knezevic............................................................................................................ 99  
5. Knezevic, Dunne and Dawson .................................................................................... 100  
6. The Mortgage Brokers ................................................................................................ 100  
7. The Realtor.................................................................................................................. 102  
E. Reliability and Credibility of the Straw Buyers.............................................................. 103  
F. The Relationship between Mr. MacMullin and Mr. Seremet ......................................... 104  
G. Cash is King!................................................................................................................... 106  
H. The Motive...................................................................................................................... 107  
VIII. Key Legal Concepts Expressed in this Judgment ........................................................... 108  
A. The Law in Relation to Criminal Code, s 380 ................................................................ 108  
B. The Actus Reus by ‘Deceit, Falsehood or Other Fraudulent Means’ and reliance ......... 111  
C. Deprivation...................................................................................................................... 113  
D. Knowledge and Wilful Blindness ................................................................................... 116  
E. Intention.......................................................................................................................... 119  
F. Using Evidence Between Counts.................................................................................... 120  
1. Example #1 The Hendry Sale .................................................................................. 122  
2. Example #2 The Cipperley Transaction................................................................... 123  
G. Piercing Solicitor-Client Privilege.................................................................................. 124  
Page: 7  
1. The Position of the Parties on Solicitor-Client Privilege............................................ 124  
2. Legal Analysis............................................................................................................. 124  
3. When Does the Ability of the Crown to Pierce the Solicitor-Client Privilege End?.. 125  
4. Cross Examination by the Accused to Elicit Favourable Evidence Protected by  
Privilege .............................................................................................................................. 126  
H. Revisiting Document Admissibility................................................................................ 127  
I. Inferences from Circumstantial Evidence....................................................................... 128  
1. The Position of the Defence........................................................................................ 128  
2. The Position of the Crown.......................................................................................... 129  
3. Ruling.......................................................................................................................... 129  
IV.  
The Conclusion............................................................................................................... 130  
A. Conclusions Relating to the Existence of Mortgage Fraud ............................................ 130  
B. Conclusions Relating to Mr. Al MacMullin ................................................................... 132  
C. Conclusions Relating to Mr. Elander.............................................................................. 133  
Schedule A : R v MacMullin and Elander: Findings of Charge Specific Facts ......................... 136  
A. Introduction......................................................................................................................... 136  
B. Count 1 and Count 2 - Property 1(a) and 1(b) .................................................................... 137  
1. The Alleged Misconduct................................................................................................. 137  
2. Title Tales ....................................................................................................................... 138  
3. The Facts......................................................................................................................... 138  
4. Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 142  
C. Count 3 - Property 2............................................................................................................ 142  
1. The Alleged Misconduct................................................................................................. 142  
2. Title Tales ....................................................................................................................... 143  
3. The Facts......................................................................................................................... 143  
4. Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 145  
D. Count 4 - Property 3............................................................................................................ 145  
1. The Alleged Misconduct................................................................................................. 145  
2. Title Tales ....................................................................................................................... 145  
3. The Facts......................................................................................................................... 146  
Page: 8  
4. Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 147  
E. Count 5 and Count 6 - Properties 4(a) and 4(b).................................................................. 148  
1. The Alleged Misconduct................................................................................................. 148  
2. Title Tales ....................................................................................................................... 148  
3. The Facts......................................................................................................................... 149  
4. Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 153  
F. Count 7 - Property 5............................................................................................................ 154  
1. The Alleged Misconduct................................................................................................. 154  
2. Title Tales ....................................................................................................................... 154  
3. The Facts......................................................................................................................... 154  
4. Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 158  
G. Count 8 - Property 6............................................................................................................ 158  
1. The Alleged Misconduct................................................................................................. 158  
2. Title Tales ....................................................................................................................... 158  
3. The Facts......................................................................................................................... 159  
4. Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 160  
H. Count 9 - Property 7............................................................................................................ 161  
1. The Alleged Misconduct................................................................................................. 161  
2. Title Tales ....................................................................................................................... 161  
3. The Facts......................................................................................................................... 162  
4. Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 164  
I. Count 10 - Property 8.......................................................................................................... 164  
1. The Alleged Misconduct................................................................................................. 164  
2. Title Tales ....................................................................................................................... 165  
3. The Facts......................................................................................................................... 165  
4. Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 166  
J. Count 11 - Property 9.......................................................................................................... 166  
1. The Alleged Misconduct................................................................................................. 166  
2. Title Tales ....................................................................................................................... 167  
3. The Facts......................................................................................................................... 167  
Page: 9  
4. Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 172  
K. Count 12 and Count 13 - Property 10(a) and 10(b) ............................................................ 172  
1. The Alleged Misconduct................................................................................................. 172  
2. Introduction..................................................................................................................... 173  
3. Title Tales ....................................................................................................................... 173  
4. The Facts......................................................................................................................... 173  
5. Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 178  
L. Counts 14 And 15 - Property 11(a) and 11(b) .................................................................... 179  
1. The Alleged Misconduct................................................................................................. 179  
2. Introduction..................................................................................................................... 180  
3. Title Tales ....................................................................................................................... 180  
4. The Facts - Count 14....................................................................................................... 181  
5. Conclusion - Count 14 .................................................................................................... 184  
6. The Intervening Deal on this Property............................................................................ 184  
7. The Facts - Count 15....................................................................................................... 186  
8. Conclusion - Count 15 .................................................................................................... 188  
M.  
Count 16 - Property 12.................................................................................................... 188  
1. The Alleged Misconduct................................................................................................. 188  
2. Title Tales ....................................................................................................................... 189  
3. The Facts......................................................................................................................... 189  
5. Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 192  
N. Count 17 - Property 13........................................................................................................ 192  
1. The Alleged Misconduct................................................................................................. 192  
2. Title Tales ....................................................................................................................... 193  
3. The Facts......................................................................................................................... 193  
4. Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 194  
O. Count 18 and 19 - Property 14(a) and 14(b) ...................................................................... 195  
1. The Alleged Misconduct................................................................................................. 195  
2. Introduction..................................................................................................................... 195  
3. Title Tales ....................................................................................................................... 195  
Page: 10  
4. The Facts......................................................................................................................... 196  
5. Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 202  
P. Count 20 - Property 15........................................................................................................ 203  
1. The Alleged Misconduct................................................................................................. 203  
2. Introduction..................................................................................................................... 203  
3. Title Tales ....................................................................................................................... 203  
4. The Facts......................................................................................................................... 203  
5. Mr. MacMullin’s Involvement in the Fraud ................................................................... 206  
6. Mr. Elander’s Involvement ............................................................................................. 206  
7. Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 207  
Q. Count 21 - Property 16........................................................................................................ 208  
1. The Alleged Misconduct................................................................................................. 208  
2. Title Tales ....................................................................................................................... 208  
3. The Facts......................................................................................................................... 208  
4. Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 210  
R. Count 22 - Property 17........................................................................................................ 211  
1. The Alleged Misconduct................................................................................................. 211  
2. Title Tales ....................................................................................................................... 211  
3. The Facts......................................................................................................................... 211  
4. Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 213  
S. Count 23 - Property 18........................................................................................................ 214  
1. Title Tales ....................................................................................................................... 214  
2. The Facts......................................................................................................................... 214  
3. Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 218  
T. Count 24 - Property 19........................................................................................................ 218  
1. The Alleged Misconduct................................................................................................. 218  
2. Title Tales ....................................................................................................................... 218  
3. The Facts......................................................................................................................... 219  
4. Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 222  
U. Count 25 - Property 20........................................................................................................ 222  
Page: 11  
1. The Alleged Misconduct................................................................................................. 222  
2. Title Tales ....................................................................................................................... 222  
3. The Facts......................................................................................................................... 223  
4. Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 224  
V. Counts 26 and 27 Property 21(a) & 21 (b) ...................................................................... 225  
1. The Alleged Misconduct................................................................................................. 225  
2. Introduction..................................................................................................................... 225  
3. Title Tales ....................................................................................................................... 226  
4. The Facts Count 26 ...................................................................................................... 226  
5. Conclusion - Count 26 .................................................................................................... 229  
6. The Facts - Count 27....................................................................................................... 229  
7. Conclusion - Count 27 .................................................................................................... 230  
W.  
Count 28 - Property 22.................................................................................................... 230  
1. The Alleged Misconduct................................................................................................. 230  
2. Title Tales ....................................................................................................................... 231  
3. The Facts......................................................................................................................... 231  
4. Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 233  
X. Count 29 - Property 23........................................................................................................ 233  
1. The Alleged Misconduct................................................................................................. 233  
2. Title Tales ....................................................................................................................... 234  
3. The Facts......................................................................................................................... 234  
4. Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 236  
Y. Count 30 - Property 24........................................................................................................ 237  
1. The Alleged Misconduct................................................................................................. 237  
2. Title Tales ....................................................................................................................... 237  
3. The Facts......................................................................................................................... 238  
4. Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 240  
Z. Count 31 Property 25 ....................................................................................................... 241  
1. The Alleged Misconduct................................................................................................. 241  
2. Title Tales ....................................................................................................................... 241  
Page: 12  
3. The Facts......................................................................................................................... 241  
4. Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 243  
AA. Count 32 & Count 33 - Property 26a & 26b................................................................... 244  
1. The Alleged Misconduct................................................................................................. 244  
2. Title Tales ....................................................................................................................... 244  
3. The Facts......................................................................................................................... 245  
4. Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 248  
BB.  
Count 34 - Property 27.................................................................................................... 248  
1. The Alleged Misconduct................................................................................................. 248  
2. Title Tales ....................................................................................................................... 249  
3. The Facts......................................................................................................................... 249  
4. Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 251  
CC. Count 35 - Property 28.................................................................................................... 251  
1. The Alleged Misconduct................................................................................................. 251  
2. Title Tales ....................................................................................................................... 251  
3. The Facts......................................................................................................................... 252  
4. Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 253  
DD. Count 36 - Property 29.................................................................................................... 253  
1. The Alleged Misconduct................................................................................................. 253  
2. Title Tales ....................................................................................................................... 254  
3. The Facts......................................................................................................................... 254  
4. Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 257  
EE.  
Count 37 - Property 30.................................................................................................... 258  
1. The Alleged Misconduct................................................................................................. 258  
2. Title Tales ....................................................................................................................... 258  
3. The Facts......................................................................................................................... 258  
4. Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 261  
FF.  
Count 38 - Property 31.................................................................................................... 261  
1. The Alleged Misconduct................................................................................................. 261  
2. Title Tales ....................................................................................................................... 261  
Page: 13  
3. The Facts......................................................................................................................... 262  
4. Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 264  
GG. Count 39 - Property 32.................................................................................................... 265  
1. The Alleged Misconduct................................................................................................. 265  
2. Title Tales ....................................................................................................................... 265  
3. The Facts......................................................................................................................... 265  
4. Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 267  
HH. Count 40 - Property 33.................................................................................................... 267  
1. The Alleged Misconduct................................................................................................. 267  
2. Title Tales ....................................................................................................................... 268  
3.  
The Facts........................................................................................................................ 268  
4. Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 271  
II. Count 41 - Property 34........................................................................................................ 271  
1. The Alleged Misconduct................................................................................................. 271  
2. Title Tales ....................................................................................................................... 271  
3. The Facts......................................................................................................................... 272  
4. Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 275  
I.  
Introduction  
[1]  
Mr. Allan Dawson MacMullin [Mr. MacMullin] was tried on 41 counts of fraud:  
Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s 380(1)(a), (see schedule A). Mr. Roy Elander [Mr.  
Elander] was jointly tried with Mr. MacMullin on 22 of those counts. A key crown witness,  
Josip (Joe) Seremet, [Mr. Seremet], was also charged with 22 of these counts. Prior to trial Mr.  
Seremet pled guilty to most of the charges he faced and was sentenced by the case management  
Justice to a period of imprisonment.  
[2]  
At the time of the misconduct Mr. Elander was a lawyer practicing in Red Deer, Alberta.  
The charges he faced flow from cases in which his firm performed the legal work component of  
the alleged illegal mortgage transactions.  
[3]  
The counts are similar. They generically allege as follows:  
Between the first day of January 2000 and the 31 day of July, 2005, at or near [a location]  
in the province of Alberta, did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, defraud [a  
 
Page: 14  
financial institution] of money, of the value exceeding $5000, by providing false  
information to [the financial institution] in support of a mortgage application in the name  
of [an individual] for [property address] [property legal description] contrary to section  
380 (1) (a) of the Criminal Code.  
[4]  
The trial was lengthy. It involves different institutions, properties, and borrowers. In a  
short oral Judgment, on the date of the release of these reasons, I convicted Mr. MacMullin in 38  
of the 41 counts facing him, and Mr. Elander in 14 of the 22 counts facing him. These written  
reasons explain why those convictions occurred.  
II.  
The Position of the Parties  
A.  
The Crown  
[5]  
The Crown’s theory was that Mr. MacMullin was the ringleader of a group who  
defrauded various financial institutions in a mortgage fraud scheme. The scheme had several  
variations. In some instances, an Alberta residential real property was purchased (occasionally  
more than once) by straw buyers. A straw buyer would lend their name to the acquisition of  
property and mortgage application without the intention of becoming the equitable owner. The  
equitable owner would remain Mr. MacMullin, his corporations, or his close associates.  
[6]  
In other cases, the equitable owner was encouraged to extract equity by participating in a  
fictional sale to a straw buyer. The purpose of these sales was to generate money to invest with  
Mr. MacMullin. In all but one case, the straw buyer applied for a loan to provide a principal  
residence. This provides an advantage: a higher loan to value percentage of financing was  
obtained. The cash flow was therefore accelerated both by the potential increase in the value of  
the property (over financing) and by a mortgage often as high as 95% of that inflated value  
(high-ratio financing).  
[7]  
The Crown further asserts that although Mr. MacMullin did not personally apply for any  
of the fraudulently obtained mortgages, he had a direct or indirect vested interest in each  
mortgage. Witnesses gave consistent evidence about Mr. MacMullin’s involvement, exposing  
him as the ringleader. The Crown submits that Mr. MacMullin recruited a group of younger  
individuals anxious for business success and that, depending on their level of larceny, he utilized  
them. Co-indicted Mr. Seremet was the most larcenous and most easily manipulated. He also had  
a skill set that Mr. MacMullin could use to his benefit.  
[8]  
The Crown asserts that even if one discounts the evidence of all of the witnesses because  
of memory loss, complicity in the scheme, dishonorable or dishonest conduct, or malice, the  
evidence is uncontradicted that Mr. MacMullin was in charge of this mortgage fraud scheme.  
Even if I do not conclude that he was a co-conspirator and direct principal, he is a party to the  
offense as an aider and abettor.  
   
Page: 15  
[9]  
Mr. MacMullin testified at trial on his involvement and activity. The Crown submits I  
should reject Mr. MacMullin’s evidence denying guilt.  
[10] The Crown asserts that Mr. Elander’s involvement goes beyond incompetence,  
professional negligence, and risky behavior. He either had direct knowledge or was willfully  
blind to the extent that he must have known that by lending the credibility of his professional  
name to these transactions, he was aiding and abetting fraud on financial institutions. The Crown  
asserts that Mr. Elander is a party to the offense and guilty of the frauds. Mr. Elander also  
testified. The Crown submits I should reject Mr. Elander’s evidence.  
[11] Finally, the Crown asserts that it is beyond question that the financial institutions were  
defrauded. The antics of the borrowers, the straw buyers, and whoever was manipulating them to  
provide misinformation is so incredible that the mortgage applications contain numerous  
substantial falsehoods. These were designed to persuade financial institutions to make mortgages  
when common sense establishes they would not have lent any money if they had knowledge of  
the true facts.  
[12] The Crown filed an 830 page factual brief in support of their position. It details the  
alleged frauds.  
B.  
The Defence  
1. Mr. MacMullin  
[13] Mr. MacMullin gave evidence. His position is that his evidence should be believed. He  
denies any knowledge or intention to commit fraud. His evidence also amounts to a denial of  
knowledge of potential deprivation to the financial institutions. Learned counsel also challenges  
whether the Crown’s evidence proves the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.  
[14] Counsel urges me to reject the evidence of Mr. Seremet. His evidence should be viewed  
carefully for several reasons, including a desire by this witness to minimize involvement by  
blaming Mr. MacMullin.  
[15] Counsel filed a 17 page written brief that makes the following points:  
Mr. MacMullin genuinely believed that the issue of residency of a property could  
be satisfied by a very short period of occupancy. Counsel points out that there was  
uncertainty in the evidence of financial institution witnesses about the financial  
institutions’ actual legal and technical requirements. When Mr. MacMullin passed  
on this information he was acting honestly and in good faith.  
There is no evidence of an artificial inflation of property prices for the purposes of  
obtaining a mortgage. The Crown is relying on inferential evidence: foreclosure  
prices or increases over a short period of time. That information is not  
   
Page: 16  
determinative and does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the property  
prices were artificially increased to cause a deprivation to the financial institution.  
(This argument overlaps the issue of a deceitful or dishonest act and the intention  
to cause a deprivation).  
Mr. MacMullin honestly and fairly believed that he could waive the difference  
between the mortgages and the purchase price of the properties that he controlled  
directly or indirectly. In essence, he is the only victim. (This argument again  
overlaps the issue of a deceitful or dishonest act and the intention to cause a  
deprivation). It is Mr. MacMullin’s position that if the Crown cannot prove  
beyond a reasonable doubt that the purchase price between vendor and purchaser  
was artificially high, in other words if at market value, then the waiver of the  
down payment did not affect the financial institutions security or risk, and should  
not determine Mr. MacMullin’s guilt.  
[16] Counsel also points out that the Court should be cautious in attributing too much  
knowledge to Mr. MacMullin about wrongdoing by Mr. Seremet when there is no proof of an  
exchange of this information.  
[17] Counsel concedes that some of the investment letters may have constituted creative  
bookkeeping, but they do not prove fraudulent intention. Last, counsel concedes that during the  
course of the trial, some witnesses confirmed that Mr. MacMullin had failed to deliver on certain  
promises he made to them, such as paying the mortgage payments for them, but that even if these  
amount to evidence of fraud on the witnesses, that misconduct is outside the indictment and  
should not be considered in any way to prejudice Mr. MacMullin’s entitlement to an acquittal on  
the charges before the Court.  
2.  
Mr. Elander  
[18] Mr. Elander gave evidence. He says his evidence should be believed. His evidence fully  
denies on a count-specific basis any knowledge of fraud. Alternatively, he argues even if I do not  
fully believe all of his evidence, it at least raises a reasonable doubt. Mr. Elander’s testimony is  
only challenged by circumstantial evidence for any suggested crime. And last learned counsel  
challenges whether the Crown’s evidence proves the case against Mr. Elander beyond a  
reasonable doubt.  
[19] The position of Mr. Elander is that whatever misconduct can be attributed to the co-  
accused is not Mr. Elander’s misconduct. He was a real estate lawyer in Alberta that had the  
opportunity to do repeated business for a client who appeared to be a mover and shaker in the  
real estate business. To the extent that any of the files reveal that Mr. Elander may have gone  
beyond the call of duty to assist his client is explained not by criminal larceny but by the fact this  
repetitive real estate business was desirable. Learned defense counsel submits that there are no  
smoking gunsin any of Mr. Elander’s files. On their surface, they appear to be routine real  
estate transactions, complete with report letters sent to the properties in question, and are  
 
Page: 17  
consistent with the honest and firm belief that the buyer was legitimate, as was the mortgage.  
Real estate work is largely conducted by paralegals. Alberta lawyers only provide supervision.  
The evidence of lack of attention to detail should be accepted by the Court. Neglect and  
delegation is not criminal.  
[20] Learned counsel for Mr. Elander points out that by the time Mr. Elander became involved  
in each file, the mortgage commitment had already been granted. It is impossible to ascertain  
from the mortgage instructions that mistruths contributed to that result.  
[21] One issue of concern in the trial is that the financial institutions require a statutory  
declaration which confirms the parties intend to reside on the property. In all cases, Mr. Elander  
either accepted a sworn declaration sworn before another commissioner of oath’s or personally  
documented a sworn declaration. The fact that a straw buyer was prepared to swear the property  
was their principal residence in fact provides Mr. Elander a defense to these charges.  
[22] A second key issue was certain down payments were waived. Mr. Elander indicates that  
he took instructions only from his client(s) and that he was never told the payments were being  
waived. Instead, he thought they were being collected directly by the seller from the buyer. He is  
therefore an innocent third party.  
[23] In sum, defense counsel points out that irrespective of whether I may feel that Mr.  
Elander was professionally negligent in the handling of these files, professional negligence falls  
short of criminal responsibility. Based on the principle of reasonable doubt, his client should be  
found not guilty.  
[24] Last, the so called ‘time stamp indicators- of developing knowledge of fraud, over time  
- identified by the Crown are not visible when returned into the entire file: a “can’t see the trees  
with signs on them because the forest hides themargument. Instead, my analysis has to be  
based on the circumstances at a time when mortgage frauds of this type were less common and  
not ‘on the radar’. The so-called time-line indicators should be approached in the context of an  
entire file or entire practice. It is unfair and inappropriate to just pull out and display particular  
items. Counsel points out that if these are viewed through the presumption of innocence, rather  
than a presumption of guilt, these warning signals are not the serious concerns alleged by the  
Crown.  
[25] Counsel for Mr. Elander filed a 38 page written brief.  
C.  
[26] The Defendants admitted that:  
the property value at risk in every mortgage exceeded $5,000.00,  
Admissions of Essential Elements  
the Crown has correctly particularized:  
o the date range of the indictment,  
o the name of the financial institution alleged to have been defrauded,  
 
Page: 18  
o the individual who applied for the mortgage, and  
o the property to which the mortgage related.  
Identity is not in issue  
These essential elements that flow from the particulars of the indictment are also accepted by me  
as having been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.  
III.  
The Layout of this Judgment  
[27] This judgment is a response to a large, complex, document-intensive criminal trial that  
involved many individual counts. I have adopted a decision organization that responds to this  
unusual analysis.  
A.  
The Schedules  
[28] This trial dealt with 41 individual allegations of fraud, linked by certain common  
participants. Key participants were Mr. MacMullin, Mr. Seremet and, on 22 of the alleged  
frauds, Mr. Elander. In such a trial, on a multi-count indictment, there will be extensive evidence  
which is of a general nature plus specific evidence relating to individual transactions.  
[29] This judgment is divided into two parts. The first consists of the general evidence: the  
background of the case, the evidence of the key players, a general legal analysis, the timing of  
the allegations through the indictment time period, plus a summary of the conclusions.  
[30] When confronted with numerous counts of similar behavior, care must be taken to avoid  
the legal error of allowing propensity evidenceto influence whether a count has been proven  
beyond a reasonable doubt. In this judgment, I will expressly indicate how I used certain  
evidence between the counts. Even when evidence is considered between counts, it is important  
that the trier of fact be able to isolate and identify evidence specific to each count upon which, if  
the evidence is accepted by the trier of fact, the decision is based. This is the purpose for the  
second part of this judgment, Schedule A, to provide clarity and transparency about the thought  
process leading to the decision reached on each of the counts.  
[31] Schedule A begins with the particulars of each count [as amended] followed by a land  
titles summary of key registrations: title tales”. Each count then contains an analysis of count-  
specific evidence, leading to finding of a fact or group of facts upon which I conclude:  
1.  
whether dishonest conduct [a deceit], and deprivation from it, as required for a  
conviction of fraud took place (the actus reus), and  
2.  
the mental elements: whether Mr. MacMullin (and as applicable Mr. Elander)  
were involved to the extent of criminal culpability (participation, with intention  
and knowledge).  
This division in the judgment creates a barrier against risk that propensity evidence’  
inappropriately influences the decision.  
   
Page: 19  
[32] One other schedule rounds out this judgment. Schedule B represents a time line  
submitted by the Crown but which I accept is accurate and is incorporated for reference.  
[33] Despite care taken in identifying individual conduct, and facts relating to specific counts  
of the indictment, given the length of the trial, an almost overwhelming number of documents,  
and the repetitive and consistent nature of the evidence of many of the witnesses about how they  
were encouraged to participate in the mortgage scheme, errors and misattributions of fact may  
creep into this lengthy judgment. None of these in isolation affect the outcome of the decision-  
making process. For me, at the conclusion of the trial, two images endure:  
1.  
that Mr. MacMullin had an incredible ability to persuade people to do things for  
him, including involving themselves (with him and to his economic benefit) in an  
illegal and fraudulent mortgage scheme; and  
2.  
he found in Mr. Elander, a professionally weak lawyer, willing to help him  
commit these frauds.  
B.  
The E-Trial Element  
[34] In total, 73 witnesses were called by the Crown, some over many days. Approximately  
90,000 pages of documents were accessible and available to the witnesses to augment their  
evidence. This was a document-intensive case involving a string of fraud allegations spanning  
nearly five years. The opportunity to refer to documents electronically was a great time-saver.  
Counsel estimated that we saved over two months of trial time by having access to electronic  
documents. Counsel for Mr. Elander had been involved in a document-intensive mortgage fraud  
case that had lasted 18 months. This case took approximately a third of that time. This case once  
again proved the utility of modern electronic technology. Sixty to seventy boxes of files stood in  
the courtroom but were rarely accessed. The well organized and indexed electronic resources  
were a superior alternative.  
[35] Both Crown and Defence counsel also indicated they appreciated the opportunity to  
control the exhibits electronically. Each had their own set of electronic exhibits. They could  
verify the accuracy of the material shown electronically to the witness against their own copy.  
They could also verify that the oral record identifying the exhibit was fair and accurate. This is  
important in the event of appellate review. Last, they could move the exhibits under their own  
control to present them to the witness at their speed rather than directing a clerk to bring up the  
exhibit. Strategic concerns and the use of these materials to assist in cross-examination were  
aided by that ability.  
[36] In a true e-trial, the clerk would control the exhibits once they were marked. This is  
consistent with a normal trial where the clerk produces the exhibits for the witness to review. In  
the Alberta context, this would guarantee the need for two clerks in each e-trial court room.  
Counsel would not have preferred that. Despite the skill level of the clerk, it is impossible for a  
 
Page: 20  
clerk to get the exhibit on the review monitors as fast as counsel, who know where they are  
going. What worked best in this trial is when counsel each used their set of matching materials.  
[37] The court room became a visual point of interest for visitors to the courthouse and school  
groups. Their ability to grasp and follow the questioning and the exhibit was enhanced by two  
large monitors that displayed the exhibits to the general seating in the courthouse. The Accused  
had access to electronic monitors. The IT department of the courthouse in Edmonton does a  
remarkable job of struggling to adapt an antiquated building in a new electronic age. It is  
appropriate for me to recognize that in this portion of the judgment.  
[38] The lead RCMP investigator, Cpl. Schmidt, scanned all of the documents using the scan  
techniques that were available to him at the time. His scanning program required that he place a  
bar coded piece of paper between each document for separation and sequencing. Without altering  
the paper copy the electronic version placed a number on the document. Also the scans were  
given a four digit number. This unique four digit ‘scan number, was the most common,  
practical, and exhibit specific reference point in the trial. I am satisfied that all documentary  
evidence is identifiable in the event of appellate review. Some of the files were collected outside  
of the time when Cpl. Schmidt did the bulk of his work and these do not have scan numbers.  
They are described in more detail by other electronic pdffile names.  
[39] The files were given exhibit numbers. Counsel agreed that the clerks could assign exhibit  
numbers in advance of trial, conditional on the documents being ruled admissible. This helped  
both Crown and Defence as the scanned pdf format documents were then electronically labeled  
in a way that made retrieval easier. The Crown did not use search engine litigation software to  
act as a retrieval agent, but instead provided both electronic and hardcopy spreadsheets for ready  
reference. The scheduled list of exhibits and the scan numbers were available as administrative  
exhibits. The Crown supplied the court with a thumb drive [flash drive”] at the trial  
commencement, and as the exhibits expanded over the course of the trial a CD disc near the end  
of the Crowns case. These were also marked as administrative files.  
[40] Courts are moving to electronic trials. As judges and counsel gain experience, there will  
be more use of this technology. It would be overly generous branding to call this an electronic  
trial because the paper was available and formed the actual exhibits. The reality, however, is that  
the Court and counsel defaulted, readily and eagerly, to the electronic tracking numbers / scan  
numbers. That is what I also use in this judgment. This was an electronically assisted trial’  
rather than an “e-trial. Nevertheless, the methodology worked, saved time, and is being utilized  
in this jurisdiction for other paper-intensive criminal trials.  
[41] The importance of electronic exhibits should also not be overlooked in the post-trial stage  
when a judge is attempting to analyze and assess the impact of 90,000 pages of documentation to  
determine who knew what, did what, and when they did it. While the preparation of a judgment  
of this complexity is never easy, trying to use a paper trail rather than an electronic one is  
difficult to imagine.  
Page: 21  
[42] Cautionary notes were also raised. Defense counsel point out that a trial conducted with  
electronic exhibits lowers, in their submissions, the barriers against the admissibility of irrelevant  
evidence. An example exists of one file which contained over 1100 pages, but only a few were  
ever referenced. In a paper trial, more attention to pre-trial paper reduction may have occurred.  
[43] Second, litigants search by e-word recognition. In this case, the RCMP had a standard  
pro forma sheet that they inserted between documents which contained a list describing  
numerous potential documents. For the investigators purpose they simply checked off a  
preprinted box. Thus, when the party searched for a land titles document such as: ‘transfer, the  
search list skewed the number of hits. This aggravated searching. The separation pages also  
significantly bulked upthe volume of electronic documents.  
[44] Counsel concluded that for future reference the concept of a pro forma separation page  
should be eliminated, if possible, and that counsel should still be vigilant about the admissibility  
of irrelevant documents. As for the legal element that flows from the admissibility of files, the  
files as a whole were relevant, although each page may not be important.  
IV.  
Background Facts  
A. Transaction Timing  
[45] The Crown produced a timeline, centered on the date the mortgage (obtained on the basis  
of alleged fraud) was signed by the borrower. I conclude that the timeline accurately reflects the  
timing of the stated signing of the mortgage; it is incorporated as Schedule B. The first mortgage  
fraud occurred in early 2000, the last around May 2004. Mr. MacMullin was involved in all 41  
counts. Mr. Seremet’s involvement continued from January 2001 [count 11] to May 2004 [count  
41]. Mr. Elander was involved from November 2000 [count 8] to February 2003 [count 30].  
[46] The counts follow a meandering time sequence, from the first [count 1], to the last [count  
41]. In count 1, the interim agreement of sale and purchase of real estate [also referred to as  
offer to purchase”, real property purchase contract”, or “real estate purchase contract” –  
REPC] upon which a mortgage application was based was created in very late 1999. That deal  
completed in early 2000. Like all, count 1 started with a REPC. The REPC was the basis for to a  
mortgage application to a financial institution. In count 1, the mortgage application was made  
directly to a bank. After a few transactions, mortgage brokers were used.  
[47]  
The last transaction occurred toward the middle of 2004.  
[48] As a rough guide, a higher numbered count occurred later in time then a lower numbered  
count. The exception is where a single piece of property was utilized twice. In those cases the  
property was sold in a non-arm’s-length transaction, once; reacquired by Mr. MacMullin, and  
then sold a second time. In that case, the count sequence is not intuitive. For example, counts 1  
and 2 did not occur proximate in time but relate to the same property. There are seven of these  
paired transactions:  
   
Page: 22  
counts 1 & 2 - property 1;  
counts 5 & 6 - property 4;  
counts 12 & 13 - property 10;  
counts 14 & 15 - property 11;  
counts 18 & 19 - property 14;  
counts 26 & 27 - property 21; and  
counts 32 & 33 - property 26.  
B.  
Who’s Who!  
[49] The real estate activity which led to the indictment was very sophisticated. Significant  
steps and precautions were taken by Mr. MacMullin to mask his identity. A significant number  
of alter egos were used, including:  
1.  
2.  
3.  
an extensive number of limited companies,  
corporate trade names, and  
fictional organizations.  
This section attempts to define who’s who in this tangled web. The descriptors in the chart  
summaries are part of this judgment, and are factual findings which I conclude from the  
evidence.  
[50] I start with the individuals:  
Name  
Descriptor  
Allan “Al” MacMullin  
A businessman operating in Alberta involved in real estate  
construction, purchase, and acquisition of real property, renovations,  
and financing. Active in a church. Highly involved as an Amway  
recruiter.  
Josip “Joe” Seremet  
A young impressionable college student who met Mr. MacMullin  
through Amway in 1999. He came to idolize him, acted as his  
apprentice or administrative assistant in connection with numerous of  
the alleged frauds. Prior to the trial, Mr. Seremet pled guilty to  
numerous counts in which he was jointly charged with Al MacMullin  
and/or Roy Elander. He gave evidence for the Crown in this case as a  
serving prisoner.  
 
Page: 23  
Roy Elander  
John Dunne  
An Alberta lawyer practicing in Red Deer, Alberta. Provided legal  
assistance to the financial institutions, the borrowers, and in some  
cases to Al MacMullin directly or indirectly in the sale, purchase and  
financing of the properties referenced in 22 of the charges.  
The former best friend of Al MacMullin who gave evidence  
indicating that he would on request act as a director or signatory for  
Mr. MacMullin’s companies. He became aware that his signature was  
forged on various documents relating to the counts. He admits  
authorising some fraudulent signatures but cannot say which ones. He  
admits that his name went on property but denies equitable  
ownership.  
Barbara Hong  
Met Mr. MacMullin through Amway in Victoria, BC. When she came  
to Edmonton, Mr. MacMullin persuaded her to become a real estate  
agent and her short-lived career ended with a Real Estate Council of  
Alberta investigation into real estate irregularities. She married Mr.  
MacMullin but was divorced by the time she gave evidence. She  
personally resided in a few of the properties purchased in the name of  
other individuals at the behest of Mr. MacMullin. She took title to  
one property.  
Marko Knezevic  
Marko Knezevic is the younger brother of Mr. Seremet. He was a  
high school student at the time these transactions started. Through the  
course of the documentation, he appears as a witness to many  
documents, a purchaser of numerous pieces of real property, a tenant  
in leases, and the signatory of various gift letters and business letters.  
He was none of these things. He was a high school student, who  
would occasionally help his older brother with casual labor. His name  
and bank accounts were used both by Mr. MacMullin, and his brother  
Joe Seremet to create an appearance of separate identities. His name  
on documents is a beacon of deceit!  
David Gorn  
A former bank employee in British Columbia who met Mr.  
MacMullin through Amway. He was encouraged by Mr. MacMullin  
to come to Edmonton, where Mr. MacMullin helped him get  
established as a mortgage broker. He participated in some  
transactions by collecting information and sending it on to lenders. In  
most cases, the information came to him from Al MacMullin. He  
admitted shame in his participation in the fraud scheme. His files  
Page: 24  
were not exhibits in this trial.  
David Humeniuk  
A former career banker turned mortgage broker who participated in  
some of these transactions by receiving information from Mr.  
MacMullin and/or Josip Seremet. He then forwarded this information  
on to the financial institutions to get loans. He advised that, he had a  
nasty habit of signing as witness when he in fact did not actually see  
borrowers sign.  
Rick Purdy  
Mike Kerr  
The individual, identified by Mr. MacMullin as entangling him in the  
Red Deer / Blackfalds area. Mr. Purdy was an Amway-connected  
acquaintance of Mr. MacMullin who acted as a straw buyer in at least  
one deal.  
A young MacMullin employee, featured in may transactions-  
including count 3. He had no money or assets. His name on  
documents is also a beacon of deceit.  
All of the persons identified in the chart gave evidence in this trial and their evidence is referred  
to in detail elsewhere both in this portion of the judgment and in Schedule A, where applicable.  
[51] Numerous trade names and corporate entities were also involved:  
LAM Developments  
International Inc.  
A personal investment and holding company during the relevant time,  
incorporated by Mr. Elander for Mr. MacMullin. As a corner stone  
finding, assets placed in this company’s name were effectively Mr.  
MacMullin’s assets.  
Knezevic, Dunne and  
The letterhead of a fictional firm, created by Mr. MacMullin, or by  
Dawson, Commissioners Mr. Seremet at Mr. MacMullin’s request. This entity was intended to  
for Oath, Conveyancers  
and Public Notaries  
look like a firm of lawyers, and act as real estate conveyancers for  
subsequent land titles transfers after mortgages had been obtained  
from the financial institutions identified in the counts of the  
indictment. The name was created as follows: Knezevic (the surname  
of Joe Seremet’s brother), Dunne (the surname of Mr. MacMullin’s  
best friend: John Dunne) and Dawson (either Mr. MacMullin’s  
middle name or the name of his son). A public notary was not  
associated with this firm, only Mr. MacMullin was a Commissioner  
for Oaths, and the letterhead was created solely to leave a false  
impression that this was a professional organization. I accept Mr.  
MacMullin’s evidence that he thought the creation of this non-entity  
Trade name registered  
September 2003;CR  
records  
Knezevic/notaries  
TN.pdf  
Page: 25  
was a good idea.  
Elpis Inc.: ‘building  
your dreams’  
An unregistered fictional trade name and letterhead created by Mr.  
MacMullin or by Mr. Seremet at his request, to create false  
employment letters and bonuses. [example see count 6, property 4(a)]  
Parallel Corporation  
A trade name used either by Mr. MacMullin or his company to create  
fictional investments to enhance the net worth of prospective  
borrowers. The actual documentation may have been generated by  
Mr. Seremet but I find that Mr. MacMullin was the controlling  
director and mind. This company would take title to property from  
time to time.  
854906 Alberta Ltd.  
operating as Parallel  
Corp  
Kings Developments  
Another MacMullin trade name used for variety in much the same  
way as Parallel Corporation, and Elpis  
854067 Alberta Ltd.  
A numbered Alberta Company owned by Mr. MacMullin,  
incorporated by Mr. Elander which acquired five lots in a residential  
subdivision in Blackfalds, Alberta.  
971298 Alberta Ltd.,  
1034469 Alberta Ltd.,  
1066888 Alberta Ltd.,  
1087407 Alberta Ltd.,  
Alberta holding companies utilized by Mr. MacMullin, to acquire  
properties. After a few uses, the company appears to be discarded and  
replaced by others. The directorship is either MacMullin or controlled  
by him.  
Dawson Enterprises  
A MacMullin trade name that received real estate commissions or  
finder’s fees for arranging sales. Registered in favor of Mr.  
MacMullin in 1997.  
C.  
The Canadian Mortgage industry  
[52] Several officers and employees of financial institutions gave evidence during the voir  
dire held on the admissibility of documents: R v MacMullin, 2013 ABQB 741. Although they  
were primarily giving evidence about copying documents the Crown took them, to various  
degrees, into a discussion about the mortgage business. This evidence became part of the trial  
evidence following the voir dire ruling.  
 
Page: 26  
[53] The main players in the residential mortgage business in Alberta are Canada’s major  
banks, regulated by the Bank Act, SC 1991, c 46. The Alberta Treasury Branch [“ATB”], Credit  
Unions, or Trust Companies, are regulated by parallel legislation: example Credit Union Act,  
RSA 2000, c C-32. To maintain fiscal credibility and to protect the financial system from  
extravagance (‘exuberance’ is the word attributed to the former Chairman of the Federal Reserve  
Bank in the USA), it is policy, and in most cases a legislated requirement in Canada that a  
regulated financial institution may not lend money secured against the value of real property  
unless the loan is of no more than 75% of the property value. Private equity lenders [such as  
EQUIPLAN, a legitimate mortgage company that made many loans to Mr. MacMullin’s  
companies] are not bound by these requirements. An exception to this equity requirement can  
occur when the mortgage default risk is insured by a third-party insurer [default insurance].  
[54] Between 2000-2005, in Canada at least two such entities were licensed and in operation:  
1.  
the well-known Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) Crown  
corporation; and  
2.  
a private insurance lender, GE Capital, a division of GE Capital Financial  
Services.  
[55]  
Insurance purchased from these organizations does not protect the homeowner/borrower  
but may (subject to claim proof) protect the financial institution against default. With this  
insurance, the default risk to the financial institution is reduced to zero (but not the insurance  
dispute coverage risk). With default insurance, the financial institutions are permitted to extend  
their loan-to-value ratio as high as 95%. There is an insurance fee charged for this insurance and  
paid for by the borrower which, when added to the 95% loan value, in effect means that in some  
cases, a person’s total mortgage approaches 100% of the value of their real estate (a 95%  
mortgage plus a 2.5% fee, would result in a 97.5% mortgage to value, registered on title). With  
so little equity in the property, the insurance companies and the financial institutions attempt to  
be as careful as possible to ensure:  
1.  
2.  
3.  
that the transaction is actually at market value for the property,  
the borrower is as credit worthy as possible, and  
the absolute precondition to insurability proposed use as a principal residence  
(not rental property) is achieved.  
D.  
The Alberta Law of Property Act  
[56] Alberta also has legislation that impacts on the conservative nature of the financial  
institutions. By virtue of provisions in the Law of Property Act, RSA 2000, c L-7; a financial  
institution is limited, against individual borrowers, to simply taking back the land in the event of  
default unless the mortgage is insured: Law of Property Act, s 40. This legislation has existed in  
Alberta since the 1930s, when government passed legislation limiting the financial institution’s  
 
Page: 27  
entitlement to the remedy of foreclosure in the case of personally owned residential real estate  
property and family farms. To facilitate higher ratio loans in Alberta, the government of Alberta  
removed that protection against deficiency judgments in foreclosure practices where the loan was  
a high-ratio insured loan: Law of Property Act, s 43.  
[57] Because of both factors - lending restrictions and enforcement restrictions - the potential  
lending financial institution requires as much independent information about the market value  
(true value) of a property as possible prior to making a loan.  
[58] The downside to this legislation is that on default of an insured loan in Alberta, the  
financial institution can get personal judgment against the borrower. Many witnesses in this trial  
learned too late that they faced significant credit risk when the deals turned sour. Not one of Mr.  
Elander’s files contained evidence of any warning to the straw buyers about this risk to  
themselves.  
E. Other financing concepts  
1.  
Market Value  
[59] Fair market valueis a misnomer; the fair’ is superfluous as a property sold and  
purchased at market value- how appraisers define the term - is ‘fair’. A financial institution is  
always interested in the market value of the property that they are mortgaging. A bona fide  
arm’s-length purchase and sale hits the sweet spotof the value, because an acceptable  
definition of fair market value is what an arm’s-length buyer, acting reasonably with no ill  
motive, is prepared to pay for a certain piece of property.  
[60] Canada Revenue Agency in one of their policy papers (Fair Market Value for Purposes of  
Part IX of the Excise Tax Act (Revised) GST/HST policy statement P-165R), defines fair market  
value for the purpose of GST collection on new residential housing as:  
Generally, the Department's position is that fair market value represents the highest price,  
expressed in terms of money or money's worth, obtainable in an open and unrestricted  
market between knowledgeable, informed and prudent parties acting at arm's length,  
neither party being under any compulsion to transact. [Emphasis mine]  
While this is a focused definition for tax purposes, the elements are the same whether the  
definition flows from business valuators, appraisers, or others expressing opinion on fair market  
value.  
[61] On one property [see count 33], Mr. MacMullin retained certified appraiser Bruce  
Anderson to appraise the property. [Humeniuk file scan 7145 p. 6 to 12/103]. The appraisal  
report provides a working definition of market value:  
The most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive and open market  
under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller, each acting prudently,  
   
Page: 28  
knowledgeably, and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus. Implied in this  
definition is the consummation of a sale as of a specific date and the passing of title from  
seller to buyer under conditions whereby:  
(1) buyer and seller are typically motivated;  
(2) both parties are well informed or well advised, with each acting in what he considers  
his own best interest;  
(3) a reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market;  
(4) payment is made in terms of cash in Canadian dollars or in terms of financial  
arrangements comparable thereto; and  
(5) the price represents the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by  
special or creative financing or sales concessions granted by anyone associated with the  
sale. [Emphasis mine]  
This definition also appeared in virtually every foreclosure where the financial institution had to  
prove market value, by appraisal, prior to a deficiency judgment.  
[62] The definition is a good working definition. It rejects any concept of financing or sales  
concessions granted by the vendor to the purchaser; a tactic that was rampant here as Mr.  
MacMullin did not collect deposits, waived down payments, and where required, informed the  
lawyers that he had received the money. The appraiser’s definition also implies that the market  
value was set by tension between self-serving purchasers, at arm’s-length, dealing with a self-  
serving vendor. In all but one of the 41 transactions identified in the counts [the exception being  
count 5, property 4(a)], there was no arm’s-length tension and no price negotiation. Mr.  
MacMullin set all the prices. Most of purchasers, straw buyers, never even saw the property and  
never cared. They were in it to earn a fee.  
[63]  
It is the financial interest of the two parties to the transaction - buyer and seller - that  
creates the probability that the negotiated purchase prices is a true indication of market value. In  
result, it is fair to say that the financial institutions have somewhat lessened their guard in terms  
of getting independent appraisals because an appraisal very often only confirms what the arm’s-  
length buyer and seller have achieved: a fair negotiated price.  
[64]  
Second, the financial institutions are attuned to the fact that a properly motivated real  
estate agent (in those cases where the real estate industry is involved) is also self-motivated to  
move properties fairly quickly. Overpriced properties will languish on the market and not earn  
the realtor any commission but instead cost the realtor in advertising and other marketing costs.  
Further, as the real estate industry is heavily regulated with a code of ethics the financial  
institutions have come to understand that realtors will, for business as well as licensing  
requirements, usually inspect the property and list its attractive marketing features, [a feature  
sheet] which provides a second independent view about the nature and state of the property. In  
this case many financial institutions insisted on a feature sheet and where a realtor was not  
Page: 29  
involved Mr. MacMullin prepared these feature sheets, or asked Mr. Seremet to do so. They all  
contained false information, and overstated the condition of the property.  
[65] Thus where there is a bona fide realtor operating at arm’s-length motivated by personal  
benefit, the financial institution gets a second level of assurance as to market value from the  
listing information. This delicate market value can be disrupted greatly if, in fact, the buyer and  
seller are not in an arm’s-length position but are simply creating a fictional REPC for their own  
purposes. It can also be disrupted if a realtor permits a manipulation of the market factors. Mr.  
MacMullin persuaded his girlfriend (later his wife), Barbara Hong, to become a real estate agent  
so that he could through his spouse both have access to the MLS listings and a means to create  
some listings with property descriptions that she had never inspected, and which were dishonest  
in their description. Her evidence confirms this reality. In the odd case, Mr. MacMullin would  
engage a realtor at a flat fee of $1,000.00, to put through a prearranged sale where Mr.  
MacMullin, or Mr. Seremet, would do the actual work. This was to create the illusion of market  
pricing. Those prices too were artificial.  
2.  
Location! Location! Location!  
[66] Location is important! The financial institutions and their insurer counterparts have  
created computer-based program analyzers to verify market value. These are virtual appraisals in  
which the target property is not actually inspected. By comparing existing sales by postal codes,  
the computer program can get a sense of the postal code valueof a property. If a postal code  
area in Edmonton is showing numerous sales in the $1 million mark, the electronic appraisal  
program will not view as suspicious a sale, even if it is artificially rigged, if it lies in the same  
postal code area, has basically the same per square footage and amenities, and is sold at about the  
same price. A virtual appraisal based on postal codes or geographic location and square footage  
cannot, however, assess the true condition of the property being vended but it is a method to  
provide additional information upon which the financial institutions can test a proposed  
mortgage.  
[67] In the explanations that Mr. MacMullin gave to one of the purchasers (count 3, property  
2) Mr. MacMullin appeared to know about this CMHC tracking program which he called  
EMILI. One of the bankers discussed the EMILI” program in detail. This program is a  
computer appraisal program that appraises a property not on its actual condition but on its square  
footage size, some of its notable amenities, and its postal code. Mr. MacMullin used this  
knowledge to commit frauds.  
3.  
Assessing Risk Factors  
[68] In addition to value, financial institutions and their insurers are concerned about other  
aspects of a real estate transaction that increase their risk. One such distinction is between a  
property purchased with the intention it will be a rental property versus one that will be occupied  
by the buyer as their personal (primary) residence.  
   
Page: 30  
[69] The industry accepts that the risk is increased for rental properties because in many cases,  
the owner of the property is counting on the rent to pay the mortgage. This is why the financial  
institutions have concluded that a rental property provides them more risk than a borrower-  
occupied property. One response to this increased risk is a demand for a larger down payment.  
[70] CMHC and GE capital would insure financing to the 95% value but only for people who  
intend to occupy the property as their principal (primary) residence. Numerous straw buyers  
independently gave evidence in different ways, levels of understanding and sophistication, that  
both Mr. Seremet and Mr. MacMullin had given them a distorted definition of what constitutes a  
principal (primary) residence. The conspiratorsspiel appeared to focus on the concept of  
changing intentions. Straw buyers who were concerned were convinced that simply going in the  
home and having a coffee, or sweeping out one of the rooms, or placing a chair in the living  
room, or having one meal in the new property would constitute residence.  
[71] For those less interested, the topic either did not arise or was described as not an issue.  
Mr. MacMullin gave evidence in this critical area of the case. He indicated that his  
understanding was that residency required little more than taking symbolic possession. He  
admitted that is what he told straw buyers. Mr. MacMullin’s evidence was confirmed by Mr.  
Seremet, who advised that was how Mr. MacMullin instructed him, too. Mr. MacMullin’s  
explanation and understanding has no air of reality.  
[72] The principal (primary) residenceissue spawned another problem. Some of the straw  
buyers already owned homes. In those transactions, the purchase of a new primary residence was  
inconsistent with the concept the straw buyer already owned a home. The result is that two  
untruthful fictions were created. The most common was to create a completely false,  
unconditional sale of a home from a straw buyer to a third-party (Joe Seremet, Marko Knezevic  
or one of Mr. MacMullin’s other youthful workers). This false document aided the fictional  
notion that the straw buyer was purchasing a new property as his or her principal residence [see  
count 11, property 9 as only one example]. False leases were also created to create the image that  
the former residence would become a rental property, clearing the way for a new principal  
residence. False REPCs occur often, leases less [see count 33, property 26(b)]. Occasionally,  
when Mr. MacMullin needed to reuse the property on another straw deal or a high interest  
second mortgage, a transfer would actually be registered, as Mr. MacMullin and Mr. Seremet  
became quite capable of registering Mr. MacMullin’s own deals [see count 32, property 26(a)].  
[73] Financial institutions also focus on creditworthy items and the ability of the mortgagor to  
pay. They will study things such as job stability, lack of debt, and a bona fide down payment  
source to ensure the bona fide nature of the real estate transaction. Therefore, the creation of  
false investment letters, false gift letters for the down payment, false employment identities and  
wages, all constitute misinformation in the mortgage application which falls within the definition  
of deceit contemplated in Criminal Code, s 380. All of those activities took place in one or more  
of the alleged frauds in many deals more than one type of misinformation occurred, combining:  
1.  
an untruthful investment letter or assets,  
Page: 31  
2.  
3.  
a non-existent property sale, and  
false employment information.  
[74] Misleading data of this scope obviously distorts the lender’s calculation of risk and  
increases the probability of lending in an inappropriate scenario.  
4.  
Taking Equity Out of Property  
[75] There is another lending reality! Financial institutions prefer not to lend on inflationary  
equity. To illustrate this simple concept, if a family purchased a home in early 2000 for $100,000  
with a $75,000 mortgage they have $25,000 of equity. If three or four years later the value of the  
home is $200,000 the owners will have obtained inflationary equity that the owners could  
finance to explore other opportunities.  
[76] However, in that situation, the individual will not be able to get a CMHC loan to take out  
equity. The homeowner will also be unable to finance a high percentage of value. In those cases,  
the homeowner might apply to their financial institution for what is known as a home equity line  
of credit [HELOC]. This may permit financing up to 60% of their value of the home. The  
maximum proportion permitted by legislation [conventional lenders] in this scenario is 75%.  
[77] However, if the homeowner persuades a straw buyer to purchase their home (or as here  
Mr. MacMullin arranges the straw buyer) then that straw buyer can apply for a mortgage for up  
to 95% of the property value, provided the straw buyer is prepared to assert that their proposed  
purchase will be their principal residence.  
[78] There are two ways to take home equity money out of a property. The first is with full  
disclosure to a financial institution accepting the lower financing ratio either through a new  
conventional (non-insured) mortgage or a HELOC. With proper disclosure, this is the legitimate  
mechanism to access equity in a residential property. The illegitimate and inappropriate way to  
do so is to enter into a sham REPC to get the benefit of 95% financing. One is a legitimate  
mortgage process, the other is a fraud.  
[79] Many of the straw buyers called this scheme pulling a mortgage. It was rampant in  
these transactions. Straw buyers who “pulled mortgages” were used three ways:  
1.  
2.  
3.  
to help the equitable owner extract equity, which was then destined for Mr.  
MacMullin’s pocket [see count 34, property 27];  
to create additional financing for properties in which Mr. MacMullin was already  
the equitable owner [see count 13 property 10 (b)]; and  
to provide financing to allow Mr. MacMullin to complete the purchase of new  
property, and if possible, also provide extra cash [see count 23, property 18].  
 
Page: 32  
5.  
The No Down Payment, Down Payment  
[80] A down payment (which usually includes an initial REPC deposit, the deposit then  
becoming part of the total down payment) is an integral part of a mortgage application. Financial  
institutions want to see real equity in a transaction. Several of Mr. Elander’s legal files [part of  
exhibit 171] reflect more than a passing concern about the existence of a down payment [see  
count 21 property 16].  
[81] Some financial institutions had a heightened expectation about documents to confirm the  
existence of these down payments, but all assumed that the legal community was completing a  
legitimate real estate deal. One financial institution required their legal counsel to report  
whenever deposits and down payments did not go through the lawyers trust account. Others  
insisted on being informed about unusual adjustments. All were relying on the legitimacy of the  
down payment stated in the REPC.  
[82] When Mr. MacMullin was on the witness stand, he indicated that he did waive down  
payments, but could not see how that fact should affect or concern the financial institutions.  
Usually, the deposit expressed in a REPC was not in fact actually paid, nor was the balance of  
the down payment. Mr. MacMullin took the position under oath that as this was his money, he  
was entitled to waive the receipt of it. He said he had seen it done in other places and,  
inferentially, he felt there was nothing wrong with this. In developing this theme, Mr. MacMullin  
validated the evidence of numerous straw buyers who had testified that they were told they  
would never have to make any deposit or down payment on any property they purchased. There  
is no air of reality to Mr. MacMullin’s assertion about waiving the down payment. This waiver in  
effect overstates (deceitfully) the market price of the property, in all cases no exceptions.  
[83] By contrast, when Mr. Elander took the witness stand, he was adamant that at no time did  
he believe a down payment was being completely waived. He was advised and told from time to  
time not to worry about a down payment because it had been collected directly from the buyer.  
Implicit in this evidence is the knowledge Mr. Elander knew that to report a transaction with a  
non-existent or waived down payment was potentially a fraud.  
[84] In a true arm’s length REPC, the failure on the part of the vendor to collect some of, or  
the entire purchase price, is a material change of circumstance. An event of this kind is a strong  
basis to infer the stated purchase price was overstated [market value fabricated] to facilitate a  
fraud. Mr. MacMullin in his evidence appears oblivious to this reality. Of course, when the  
transactions are not really at arm’s-length, then the purchase price, the down payment, and the  
terms of the agreement, including the bona fides of both purchaser and seller can all be  
manipulated for the purposes of obtaining mortgage money. Here they were! The manipulator -  
Mr. MacMullin.  
 
Page: 33  
6.  
The End of the Line  
[85] I take judicial notice that between the year 2005 and 2008, there was substantial  
appreciation in the value of most real estate properties in Alberta. This was a period of relative  
growth in the provincial economy.  
[86] A number of the straw buyers provided direct evidence of that. Some straw buyers who  
ended up getting caught with titles in their name, and who decided to tough it out for credit or  
credibility actually made money. One of these was current mortgage broker Grace Nichol,  
(uncharged piece of property) another was Mr. Marney [Count 15, property 11(b)]. In these  
cases, the straw buyer made a significant profit by keeping property for which they did not  
initially intend to become the equitable owner. Another couple who profited were Mr. and Mrs.  
Jim Large, who after dealing with Mr. MacMullin, had to pay $315,000.00 for a house they  
thought they bought for $260,000.00 [see count 28 property 22]. Despite this, when they  
ultimately sold the house, they captured significant real estate appreciation.  
[87]  
Had Mr. MacMullin held on to the properties and paid the mortgage payments, he may  
have avoided detection. The rapidly increasing real property prices from 2005 to 2008 would  
perhaps have generated $100,000 per property profit average (perhaps more) for a total of $4.1  
million. In some cases, much more profit might have been achieved. However, there were  
elements of a Ponzi scheme, to this program. Property was repeatedly cycled through further  
fraudulent mortgages because money was being extracted out of the process to pay the  
participation fees for earlier straw buyers, to make some mortgage payments for some straw  
buyers, and to fuel the financial needs of the participants. Most money went to the financial  
needs of Mr. MacMullin. Ultimately, like all fraudulent schemes, this one collapsed.  
[88] The collapse began in late 2003 to early 2004. The deceits became more glaring and the  
promised mortgage payment reimbursements failed to materialize. The straw buyers who pulled  
the mortgagesimply stopped paying. One or more of them complained to the police. Other  
collapses occurred because the straw buyer surrendered their legal interest to valueless  
MacMullin companies who never intended to pay, or to homebuyers who could not qualify for a  
mortgage on their own and could not pay. When some mortgages went into foreclosure - with  
personal recourse to the legal owners - the straw buyers realized, now too late, that they faced  
civil and potential criminal jeopardy.  
V.  
Real Estate 101  
A. Introduction  
[89] With only a superficial review, an individual file from the Roy Elander law firm may  
appear regular and unremarkable. A more contextual review reveals a very different truth. When  
one assembles the timing sequence of these transactions, with the various land title transfers and  
registrations, a different reality emerges. Mr. Elander was an eyewitness to numerous real estate  
transactions with substantial irregularities.  
     
Page: 34  
[90] The nature of these irregularities is more easily explained with a basic background about  
Alberta real estate. Three lawyers gave evidence on this subject:  
1.  
2.  
3.  
Mr. Cruickshank, a Red Deer area lawyer who was storing Mr. Elander’s files  
after Mr. Elander retired,  
Mr. Brett Barclay, who replaced Mr. Elander as Mr. MacMullin’s ‘go tolawyer,  
and  
Mr. Moore, a Red Deer lawyer who acted on one side of one deal.  
[91] Mr. Elander also discussed a typical real estate transaction. Counsel suggest that as a  
Judge, formerly from general practice who reviewed legal files, I am able to apply a certain  
amount of informed common sense by using my own life’s experiences.  
B.  
The Real Estate Purchase Contract [REPC]  
[92] The REPC is the anchor document in a real estate transaction. One lawyer went so far as  
to say that without that, you have no deal. Once the REPC ends up at the lawyer’s office, the law  
office file preparation is often done exclusively by highly trained real estate conveyancing  
assistants. The lawyer operates to review the file, and provide supervision, staff guidance,  
troubleshooting, and acts as a professional liaison between the clients.  
[93] Even though a real estate transaction lawyer is more a ‘general’ than a ‘foot soldier’, the  
buck ultimately stops with the lawyer. He or she must provide the client (or clients if multiple  
sides) the professional service required to protect their unique interests. Many lawyers have  
gotten into trouble by believing that Alberta real estate is routine. Even if that was every true  
historically, it is certainly not today, nor during these frauds.  
[94] Mr. Elander provided little, if any, oversight of his real estate files. Nevertheless, he  
expressed confidence in his staff. The reality is that he was careless, incompetent, and not always  
available to provide the detailed supervision needed in a practice of this kind. While Mr. Elander  
thought he may have been selected for his ability to do this work, the reality is that he was  
selected because Mr. MacMullin likely identified his weaknesses: Mr. Elander was inattentive to  
detail, but anxious for fees. His office struggled financially.  
[95] Mr. Elander asked few, if any, questions, and relied heavily on his staff. Mr. Elander was  
not the only lawyer who was involved in Mr. MacMullin’s many fraudulent transactions;  
however, several were not used more than once or twice. In contrast, Mr. Elander showed  
amazing staying power, and even at the end was not prepared to admit that he stopped due to an  
appreciation of the ongoing fraud in which he was involved. So it was that Mr. Elander would  
receive these offers and the mortgage instructions. Mr. MacMullin’s shadow fell over  
everything, even when the deal did not appear to involve him directly!  
 
Page: 35  
[96] The REPCs in wide use in Alberta are fill in the blankforms. They call for a deposit, a  
further deposit and estimated net new mortgage proceeds to equal a purchase price. When these  
go to the financial institution for mortgage approval, as they did here; the financial institution  
assumes (and relies on the fact) the deals are at arm’s length, the numbers are accurate and the  
cash to the new mortgage is being paid. On the Elander deals, the REPC often said that he would  
receive the deposits. He rarely did.  
C.  
Transfer and Affidavit of Transferee  
[97] In Alberta, it is common for financial institutions not to advance (or allow distribution of)  
their mortgage money until property title has actually transferred from vendor to purchaser. The  
document that does this step is a transfer of land”. A transfer of land is a multipart form that  
requires that the vendors sign it, but also includes a sworn affidavit from the purchaser or his  
agent (in many cases that was Mr. Elander) which includes as information:  
1.  
2.  
3.  
the value of the property,  
the purchase price, and  
who was the source of the property.  
[98] This document is called the affidavit of transfereewhich is taken under oath before a  
Commissioner for Oaths. Because it is sworn, this document must be accurate, and from a  
business point of view, the document sets some of the ‘value’ fees charged by the Land Titles  
Office [LTO].  
[99] The affidavit of transferee also sets the amount of compensation in the event of a Land  
Titles error. Completed properly, the affidavit is also a fraud prevention document. The affidavit  
of transferee for some of the transactions which involved Mr. Elander display gross  
irregularities, obvious and glaring on their face. Nevertheless, Mr. Elander swore those  
documents. Often two affidavits of transferee with widely different values were sworn  
simultaneously [see count 26, property 21(a)].  
D.  
The Vendor’s Lien Caveat  
[100] The practice in Alberta that financial institutions do not advance their funds until after  
real property registration has spawned two other real estate practices:  
1.  
2.  
registration by a vendor of a “vendor’s lien caveat”; and  
the “transfer back” agreement.  
[101] The vendor’s lien caveat protects the vendor against the risk that they will not get their  
money. Many law firms use this document as part of their standard practice, however others do  
   
Page: 36  
not. The vendor’s lien caveat is registered either before or at the same time as the real property  
transfer and the mortgage documents.  
[102] Mr. Elander indicated that it was his universal practice to register a vendors lien caveat,  
unless:  
1.  
2.  
the transaction was not at arm’s-length (he actually used the phrase “between  
family members”) or;  
there was no cash to close at risk: i.e. the purchase price consisted of an  
assumption of an outstanding mortgage plus the down payment (cash difference)  
already paid.  
[103] This evidence given by Mr. Elander was revealing because in reality, he rarely used a  
vendor’s lien caveat on any of Mr. MacMullin’s deals, despite him describing that step as a  
universal practice. On one deal count 16, he did it at the specific request of the notional vendor  
Mrs. Hendry. On another, he didn’t do it even though he registered title in favor on Mr.  
MacMullin before the vendors were paid [see count 21, property 16].  
E.  
The Transfer Back  
[104] While the vendor’s lien caveat is not universal, the ‘transfer back’ is. This practice  
requires the purchaser’s law firm to have the purchasers sign a transfer of the property back to  
the vendor. This document is referred to as the “transfer back”. Although not all lawyers employ  
the tactic of registering a vendor’s caveat, all lawyers hold in their file a transfer back whenever  
some of the purchase price is coming from a new mortgage.  
[105] This is used as an emergency document to reverse the real estate transaction if the  
mortgage is not advanced. Conversely, the use of this transfer back after the mortgage has been  
advanced, would constitute a most egregious breach of trust by the lawyer. The emergency  
purpose for the transfer back ended when the mortgage funds were advanced. At that point,  
prudence would dictate the transfer back agreement should be destroyed, or marked in some way  
to prevent its use. The purchaser should be advised of that precaution.  
[106] Any use of a transfer back agreement by a lawyer many months after a real estate  
transaction has effectively completed is such a significant irregularity that an event of that kind,  
in and of itself, is strong evidence of criminal activity. On at least one transaction [count 16,  
property 12], Mr. Elander used a transfer back agreement without any apparent confirming  
instructions on the file, and long after the mortgage had been placed. When the transfer back was  
used, the straw buyers were at risk because a foreclosure was ongoing.  
[107] The transfer back put the property back in the name of the original vendor. There was no  
independent instruction located in the file to authorize this step, nor a report letter of any type.  
The use of a transfer back in that fashion is strong, overwhelming, and compelling proof of  
knowledge that the transaction was not at arm’s-length. The simple retention of the transfer back  
 
Page: 37  
agreement for that length of time before use means that when the document was prepared and  
signed, the knowledge and plan existed that the transfer back should be retained to assist in a re-  
conveyance flowing from a not at arm’s-length transaction.  
F.  
The Intervening Purchaser  
[108] It is neither uncommon nor illegal for an individual to purchase real estate and ask that  
the transfer not be fully completed as the purchaser may intend to flip the property. There is  
nothing illegal about buying and quickly selling a property. Intervening purchaser transactions  
are used on occasion by builders who will purchase land from a developer, build a home on the  
land and then utilize the transfer that the builder received from the developer to transfer the  
property directly to the ultimate homeowner. However, conversely these expedient ways to  
complete real estate can be used by the unscrupulous as price manipulation and for fraudulent  
purposes. In the context of the Alberta real estate practice, the term “intervening purchaser”  
means an individual who purchased property from the initial vendor while directing that the title  
be registered in the name of someone else.  
[109] It is mandatory for the affidavit of transferee (see para 97 and 98 above) to be modified to  
reflect the existence and status of the intervening purchaser and also that the transfer reveals the  
intervening purchaser. This is because the affidavit of transferee must include a sworn statement  
about the identity of the intervening purchaser who sold to the ultimate title holder.  
G.  
Real Estate Math  
[110] A law office file that is really a refinancing of home equity has a distinctly different look  
than an arm’s-length purchase and sale. In an arm’s-length purchase and sale, the law firm  
prepares (irrespective of what it may be called) a double entry bookkeeping ledger in a form that  
is transparent and reviewable by the clients that outlines the economics between purchaser and  
seller relating to the sale transaction. Lawyers call this document the statement of sale and  
adjustments. On some of Mr. Elander’s files, this form is found and uses this terminology.  
[111] By contrast, in a re-financing of property, there is simply an accounting for mortgage  
proceeds. The law firm receives the net mortgage money from the lender and distributes it as  
directed, which is usually to pay out existing financing, other debts, the legal fees for the  
mortgage work, and the net of the mortgage advance to the borrower / homeowner. That  
document might be entitled a statement of mortgage monies received and disbursed”.  
[112] Both of these documents might be prepared, or consolidated, into one document for each  
client in a real estate transaction consisting of new financing overlaid on an arm’s-length sale. In  
that way, the financial information important to one person in the transaction is segregated for  
discussion with them and likewise for the other client. Accounting records of this kind, which are  
created by a law firm, support the real estate math and provide economic explanations to the  
clients. Documents of this kind are indicators the transaction, the prices, and values set out in the  
   
Page: 38  
transaction are legitimate, because clients truly interested in the deal want to know about every  
penny!  
[113] By example, a $100,000.00 purchase in which a $10,000.00 deposit was obtained by the  
realtor would be reflected in a document that shows the purchaser owes the remainder:  
$90,000.00. The typical statement of sale and adjustments is never that simple because there is  
usually a real property tax adjustment. For example, if the sale closed on August 1, in Alberta the  
land taxes for the current year would already have been paid to December 31. An arm’s length  
vendor wants to recover the share of the taxes that were paid on behalf of the purchaser. There  
may be other similar adjustments. The key, however, is that in an arm’s-length transaction, both  
buyer and seller, are keenly interested in financial issues and want this accounting. The  
relationship between the purchaser, the purchaser’s financial institution, and the lawyer may lead  
to other accounting items which have to be identified and listed.  
[114] The companion document referred to in some law firms as a statement of monies  
received and disbursed” is also of vital importance to the purchaser, because it usually indicates  
the amount of additional money the purchaser has to bring in to close the deal. Typically, this  
statement reflects the net amount received from the mortgage, and might also show other  
requirements such as the deduction of the lawyers legal account for the services provided on  
behalf of the buyer. In the example developed above, if the net mortgage proceeds was only  
$80,000.00 the buyer would have to bring in the additional $10,000.00 ($100,000.00 -  
$10,000.00 deposit - $80,000.00 actual mortgage advance = $10,000.00 due, before other  
adjustments). This information is of obvious and vital importance to the purchaser.  
[115] In a true arm’s-length sale, it is rare and highly suspicious if the purchaser does not have  
to bring in extra money, unless the deposit reflected in the REPC was unusually high. When the  
need to bring in extra money disappears, other explanations are a strong indicator of an irregular  
transaction and warrant investigation, including the vendor:  
1.  
2.  
after the fact indicates they have received all of the down payment, or  
takes steps to make the deal work, such as agreeing to:  
a) pay the legal fees,  
b) adjust the sale price,  
c) waive the property tax adjustment,  
d) waive delay interest charges, or  
e) pay other debts or costs of the purchaser.  
[116] Virtually, every one of Mr. Elander’s real estate files (to which we had access) in this  
case had some accounting irregularity. The most common ones were that purchaser’s money  
never had to be brought in, and the vendor was paying the purchaser’s legal fees. One of Mr.  
Page: 39  
Elander’s employees of the day gave evidence. She referred anecdotally to the accounting and  
bookkeeping on these files as “shifty shit”. Another memo Mr. Elander received from his  
conveyancing staff on one deal referred to the situation as “bullshit.  
[117] A review of Mr. Elander’s files reveals that even in notional arm’s-length sales where  
both vendor and the purchaser should be vitally interested in the cash, the accounting between  
the lawyer and his clients was more in the nature of the accounting for mortgage proceeds. It was  
rare for any of Mr. Elander’s files involving these frauds to show a true statement of sale and  
adjustments. More commonly, there was simply an accounting for the mortgage proceeds as if  
the sale had not taken place but the property was instead only refinanced. It was common for  
there to be little or no reference to property tax adjustments, often neither purchaser nor vendor  
[when neither appeared to be, Mr. MacMullin] actually paid the legal fees. Instead, legal fees  
were deducted from the mortgage. There was rarely any adjusting cash. On new home sales  
where GST is a mandatory calculation there was instead no GST calculation. From an economic  
and accounting perspective, these transactions look more like refinancing than arm’s-length  
sales.  
[118] In many transactions, inappropriate information appears to be supplied to purchasers, if  
indeed they were in fact true arm’s-length sales. There was a lack of any separation in identity  
between Mr. MacMullin, the cash recipient, and the straw buyers. For example, if the purchaser  
is buying a $100,000.00 property and has paid for it, the purchaser should little care and the law  
firm should rarely supply the purchaser the intimate details of where the vendor’s money went. It  
is enough for the purchaser to know they paid the purchase price in full. However, on these  
transactions, documents describing the cash flow analysis included intimate details about Mr.  
MacMullin’s other deals or internal transactions at the Elander law firm. The presence of this  
information in a notional report letter to the purchaser appears unusual.  
[119] A witness from the Law Society of Alberta gave evidence which indicated that the files  
marked collectively as exhibit 171 [Mr. Elander’s files] represented the best effort of the lawyer  
who was storing the files and completed the affidavits in sorting out confidential material  
relating to clients who did not release their private concerns in the file. It is possible that the files  
do not present the entire picture because Mr. Cruickshank (who had undertaken by contract the  
storage of Mr. Elander’s files) may have interpreted the client authorizations too narrowly.  
[120] The actual files presented to the Court from the Law Society of Alberta were marked  
only for identification, and not as exhibits. No application to change that status was ever made. I  
am left with the advice and evidence of the trustee from the Law Society of Alberta that the  
original files may contain additional information that should have been included in exhibit 171.  
However, while I should be careful not to read too much into a missing document, that same  
argument does not apply to an existing one. If one of the real estate file documents is irregular,  
and if, at the conclusion, an inculpatory inference from the document appears more logical in  
relation to the evidence as a whole, then it is open for the Court to make that inference [see  
related discussion about inferences from documents not put to the defendants in paras 567-579].  
Page: 40  
VI.  
The Indicia of ‘Deceit, Falsehood or other Dishonest’ Conduct  
A.  
Straw Buyers who “Pulled Mortgages”  
[121] Each trial develops certain understandings and terminology. For the purpose of this trial,  
many of the individuals who were involved with Mr. Seremet, Mr. MacMullin, or others  
involved in these mortgage transactions referred to themselves as straw buyers. I will adopt a  
definition for this trial that a straw buyer was an individual who would take title a property and  
apply for a high-ratio mortgage (there was one exception when a conventional mortgage was  
applied for) in a non-arm’s length transaction while never intending to reside in the property, nor  
be the equitable owner of the property. In all cases, the equitable owner was Mr. MacMullin,  
although in most there were attempts to disguise that fact.  
[122] The straw buyer’s role was to supply employment and financial information and sign  
where told. In turn, the straw buyer would receive a fee for supporting the scheme. The concept  
of pulling a mortgageis equivalent to applying for a mortgage”, however in the context of  
this case, I will use the phrase pull a mortgagein the same manner as most witnesses. This  
meant the act of getting a mortgage to assist another person: the equitable owner of the property.  
Both the terms straw buyerand pulling mortgages” are sinister terms, indicative of deceit.  
Mr. MacMullin, in his testimony, said he resented that terminology. He explained that the straw  
buyers were really “investors” who knew exactly what was going on.  
[123] The straw buyers came from all walks of life. They came from all educational  
backgrounds. One had a PhD in statistics, others were university and college trained, and still  
others had trade certificates. They were drawn into this mortgage scheme for a number of  
reasons: desperation, excitement, greed, and a maniacal belief in the concepts that were being  
explained as a legitimate business program to get ahead. At the end of the day, many endured  
grief, economic loss, unhappiness, and had their credit negatively affected. If there were any  
winners amongst the straw buyers, they were difficult to find. Even those who ultimately did  
make a profit only did so by hanging on to the property they were stuck with. They said they  
were stressed by the process and would rather have not been involved.  
[124] The straw buyers included an actor, an office clerk, a university instructor, teachers, a  
war veteran, an honorably discharged soldier, several machinists, several oilfield workers,  
salespersons, housewives, insurance brokers, a mechanic, a contractor, a gambler, a bar  
supervisor, clerks and government workers, truckers, mechanics, and retail salespersons. Many  
of them were very young at the time they became involved with Mr. MacMullin. Many had new  
families and financial problems. All were much wiser when they gave evidence.  
[125] Many had another common connection: the multilevel marketing network of Amway  
(Quixstar). The mention of Amway in this lengthy trial is not intended to discredit Amway. That  
organization itself had nothing to do with this mortgage fraud. However, Mr. MacMullin was a  
highly respected upper-level Amway salesman who had recruited a significant down line.  
Amway sells cleaning and household products by recruiting numerous independent contractors.  
   
Page: 41  
Once you are recruited into the Amway fold, anybody that you bring in becomes part of your  
down line. As membership in your down line grows and expands with their own down lines,  
you continue to get an overriding commission on all of their sales.  
[126] Mr. MacMullin appeared highly placed in Amway. His recruits considered him their up  
line. He was described by different witnesses as a gold memberor a platinum member”,  
terms I take to mean somebody with an active lengthy down line. Several of the witnesses  
reverently gave evidence that “Al” was very successful selling Amway. Amway is intended to  
operate as a part-time job, but if you become successful it could become a full-time career. It  
attracts people who are interested in extra money and notionally, it attracts risk takers or  
entrepreneurs. There are frequent meetings where charismatic salesmen instill an evangelical,  
enthusiasm for the concept of getting rich faster, achieving economic freedom faster, and being  
successful.  
[127] At the end of these meetings, Mr. MacMullin would also assess and gauge the potential  
gullibility and larceny of those present. He looked for people he could use as investors, straw  
buyers, or recruiters.  
[128] Mr. MacMullin had a godlikeimage amongst the down line. This group of mostly  
younger men and women or younger couples viewed his charismatic easy-going style as very  
appealing and seductive. His self-aggrandisement and his situational appearance of wealth did  
not hurt either. One witness [count 32] gave evidence that Al MacMullin had burned” him three  
times but the witness kept coming back for more. At one point, he conceded it was pretty stupid.  
[129] Mr. MacMullin was described by some of the witnesses as having high credibility; a  
man of great personal integrity; a wonderful person; a religious person. This image was  
enhanced by some of the charitable work that Mr. MacMullin would do and his connections to  
one of Edmonton’s churches. Mr. MacMullin even found a home for his minister utilizing a  
straw buyer [see count 4, property 3].  
[130] Mr. MacMullin, and to a lesser extent Mr. Seremet, were described as unbelievable  
salesmen. One articulate witness indicated that he had taken to stalking one of Mr. MacMullin’s  
places of business (a balloon shop on 118 Avenue, Edmonton, AB) to catch him and get money  
for mortgage payments which had gone into arrears. Each time: Al would talk me down” and  
the straw buyer would go away happy, believing once again in this man and his dream.  
[131] It is clear that to the young, naïve, impressionable, and those with limited business  
experience, Mr. MacMullin is a charismatic force to be reckoned with. He could convince the  
absolute unbeliever of the righteousness of his cause, his dreams, his goals and more  
importantly, their entitlement to participate and get rich with him. Following the Amway model,  
everyone that Mr. MacMullin persuaded to get involved in business with him was also  
encouraged to recruit others. They were all victims and he was an economic predator. It may not  
have started that way but it ended there!  
Page: 42  
[132] Mr. MacMullin also found people to participate in these business arrangementsthrough  
his church. One individual that he met at his church was sold first on the proposition of investing  
in a construction renovation project involving a house, later persuaded to pull a mortgage for a  
family to help them out of their dilemma, [see count 34, property 27] and finally to pull a  
mortgage on the home being renovated [see count 33, property 26(b)]. This individual, Al  
Ouellette, took detailed and careful notes. When he realized that he had been victimized, he  
began tape-recording the conversations he was having with Mr. MacMullin and Mr. Seremet.  
Mr. Ouellette and his family are deeply religious. Mr. MacMullin informed Mr. Ouellette that  
God encouraged him to allow Mr. Ouellette to invest. Mr. Ouellette lost over $50,000.00 in one  
or more transactions. Mr. MacMullin’s involvement in this loss is clear; God’s involvement is  
less obvious.  
[133] Another source of business contacts for Mr. MacMullin were some of the tradesmen and  
workers that he would come in contact with in what appears to be a legitimate, although  
unsuccessful, building and renovation business.  
B.  
The Pitch  
[134] Mr. MacMullin told his young apprentice, Mr. Seremet, and others that to get people to  
do what “you want”; you have to find out what they really need. If they were tired of working,  
you needed to convince them that you could show them a way to an easier, less stressful life  
ahead. If they were in debt, you could show them a way out of debt. If they wanted nothing for  
themselves, you could appeal to their charitable instinct to help someone else get a home that  
they would not otherwise be able to afford. Those who wanted to learn about real estate and  
investing could receive an education by watching as they participated. If they needed better  
credit, then a few deals would give them the credit needed and as a bonus, the profit to buy their  
own personal home. Whatever the need that is what you would supply.  
[135] Mr. Seremet eagerly embraced all of these concepts and became quite adept at marketing  
them. However, even Mr. Seremet recognized that his youthfulness and his lack of business  
experience did not give people the same confidence in him that they had in Mr. MacMullin.  
Witness after witness described Mr. MacMullin’s unbelievable ability in marketing and  
salesmanship.  
[136] The sales pitch was simple. An individual with a reasonable credit rating would be  
approached to lend his name to getting a mortgage. No work was involved and the promoters  
would arrange everything. It was said to be legitimate because there were lawyers involved who  
had approved it. There would be no cost to the “investor” (i.e. the straw buyer). The down  
payment would be made by Mr. MacMullin’s organization; a few mortgage payments would  
initially come from the straw buyers account (for appearance sake), but would be reimbursed by  
Mr. MacMullin’s organization. The legal fees would be paid by Mr. MacMullin’s organization.  
The mortgage broker and lawyer would be all arranged by Mr. MacMullin’s organization. All the  
straw buyer had to do to earn his fee was supply his financial information, sign the standard  
 
Page: 43  
lawyer-reviewed documents, and allow his account to be used to make a few mortgage  
payments.  
[137] For those who inquired or were cautious enough to question the arrangement, it was all  
marketed as being lawyer endorsed. For those who ever directed inquiry about the requirement  
of principal (primary) residence, Mr. MacMullin and Mr. Seremet would indicate in a knowing  
way that there was a loophole in the law and that intentions can and do change. An intention to  
reside in the property could be factually satisfied by any minimal indication of possession.  
[138] After the mortgage had been in place for six months to a year, it would be transferred to  
someone else, and the mortgage assumed. There appears to have been no discussion about the  
personal recourse element to a high-ratio mortgage either by Mr. MacMullin, Mr. Seremet, or by  
Mr. Elander as part of his duties as the lawyer to the straw buyers. The standard legal practice of  
warning buyers in writing about personal recourse in high ratio mortgages is not found on Mr.  
Elander’s files.  
[139] The fees promised to the straw buyers were usually $1,500.00- $2,000.00 per mortgage  
pulled. Some higher net worth individuals were promised $5,000.00. One investor, Al Ouellette,  
with good credit was paid a big fee with a quick turnaround for making an investment loan. He  
was hooked! The fee was likely generated from another straw buyer. One of Mr. Ouellette’s  
relatives was also paid a large fee, as part of Mr. MacMullin’s straw buyer grooming process.  
[140] Behind ‘the pitch’ was one reality: Mr. MacMullin did not get a paycheck, was in a cash-  
intensive business, deeply in debt, had an ex-wife looking for assets, a new wife looking for ‘the  
good life’, and he operated with a lavish lifestyle. As his first ex-wife described, Mr. MacMullin  
took on numerous businesses, often that he had no experience in, and was always short of cash  
and spread too thin. His idea of buying an undervalued property, fixing it up, and selling it at a  
new, justified, higher value was not inherently unreasonable. That business model is not illegal,  
and it was comforting to prospective investors who could identify with real estate appreciation.  
Unfortunately, that is a very cash intensive business, and if you are not doing the work yourself,  
it becomes harder to make a profit. If you are spread thin and unable to supervise your projects,  
relying instead on young inexperienced people to fill the role of contractors and builders, you  
will get what one experienced builder [Mr. Jim Large] described as “the worst construction  
imaginable. On one foreclosure, the TD appraiser was worried about structural defect on a  
Blackfalds, home. Furthermore, the projects will not complete to a point that a legitimate arm’s-  
length sale can be achieved. As your need for money accelerates and desperation sets in, you  
start buying the properties and then simply inflate the price through the transfer process using  
straw buyers, not the bona fide renovation process.  
[141] To generate money, Mr. MacMullin embarked on a slippery slope. First, he went to  
nonconventional mortgage lenders (private high-risk lenders) who would lend on value but at  
high interest rates and large bonuses. In one instance, a lender of this kind charged an effective  
interest rate of over 40%! When these alternatives could not overcome the need for cash, Mr.  
MacMullin began to borrow from friends and acquaintances, often at near criminal interest rates.  
Page: 44  
To accomplish that, he created overly generous investment agreements. When these investment  
agreements could not achieve the desired result, he turned to mortgage fraud. Mr. MacMullin  
exploited his Amway connections, his church, and referrals from other prior contacts to develop a  
network of individuals who would pull a mortgage, for a fee.  
[142] In this manner, Mr. MacMullin conducted his scheme of pulling mortgages in numerous  
transactions. He varied the procedure as necessary to make a transaction work and to convince  
the straw buyer to participate. Deceit was involved in every deal. Mr. MacMullin admitted the  
essentials of the pitch in his evidence.  
[143] While I have not convicted him on every count, I stress that even in those cases where I  
do not find him guilty that is only because the probability of his guilt or the suspicion of his guilt  
did not coalesce into proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I have no doubt he was the ringleader and  
a party to these frauds, either as a direct participant, or as aider, and abettor.  
C.  
Deal Specific Indicators of ‘Deceit, Falsehood or Other Dishonest Conduct’  
[144] As the evidence unfolded, a pattern of common deceits developed. Some of the  
arrangements demonstrate a talent for mischief and connivance that verges on the unbelievable.  
[145] I will review some of the specific kinds of misconduct that occurred in these transactions.  
The misleading statements and deceptive tactics fall into three general subgroups:  
1.  
Manipulation of real estate purchase contracts [REPCs]. Several different forms  
were used; including those published by the self-help press, as well as those  
authorized for use by licensed Alberta realtors.  
2.  
3.  
Manipulation of the background information going into the mortgage  
applications.  
Incorrect statements of what was a person’s principal (primary) residence  
(purchaser to occupy property as a home).  
[146] Each of these will be studied in turn. No matter how outrageous, how over the top, or  
how scandalous certain conduct was, each of these incidents still represents evidence only  
relevant to its own count, unless this deceitful tactic was so general that it goes to knowledge, or  
forms a part of a repeated pattern. Caution has been taken to avoid finding guilt on one count  
because of the outrageous nature of what is perceived to be fraudulent conduct on another.  
D.  
Manipulation of the Real Estate Purchase Contract [REPC]  
1. Sale at Inflated Price  
[147] Mr. MacMullin, and in some cases Mr. Seremet, found people who legitimately wanted  
to sell their property. An example of this is Mr. and Mrs. Johnson and the sale of their property  
     
Page: 45  
[see count 3, property 2]. Mr. MacMullin suspected that what the vendor wanted for the property  
was less than what the CMHC, EMILI computer assessment program would accept as a value for  
the property. Mr. MacMullin concluded it would be appropriate to write up an offer at a higher  
value, but pay only the lower market value: what a seller will sell for, and a buyer will pay.  
[148] In this particular case, what the vendor wanted out of the property was $25,000.00 cash in  
hand; he felt he could achieve that at a fair selling price of $99,000.00. Instead, the REPC was  
for $107,000.00. Count 3 is an example of the first type of interim agreement manipulation. The  
sale is legitimate but the purchase price was inflated with the buyer and seller reaching an  
informal agreement that the real sale price is something less. Completing this sale with a straw  
buyer who was prepared to certify that he will be using the home as his principal residence  
allows for a sufficiently large enough mortgage that the mortgage is adequate to complete the  
purchase with no money down and provide some additional cash then taken out. The price was  
inflated by about 10%, offset with 95% financing. The result was the property was paid for with  
nothing down. Mr. MacMullin received a finder’s fee.  
2.  
The Fictional Real Estate Sale to Assist a Homeowner  
[149] The second type of deceitful REPC occurred when a homeowner did not want to sell but  
felt they needed (often at Mr. MacMullin’s urging) to remove equity from the home. The most  
poignant example of this comes from the evidence of Ms. Chin [see count 34, property 27 - also  
count 17, property 13, Horboway sale, and possibly count 16 the Hendry deal]. Mrs. Chin and  
her husband were desperate. She had been in a motor vehicle accident, their car was damaged,  
her husband lost his job, and her wage as a clerk could not make ends meet, their computer was  
obsolete. Despite this, they had their own home. They met with Mr. MacMullin as they believed  
he would save them.  
[150] Mr. MacMullin was referred to them through other church members. His idea for them to  
get out of debt was to go deeper into it! They would finance their home in such a way that they  
could extract all of its equity. They would then invest the equity with Mr. MacMullin; the return  
on the equity would pay their mortgage payment.  
[151] The Chins obviously thought this was wonderful and they signed what Ms. Chin  
described as a pretend dealat a price selected by Mr. MacMullin. The straw buyer was Mr. Al  
Ouellette and his wife. In this case, the sale took place, but with no change of possession. The  
Chins assigned the net sale proceeds to Mr. MacMullin for his use, although he did supply them  
with a wreck of a car and a rebuilt computer: ‘give the people what they want’.  
[152] This was the second type of interim agreement manipulation: a fictional sale for the  
purpose of extracting equity but where the existing owner would remain as the equitable owner  
and the cash would end up with Mr. MacMullin. In the end, the Chins had to pay thousands extra  
to buy their own home back. The investment with Mr. MacMullin did not pay the mortgage  
payments; the Ouellette’s did, until they confronted the Chins, and together realized Mr.  
MacMullin had duped both families.  
 
Page: 46  
3.  
The Sale of a MacMullin Property to a Straw Buyer  
[153] Another sale variant occurred when Mr. MacMullin (either directly or through one of his  
alter egos or close associates) owned a property but needed to extract as much equity as possible  
from the title. In that case, a straw buyer sale would be arranged where Mr. MacMullin would  
sell on a non-arm’s-length basis, with the prices set by him. Mr. MacMullin would receive all the  
mortgage money and remain the equitable owner [see count 6, property 4 (b)].  
[154] As a variant, in some cases, Mr. MacMullin would not yet own the property. He had  
made his deal with a third-party to buy the property, than use his contacts to firm up a straw  
buyer to buy the property from Mr. MacMullin for a greater price. He would sometimes use the  
intervening purchaser approach [see count 23, property 18]; but other times actually registered a  
transfer between the true arm’s-length sale and the ‘straw bought’ funding mechanism [see count  
24, property 19].  
[155] These formats represented the majority of the deals while the Chin deal referred to above  
was less common. Rarely did the straw buyers have anything to do with the REPC details or the  
mortgage. Their involvement was to meet the lawyer and sign. In some cases, Elander at the end  
and Barclay from the beginning, the documents were sent out to sign so Mr. MacMullin and Mr.  
Seremet provided the oversight. Almost universally, the promised mortgage payment  
reimbursement, and straw buyer fee, failed to materialize.  
4.  
The ‘No SaleSale  
[156] The third REPC manipulation was a complete sham, in which title never transferred. It  
was necessary in cases where the straw buyer pulling a mortgagealready owned a home. In  
that case, one could not reasonably assert that the new home was going to be the straw buyers  
principal residence, so a totally fictional sale was created where the buyer did not intend to sell,  
nor was it ever intended that a transfer of title would occur. The unconditional REPC would be  
supplied to the financial institution to reflect that the borrower had an absolute sale of their  
existing home. The price was structured to appear real and to create the illusion of the down  
payment which was necessary to satisfy the financial institution [see count 23, property 18].  
[157] From a mortgage fraud point of view, these types of agreements are pure gold. They  
would explain why the buyer needed a new principal residence, and where the down payment  
was coming from, and prove that the buyer was a stable sort who had been able to handle a real  
estate deal in the past.  
[158] This approach had a variant. On some occasions, Mr. MacMullin wanted to reuse a straw  
buyer so he would at that point take the property out of their name utilizing one of his  
companies, Mr. Seremet or Mr. Knezevic [see count 26 property 21 (a)]. This is really a ‘no sale’  
sale because Mr. MacMullin was throughout the equitable owner and is simply restructuring  
title. He would then occasionally use this to get one of those high interest mortgages that were  
referenced earlier to create further funding. [See Count 11, 16 and 17, where Mr. Campbell and  
   
Page: 47  
Mr. Reger as straw buyers were transferred out so they could be reused by Mr. MacMullin on  
other frauds.]  
5.  
The ‘No Move In’ Leases  
[159] In some instances, post-transaction ownership of a true residence could be maintained if  
the existing property could be explained away as being unsuitable to the straw buyer family who  
still wanted to retain the property, but instead turn it into rental property.  
[160] On at least one transaction [see count 33], a series of leases were created between the  
owner, Mr. Ouellette, and the unsophisticated teenage brother of Mr. Seremet, Marko Knezevic,  
and another. This was intended to create the impression that the homeowners needed a new  
property as a principal residence because they were going to rent out the existing home. Of  
course, these leases, like the no salesales referred to previously, were all fictional.  
[161] Even though the straw buyer had agreed to participate, they were kept in the dark about  
this level of deceitful detail. That is where Mr. Seremet and Mr. MacMullin’s willingness to  
forge signatures delivered best value to the fraud. It is also the reality that at least in the case of  
the mortgage applications used by David Humeniuk, the place where the applicant signed was on  
the new page where all of the transaction details could be withheld from the straw buyers who  
would simply sign an innocuous signing page and would not be tempted to review the  
scandalizing, deceitful content of the application, assuming they even cared. Since Mr.  
Humeniuk acted as a witness but didn’t ever see anyone sign the signatures, even of willing  
straw buyers, could well be forgeries.  
E.  
Propping Up the Mortgage Application  
[162] In addition to REPC manipulation there are many other ways the mortgage applications  
were propped up by spurious information. All of these can be summarized as deceitful,  
dishonest, untruthful packaging. These misstatements made the borrower appear more viable.  
[163] In my earlier description of straw buyers, I mentioned that one was an actor. I was  
wrong! They were all actors, playing the role of the legitimate home purchaser and mortgage  
applicant. These “actors” would sometimes have blemishesto which make up and props would  
have to be supplied and applied to hide these unattractive defects! Mr. MacMullin and Mr.  
Seremet were the makeup artists. The list of props and makeup now follow.  
1.  
Pretend Employment  
[164] Where straw buyers had nonexistent or unworkable jobs, Mr. MacMullin had enough  
companies that he and Mr. Seremet could create employment letters at will. The most odious  
employment letter created relates to a transaction in which a straw buyer and his disabled wife,  
who was a recipient of AISH (Assured Income for the Severely Handicapped), had a job  
miraculously created for her so that her AISH income, which is taxable income appearing on line  
     
Page: 48  
150 of her tax return, became a legitimate office worker’s salary and dovetailed perfectly with  
her tax assessment. She needed extra money for closing so a bonus letter appeared! [see count 6,  
property 4(b)]  
[165] Witnesses gave evidence that Mr. MacMullin owned a balloon and party business. On  
one application, a worker with an inconsistent job history suddenly became a $48,000 per year  
manager at the balloon and party business [see count 30, property 24]. The witness confirmed in  
his testimony he had nothing to do with the balloon business.[see count 30, property 24].  
[166] Another approach to assist the artificial creation of down payments was through  
occasional bonuses where the deceitful employment letter would also be accompanied with a  
false bonus letter, confirming that due to superb performance or a better than average business  
year, the employee was going to get a significant bonus just in time to close their new real estate  
transaction. These bonus letters were required in direct response to a request from a financial  
institution asking to see the closing costs, as well as the down payment before closing the deal  
[count 6].  
2.  
Fictional Down Payments  
[167] The fictional down payment category of misleading information contains three subtypes:  
1)  
Some financial institutions will accept a gift letter to explain a down payment.  
Fraudulent gift letters were created, signed by the parents of the straw buyers, and  
supplied to the financial institution. In one case, a legitimate gift letter for one  
transaction was used without the knowledge of the straw buyer to launch another  
transaction. In those cases, the same financial documents supplied for the first  
transaction were then used fraudulently for a second deal.  
In other cases, there was no intention or ability on the part of the parents or  
relatives of the straw buyers to make a gift. Those letters were simple fiction. The  
gifts were never made.  
2)  
3)  
Some financial institutions will not accept gift letters. In those instances, the  
fictional down payments came from either the no salesales, where the straw  
buyer appeared to sign a sales agreement for the sale of his existing home  
unconditionally and at a price, which when the normal real estate payouts  
occurred, would leave some remaining equity. That remainder would then form  
the down payment. In one deal, the fiction revolved around the sale of a Cadillac  
vehicle [see count 8 property 6].  
Occasionally, straw buyers would have on their application a reference to an  
investment account. Documents would be created in which a ledger-like  
transaction was reflected showing a significant investment, perhaps two years  
previous, coupled with a written request to withdraw some of the investment to  
 
Page: 49  
purchase a home. The investment company (usually Parallel Corp. - a Mr.  
MacMullin company trade name) then sent a letter congratulating the purchaser  
on their prudent decision to buy a home and waiving the lock-in requirements of  
the investment to provide a down payment [See count 7, property 5].  
None of these investment accounts existed. Mr. MacMullin gave evidence that  
they did exist because the straw buyers in question were working for him and the  
account represented accumulated ‘sweat equity’. I reject that evidence and  
argument. If the sweat equity argument had been accepted, it wouldn’t have  
mattered - the investment companies had no money so couldn’t have paid the  
down payments anyway.  
[168] At trial, the straw buyers simply smiled with amusement, cringed, shook their heads, or  
clinched their fists when the Crown took them through those documents. In most cases, the straw  
buyerslevel of understanding was limited to their agreement to participate. The paperwork  
involved was often fictional and forged, except for items such as the basic tax, bank account  
information, a void check, and employment information, which were supplied by the straw  
buyers. Some witnesses were seeing the deceitful documents for the first time at trial.  
3.  
Erasing Credit Blemishes  
[169] The third area in which the applications had to be propped up was to erase credit  
blemishes. In many cases, Mr. MacMullin’s money was used to pay off credit cards so that the  
paid out credit card voucher could be sent in with the mortgage application. In a weird cycle of  
money, sometimes the very mortgage advance (contrary to the mortgage instructions) was used  
to pay off the buyer’s debt. The net effect was to further diminish the real proceeds of the “sale”,  
reducing further the stated market value.  
4.  
Creating Fictional Interpersonal Relationships  
[170] Still need a prop; nothing was impossible for Mr. MacMullin! One man became a fiancé  
to a woman he never met, did not know, and could not identify if she had entered the courtroom  
to confront him.  
[171] This new fiancé was needed to explain the sale of two houses (hers and his) and a  
subsequent joint tenancy purchase. The happy future bride and groom were selling their  
individual homes to live together before the nuptials. The bridewas indeed very happy, but  
with her existing husband - not her co-straw buyer spouse-to-be. In another deal, two males were  
given a gay persona to explain their new family home.  
[172] The most vicious creation in this category involved a married street-wise couple. They  
were impressive honest witnesses! Both had good jobs and a good credit rating. When they  
initially heard how they could make some money by buying houses, they were curious so they  
went to a meeting with Mr. Seremet. The couple provided some of their financial information.  
   
Page: 50  
The husband’s employment, while lucrative, was more sporadic. The wife’s employment, while  
less remunerative, was very lengthy and reliable.  
[173] As a couple, they discussed this, and unlike the other straw buyers, were immediately  
turned off by the proposal. They intuitively concluded that something was not right. Undaunted,  
Mr. MacMullin suggested that the wife be put on title with another man to do a deal. Both were  
offended by that suggestion. In one understatement of the trial, the husband said: it just didn’t  
seem rightfor his wife to be on title with another man.  
[174] Still undeterred by rejection, the wife’s identity was completely and fraudulently taken  
and placed on a mortgage with another man. Mr. Seremet admitted under oath that he  
commissioned the wife’s signature under demand and duress from Mr. MacMullin. I accept this  
evidence. The woman was not present, and Mr. Seremet did not know if she ever signed the  
document. She did not - her identity had been stolen!  
[175] I accepted her testimony without reservation. On this point, I also believe Mr. Seremet.  
This was an instance of nothing less than identity theft [see count 37 property 30].  
5.  
The Dishonorable Mentions  
[176] Finally we come to a collection of oddball props and blemish erasers.  
[177] One straw buyer supplied a cheque for the purpose of the automatic debit of the mortgage  
payments. The address was incorrect, so the cheque did not align with the story that the straw  
buyer was selling his principal residence. No problem for Mr. MacMullin. The cheque the straw  
buyer delivered was copied, reappeared with a new, more fraud-friendly address [see count 40,  
property 33]. Another straw buyer was short the closing costs. Mr. MacMullin met him at the  
ATB, deposited money in his account; got a printout then had the straw buyer withdraw most of  
the money and give it to Mr. MacMullin. The deposit slip with the higher balance was sent to the  
financial institution [see count 38, property 31].  
[178] In several cases, ‘bad location’ excuses were created for frequent sellers. The most  
disingenuous was an explanation that a Canadian of Chinese ethnicity was moving as a result of  
an unfavourable Feng Shui assessment [see count 27, property 21(b)]. No such assessment or  
belief existed!  
[179] Between fictional REPCs, paying off bills, creating spouses, creating fictional  
investments, employment histories, and pairing up more than one straw buyer who just could not  
do the deal on their own - 41 of these transactions took place.  
[180] The last dishonorable mention is identity theft on a second transaction. How this worked  
is that the straw buyer agreed to do a deal for a fee. Once they were connected to one deal, all of  
their financial data, payroll information, and personal finances plus the void cheque that they  
gave for the mortgage payments were simply recopied, attached to another deal, and forwarded  
again to the mortgage broker. In this situation, you have a straw buyer who has agreed to  
 
Page: 51  
participate on one deal but who ends up on a subsequent not approved deal [these identity theft  
deals include Ms. Lamouche who rejected the whole scheme but also her husband on a property  
that did not fund]. Rodney Milford [count 13, property 10(b)] agreed to do a deal than had his  
identity reused without permission, as did Eric Marney [count 36, property 29]. Finally, Lance  
Cipperley and Chris Rauckman were planned to be used without their consent, but the deal was  
reversed. [property 11 not funded - see discussion part of count 14 and 15]. I am satisfied that  
Mr. MacMullin was behind all of these most basic frauds- identity thefts.  
F.  
Ignoring the Residency Requirement  
[181] The third area of concern is that in 40 of the 41 counts, the mortgage which was applied  
for was a high-ratio mortgage, one with a low down payment. A mortgage of this kind was only  
available to purchasers who intended to make the home their principal (primary) residence. The  
applications were all structured in that way and often an explanatory narrative was created in the  
remarks section of the application to discuss this residence and the borrowers reasons for  
moving to that location.  
[182] What Mr. MacMullin says he believed about the definition of a principal residence and  
what he told the straw buyers is disassociated from reality. A principal (primary) residence, even  
though not defined in any of the mortgages or commitment letters, cannot be established by  
something as simple as some isolated symbolic act of possession. The phrase, which is defined  
for many situations such as tax obligations, must in this case be given a common sense meaning.  
[183] The straw buyers all took statutory declarations or signed certificate letters about the  
residency issue. These appeared in various forms or formats as approved by the financial  
institutions, or as recommended to the financial institutions by the lawyer doing the transaction.  
At minimum, these documents asserted that the borrower intended to live in the home. Some also  
included a confirmation that no part of the home was going to be rented out, and that the entire  
purchase price was coming from the straw buyer’s own resources and the mortgage.  
[184] The straw buyers generally gave evidence that none of them intended to ever live in the  
homes. In many cases, the homes were not even habitable. In some cases, the homes were  
purchased for another purpose. Other properties were purchased to assist the real resident  
homeowner. While residency was never defined in any of the commitment letters, I will apply  
common sense in rejecting in the strongest possible terms that the primary residence requirement  
is satisfied by having a meal in a premise, or sweeping out the floor, or having a cup of coffee  
on-site. This proposition is absurd.  
[185] There is a second element to the residency issue. At the time of taking the statutory  
declaration or the certificate, an intention had to exist that the property was going to become the  
purchaser’s principal (primary) residence. An individual could have a bona fide intention to  
 
Page: 52  
move into the home, but then events occur after the signing of the statutory declaration or  
acknowledgement letter which changes that intention.  
[186] That was not the case here. Witness after witness gave evidence that they never intended  
to move into the home. The straw buyers did not consider the property theirs. They often had  
never even seen it. It is one thing to have a legitimate intention to make a home your residence,  
followed by unexpected unusual circumstance that conspires to change that. I can think of  
examples, such as a death in the family, loss of employment, or some intervening property  
damage. But to go into a transaction for a fee, never intending to live in the home, never  
intending even to take possession of the home and knowing that this true state of affairs exists  
when you sign the statutory declaration or certificate, must constitute deceit , or “other dishonest  
conduct” as contemplated in Criminal Code fraud.  
[187] In one transaction [count 32], the Chin sale to Ouellette, the buyers never intended to  
move in. Mr. MacMullin put the whole deal together and marketed it on the basis that the Chins  
would not have to move out of the home and would not have to share their home with the  
Ouellettes. That is exactly what happened! Mr. and Mrs. Chin never left the home. Mr. and Mrs.  
Ouellette never moved in. Yet a first mortgage was drawn by Mr. and Mrs. Ouellette which  
provided direct funding to Mr. MacMullin on the basis that the Ouellettes had applied for a loan  
to purchase a new principal residence.  
[188] I listened carefully to Mr. MacMullin’s discussion about principal residency on the  
witness stand and the hearsay entrainment of where he got that information from. The regulatory  
expression of the principal residence concept of the day may well, as was argued forcefully by  
Mr. MacMullins counsel, be different than what was required by the financial institutions. By  
word, understanding, and document requirement, the financial institutions were lending 95%  
financing to a non-rented principal (primary) residence property. Sure, one might not live there  
all year, but no loophole in terminology can bridge an intention to acquire a mortgage to fund  
someone else’s equity on the basis of a mischaracterized residency requirement. It has no air of  
reality. Further, I am satisfied Mr. MacMullin knew this!  
G.  
Reassuring the Straw Buyers  
[189] In every case, with varying levels of detail and sophistication, straw buyers were told that  
there was nothing illegal or improper about the transactions in which they were involved. It was  
all good, controlled through lawyers so the straw buyers would have no reason to worry about  
the legality of the process and result. The straw buyers supplied their payroll and credit  
information as well a blank cheque. They were all told that the mortgage payments would come  
out of their account for a few short months, but that the straw buyers would be immediately  
reimbursed. The property would then be taken out of their name and go to the ultimate true  
owner. The straw buyers would have helped somebody get a home.  
[190] Straw buyers were reassured by the alleged legal nature of these transactions. Perhaps  
with a touch of personal greed, they elected to get involved. Some would get their fee and feel  
 
Page: 53  
good about the deal, not realizing that it was another straw buyer on another deal that created the  
money for their payment. Other times, the deal did not go so well but the straw buyer still got out  
with most of their skin and was willing to try again.  
[191] In one case, all three deals went bad and the investor straw buyer was talked into repeated  
activity on the promise that with each new deal, all of the money he was owed from the old  
would be paid. This ‘double or nothing’ response illustrates the hold and attachment that Mr.  
MacMullin established with these naïve straw buyers.  
[192] Most straw buyers were in it for the money and for a better life, but at least one of the  
straw buyers [Mr. Milford] initially became involved to help out a person he knew, with whom  
he identified, and who was so poor that she could not otherwise have obtained a home. The straw  
buyer succumbed after resisting numerous requests from Mr. MacMullin and others. His  
evidence was refreshing and candid. He knew it was dishonest conduct, but he went ahead as a  
Good Samaritan.  
VII. The Evidence of the Main Players  
[193] Mr. MacMullin, Mr. Elander and Mr. Seremet all testified. I will start with the evidence  
of the fraud’s ringleader, Mr. MacMullin.  
A.  
Mr. MacMullin’s Evidence  
1. Background  
[194] Mr. MacMullin recites his troubled youth, observing his alcoholic father repeatedly beat  
his mother. He describes the physical, sexual and mental abuse he sustained as a youth. When  
14, he and his then stepfather relocated from Ontario to Fort McMurray, Alberta. There, he  
completed high school and worked at odd jobs. He appeared to have some interest in electrical  
work but gave that up for an entry-level job at Safeway. The entry-level job at Safeway segued  
into work within the meat department, and, ultimately, management.  
[195] He started dating his first wife during that period. They relocated to Edmonton. At some  
point after that move, he met his best friend: John Dunne. Mr. Dunne was a meat cutter for  
Safeway. They became fast friends. Mr. MacMullin indicated that he closed down surplus stores  
for Safeway. He testified that Safeway was really his only structured job with a regular  
paycheck.  
[196] In Edmonton, he and his wife built their home from the ground up. He had learned  
something about electrical work in Fort McMurray. Working with other trades, Mr. MacMullin  
learned how to do most construction jobs. After he left Safeway, he never again had a traditional  
job. He tried different things. He began buying homes to renovate them for resale at a higher  
price.  
     
Page: 54  
[197] Mr. MacMullin found religion at 20 years of age. He opines that the Bible is the best  
business reference book in existence. He became a salesperson for an Edmonton area  
homebuilder. He indicated that this homebuilder taught him how to close real estate deals with  
no down payment. He gave two examples:  
1.  
A program of financial institutions called a cashback program. In a cashback  
program, a financial institution agrees to make a loan within the proper lending  
parameters but then gives the borrower a certain amount of cash. In turn, this cash  
is used for the down payment.  
2.  
The second method had the builder sell a home with upgraded extras (perhaps  
upgraded cabinets, or countertops). The buyer would direct a return to the original  
specifications, reducing the price through a lower quality substitution credit. (I  
take this example to mean a house is sold for, say, $90,000.00 with granite  
countertops, but if regular countertops are installed the buyer is then compensated  
with a $3000.00 credit representing the difference between standard countertop  
and granite). The credit is then used as a closing adjustment.  
[198] Mr. MacMullin had health problems. His friend John Dunne supplies him with a juice  
drink sold through a multilevel marketing scheme which healed him. Mr. MacMullin began  
promoting the healing power of the product for Mr. Dunne. He was introduced to Amway,  
another multilevel marketing program, and liked the opportunity to help people succeed. Mr.  
MacMullin confirmed that many of the “investors”, (his preferred term for the straw buyers),  
came to him via his Amway connections. Mr. MacMullin said he never made any money out of  
Amway because he was reinvesting his income into books and tapes used as inspirational  
messages to encourage others to join.  
2.  
Scope of Mr. MacMullin’s Business  
[199] Mr. MacMullin testified that he was involved in many other transactions (hundreds more)  
than contained in these 41 counts. To illustrate the vastness of his business empire, Mr.  
MacMullin said that over time, he had engaged around 55 lawyers, including some from the  
largest firms in Alberta. However, he does discuss some of the major projects that appear in  
these 41 counts. His evidence on these projects follows.  
a.  
The Kathmarkham / Chickakoo Project  
[200] Mr. MacMullin indicated that as people became aware of his success, they wanted him to  
show them how to make money buying and selling real estate. He admits that he found four infill  
lots in a subdivision near Edmonton (the Cass Markham subdivision) and another lot a short  
distance away in the Chickakoo Estates. His intention was to assemble an investment group, get  
financing, and build five single-family homes. Mr. MacMullin concedes that he found the project  
and put together a group of investors.  
   
Page: 55  
[201] The project ran into difficulty as his lawyer of the day did not make him aware of a  
restrictive covenant which required homes of a certain size. An individual living in the  
subdivision noticed that the MacMullin homes were undersized, and the project was halted. Mr.  
MacMullin’s financing dried up and the investors became discouraged. The project failed. The  
lawyer and others were to blame.  
b.  
The Blackfalds Project (Blackfalds, Alberta)  
[202] Mr. MacMullin was introduced to Mr. Rick Purdy in Red Deer through Amway. Mr.  
Purdy wanted Mr. MacMullin to teach him to be a land developer. This led him to the Blackfalds  
project [see counts 12 to 14]. However, Mr. MacMullin was stuck in the project when Mr. Purdy  
failed to deliver on the promised financial investors. Mr. MacMullin then was the one who must  
complete the project. He testified he was forced to borrow some bridge financing to get the  
project started, but the project remained undercapitalized.  
[203] Mr. MacMullin was unable to properly supervise the Blackfalds project because of his  
workload in Edmonton. Mr. MacMullin explained he was placed in a financial dilemma because  
of the failure of his investors to contribute. Others were to blame.  
[204] While discussing the Blackfalds project, Mr. MacMullin admitted he borrowed money  
from some individuals in Red Deer who did not like how their investment was doing. An  
investor with a relatively small investment (identified only as “Fred”) was particularly upset.  
This led to an incident where Fred mercilessly beat Mr. MacMullin in a restaurant while others,  
including the restaurant owner and an accountant from a prominent accounting firm, looked on.  
[205] Mr. MacMullin indicated a female server was the person who finally came to his rescue,  
but not before he was significantly beaten. Charges follow, but there is no prosecution. Mr.  
MacMullin explained. On the date set for “Fred’s” trial, the Crown Prosecutor lobbied for  
“Fred”, pointing out that “Fred” was going through a tough divorce and had gotten carried away.  
Mr. MacMullin testified he was asked to drop the charges and he apparently did so. In doing so,  
he implicitly discredits a nameless prosecutor for failing to prosecute a serious life-threatening  
assault. Mr. MacMullin is a victim.  
c.  
The Liberty Building Project  
[206] Mr. MacMullin takes us to another near success. He had a deal to purchase the Liberty  
Building on Jasper Avenue and 105th street, Edmonton. Mr. MacMullin’s plan was to convert it  
from an office tower to commercial space on the main floor, with residences on higher floors.  
[207] Mr. MacMullin was ready to close, but he and his first wife had become estranged. She  
obtained a lawyer who was skilled enough to have all of Mr. MacMullin’s accounts frozen. He  
therefore could not purchase the Liberty Building. Instead, a friend bought the project and used  
his idea. However, Mr. MacMullin had a second chance on a portion of the Liberty Building  
because he was able to take over a couple of floors and create his own condominiums. His ex-  
   
Page: 56  
wife’s monetary aggression forced Mr. MacMullin to only deal in cash. She sabotaged his  
Liberty Building project. He is a victim of an aggressive divorce lawyer.  
3.  
Count Specifics  
[208] Mr. MacMullin’s evidence continued. He is referred to some properties involved in the  
criminal fraud counts. Mr. MacMullin confirmed that he made some building improvement to  
those properties. He listed the improvements. The other counts are not mentioned.  
4.  
Deceitful Documentation Details  
[209] Mr. MacMullin gave careful evidence about certain documents upon which mortgages  
are based and which were submitted to financial institutions. One group are Canada Revenue  
Agency [CRA] documents such as confirmatory tax assessments. He swears that he never  
altered or knowingly submitted a false CRA document to any financial institution. Mr.  
MacMullin was shown a few third-party employment letters. He indicates that he never  
submitted an altered or false third-party employment letter to any financial institution. He was  
shown a very few other documents. These are more sinister - he denies authorship of those.  
There was no discussion or evidence given about the woman on AISH who had a fictional job  
created for her as an employee of one of Mr. MacMullin’s corporations. There was no evidence  
given about the straw buyer who is documented as having a (non-existent) $48,000.00 per year  
job in Mr. MacMullin’s balloon shop. In short, Mr. MacMullin’s evidence was selective and for  
the most part, related to issues that the Crown does not contest.  
[210] He explained his relationship with Mr. Seremet. He indicates that he was very fond of  
Mr. Seremet, a younger person with a difficult upbringing. Mr. MacMullin only wanted to help.  
He never indicates specifically that Mr. Seremet was the boss, but instead claims that after Mr.  
Seremet received some training from him, Mr. Seremet became the person in charge of the  
paperwork. Mr. MacMullin was the “worker bee”.  
a.  
The Down Payment Issue  
[211] Mr. MacMullin gave direct evidence that he intentionally and deliberately waived the  
collection and receipt of down payments on some transactions. His evidence on this subject was  
spirited. He rationalized his failure to collect these sums by indicating that it was all his money  
anyway. He was entitled to do so and he saw this very thing done when he was working for an  
Alberta homebuilder. He opines that the banks experience no risk through this process - it is his  
money. Nor apparently do the banks need to know that fact.  
     
Page: 57  
b.  
The Principal (Primary) Residence Issue  
[212] Mr. MacMullin explained his understanding of the concept of principal residence. He  
based his subjective assessment about this subject on what he says he has heard and read from  
lawyers and mortgage brokers over the years, including the now discredited Brent Bittner.  
[213] On the witness stand, Mr. Bittner denied giving Mr. MacMullin his nonconventional  
definition of principal residence. At best, Mr. MacMullin describes principal residence as akin to  
possession. No real requirement to reside in the property is necessary as long as the purchaser in  
some fashion takes possession. In this way, he confirmed that what many straw buyers testified  
was exactly what Mr. MacMullin (and Mr. Seremet) told them about that issue.  
[214] Mr. MacMullin adopted the advice given to him by Mr. Humeniuk: that the financial  
institutions of the day were satisfied about principal residence if you lived in the house for at  
least one day. While that seems strange, it is also academic - not a single straw buyer spent a day  
in a property.  
5.  
The Conclusion of Mr. MacMullin’s Direct Evidence  
[215] Mr. MacMullin concluded his direct examination by addressing the court in this manner:  
Mr. Millman: All right, that concludes everything I wanted to refer you to here.  
I’ll just ask, is there anything else that you wanted to clarify about your evidence  
given previously or any area where you wanted to provide further evidence to the  
Court where you think I cut you off, or else you were not able to give a complete  
answer?  
Mr. MACMULLIN: You cut me off in the interest of me not rambling, I’m sure.  
...  
It’s not really in my DNA, okay, to rip people off. It’s -- in my part of my life, if  
you look at it, it’s not there. Because of my past, I’ve dedicated my life to just the  
opposite of what I had growing up. I did everything in my power to try to serve  
and to help people. Did I do things wrong? I’m sure along the line we all do. And  
from the time I was 21 when I received -- when I met John Berg, and he got me  
involved with Campus Crusade for Christ, and we (right until the time I was 34  
years old, when John passed on), I travelled literally North America with John  
and speaking to youth. And he -- John -- to hear John talk was like watching paint  
dry, okay? And he knew it. But he was the most Godly, prayerful man that I have  
ever known or ever heard of. But he needed a voice, and I was his voice. I was  
young, I was excited, and I was saved. And I -- he was able to pull me from a  
place that would surely have led me to disaster. And so in between all of this  
stuff, my main focus on everything was building young people in an Amway  
business so that they could be free from, you know -- from the binds of a job and  
what we call the doldrum of -- or the boredom that you get having to go to that.  
   
Page: 58  
And we know that salesmen and people with their own business have more  
successful marriages, they have more successful lives, they contribute more to the  
communities. And so that’s what I believed.  
And so John had me, anyway, going from the time I was 21 years old right  
through that time, every chance he could get, he put me in front of a group of  
men, a group of women. He had me in front of kids. We were in Estes Park,  
Colorado, for the big youth events every year. There were 20,000 kids showing up  
there. That was where my focus was. So every spare moment I had in my life was  
there. And so I didn’t have the time to orchestrate and put together paper. That’s  
why I was never really a big -- a big guy that way. And so I -- my job was to teach  
and to train and to release these people. That’s what I did. I got a kid, an adult, I  
got anybody that was willing to listen and to hear and to learn, I started them, and  
I released them. That was the point.  
Because I did not want to be the boss. I’ve never wanted to be a boss. I’ve never  
wanted to be a guy in charge. I -- the only things you ever keep in this life is  
everything that you give away. And I -- that’s exactly what I -- I want to do. And  
so that -- other than what you’ve -- you’ve asked me, what’s going to come up,  
that’s all I have to say.  
MR. MILLMAN: Thank you. I have got no further questions for my witness.  
6.  
The Cross Examination of Mr. MacMullin  
[216] Mr. MacMullin was cross-examined by counsel for Roy Elander. Mr. MacMullin  
indicated that Roy Elander was not his friend but appeared to be a competent lawyer. He  
confirms that his practice in dealing with lawyers is to not disclose any more than necessary for  
them to do the job required and never lie to them. Mr. MacMullin minimizes Mr. Elander’s  
involvement by pointing out that he had a vast business empire and engaged upwards of 55  
lawyers, including those from large law firms. Mr. Elander’s 22 deals were really just a ‘small  
piece of the pie.  
[217] The Crown’s cross-examination was careful and limited. First, Mr. MacMullin conceded  
the nature of the sales pitch he used to interest the straw buyers, his “investors”.  
[218] He also confirmed that he did not involve any of his family members in any of these  
investment deals, not because he believed the deals were wrong but because they did not have  
credit. As for his one brother who does have credit and does own a home, Mr. MacMullin  
indicated that he did not involve him because his brother did not want to move.  
[219] Last, he concedes that the handwritten presentation proposal which motivated Mr. and  
Mrs. Chin [count 32] to sell their property in a non-arm’s-length transaction to Mr. Ouellette is  
indeed Mr. MacMullin’s documentation. He confirmed their meeting and agreement to  
participate in what was clearly a fraud: a fictional non-arm’s-length sale for possibly more that  
 
Page: 59  
the home is worth. Purchased by a buyer with no intention to move in yet financed by a type of  
mortgage requiring residency!  
[220] The Crown made an exhibit of this document - a series of circles, doodles, and marks that  
were used as the sales pitch, by which Mr. MacMullin persuaded the Chins to take money out of  
their home (which they could ill afford) and which ultimately ended up in Mr. MacMullin’s  
pocket.  
7.  
Applying the W(D) Analysis to Mr. MacMullin  
[221] Mr. MacMullin was not obliged to give evidence in his own defense, however he elected  
to do so and I must assess his credibility and the evidence, which he gave. The Supreme Court of  
Canada has directed judges to be particularly careful in handling the evidence of an accused  
person. The public policy reason behind that care is to ensure that an accused person is not  
convicted simply because he is not believed.  
[222] In R v W(D), [1991] 1 SCR 742, 63 CCC (3d) 397 [“W(D)”] the Supreme Court of  
Canada set a necessary process to evaluate the evidence of an accused who testifies in his or her  
own defence:  
First, if you believe the evidence of the accused, obviously you must acquit.  
Second, if you do not believe the testimony of the accused but you are left in  
reasonable doubt by it, you must acquit.  
Third, even if you are not left in doubt by the evidence of the accused, you must  
ask yourself whether, on the basis of the evidence which you do accept, you are  
convinced beyond a reasonable doubt by that evidence of the guilt of the accused.  
W(D) at para 11.  
[223] The W(D) analysis ensures that the burden of proving an accused’s guilt beyond a  
reasonable doubt remains with the Crown, and is not improperly shifted to the accused. The  
Supreme Court of Canada emphasized this in R v JHS, 2008 SCC 30 at para 13, [2008] 2 SCR  
152 [“JHS”], where it said:  
W.(D.)’s message that it must be made crystal clear to the jury that the burden  
never shifts from the Crown to prove every element of the offence beyond a  
reasonable doubt is of fundamental importance but its application should not  
result in a triumph of form over substance. ... [Emphasis in original.]  
[224] In R v CLY, 2008 SCC 2 at para 7, [2008] 1 SCR 5, Abella J reinforced that a W(D)  
analysis is, at a fundamental level, evaluated on a functional rather than a formal basis, when she  
said:  
 
Page: 60  
The key is whether the correct burden and standard of proof were applied, not  
what words were used in applying them ... Its purpose was to ensure that triers of  
fact judges or juries understand that the verdict should not be based on a  
choice between the accused’s and the Crown’s evidence, but on whether, based on  
the whole of the evidence, they are left with a reasonable doubt as to the  
accused’s guilt. [Emphasis added.]  
See also R v Dinardo, 2008 SCC 24 at para 23, [2008] 1 SCR 788.  
[225] The W(D) analysis tests the weight of the accused persons evidence, both which supports  
innocence and a finding of guilt. For example, where a court believes the accused but the  
evidence, which is believed, supports guilt rather than innocence it does not follow that believing  
an accused must result in acquittal. Obviously, the opposite would result.  
[226] In addition, where an accused fails to give any evidence about a specific count in a multi-  
count indictment there is nothing against which to apply the W(D) analysis. The W(D) analysis  
presupposes that the accused gives evidence directly denying an essential element of the crime,  
or gives evidence about facts that can be weighed. Mere silence still leaves the Crown with the  
burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but it does not give the trier of fact any conflicting or  
contrasting evidence, which could either be believed, or at least raise a doubt: R v Chittick, 2004  
NSCA 135 at para 25, 228 NSR (2d) 81.  
[227] There are elements of those concerns in this case. Some of Mr. MacMullin’s evidence  
was not helpful to a defense that denies the alleged misconduct. Some of his evidence provides a  
motive for the crimes; other evidence is an attempt to justify the crime. This evidence, which  
falls outside of a specific denial, cannot result in acquittal even if believed by the trier of fact. In  
addition, Mr. MacMullin failed to give any evidence about many counts and failed to give any  
evidence about much of the detailed evidence given by witnesses against him. In those  
circumstances, there is nothing for me to balance in the W(D) analysis. The case always remains  
one in which the Crown must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  
[228] However, putting Mr. MacMullin’s evidence in its most favorable interpretation, as a  
defense, there is a suggestion which emerges that has to be considered evidence (albeit oblique)  
that due to business pressure with Amway and his commitment to religious activities, plus some  
concentrated building work, Mr. MacMullin was simply so busy that he was unaware that others  
(presumably Mr. Seremet) were committing frauds in his name.  
[229] Mr. MacMillan also opines that he had no knowledge that primary residence required  
more than he espoused. He also opined that his waived down payments were his money to do  
with as he wished. Evidence, even that given in a disjointed and oblique way that denies  
knowledge of the frauds, or expresses a lack of fraudulent intention, or knowledge of  
deprivation, does relate specifically to an essential element and therefore must be considered as a  
denial of guilt.  
Page: 61  
[230] In measuring the evidence of the accused as directed in W(D), it is of course common  
sense that the evidence has to be considered in the context of the surrounding circumstances and  
not in a vacuum. The assessment of whether the accused is believed or not is not a value  
judgment simply about the persuasive ability of an accused giving evidence, it is whether his  
evidence is believed, or raises a reasonable doubt in the context of the entire case: R v J.W.A.,  
2010 ABCA 406 at para 22, leave denied [2011] SCCA No 153:  
... the law has not elevated the requirements of W(D) to include a mandatory  
statement as to the precise reasons for rejecting the accused's testimony in  
isolation before considering that testimony in the context of all the other  
testimony. ... the evidence of the accused must be considered, not in isolation but  
rather in the context of the evidence as a whole. ...  
a.  
Do I believe Mr. MacMullin’s Evidence Denying his Guilt?  
[231] Evaluation by the trier of fact (me) of a witness’s credibility and reliability is a difficult  
task. The process is multifactorial and contextual. In White v R, 1947 CarswellOnt 8 paras 8-10,  
[1947] SCR 268, the court said:  
The issue of credibility is one of fact and cannot be determined by following a set  
of rules that it is suggested have the force of law and, in so far as the language of  
Mr. Justice Beck may be so construed, it cannot be supported upon the authorities.  
Anglin J. (later Chief Justice) in speaking of credibility stated:  
by that I understand not merely the appreciation of the witnesses'  
desire to be truthful but also of their opportunities of knowledge  
and powers of observation, judgment and memory in a word, the  
trustworthiness of their testimony, which may have depended very  
largely on their demeanour in the witness box and their manner in  
giving evidence. Reymond v. Township of Bosanquet [(1919) 59  
Can. S.C.R. 452, at 460].  
The foregoing is a general statement and does not purport to be exhaustive.  
Eminent judges have from time to time indicated certain guides that have been of  
the greatest assistance, but so far as I have been able to find there has never been  
an effort made to indicate all the possible factors that might enter into the  
determination. It is a matter in which so many human characteristics, both the  
strong and the weak, must be taken into consideration. The general integrity and  
intelligence of the witness, his powers to observe, his capacity to remember and  
his accuracy in statement are important. It is also important to determine whether  
he is honestly endeavouring to tell the truth, whether he is sincere and frank or  
whether he is biassed, reticent and evasive. All these questions and others may be  
answered from the observation of the witness' general conduct and demeanour in  
determining the question of credibility. [Emphasis added]  
 
Page: 62  
[232] Evaluating Mr. MacMullin was less of a challenge. His evidence is a combination of  
irrelevant information, erroneous legal theories, opinion, prayer revival meeting, multilevel  
marketing meeting, success story, deflection of blame, flights of fancy, self-justification, and a  
search for understanding. A generous helping of self-aggrandizement seasons the menu. One  
may also include an allegation of a lack of knowledge of the frauds or lack of intention.  
[233] His evidence was implausible, inconsistent, and illogical. His exculpatory statements  
were intended to deflect aim to anyone or anything else. I do not believe him. I will take a  
number of examples from his evidence to illustrate the basis for my conclusion.  
[234] His self-history is an exercise in myth-making. For example, as young man in Fort  
McMurray, Mr. MacMullin says he went to work for Safeway as a bag boy. He alleges that he  
was so skilled as a bag boy that the manager of Safeway got into a fight with the meat market  
manager about whether this entry-level employee should stay bagging groceries or go into meat  
cutting. In the context of a national organization such as Safeway, this seems ludicrous.  
[235] A further example is Mr. MacMullin indicates that when he worked for the building  
company, he was the best salesperson that company had ever had. Incredibly, when faced with  
this dynamo, Mr. MacMullin alleges the company’s response was to keep cutting his  
commission. He was finally fired. He claims his bosses told him he was causing the company to  
go bankrupt by selling too many homes. The non sequitur in that comment appears difficult to  
explain.  
[236] Then there is the violent and savage Red Deer assault by “Fred”, who is never identified  
by a full name, even though “Fred” was one of Mr. MacMullin’s “investors”, and the subject of a  
criminal prosecution. Mr. MacMullin offered no evidence about the context of this assault in  
relationship to these frauds, and instead tells the tale of how “Fred” was championed by the  
(unnamed) Crown Prosecutor, who encourages Mr. MacMullin to drop the charges because of  
“Fred’s” difficult divorce and out of character misconduct. A curious tale of a capitulation by a  
Crown attorney to ignore a serious crime and favour an accused. Not only is this narrative wildly  
implausible, but it is simply irrelevant to Mr. MacMullin’s alleged misconduct. It tells us nothing  
about whether or not Mr. MacMullin perpetrated the alleged frauds. It only illustrates how Mr.  
MacMullin portrays himself as virtuous yet wronged.  
[237] When one goes to the offences Mr. MacMullin’s credibility is no better. Mr. MacMullin  
indicates he did not know about the fraudulent paperwork. I specifically reject this. It is, for  
example, inconsistent with his direct hands-on control of the Chin/Ouellette fraud [count 34] in  
which he essentially admitted to marketing the scheme of the Chins selling their home to Mr.  
Ouellette to generate cash to fuel Mr. MacMullin’s business goals. The documentary record  
establishes he cooperated with mortgage brokers, submitted documents, and he acknowledges his  
financial involvement. Again, this collides with his self-portrait of a money-making sensation.  
How could someone with his aptitudes not be aware of the nature and effect of his activities.  
[238] His attempt to divert blame to Mr. Seremet has many implausible defects, but one feature  
more than any other undermines Mr. MacMullin’s claims – the frauds predate Mr. Seremet’s  
Page: 63  
involvement. Instead, we have a paper trial that predates Mr. Seremet’s appearance, but  
continues with similar motifs and modus operandi through to the end.  
[239] While it is true that Mr. MacMullin delegated much of this paper work activity to Mr.  
Seremet, and while I do accept that Mr. Seremet may have been more computer literate, I  
conclude specifically that Mr. MacMullin was attempting to shield himself behind Mr. Seremet  
and create an environment of plausible deniability. There are enough leaks and personal  
ownership either disclosed in the documentary record and his own admissions that it is simply  
not credible to believe Mr. MacMullin did not know about the fraudulent paper work.  
[240] In addition, he admits that he waived down payments on the basis that he was entitled  
to do so because he was the vendor and or equitable owner of the properties in cases where the  
down payments were waived. He therefore admits that his activities were inconsistent with the  
documentary record.  
[241] Another admission of his integral role was the phony conveyancing firm, Knezevic,  
Dunne & Dawson. Mr. MacMullin suggests that Joe Seremet was behind this letterhead created  
to pass itself off as a professional organization. His involvement was only to agree it was a good  
idea and to save legal fees. He was the one paying legal fees not Mr. Seremet. This still leaves  
me with the fact that Mr. MacMullin admits he knew the firm was a fiction, and that he  
nevertheless used that letterhead to simulate the involvement of a third-party conveyancing firm.  
[242] There are areas where I do believe Mr. MacMullin’s evidence:  
1.  
2.  
3.  
his association to the projects,  
that he was in financial need,  
his confirmation he would forge signatures and/or allow forgery of his signature,  
including in the important role as a Commissioner for Oaths,  
that his operations were conducted using cash where possible,  
the waiver of down payments, and  
4.  
5.  
6.  
his description of residency.  
All support a negative credibility assessment. Therefore, my belief about some parts of his  
evidence is not helpful to him from the point of view my believing he is innocent.  
[243] It is pointless for me to go on; I simply conclude I do not believe his denial of guilt. This  
ends the first step of the W(D) procedure. I do not believe Mr. MacMullin’s explanation of why  
he was not involved in or had no knowledge of the fraudulent mortgage transactions. I now move  
to the second step in the procedure.  
b.  
Does his Evidence at Least Raise a Reasonable Doubt?  
[244] The Supreme Court of Canada also directs me to acquit an accused if I find that his  
evidence (even if not believed) at least raises a reasonable doubt on a required element of the  
 
Page: 64  
crime alleged. In discussing and developing this second element of the three-part test in W(D), I  
can only repeat my earlier observations about Mr. MacMullin’s evidence.  
[245] This includes the flights of fantasy in the evidence, the self-aggrandizing elements, the  
inconsistencies, the lack of detail, the failure to be responsive, the subjective errors about what  
constitutes residency, and his claim that he believed one could waive a down payment without  
concern on the part of the financial institutions. All this, and more, prevents the evidence of Mr.  
MacMullin from raising a reasonable doubt.  
[246] For an accused to raise a reasonable doubt with his or her evidence, the accused must  
touch on the critical allegations. Instead, Mr. MacMullin danced around awkward evidence,  
skimmed over troublesome incidents, and minimized his participation whenever possible with  
vague, incomplete or diversionary explanations. Most of the serious allegations made about Mr.  
MacMullin while he sat in the prisoner dock during the trial were simply unanswered and not  
challenged. As I noted, he did not respond in particular to most of the alleged frauds. This is  
difficult to understand if indeed he had innocent explanations for what had occurred. While he  
was not obliged to give evidence, he elected to do so and I would consider by law and fairness all  
explanations. However, for most counts, there is nothing to raise a reasonable doubt because his  
evidence did not respond to those fraud scenarios.  
[247] Mr. MacMullin spent some considerable time going through an analysis of the volume of  
work performed by him and his crew during the construction improvement on some of the  
properties. This evidence is simply irrelevant. The Crown never alleged that no work was done.  
This trial is about the Crown’s allegation that deceitful information was passed on to financial  
institutions to persuade them to grant mortgages.  
[248] Other irrelevant testimony includes when Mr. MacMullin indicated that he never altered  
a CRA, or a third-party job letter. That is not a part of the case against him. In one case, one of  
Mr. MacMullin’s companies created a job record for a borrower to hide the fact that the income  
reflected on her income tax return was an AISH payment. In other cases, some investment letters  
put before Mr. MacMullin claim, that one of his related companies or trade names, Parallel  
Corp., had received investment funds from the straw buyers.  
[249] Mr. MacMullin provides yet another bizarre and irrational explanation: these documents  
captured the “sweat equitythat went into certain specific projects which became part of a high  
interest investment in Parallel Corp. That proposition is ludicrous, and could not raise a  
reasonable doubt. There was never any paperwork connecting the victims and their lost  
investment or nonpayment for work effort with a long-term investment in Parallel Corp. Mr.  
MacMullin’s explanations could have been supported by documentary evidence on Parallel  
Corp., but of course none appeared. This was merely another smoke-screen. Finally Parallel  
Corp was a MacMullin alter ego- with no money for down payments.  
[250] During the time Mr. MacMullin was on the witness stand, he never confronted the actual  
issues raised by this case, except to stress his definition of residency, reassert his entitlement to  
waive down payments, and to indicate that in his opinion, the straw buyers should be considered  
Page: 65  
investors. His beliefs, as stated under oath (whether genuinely believed or fictionally created for  
the purpose of justification), could not raise a reasonable doubt. In fact, his own beliefs as  
expressed make it more likely that he created REPCs or directed them, in which the price  
reflected a significant down payment, which he intended to waive. This is what the Crown  
alleges. Mr. MacMullin can hardly raise a reasonable doubt with evidence about facts admits  
occurred.  
[251] As for his expressed belief that for a property to be a principal residence required only  
that you act consistently with possession, such as putting a plant in the house or have a meal in it  
- that is preposterous. It is much the same as a person arguing that they are sincere when they  
believe they are a legal resident of Vancouver because they once were on an aircraft that landed  
there for a few hours. Mr. MacMullin’s “legal test” for a principal residence is so opposite from  
what logic indicates that I am left with only a single conclusion: Mr. MacMullin knew perfectly  
well this was false.  
[252] There is one other telling piece of evidence. It is the theory of the Crown that Mr.  
MacMullin knew throughout, that residency meant more than just temporary possession. That is  
why he had to create false unconditional sales documents in cases where individual straw buyers  
already owned a principal residence that they occupied. One of Mr. MacMullin’s brothers had  
enough money to do a deal. He was not invited to participate. Mr. MacMullin explained that he  
did not involve his brother because his brother did not intend to move out of his own principal  
residence. This clearly tells me that Mr. MacMullin knew what the real definition of principal  
residence was in the context of high ratio mortgage financing.  
[253] Many straw buyers had their own principal residence. One was Al Ouellette (see count  
32), another was Rick Cannon (see count 30). In each of these cases, Mr. MacMullin, or  
somebody acting on his behalf and direction, created fictional leases, or fictional sales that were  
unconditional, and those documents made their way to the financial institutions. Mr. MacMullin  
was exposed in Crown cross-examination that he had the requisite knowledge: a borrower could  
not get a high-ratio mortgage for a new principal residence while still owning a principal  
residence.  
[254] I therefore conclude that Mr. MacMullin’s evidence does not raise a reasonable doubt.  
That ends the second step of the W(D) procedure.  
c.  
Has the Crown Proven the Case Beyond a Reasonable Doubt?  
[255] The third instruction of the W(D) procedure is contextually equally important. A judge  
cannot convict an accused simply because his evidence is unbelievable, incredible, and probably  
dishonestly and dishonorably given from the witness stand. Most judges would find it odious to  
have a witness under oath tell such obvious fabrications, provide his own elevated character  
reference while touting his Christianity and selfless nature, his wish to help young people, and  
his desire to teach and lead, while at the same time placing these very same people in grave  
economic peril for his personal financial gain.  
 
Page: 66  
[256] I did not convict Mr. MacMullin until I was satisfied the Crown had proven each count  
beyond a reasonable doubt, despite my disbelief of Mr. MacMullin’s evidence and my  
conclusion that his evidence does not raise a reasonable doubt. The third step of W(D) requires  
that I consider and review all relevant evidence. This process contributes to the length of this  
decision and schedule A.  
B.  
Mr. Elander’s Evidence  
1. Direct Evidence  
a. History  
[257] Mr. Elander gave evidence. His career as a lawyer started in the mid-1970s forward. At  
the relevant time, he was in a space share arrangement with another lawyer. At the date of the  
trial, he is 64 years of age. He is currently a suspended member of the Law Society of Alberta.  
That suspension does not relate to this trial.  
[258] At the time of these events, he employed a now deceased conveyancing assistant, Barbara  
Rye, and a general secretary, Gail Hamilton-Berkey. Ms. Juneau, who gave evidence against  
him, was also Mr. Elander’s employee for a short time.  
[259] About 60% of Mr. Elander’s practice was litigation and he was often out of the office. He  
relied heavily on Barbara Rye to the point that she would do virtually all the work. As she did  
not want her files messed up, Mr. Elander would simply meet with the clients and sign the  
documents that were placed on top of the file. Mr. Elander leaves the impression both in a  
general way and specifically on a per file basis that he really was not on top of the irregularities  
(if they can be described as that) in the files. He believes that all of these transactions, while not  
without their individual glitches, were routine real estate transactions from which he had no  
inkling of potential frauds.  
[260] The work he did for Mr. MacMullin represented about 30% of the real-estate portion of  
his practice, so approximately 12% of the entire practice.  
b.  
A Routine Real Estate Practice  
[261] Mr. Elander described a standard real estate transaction. Some of his observations  
became part of this judgment in the heading real estate 101 paras 89 to 120. He observed that  
transactions flow in from many sources including realtors, developers, and business by word-of-  
mouth. A transaction may arrive at a law office without the lawyer’s knowledge and then be  
immediately diverted to the conveyancing assistant for preliminary review and work.  
[262] Residential conveyancing in Alberta relies heavily on the assistance provided by highly  
trained legal staff focused on real estate conveyancing. The lawyer’s most significant role is to  
       
Page: 67  
meet with the clients to review and sign the documents. The lawyer also acts as a file  
quarterback’, problem-solver, and to put out fires when transactions drift off course.  
[263] Of course, the more proficient the conveyancing assistant, the fewer fires and other  
problems. At the conclusion of Mr. Elander’s direct evidence, he conveyed an image that these  
files were rather routine, orthodox, and straight-forward. Mr. Elander explained that the sinister  
implications of his conduct, implied or stated by the straw buyers, were either misunderstandings  
or due to their lack of specific real estate knowledge.  
c.  
Specific Denial of Knowledge  
[264] Mr. Elander resists a conclusion that the timing of some transactions, plus scrutiny of  
some of the documentation and correspondence, might lead one to believe he was aware of the  
fraud, or, at least, willfully blind to the questionable aspects of these transactions. Mr. Elander  
indicated that this was not the case. Only with the benefit of hindsight, when all of the isolated  
transactions are analyzed together, do these concerns become more obvious. It was Mr. Elander’s  
unequivocal evidence that he did not knowingly aid and abet a fraud on any financial institution  
with his reporting, his correspondence and communication, his document preparation, and the  
forwarding of documentation to the financial institution.  
[265] Mr. Elander denied any knowledge about wrongdoing in these transactions. He  
specifically indicated that at no time did he knowingly pass on false information to any financial  
institution. He denied knowing that Mr. MacMullin was waiving down payments and indicated  
that he would have had, at a minimum, a duty to disclose that to the lender. He accepted the  
standard definition of residency as requiring the purchaser to have a bona fide intention to move  
into the premise following the purchase. In other words, he did not equate taking legal ownership  
with residency.  
[266] The Crown’s proposition, that the straw buyers had no intention of living in the property,  
was information that Mr. Elander says he did not know, and had he known it, the transactions  
would not have gone through. He was unequivocal that he would not administer any statutory  
declaration with the knowledge that its content was false. He had no knowledge that these  
declarations were false.  
[267] What is interesting about Mr. Elander’s evidence is that as a lawyer, he implicitly  
acknowledged the conduct described by the witnesses in these files, if believed by me, does  
constitute fraud because he wishes to distance himself from it.  
[268] He also indicated that at that time in his practice, he had no experience with real estate  
fraud. He would have had no idea what a ‘straw buyer’ was. He could not believe that these  
events were going on.  
 
Page: 68  
d.  
Evidence Applicable to All Counts  
[269] Mr. Elander indicated that he had a highly experienced conveyancing legal assistant,  
Barbara Rye, in whom he had great confidence. She did the legal conveyancing work on the first  
18 of the MacMullin transactions; however she resigned from Mr. Elander’s employee in early  
2003. The last four transactions (occurring January to March 2003) were completed by Mr.  
Elander’s other assistant, Gail Nicholson. Mr. Elander gave evidence that he was traveling  
extensively during that period, and was also distracted as a consequence of disagreements  
between him and the Law Society of Alberta. As such, Mr. Elander acknowledges he did not  
supervise those four transactions, but only reviewed them after the fact.  
[270] The last four transactions were unique, and would not have occurred under greater  
supervision. This is because the documents were sent out of the office to Mr. MacMullin for  
execution. Mr. Elander indicates that he did not do business that way. He asserts that these four  
transactions were the last real estate conveyancing transactions that Mr. Elander did for Mr.  
MacMullin.  
[271] Mr. Elander testified that he independently advised both Mr. Seremet and Mr. MacMullin  
that he would no longer be doing their standard real estate conveyancing for them. He did  
continue to help the straw buyers to the extent that he was ethically able when the foreclosures  
started coming in, and he did continue personal work for Mr. MacMullin that was unrelated to  
the real estate transactions.  
[272] Mr. Elander indicates that it was the pressure placed on his staff to breach his internal  
protocol of bearing witness to his own real estate documents which caused the end of his  
relationship with Mr. MacMullin and Mr. Seremet. Mr. Elander does not suggest or imply that  
his motivation to distance himself from these parties was that he had come to suspect that the  
real estate transactions with which he was involved were fraudulent.  
[273] In a general sense, Mr. Elander says he either did not read or appreciate the significance  
of documents which should have piqued his interest as a consequence of his professional duty to  
his clients, and then, hypothetically, led to a follow-up investigation. One particularly ominous  
document in the Hendry file (see count 16) was witnessed by him right in the middle of the  
transaction, but only now, with the benefit of hindsight, does Mr. Elander concede he should  
have been suspicious. In the document Mr. Elander witnessed, Mr. MacMullin agreed in favor of  
Mrs. Hendry to guarantee payment of the mortgage payments on a home, which she has  
purportedly just sold. This document appears immediately after Mr. Elander has a conversation  
with Mrs. Hendry in which she alleged that she did not trust Mr. MacMullin, and where she said  
to Mr. Elander that she is afraid that she will not get her money from Mr. MacMullin.  
[274] Mr. Elander testified that he allowed Mr. Seremet into his office, and Barbara Rye then  
taught Mr. Seremet how to do basic real estate. This apparently came about following complaints  
from Mr. MacMullin about the high cost of legal fees on the transactions which did not involve a  
new mortgage. These were of two types:  
 
Page: 69  
1.  
2.  
Mr. MacMullin received properties back from the straw buyer; and  
When a no down payment purchaser actually moved in and assumed the  
mortgage.  
The date of the training is not specified but lasted about a day and a half. Mr. Seremet stayed at  
Mr. Elander’s home in the intervening evening. Mr. MacMullin brought Mr. Seremet to the  
office while another of Mr. MacMullin’s associates returned Mr. Seremet to Edmonton the  
following day.  
[275] Mr. Elander’s direct evidence can be summed up as follows:  
He thought these were all regular real estate deals.  
When two transactions were close in time and had the same purchasers, he felt they  
had a reasonable explanation.  
His now deceased paralegal would know more about the files.  
By the time the mortgages came to his office, the commitment letter and the due  
diligence by the bank had already been completed. Lawyers do not receive the details  
of the mortgage application.  
He understood that principal (or primary) residency means more than simple  
possession. He discharged his duty in getting the appropriate affidavits signed. He  
never swore a false affidavit: he indicates on one transaction where this issue  
specifically came up he refused to go further until the buyer reassured him they would  
be living in the home.  
If there were professional errors made, they were because of carelessness or his  
failure to read either the REPCs or the mortgage commitment letters. His actions were  
not made to facilitate frauds. It was not his practice to read either REPCs, or  
commitment letters. He instead relies on his staff.  
[276] In sum, Mr. Elander swears that in each case he assumed that the purchasers were bona  
fide and that in cases where they were frequently turning over property it was for a personal but  
legitimate reason. He was bolstered by the fact that in all cases where he attended on the parties  
he went through the statutory declaration of principal residence, and the buyers complied.  
e.  
Evidence on Specific Counts / Specific Straw Buyers  
i. The Mark and Karla McClain Connection  
[277] Mr. Elander handled several transactions involving Mark and Karla McClain. Both gave  
evidence. I will continue to refer to them as straw buyers, while accepting that Mr. Elander does  
   
Page: 70  
not admit that he was aware that these persons were anything other than bona fide buyers for  
value of property in which they intended to live.  
[278] He understood the McClain’s were both teachers teaching in the Red Deer area but in  
different rural locales. Mr. Elander understood that Mr. MacMullin’s involvement was to assist  
with their desire to buy a home closer to their work, but their plans changed when they both got  
jobs in Medicine Hat and had to quickly sell their old home. He indicates that notwithstanding  
his involvement with them and Mr. MacMullin, the couple still had confidence in him when they  
purchased their Medicine Hat property. In fact, he sent the cash to close on one of their  
transactions with Mr. MacMullin to counsel for the vendor of the property purchased in  
Medicine Hat.  
[279] Mr. Elander’s evidence on count 9, property 7, begins with him acknowledging that he  
did act for the financial institution. The parties brought in the appropriate cash to close and Mr.  
Elander was of the view that they were buying the property as a residence. He met with them at  
different times and they signed routine real estate documents.  
[280] A portion of e-Exhibit 171 [scan 7575] relates to count nine. The file contains a  
November 17, 2000 economic review of the transaction. The cash needed to close the transaction  
was $6,128.70. Mr. Elander further reviews a copy of a cheque from the Parkland Credit Union,  
which reflects that the cash to close was received at his office. He did not see the cheque before  
this criminal trial because that would be a matter handled by his conveyancing assistant. The file  
contains a normal statement of sale and adjustments [scan 7575, p 32/177]. There is  
communication on the file where the lawyer for the other side is asking for confirmation of  
registration. Mr. Elander never saw that document. The deal closed around the end of November  
2000.  
[281] After that first deal closed, Mr. Elander next saw the McClains about six months later in  
June 2001. They were looking at the home owned by Ms. Draus, Mr. Elander’s spouse. Mr.  
MacMullin had offered to find a buyer for Ms. Draus’ home, despite the fact it was listed by  
another realtor. Mr. Elander agreed to pay Mr. MacMullin a $10,000.00 finder’s fee. Mr. Elander  
acted for the vendor (his wife), the buyers, and the financial institution. He believed the  
McClains intended to move in together to be more equidistant to their work relationships.  
[282] Heather Draus’ principal residence appears in court documents as count 19, property  
14(a). Mr. Elander testified that the transaction was completely legitimate. Mr. MacMullin sent  
him in an offer, his wife accepted, and Mr. Elander agreed to pay Mr. MacMullin the finder’s fee  
because the realtor had not achieved an offer. Mr. Elander reviews Exhibit 171, property 14(a)  
[scan 7579, p 141of 161] which is the listing of his wife’s property with a realtor in the Red Deer  
area. The listing is signed June 9, 2001. His wife accepted the McClain’s offer June 16, 2001.  
The file also reveals that mortgage broker, David Gorn, was involved in obtaining a mortgage for  
the McClains. Ultimately, Mr. Elander received mortgage instructions from the financial  
institution and acted for all parties.  
Page: 71  
[283] Mr. Elander’s narrative continues by indicating that approximately two weeks after that  
transaction [property 14(a), count 10] concluded, Mr. MacMullin came to his office, and  
indicated the McClain’s were leaving town and were transferring the home to Mr. MacMullin.  
Mr. McClain was also selling to Mr. MacMullin the home Mr. McClain had purchased with his  
mother before his relationship with Mrs. McClain. Mr. Elander confirms that he got instructions  
about this transaction from the McClain’s. They agreed that they were willing to sell both  
properties to Mr. MacMullin, and in some fashion were going to wait for the down payment on  
their true residence until Mr. MacMullin resold the property.  
[284] Mr. Elander understood the deal was Mr. MacMullin would make the mortgage payments  
but would not need to fund the cash to close until Mr. MacMullin arranged for a downstream  
purchaser. Mr. Elander also attempted to assist the McClains when they were served with  
foreclosure papers. He also admitted that he shortchanged the McClains in the accounting for the  
deferred sale proceeds on one of the two properties which they sold to Mr. MacMullin. Mr.  
Elander attributed this to mathematical error, and denied this was an attempt to assist and prefer  
Mr. MacMullin over the McClains.  
ii.  
Dealings with Lance Cipperley and Mr. Rauckman  
[285] Mr. Elander acted for Chris Rauckman and Mr. Cipperley when Mr. MacMullin used  
them as straw buyers to purchase one of the Blackfalds lots [property 11 attempted straw  
purchase ( identity thefts) and a second straw purchase of the Draushome]. He also  
acknowledged a confrontation with Mr. Wayne Cipperley, an allegation of fraud and the demand  
(under threat of going to the police) that his son, Lance Cipperley, and Mr. Rauckman be  
removed from that transaction. In fact, that deal was reversed but Mr. Elander asserts it had  
nothing to do with the threat from Mr. Wayne Cipperley.  
[286] Mr. Elander agreed he incorporated a real estate holding company for Cipperley and  
Rauckman [932739 Alberta Ltd, incorporated May 4, 2001] but he understood that they were  
going to put investment properties into that company. He transferred their principal residence to  
that numbered company. Mr. Elander also indicates that on the transaction that he did for them,  
there was a $25,000.00 down payment; he asserts that, somehow, the numbered company which  
he had just incorporated for these two young men had the money to pay for the down payment.  
Mr. Elander says he believed that the down payment was coming from the numbered company.  
iii.  
The Lane Wiechnik Connection  
[287] Mr. Elander performed legal services for Lane Wiechnik in three transactions. Mr.  
MacMullin was the vendor in the first two, and both closed relatively proximate in time. The first  
was a property in Red Deer on Canyon Heights [count 10, property 8,]; the second was one of  
the MacMullin properties in Blackfalds [count 12, property 10(b)].  
[288] Mr. Elander remembers meeting with Mr. Wiechnik to sign the documentation for the  
first transaction, but had no knowledge of the property other than what was disclosed in the  
   
Page: 72  
documents. On this file, the documents that required signing were placed on top of the file.  
While Mr. Elander testified he cannot remember many of the details, he indicated that he applied  
his standard practice in going over the documents.  
[289] During the discussions with Mr. Wiechnik, Mr. Elander came to believe that the client  
was living in Calgary but dating a woman in Red Deer. He wanted to try living in Red Deer. Mr.  
Elander knew that Canyon Heights was a good area and he concluded that Mr. Wiechnik was  
very knowledgeable about real estate. That was where Mr. Wiechnik and his friend were going  
to live.  
[290] Mr. Elander’s counsel reviewed the Maple Trust mortgage file with him (scan 7238).  
This includes a photocopy of a cheque indicating that the cash to close was paid directly to the  
vendor. This transaction, which closed on November 29, 2000, was regular in that it had a  
statutory declaration of occupancy, and the money was properly identified or received. Mr.  
Elander opined that Mr. Wiechnik had left him with the distinct impression that after some  
renovations were completed; Mr. Wiechnik intended to move into the home.  
[291] After closing this first transaction, Mr. Elander again met with Mr. Wiechnik for the next  
transaction - a property at 57 Laurel Close (one of the Blackfalds properties). Mr. Elander  
indicated that he knew the properties were new construction but believed that they were finished.  
Mr. Elander testified that he had never inspected the properties. Mr. Elander indicates that he  
signed up the transaction and everything appeared normal.  
[292] Mr. Elander also provided evidence about property 10(b) and referenced Exhibit 171  
(scan 7570, p129/156). This was a review of his trust statement. Mr. Elander summarized this  
evidence as a routine real estate transaction in which he came to understand that Mr. Wiechnik  
was not happy with the first property and so bought a second.  
[293] The third real estate Wiechnik transaction related to a property that Mr. Wiechnik later  
bought in Calgary. Mr. MacMullin was not involved in this purchase.  
iv.  
The Russellell Campbell Connection  
[294] Mr. Elander conceded he did more than one deal for straw buyer Russellell Campbell.  
Russellell Campbell went on titles as a joint tenant, first with the Gerald Reger, subsequently  
with Scott Young [the Hendry deal], and then Gerald Reger acquired a property as sole owner.  
Mr. Elander provided conveyancing services for all three deals. Mr. Elander indicated he did not  
ask about their personal relationship, but assumed that they were interdependent partners of one  
another: “a couple” in his words. He surmised that after the first transaction in which Mr.  
Campbell made the property purchase together with Mr. Gerald Reger, that couple had a falling  
out. This precipitated the two subsequent real estate transactions.  
[295] The Campbell/Reger purchase [property 9, count 11] is an important transaction as it  
relates to Mr. Elander’s alleged culpability. In schedule A, I note that the buyers instructed Mr.  
Elander that they would in fact not be living in the home. Mr. Seremet witnessed that. These  
 
Page: 73  
witnesses alleged that Mr. Elander brushed that off and said “he did not hear that”. The evidence  
of those straw buyers could constitute direct knowledge of a potential fraud. Fairness dictates  
that Mr. Elander’s evidence be detailed on this point.  
[296] Mr. Elander concedes he met with Mr. Campbell and Mr. Reger to sign documents for  
this transaction. They were accompanied by Joe Seremet. The meeting occurred early January  
2001 at his office in Red Deer - not at his residence as asserted by the other witnesses. Mr.  
Elander admits that Mr. Campbell indicated to him “what if we told you we weren’t planning on  
moving into this home”. Mr. Elander immediately says that he put up his hands, but denies  
making a shushing sound as indicated by the witnesses, and told him the transaction would  
immediately be off and he could go no further.  
[297] Mr. Elander emphatically indicates that at this point, Mr. Seremet attempted to jump in  
with his bizarre (MacMullin-shaped) definition of ‘principal residency’. Mr. Elander testified he  
would have none of that. Mr. Elander understood that residency required for the mortgage  
company was as set out in the statutory declaration. He indicated that he would not go further  
with this transaction. Mr. Elander testified that the documents were ultimately signed when Mr.  
Campbell reassured him that his question was simply hypothetical, and that the “couple” were  
planning to move into the home.  
[298] There is a direct conflict in this critical evidence between Mr. Elander and the three other  
witnesses. I will discuss the implications of that conflict in Schedule A- the discussion of count  
11 [property 9]. In his evidence Mr. Elander concedes that on a MacMullin referred deal there  
was specific discussion about non-residency.  
[299] After the close of property 9 [count 11], Mr. Elander opines that the Campbell/Reger  
“couple” must have had a falling out, and that each went separate ways. This led to the second  
deal [count 16, property 12]. In this deal, Mrs. Hendry sold to Campbell and Scott Young. On its  
face, Mr. MacMullin was not involved, but nevertheless, Mr. MacMullin took Mr. Elander to the  
Hendry house to introduce Mrs. Hendry to Mr. Elander.  
[300] The deal appeared straightforward, but Mr. Elander gives evidence that he was worried  
about protecting Mrs. Hendry. He filed a Vendor’s Caveat to protect her interest that was  
registered on May 15, 2001: e-Exhibit 12, Land Titles Records [scan 6616, p. 57/ 87]. Mr.  
Elander indicates that was his standard practice.  
[301] Mr. Elander explained a vendor’s Lien Caveat as a protection document registered at the  
Land Titles Office concurrent with the transfer documents to protect the vendor of property until  
the vendor receives the entire sale price. He explained further that since there was a cost and  
work element to this, it was not done in non-arm’s-length sales. (Mr. Elander used somewhat  
different terminology, “sales between family members, which I take to mean a non-arm’s-  
length sale.)  
[302] Mr. Elander testified that when he attended with Mrs. Hendry, she rebuffed his attempt to  
advise her, and then she signed the transfer documents. Mr. Elander returns to Red Deer. The  
Page: 74  
next day, he was confronted by his conveyancing assistant (confirmed with a written memo) who  
indicated that Mrs. Hendry called expressing concern about two things. First, the $4,000.00  
deposit indicated in the REPC had not been received, and second, Ms. Hendry said she is afraid  
that Mr. MacMullin will cheat her out of her money.  
[303] Mr. Elander says he reassured her that she would receive her sale price because he is in  
charge of the deal and that is his obligation. Shortly after, Mr. MacMullin attended at Mr.  
Elander’s office and had Mr. Elander witness a document [e-Exhibit 171, scan 7569, p 9/249].  
This document is less than a page long, but it purports to have Mr. MacMullin guarantee the  
payment of six mortgage payments on the Hendry property on behalf of the new purchaser.  
[304] Mr. Elander admits that with the benefit of hindsight, this document should have  
indicated to him that something was wrong. The document implies that Mrs. Hendry is  
continuing to have an economic interest in a home that she has just purported to sell. The  
purchasers were intending to make it their personal residence. Mr. Elander did not prepare the  
document in question but he was asked to witness the document, and did so. He gives no  
evidence that he received any explanation for the document. He gives no evidence about the  
other concern raised by Ms. Hendry, the missing $4,000.00 deposit referred to in the REPC.  
[305] Mr. Elander summarized the transaction involved in this count as a sale that went through  
on a routine basis. Except for the call from Mrs. Hendry and the document he witnessed for Mr.  
MacMullin, there were no issues. This was nothing more than a routine and straightforward real  
estate transaction.  
[306] In the final sale of this group, Gerald Reger purchased a condominium on Stoney Plain  
Road in Edmonton [property 13, count 17]. The vendor, Mr. Horboway, sold to Mr. Reger. Mr.  
Elander acted for all parties. Mr. Seremet introduced Mr. Elander to Mr. Horboway by taking  
him to Horboway’s office to sign documents. Mr. Elander believed Mr. Horboway was an  
insurance agent, and it was Mr. Elander’s impression that Mr. Horboway wanted to sell”, was  
“glad to sell” his property and was contemplating moving out.  
[307] Later that day at a restaurant in Edmonton, he met with Mr. Reger. Mr. Elander testified  
that Mr. Reger never indicated that he was not moving into the home. Instead, Mr. Reger signed  
the real property purchase documentation.  
[308] Mr. Elander was at this point referred to a Toronto Dominion mortgage file (TD  
mortgage file, property 13, exhibit 150, page 87 of 151 pages), where there is a sales agreement  
that is void of any particulars including the final purchase price. On this transaction, Mr.  
Horboway did not receive the money. Mr. Elander received a memo from Mr. Horboway that he  
was to give the money to Mr. MacMullin.  
[309] At a later point, Mr. Elander was sued by Mr. Horboway for losses sustained out of the  
transaction. This litigation was discontinued.  
Page: 75  
v.  
The Anderson Connection  
[310] Shane and Liza Anderson had a significant connection both to Mr. MacMullin and to Mr.  
Elander, so counsel for Mr. Elander spent some time discussing their transactions with his client.  
The Andersons were involved in five real estate transactions with Mr. MacMullin. All five  
transactions occurred close in time, only two resulted in charges. The sale of their true residence  
to a straw buyer, and their purchase of one of the Blackfalds properties.  
[311] The chart below is a reasonable timeline of the transactions. A similar chart (marked only  
as an administrative exhibit) was incorporated into direct evidence by Shane Anderson during his  
lengthy evidence as a witness in this proceeding.  
[312] The summary that follows reports Mr. Elander’s explanation of his involvement in these  
transactions, and he used the administrative exhibit to bolster his oral evidence.  
Property  
Acquisition  
Disposition  
Notes  
1
2
3
5873 70 Street, Red  
Deer [property 5, count  
7] Actual residence  
Historic  
arm’s length  
Oct. 12, 2000  
Sold to straw buyer  
Wintringham  
14 Malcolm Crescent  
[uncharged property]  
Sept. 8,  
2000  
Jan. 19, 2001  
Oct. 1, 2001  
Purchased by straw buyers  
Andersons, sold to a  
referral of MacMullin  
3529 54 Ave [uncharged Nov. 10,  
property]  
Purchased by straw buyers  
Andersons, sold to Lam  
Developments  
2000  
(MacMullin)  
4
5
53 Laurel Close,  
Blackfalds [property  
11a, count 14]  
Feb. 16,  
2001  
June 29, 2002  
May 19, 2001  
Purchased by straw buyers  
Andersons, sold to 179298  
Alta. Ltd (MacMullin)  
61 Laurel Close,  
Blackfalds [uncharged  
property]  
Mar. 19,  
2001  
Purchased by straw buyers  
Andersons, transferred to a  
creditor of Mr. MacMullin  
[313] Mr. Elander pointed out that he did not act for the Anderson’s on the first property  
referenced above. He admits that he did act for them when they purchased the second property  
 
Page: 76  
on September 8, 2000. When the Andersons purchased the third identified property on  
November 10, 2000 (62 days later), it did not strike him as odd because he was aware that they  
had sold property in October (item 1), thus they had sold property and were purchasing another.  
Mr. Elander testified the transactions went well and they raised no red flags with him.  
[314] Later, he acted for the Andersons on the purchase of 53 Laurel Close, the 4th listed  
transaction. Mr. Elander believed that the Andersons had sold their previous property because  
they felt that the work effort necessary to convert it into a type of home suitable for children was  
greater than the benefit that would have been received. The Andersons instead chose to buy a  
brand new home. Mr. Elander testified he did not know that the residence at 53 Laurel Close was  
at that point incomplete. He knew that Mr. MacMullin was developing at Blackfalds, but  
believed that the Andersons were buying a new home that was already completed.  
[315] Mr. Elander admits that a difficulty arose during the purchase of 53 Laurel Close, but his  
evidence differs from that given by Mr. and Mrs. Anderson. The Andersons indicated that they  
were switched to 53 Laurel Close, but their intention was to buy 61 Laurel Close - a better  
situated property next to a greenbelt easement. Although the offers identify 53 Laurel Close, as  
does Mr. Elander’s file, the Andersons testified they believe that Mr. MacMullin and Mr.  
Elander switched the properties on them.  
[316] Mr. Elander’s evidence is different. He says that Shane Anderson admitted to him that he  
had made a mistake thinking that Ms. Anderson would like the home at 53 Laurel Close. She did  
not, and wanted a different property. Mr. Anderson asked Mr. Elander to bail him out and work  
with Mr. McMullan to get into the property Ms. Anderson wanted. Ultimately, that explains the  
fifth listed property above - 61 Laurel Close. [Note: this alternate theory was not put to Mr.  
Anderson.]  
[317] Mr. Elander indicates that he was aware of the Andersons and he remembers them  
because Ms. Anderson’s sister was also a client of his. The sister had some issues with family  
and social services. Mrs. Liza Anderson was trying to get temporary guardianship of her sister’s  
children and needed larger homes. Mr. Elander denied knowing that the Andersons were owners  
of two CMHC principal residence homes within a month of each other because he has a memory  
mistake on one transaction and believed that the house that they sold was the house he had  
helped them purchase.  
f.  
Mr. Elander’s Relationship with Mr. MacMullin  
[318] On October 16, 2000, Mr. Elander’s long-term friend, realtor Art Stott, introduced Mr.  
Elander to Mr. MacMullin. Mr. Elander’s recollection is that Mr. Stott brought Mr. MacMullin  
with him to a meeting. They were discussing the five undeveloped lots in Blackfalds upon which  
they were going to build houses. It was a ‘meet and greet’ type meeting in which Mr. MacMullin  
indicated that he was building houses in the area and would have need of legal assistance. Mr.  
Elander indicated he would be happy to do the work.  
 
Page: 77  
[319] Mr. Elander also testified that Mr. MacMullin indicated that he was in the business of  
purchasing and fixing up homes, “flipping houses”, and was focused on providing affordable  
housing to individuals who needed that type of help.  
[320] Mr. Elander indicates that he knew Art Stott since the late 1970s and they had worked  
together as lawyer and realtor in Lethbridge on some real estate deals.  
[321] The first real estate transaction Mr. Elander did for Mr. MacMullin was the Zimmerman  
deal [property 6, count 8]. This occurred November 2000. Mr. MacMullin was the vendor  
(through a numbered company). Mr. Elander testified Mr. MacMullin asked him if he would also  
act for the buyers. Mr. Seremet was not yet in the picture.  
[322] At some point, Mr. Elander also met Mr. Seremet through Mr. MacMullin. Mr.  
MacMullin dropped by his office and indicated that he had a “young fella” who he was training  
to take over the real estate operations for him. After that, Mr. Seremet would stop by, bring  
people to the office, and also come to pick up cheques. After Mr. Elander met Mr. Seremet, he  
saw Mr. MacMullin less frequently and only when there was a real estate deal to sign.  
[323] Up to the middle of 2001, Mr. MacMullin would often accompany Mr. Seremet but as  
time went on, Mr. Seremet attended alone more frequently. Mr. Elander concluded that Mr.  
MacMullin was off working on other projects, but that Mr. Seremet had more disposable time.  
Despite his interaction with Mr. Seremet, Mr. Elander would refer back to Mr. MacMullin on  
bigger items. On smaller issues or subjects he would deal with Mr. Seremet. Mr. Elander was  
asked to explain how this split communication operated, but was unable to give examples. Mr.  
Elander called this a value judgment.  
[324] He also confirms that Mr. Seremet received some training time in his office. That came  
about because Mr. MacMullin had complained about legal fees on transactions where Mr.  
MacMullin was selling property with the assumption of an existing mortgage. Mr. MacMullin  
suggested that he would like to handle those transactions himself and he asked Mr. Elander if  
Mr. Seremet could come down for some training.  
[325] Mr. Elander did not see a problem with that, and thought that if Mr. Seremet worked in  
the office for a while, it would improve the relationship between Barbara Rye and Mr. Seremet  
(implicit in this evidence is that there was tension between Mr. Seremet and Ms. Rye). Ms. Rye  
was prepared to teach Mr. Seremet about the real estate legal documentation and he observed  
Mr. Seremet in the office while he (Mr. Elander) would be in and out of the office. Mr. Elander  
admits that he took Mr. Seremet home with him and that Mr. Seremet spent the night at his  
home. He recalls taking Mr. Seremet back to work the next morning and at some point,  
somebody drove Mr. Seremet back to Edmonton.  
Page: 78  
g.  
Countering the Evidence of Gaylene Juneau  
[326] During one summer during these alleged frauds, Gaylene Juneau became Mr. Elander’s  
employee. Her evidence was negative about both Mr. MacMullin and Mr. Elander. Mr. Elander  
discussed Ms. Juneau’s evidence.  
[327] Gaylene Juneau was hired, part time, in the summer of 2002. She would not have had the  
experience or the knowledge to make any assessment about the quality of the transactions that  
Mr. Elander was doing for Mr. MacMullin.  
[328] Mr. Elander explained Ms. Juneau was a disaster at her work. She had overstated and  
exaggerated her knowledge and skill. Worse, she had developed some animus toward Mr.  
Elander, which went so far as to report Mr. Elander to the Canada Revenue Agency and the Law  
Society of Alberta.  
[329] Ms. Juneau worked as a receptionist. There was a conflict between other staff and Ms.  
Juneau. As owner of the business, Mr. Elander received a report that Mr. MacMullin had  
apparently asked Ms. Juneau out on a date. She thought that was inappropriate. Mr. Elander  
testified that he expressly asked Mr. MacMullin not to do that, as advances of this type would  
not be appreciated. Ms. Juneau became very critical and snide about Mr. MacMullin. [Note: Ms.  
Juneau’s side of this story did not come before the Court because counsel objected. At the end of  
the trial, the Crown decided not to recall any witnesses.]  
[330] Mr. Elander explained Ms. Juneau’s actual knowledge of his real estate practice was  
limited. She never had the conduct of any real estate files. Her conclusion that the trust ledgers  
were irregular or defective existed only in Ms. Juneau’s mind.  
[331] As for threats leveled against Mr. Elander by a third party, Steve Carbone, a MacMullin  
associate according to Mr. Seremet, Mr. Elander could not recall that issue arising in the office.  
Mr. Elander had acted for that third party for over five years; he doubted that that incident  
occurred. The third party was a businessperson who was “rough around the edges”, but he and  
Mr. Elander were good friends.  
[332] Mr. Elander testified he had had numerous discussions with Ms. Juneau but only one  
related to mortgage fraud. He recalls discussing with her the values of properties going up in  
price dramatically but he pointed out to that neither of them had seen the properties. If the bank  
was wrong on the property’s value, it was not the fault of the law firm. [Note: In fact, an affidavit  
of transferee contains an assertion that the deponent ‘knows the property’.]  
h.  
The Last Deals  
[333] Mr. Elander continued to deal with both Mr. Seremet and Mr. MacMullin until the last  
four deals. Mr. Elander indicates that towards the end of 2002, he was extremely busy with legal  
work, but he had also encountered some trouble with the Law Society of Alberta on several  
   
Page: 79  
matters. He had another setback at this point: his full-time real estate conveyancer, Barbara Rye,  
quit to work elsewhere. She still did real estate for Mr. Elander, but only on a part time basis.  
[334] In early March 2003, Mr. Elander was leafing through a file and he found no signatures  
on it from his own staff. He knew he had not signed that document but believed his staff had. In  
fact, these documents were signed in Edmonton. Mr. Seremet had witnessed the deals. In 30  
years of practice, Mr. Elander indicates that he never accepted documents signed by others  
outside of the office. He received an explanation from his assistant, Ms. Nicholson, that she was  
asked to send out documents and she did so. Mr. Elander testified that at that point, he contacted  
Mr. Seremet and indicated that he would not act for Mr. MacMullin any further.  
[335] Mr. Seremet asked Mr. Elander to discuss this with Mr. MacMullin, which he did. Both  
appeared to accept this.  
[336] The Cannon/Coronado transaction (count 30) was the last deal Mr. Elander did for Mr.  
MacMullin. Mr. Elander did not end the relationship because he became aware that the  
MacMullin transactions were fraudulent, but rather because this breach of his internal protocol of  
either his office staff, or himself signing some element caused him to end the relationship.  
[337] Mr. Elander did continue to act for some of the straw buyers as they got into trouble and  
their properties were foreclosed upon. He also acted for Mr. MacMullin on an unrelated matter.  
i.  
The Denial Summary  
[338] In response to direct questioning from counsel for Mr. Elander, Mr. Elander summarizes  
his evidence in this manner:  
Neither Mr. MacMullin nor Mr. Seremet ever advised him that the purchasers were other  
than bona fide purchasers (i.e. never advised him about straw buyers).  
Neither Mr. MacMullin nor Mr. Seremet ever disclosed to him that the purchasers would  
not live in the properties.  
Neither Mr. MacMullin nor Mr. Seremet ever advised him that false information was  
used to obtain mortgages.  
Neither he, nor any of his staff (to the best of his information), provided any information  
to a mortgage company about matters not related to the actual real estate transaction.  
He had not heard of this type of fraud (mortgage fraud using “straw buyers”) in his  
practice prior to the RCMP investigation of his involvement with Mr. MacMullin.  
He received no information from within his own office that his staff had concerns about  
real estate purchase deposits or the down payments.  
 
Page: 80  
At no time did Mr. MacMullin or Mr. Seremet ever tell him that the down payments were  
not actually collected.  
He indicates emphatically that if he had been aware that the purchasers were receiving a  
payment for participating or obtaining a mortgage, he would not have participated.  
He indicates that if he had known that any buyer was not going to live in the property, he  
would not have participated in the purchase or sale. Instead, every buyer signed an  
affidavit explicitly stating the buyer was going to live in the property.  
He would not have completed any transaction without an under-oath declaration  
concerning principal residency.  
He never provided any information to a financial institution which he knew was false.  
He was not aware of any false information provided to the financial institutions involved  
in Mr. MacMullin’s real property transactions.  
2.  
The Cross-Examination  
a. By Counsel for Mr. MacMullin  
[339] Counsel for Mr. MacMullin introduced an exhibit (through Mr. Elander for the purpose  
of identification), a portion of which later became an agreed exhibit. The agreed exhibit is a  
confirmation that on the CMHC webpage in 2013, ‘principal residence’ does not require  
anything other than that you reside in the property at least some time during the year.  
[340] The cross-examination addressed Mr. Elander’s knowledge about the CMHC regulations.  
He appeared to have no knowledge of these.  
b.  
By the Crown  
[341] Mr. Elander acknowledged to the Crown that he had reviewed his real estate transaction  
files for the purpose of direct examination. Despite this review, there were a number of “I don’t  
know” and “I can’t remember” responses that crept into his evidence.  
[342] Mr. Elander explained that his legal assistant would handle the details of the file, and he  
admits that he did not have a good hands-on knowledge of the files and associated transactions.  
Mr. Elander’s career was reviewed and he concedes that he has extensive experience in real  
estate. He was shown documents from the files and admits that he did witness those.  
[343] Mr. Elander admits that he incorporated several companies for Mr. MacMullin. He  
concedes that he did act for a developer in Lethbridge, and acknowledges that it would be rare  
for a developer selling real estate to purchase it back. He admits that he did not go through all of  
the real estate contracts. It was not his practice to do so. Maybe in the first couple of years of his  
     
Page: 81  
practice, he studied those documents but after that, he delegated that role: the paralegal assessed  
the legal impact of the contract.  
[344] Mr. Elander acknowledged that clear title was important and conceded that on some of  
the transactions items remaining on title that could affect the financial institutions security were  
not cleared off title. He conceded that the mortgage instructions received by a solicitor from a  
lending financial institution were important, but he did not go through the instructions because it  
was always delegated to someone competent in his office. (He did identify an exception,  
commercial transactions which were out of the ordinary).  
[345] Practicing in rural Alberta made Mr. Elander familiar with multisided deals and he  
would often act for purchaser, vendor and financial institution. He indicates that the new home  
possession request by a financial institution on one of the properties was a novel item, not  
commonly provided. He now believes that a certificate of possession makes a lot of sense in  
terms of new construction.  
[346] Mr. Elander acknowledged that all documents are important. He confirms that transfers  
are usually submitted for registration as soon as possible after the transfer was signed. He  
indicates that trust accounts in lawyer’s offices are very important. These accounts are subject to  
audit and must be reconciled and balanced on a monthly basis. The lawyer signs off on their  
accuracy. Time is of the essence, particularly when mortgage funds must be distributed as the  
buyer is often paying interest. He conceded that money does not usually sit around in trust  
accounts for very long.  
[347] Mr. Elander was directed to the Anderson transaction set. He conceded that he made a  
mistake, believing that when they sold property at 14 Malcolm Crescent, he thought they were  
really selling the property on 54th Avenue. Mr. Elander testified he did not know about the  
Andersons’ ownership interest of 14 Malcolm Crescent, and that is why he did not think  
anything of it.  
[348] He was taken through the Wiechnik purchases. He handled both. Mr. Elander conceded  
that he received transfers of both properties from Mr. Wiechnik back to Mr. MacMullin. Mr.  
Elander concedes that both of them were transferred back to Mr. MacMullin on the same day  
[the Canyon Heights property: count 10; 57 Laurel Close: count 12]. He received these transfers  
on or about March 29, 2001. Mr. Elander witnessed both of those transfers which returned the  
property to Mr. MacMullin on the same day.  
[349] Mr. Elander points out that he did not create the transfers. They were handwritten by  
someone else. He has no explanation for why the communications to the bank relating to the  
assumption of the mortgage occurred only six months later, in August 2001. He does not recall  
being involved in the assumption of the 18 Canyon Heights [count 10] mortgage by Mr.  
MacMullin. Mr. Elander initially thought that it may be a subsequent assumption if the sale was  
again to a third-party, but on a later review of his file, he is forced to concede that this  
transaction is the assumption by Mr. MacMullin from Mr. Wiechnik.  
Page: 82  
[350] The Crown next turned to the Blackfalds properties. Mr. Elander acted for Mr.  
MacMullin when he the purchased these properties on December 7, 2000. Mr. Elander and Mr.  
MacMullin completed the mortgage and title transfer for that land to Mr. Wiechnik, by February  
11, 2001. This is only 65 days after Mr. Elander assisted Mr. MacMullin in acquiring title to  
what was undeveloped land in the middle of the winter. Now, Mr. MacMullin is selling Mr.  
Wiechnik what is described as a completed home. Mr. Elander is shown where on March 28,  
2001 he reports to Mr. Wiechnik about successful completion of the purchase. However, only  
two days later, Mr. Elander is transferring the property back to Mr. MacMullin.  
[351] The Crown carefully took Mr. Elander through the five purchases in the Blackfalds  
subdivision where the values ranged from a high of $42,500.00 to a low of $38,900.00. All of  
these transactions were closed at the same time. The affidavits of value set out the value of this  
property being essentially restricted to the raw land.  
[352] The Crown now returned Mr. Elander to his positive, competent, discussion about  
vendor’s lien caveats. He was reminded first that on the previous day, he said that a vendor’s lien  
caveat was essential in all transactions except those between families. However, the Crown  
reviewed how in certain MacMullin transactions, this precaution is absent: there was no vendor’s  
lien caveat. Mr. Elander modified his evidence. His new position was a vendor’s lien is not  
necessary if all of the cash is in trust. Mr. Elander therefore narrows the field such that his  
revised opinion is that a vendor’s lien caveat is, in effect, only necessary when the transaction  
involves a new mortgage and is at arm’s-length.  
[353] The Crown next took Mr. Elander to the four transactions which Mr. Elander indicates  
end his mortgage and real estate conveyancing relationship with Mr. MacMullin. Mr. Elander  
was shocked that the transactions were not signed in the office. However, he did not report this  
fact to the financial institutions. On the sale from one of Mr. MacMullin’s companies to Mr.  
Waring and Ms. Shaw, the mortgage was disbursed on January 15, 2003. Mr. Elander  
acknowledges that the money would not sit in trust and he was the only one that could sign the  
trust cheques. The money was coming back to Mr. MacMullin, but he does not know who else  
received the money. Mr. Elander would have paid out the mortgage on the title and distributed  
the remainder as was requested. Mr. Elander acknowledges that his staff did all of that  
mathematical calculation as he was absent from the office 80% of the time.  
[354] Mr. Elander was directed to property number 23. This is the transaction where Ms. Joy  
Langley sells to Mr. Tunney and Mr. Smith. Mr. Elander was aware that Ms. Langley is Mr.  
MacMullin’s mother.  
[355] On property 12 [Hendry sale to Campbell/Young], Mr. Elander was shown a trust  
account statement [Elander file 171, scan 7569, p203/249] in which Mr. Elander sent $5,000.00  
from the trust funds indicated to be Hendry/Campbell/Young, to the lawyer acting on an  
unrelated MacMullin foreclosure. This is difficult to explain in a transaction where Mr.  
MacMullin is neither vendor nor purchaser! Mr. Elander was not aware of that relationship.  
Page: 83  
[356] He next was taken to property number 15, a sale to the Sakacs. The offer cannot be found  
in Mr. Elander’s file. He admits that there should have been a copy there.  
[357] Mr. Elander is next asked to comment on his file where property purchaser Grace Nichols  
obtained a mortgage with National Bank. National Bank instructs that there be a $4,000.00 hold  
back pending final inspection and the completion of a mother-in-law suite in the property  
basement. Mr. Elander cannot recall anything about Ms. Nichols. He admits that there is a memo  
from Barb Rye on the file which indicates that she needs help because there is not enough money  
to close the deal. Mr. Elander in response instructed Ms. Rye transfer money to the Nichols  
purchase from the transaction involving Campbell and Kerr. Mr. Elander conceded that on this  
file, money was taken from one client to another client to make the cash work.  
[358] As for the trust ledgers, Mr. Elander concedes he does not have all of them. He asserted  
the three in his possession were reliable and accurate. He produced these to the Crown at their  
request through his lawyer.  
[359] The Crown returned to the transaction where the real property ultimately ended up in the  
hands of Joy Langley. There is a purchase of this property by Mr. Ngeth with a MRS Trust  
mortgage. A Canada Revenue Agency writ against Mr. MacMullin on this property was not  
discharged.  
[360] The property was later transferred to Mr. MacMullin’s mother on September 23, 2002.  
The CRA writ is still not discharged. Mr. Elander concedes that the handling of that transaction  
favored Mr. MacMullin to the prejudice of MRS Trust. He offered no explanation for why that  
happened, and was not sure about what actually had occurred. He is next referred to property 1  
(Exhibit 133, the London Life file), where Darcy Stromsmoe was the straw buyer. The transfer  
documentation was signed by Mr. Elander. Again, there is a writ on title which is not discharged.  
c.  
Redirect Examination  
[361] During re-direct, Mr. Elander confirmed that he did have funds in his trust accounts other  
than for real estate files. He testified that mortgage discharges are often prepared by the  
mortgage company, then sent to the lawyer for registration. There can be delays. He also  
concedes that the Land Titles registration date does not necessarily reflect the prepared date of  
the mortgage.  
3.  
Applying the W(D) Analysis to the Evidence of Mr. Elander  
[362] My next task is to apply the W(D) procedure to Mr. Elander’s evidence. Again, this  
involves three steps:  
1.  
2.  
Do I believe Mr. Elander?  
Does Mr. Elander’s evidence create a reasonable doubt as to his guilt?  
   
Page: 84  
3.  
If neither, then I evaluate the evidence of the trial as a whole to determine whether  
the Crown has proven Mr. Elander’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  
a.  
Do I believe the Evidence of Mr. Elander?  
[363] Mr. Elander’s evidence marks a sad moment for the legal profession in Alberta. For Mr.  
Elander to be believed, I must believe that he is incompetent and grossly negligent. Nothing else  
(other than criminal culpability) can explain what the evidence and his files reveal about the 22  
transactions where he was a participant.  
[364] These transactions, which occurred in a relatively narrow time period, and involved a  
single pivotal individual - Al MacMullin - exuded danger signs and warning flags from virtually  
the first moment of their business relationship. Yet Mr. Elander appears willing to accept that  
Mr. MacMullin was nothing more than a hard-working builder, buying properties, fixing them  
up, and selling them.  
[365] To accept Mr. Elander’s evidence would mean I must accept that he never read the  
REPCs, financial institution instruction letters, or other documents. He had entirely delegated to  
a paralegal all of the scrutiny required to satisfy the needs of his clients: the financial institution  
lenders and often naïve buyers. To accept Mr. Elander’s evidence would also mean my believing  
that Mr. Elander never found anything unusual about the numerous times that Mr. MacMullin  
took back property that he had previously sold, or that Mr. MacMullin received money (and as  
important, an accounting) in transactions where he was essentially a third party: neither a buyer  
nor seller. Where he was ostensibly a finder, Mr. MacMullin’s finder’s fees were not invoiced,  
GST was not paid, there are no written confirming instructions from the vendor’s authorizing  
payment of the finder’s fees and there is no evidence recognizing an arm’s-length commercial  
relationship between Mr. MacMullin and the straw buyer/seller, relating to the finder’s fee.  
[366] Believing Mr. Elander’s evidence, would mean that Mr. Elander was unconcerned and  
unswayed by his confrontations with various straw buyers who demanded promised mortgage  
payments, and in one case an irate father requesting Mr. Elander unwind a deal. Mr. Elander  
admitted in his testimony that he was confronted by Mr. Wayne Cipperley who told him that Mr.  
MacMullin had involved his son into a fraudulent deal. Somehow, that was not an issue. Mr.  
Elander instead came to a surprising and counterintuitive deduction from these ongoing events:  
that Mr. MacMullin was not committing frauds.  
[367] In another example, the Mrs. Hendry deal, Mr. Elander explained how he was concerned  
about Mrs. Hendry. Mr. Elander wanted to ensure that she was properly protected. But exactly  
from what, is unclear. Mrs. Hendry was selling her home in what appeared to be an arm’s-length  
deal. Mr. Elander was going to protect her by obtaining the purchase money. What could  
possibly have been the threat that would precipitate and oblige him to tell us that he was trying to  
protect her? Could it have been a pang of consciousness, as he knew that Mrs. Hendry had  
become involved with the economic predator Mr. MacMullin? Or that Mr. Elander actually knew  
 
Page: 85  
the buyers were not going to take possession, and Mrs. Hendry would continue to reside in her  
now former home?  
[368] In any case, that concern was transient. Mr. Elander signed the real estate transfer  
documents and returned to Red Deer to have those prepared for registration. At this point, Mr.  
Elander was confronted by very concerned paralegal who has written him a note in which she  
indicates that Mrs. Hendry is extremely upset. Mrs. Hendry does not trust Mr. MacMullin. She  
has not received her deposit. She demands that he file a caveat to protect her. Then, before he has  
reported to the bank, Mr. Elander is asked to witness a letter in favor of Mrs. Hendry that  
involves Mr. MacMullin, who is agreeing to pay the mortgage payments on the mortgage taken  
by the straw buyer. Why would Mrs. Hendry care about whether the purchaser of her home in an  
arm’s-length transaction made his mortgage payments or not.  
[369] Mr. Elander admits he personally witnessed this one half page document, but he would  
have me believe this remarkable set of events did not set off a twinge of concern, let alone the  
metaphorical “ah ha!” light bulb. What Mr. Elander acknowledges but says was innocent is  
either willful blindness to a critical irregularity, or stupidity beyond that conceivable for someone  
with a degree in law and admission to the Alberta bar. Do I accept Mr. Elander’s evidence and  
do I believe it. The answer is no! His evidence builds on the stereotype that real estate is routine  
and any paralegal can do it while the lawyer simply reaps the fees.  
[370] Reasons why I cannot believe Mr. Elander’s evidence are explored on a file-by-file basis  
in Schedule A, but I wrap up this portion of the discussion by referencing only a small subset of  
the reasons why I do not accept his evidence that he was nothing more than an innocent, absent  
dupe of Mr. MacMullin.  
[371] The first of these is the unusual step of allowing Mr. Seremet to come into his office for  
training in real estate. It is unbelievable that a law firm that did not have a “special relationship”  
with a third-party client would actually train somebody to do real estate transactions and as a  
consequence cut into their own business opportunities and income. Still worse assisting someone  
master a skill set for the unauthorized practice of law. What is even more absurd is the  
explanation: Mr. MacMullin’s fees were too high. Never mind having that client’s apprentice  
trainee actually stay with you in your residence.  
[372] There is, however, a logical explanation for this implausible scenario. Training Mr.  
Seremet in this manner would reduce Mr. Elander’s exposure to straw buyers and the  
incriminating or problematic information they might unwittingly provide. That is consistent with  
the Crown’s theory that Mr. Elander was trying to establish and maintain plausible deniability.  
Does that lead to a logical inference that Mr. Elander should be believed when he indicates he  
did not know that frauds were going on? It cannot.  
[373] The next item is Mr. Elander’s advice on why he stopped doing the work. Two things  
happened to Mr. Elander around the time of the last transaction. The first is that he received a  
nasty accusatory letter from a prominent Alberta lawyer pointing out that Mr. Elander had been  
exposed as counsel for Mr. MacMullin on one piece of property that resulted in two foreclosures  
Page: 86  
in a short time. Mr. MacMullin was foreclosed once, ended up with the property a second time,  
sold it again, then the property was foreclosed again a second time. Mr. Elander did one deal,  
and the buy back in the middle!  
[374] In addition, my analysis of the files reveals that on the very last transaction Mr. Elander  
had to report to the financial institution that the straw buyers had transferred the property back to  
Mr. MacMullin before Mr. Elander could even submit the final report. The six month straw  
buyer hold element of these deals was getting shorter and shorter. I simply do not believe Mr.  
Elander where he expressed concern about the mortgage being signed outside of his office. If this  
was true he would have reacted in January of the year when the first farmed out deal went  
through. Frankly, with his disinterest, incompetent legal practice and procedures, he would have  
welcomed that! What I believe happened is that the ‘background noise’ about fraud being  
perpetrated in these transactions (as identified in the Crown’s ‘time stampanalysis) finally  
became so loud that Mr. Elander decided he had to bail out.  
[375] The idea that a lawyer, preoccupied with other unrelated matters would care that  
documents were signed outside of his office is preposterous. I do not believe Mr. Elander on the  
evidence about why he stopped acting on mortgages for Mr. MacMullin’s straw buyers. The only  
reason Mr. Elander backed away from Mr. MacMullin was Mr. Elander was street smart enough  
to conclude that MacMullin was sinking fast, and heard the wolves scratching at his own door.  
[376] The next example of Mr. Elander’s lack of credibility was his direct positive, specific,  
emphatic evidence that in his real estate practice, he filed vendor’s lien caveats in all cases  
except for the ones where there was no money at risk, and as I interpret his evidence, in non-  
arm’s-length transactions.  
[377] This evidence, which he gave under oath, is inconsistent with the file review and the  
Land Titles records. In fact, Mr. Elander rarely filed a vendor’s lien caveat (the Hendry file being  
one exception - and that at her specific request) [scan 7569, p 23/249], despite in many cases,  
where on his own evidence that precaution would have made sense, as the transaction met his  
criteria of an arm’s-length sale and new mortgage funding that created this vendors risk. There  
is, however, a logical explanation. If I accept Mr. Elander’s explanation of his habitual practice,  
then the failure to file these vendor’s lien caveats is an admission he knew these were non-arm’s-  
length deals - really refinancing for the true owner, Mr. MacMullin.  
[378] I do not believe Mr. Elander on his denials of guilt. He was inconsistent, and advanced  
implausible and illogical explanations for his conduct and innocence. He admits to knowledge  
that contradicts his pleas of innocence. Since I reject Mr. Elander’s evidence, that ends the first  
step of the W(D) analysis.  
Page: 87  
b.  
Does Mr. Elander’s Evidence at Least Raise a Reasonable  
Doubt?  
[379] Even if I do not fully accept Mr. Elander’s evidence, it is clear that on some of the  
counts, his evidence does raise a reasonable doubt, particularly when approached with an  
overview of the evidence as a whole.  
[380] Mr. Elander was not involved in the fraudulent aspects of the mortgage application  
process itself. His involvement was through his role as the real property transaction solicitor.  
[381] Take one example, where Mr. Elander discussed with a couple of straw buyers, the  
CMHC residency requirements. His version could be reasonably true, as could his explanation  
that they were speaking hypothetically about not moving in.  
[382] Mr. Elander has denied knowledge of illegal or suspect aspects of the MacMullin real  
estate transactions. An inference could be drawn that if Elander had truly known that he had  
participated in a fraud with Mr. MacMullin, he could have destroyed all of the real estate files.  
Instead, Mr. Elander must have been unaware of the fraud, otherwise he would not have turned  
the files over to Mr. Cruickshank and ultimately became exhibits in this trial with some  
exceptions. While that too may have raised inferences, the lack of his files in some cases assisted  
rather than detracted from Mr. Elander’s defence.  
[383] Although Mr. Elander did try to stonewall and put off RCMP Sgt. Schmidt, he ultimately  
appears to have done nothing to cover up or hide anything in his files. Again, although I do not  
believe his direct evidence of a lack of knowledge, his handling of these files could also be  
consistent with a lack of knowledge, as well other explanations, and at least raise a doubt.  
[384] Finally I cannot ignore the reality that a review of Mr. Elander’s real estate transaction  
files indicate Mr. Elander was incredibly incompetent and grossly negligent. As incredible as his  
denial of knowledge of fraud is, a solicitor who is not attuned to his practice, indifferent to it, and  
pops in only to sign trust cheques laid out in front of him by an absolutely trusted paralegal,  
could be the sign of neglect and carelessness rather than knowledge of fraud. Again, while not  
believing his evidence, his claims of being uninformed does raise a reasonable doubt on some of  
the counts and, where applicable, in Schedule A, he will receive the benefit. This ends the second  
step of the W(D) process.  
c.  
Has the Crown Proven Mr. Elander’s Guilt on Evidence I do  
Accept  
[385] As will be summarized in Schedule A, the Crown’s case against Mr. Elander is more  
tenuous then that of the allegations against Mr. MacMullin. In some cases, the Crown simply  
does not prove beyond reasonable doubt Mr. Elander’s guilt. This is not because I believe his  
denials of innocence, but because in some cases, they at least raise a reasonable doubt when  
sifted through the timing issues, and screen of the rest of the Crown’s evidence. This observation  
linked with Schedule A completes this third step of the W(D) procedure.  
   
Page: 88  
C.  
Mr. Seremet’s Evidence  
1. Cautionary Approach to his Evidence  
[386] Mr. Seremet gave direct evidence over many days and was cross examined at length. He  
was on the witness stand longer than any other witness. The Crown carefully took him through  
his background, starting with his introduction to Mr. MacMullin and how the business  
involvement between them became increasingly complex, suspicious, and dishonorable. His  
evidence is critical in this case because his evidence, if accepted, is sufficient on its own to  
convict Mr. MacMullin, of every count occurring after Mr. MacMullin began using him to assist  
in fraud. However, his evidence alone, even if accepted by me, is insufficient to convict Mr.  
Elander.  
[387] In summary, his evidence confirmed that Mr. MacMullin trained him on how to execute  
the real estate mortgage frauds, and then both he and Mr. MacMullin participated in these  
mortgage frauds as collaborators. His description of the mortgage fraud scheme is essentially the  
same as the Crown submits in its argument. ‘Straw buyers’, who did not intend to have an equity  
interest in property ‘pulled a mortgage’ (obtained a mortgage) on false and misleading  
information. Straw buyers were motivated by greed: the promise of a fee. Mr. Seremet’s motive  
was to please his boss, an individual whom he admired and respected greatly, and with the  
willfully blind belief that he and Mr. MacMullin were developing a viable long-term property  
development business.  
[388] The scheme was to create a factual ‘legend’ to ‘pull a mortgage’ by the creation of  
fraudulent documents. These were then passed to financial institutions as true facts. The  
documentary record is proven and beyond question. Critically, Mr. Seremet indicates that in all  
cases, Mr. MacMullin was fully informed. He knew everything that was going on. He directed  
all of it. He identifies many MacMullin drafted documents, particularly the REPCs.  
[389] Mr. Seremet is a convicted felon. He pled guilty to fraud charges arising out of the  
indictment upon which Mr. MacMullin and Mr. Elander are charged. He gave evidence under  
subpoena while a serving prisoner, but indicated that he had not received any promise from the  
Crown to give evidence. In direct examination, he admitted to numerous acts of repeated  
dishonorable or illegal conduct beyond the counts to which he plead guilty. Some of these in a  
non-exhaustive list include the following:  
Forging the signatures of his brother Marko Knezevic, John Dunne, Mr. MacMullin, and  
others.  
Impersonating Mr. MacMullin as a Commissioner for Oaths.  
Falsely signing affidavits and statutory declarations as a Commissioner of Oaths,  
knowing that he had not been present when these documents were signed, and where  
execution occurred without administration of an oath. In some cases, Mr. Seremet could  
not even be sure the named parties had signed these documents.  
   
Page: 89  
Allowing his name to be used on documents such as REPCs, which he specifically knew  
were false; and forwarding these false documents to financial institutions and mortgage  
brokers, knowing that the documents would be relied on.  
Lying to straw buyers about the legalities of the transaction in which the straw buyers  
were participants, and the likelihood of mortgage reimbursement payments.  
Receiving solicitor’s trust cheques and cashing those cheques at financial institutions and  
being in possession of that money knowing that it had been obtained in Canada by the  
commission of an offense (fraud).  
[390] It is clear that in facilitating the frauds to which he has pled guilty, numerous other  
criminal activities are implicitly admitted. All of this criminal activity reflects a high level of  
moral turpitude and dishonesty. Mr. Seremet explained his abuse of his Commissioner of Oaths  
office, in which he both administered oaths and signed documents knowing they were false,  
either as the deponent or the commissioner. In his testimony at trial, he stated: “the oath means  
more to him now than it did back then.”  
[391] This makes Mr. Seremet a disreputable witness. R v Vetrovec, [1982] 1 SCR 811 at 825,  
830-831, 136 DLR (3d) 89 makes clear that when a trier of fact hears evidence from a witness  
whose testimony might be suspect because that person is an accomplice or a person of  
disreputable character (a Vetrovec witness”), there is a danger finding guilt based on the  
Vetrovec witness’s evidence unless that evidence is corroborated. This is a matter of common  
sense, but it requires that I identify some confirmatory evidence before I rely on the evidence of  
a Vetrovec witness, when that witness provides testimony that is central to the Crown’s case: R v  
Kehler, 2004 SCC 11 at para 19.  
[392] Justice Watt in R v Roks, 2011 ONCA 526 at paras 6366, 281 OAC 235, provides a  
helpful summary of how a trier of fact might apply the Vetrovec principles:  
Among the essential elements of a Vetrovec caution is an instruction about the  
essential characteristics of confirmatory evidence. Jurors are to be told that, in  
determining the veracity of the suspect evidence, they should look for evidence  
from another source tending to show that the untrustworthy witness is telling the  
truth about the guilt of the accused ... The trier of fact is to look for confirmation  
from some other source (the independence requirement) that the suspect witness  
is telling the truth in some part of his story that goes to show that the accused  
committed the offence charged (the implicative quality or materiality  
requirement). ...  
The independence requirement insists that to be confirmatory, evidence must not  
be "tainted" by connection to the Vetrovec witness ...  
To satisfy the materiality requirement, confirmatory evidence need not implicate  
the accused ... The materiality requirement is met where the confirmatory  
Page: 90  
evidence, in the context of the case as a whole, gives comfort to the trier of fact  
that the Vetrovec witness can be trusted in his or her assertion that the accused is  
the person who committed the offence ... Where the only issue in dispute is  
whether the accused committed the offence, to be confirmatory, evidence must  
comfort the trier of fact that the Vetrovec witness is telling the truth in that regard  
before convicting on the basis of the Vetrovec witness' evidence ...  
It is worth reminder that a trier of fact is entitled to convict on the evidence of a  
Vetrovec witness in the absence of confirmatory evidence where the trier of fact,  
cautioned about the danger of doing so, is satisfied that the witness is telling the  
truth ...  
[Citations excluded, emphasis added.]  
[393] The corroborating evidence may be provided by another Vetrovec witness, provided I am  
satisfied that evidence is true: R v Winmill (1999), 131 CCC (3d) 380 at para 120, 116 OAC 201  
(Ont CA).  
[394] In addition to the ‘hit’ his credibility takes by his criminal conduct, Mr. Seremet also  
receives less benefit from the fact that in some cases, his evidence dovetails closely with the  
evidence of other third parties, mainly the straw buyers. This is because Mr. Seremet was a co-  
indicted accused who had access to all of the ‘will say’ and ‘witness statements’ of the Crown’s  
case. It would be an easy matter for him to base his in-court evidence not on the events that  
transpired over 10 years ago, but on more recent detailed refreshment provided by his access to  
the Crown disclosure.  
[395] Last, Mr. Seremet was a college student with his entire life in front of him when he first  
met Mr. MacMullin. Now, just over 30 years of age, he is a convicted felon with a lengthy  
record. On some plane, although it was difficult to ascertain this in his evidence, he must bear  
anger and resentment directed toward Mr. MacMullin, whom he worshiped as his mentor, but  
whom in the end only assured Mr. Seremet an extended trip to a federal penitentiary. Mr.  
Seremet undoubtedly deeply resents Mr. MacMullin for having gotten him into this mess.  
[396] For all of these reasons, Mr. Seremet’s evidence must be closely scrutinized! Despite this  
caution, Mr. Seremet’s evidence was comprehensive, thorough and fit with the other evidence.  
This included the documentary trail and the evidence of straw buyers and the other witnesses.  
[397] Finally, if Mr. Seremet’s evidence was the only evidence that I had on any count that  
goes to Mr. MacMullin’s guilt or innocence then on credibility alone, Mr. MacMullin would get  
the benefit of that doubt. However, there is not one count in which Mr. Seremet’s evidence  
stands alone. There is the ‘title tale’, the evidence of straw buyers also (requiring caution), but  
also some confirmatory evidence from Mr. MacMullin, Mr. Elander and others. Last, there are  
the financial institution files and those of the mortgage brokers, Mr. MacMullin’s two wives and  
various renters. Generally, Mr. Seremet’s evidence is believable; his evidence alone is capable of  
convicting Mr. MacMullin on most counts, that occur in 2001 to 2004, he was not around or  
Page: 91  
heavily involved in 2000. When you add the rest of the evidence, there remains very little that  
does not point to Mr. MacMullin’s guilt.  
2.  
Back in Time  
[398] Joe Seremet completed high school around 1995 and started university. He was 19 years  
of age in 1996 and he had just finished his first year in a science program. A high school  
classmate introduced him to the Amway marketing scheme. Through Amway, he was introduced  
to Mr. MacMullin, and began to spend more time with him.  
[399] After his second year of university, Mr. Seremet took a year off school but later returned  
to complete his degree at Concordia University. During the year he was away from university,  
Mr. Seremet began to work with Mr. MacMullin, initially doing odd jobs such as assisting on  
construction projects, delivering materials, and riding along with Mr. MacMullin as he  
performed his various deals. Mr. MacMullin was a talker and introduced him to real estate and  
mortgage concepts that would play an integral part of the fraud scheme.  
[400] It is clear that Mr. Seremet viewed Mr. MacMullin as a surrogate father or a big brother.  
Many witnesses said he idolized Mr. MacMullin. Mr. Seremet on the witness stand indicated that  
one thing that impressed him and the other young people who were exposed to Mr. MacMullin is  
that he always had a big wad of cash in his pocket and had no reluctance in flashing that cash  
around.  
[401] Mr. MacMullin’s ex-wife, Barbara Hong, also gave evidence that Mr. MacMullin  
believed in cash and used cash wherever he could. His first ex-wife described a situation where  
Mr. MacMullin pulled up behind a restaurant in Red Deer and was handed a paper bag filled  
with cash.  
[402] As the relationship between Mr. MacMullin and Mr. Seremet deepened, Mr. MacMullin  
learned that Mr. Seremet could do things for him. He was a quick study, appeared willing to  
embrace a certain amount of larceny, and, most importantly, Mr. Seremet’s own Amway network  
was yielding valuable contacts, including Mr. Russellell Campbell, who then invested with Mr.  
MacMullin. This was the start of a relationship which spiraled into criminal activity.  
3.  
Identifying Mr. MacMullin’s Business Activities  
[403] Mr. Seremet gave a broad picture view of Mr. MacMullin’s many business activities.  
Individual straw buyers who gave evidence about their specific deals corroborate his evidence. It  
is clear that Mr. MacMullin had a lot of business activity on his plate, much of it in real estate,  
and that he was chronically under-financed. I accept Mr. Seremet’s evidence that Mr. MacMullin  
was always desperate for cash. Mr. MacMullin instructed Mr. Seremet to get cash wherever and  
whenever he could.  
   
Page: 92  
[404] That included getting cash from banks when cashing solicitor’s trust cheque. If the banks  
could not cash a large solicitor’s cheque, Mr. MacMullin instructed Mr. Seremet to get as much  
cash as possible! He would then take the rest in money orders payable to various ‘squeaky  
wheels’ that Mr. MacMullin had to grease to prevent the empire he was trying to create from  
collapsing around him.  
[405] Mr. Seremet described one case where he picked up a cheque, drove to the Calgary bank  
it was drawn upon, and cashed it. He then returned to Mr. MacMullin with the $40,000.00 of  
cash in his possession. Mr. Seremet probably knew early in his relationship with Mr. MacMullin  
that cash is not the way in which legitimate business is conducted. It was clear, however, that  
Mr. MacMullin knew that Mr. Seremet was under his spell. Why else would he allow this young  
student, turned young apprentice businessperson, handle this much cash?  
[406] Mr. MacMullin’s businesses were largely in several properties in Parkland County near  
Edmonton. He had one property in the Chickakoo subdivision and at least three other properties  
in the Kathmarkham subdivision. In Blackfalds, Alberta, Mr. MacMullin had a new home  
construction project of five houses, all of them located on Laurel Close in close proximity to one  
another.  
[407] In addition to these real estate development projects, Mr. MacMullin was also involved  
in:  
charity work to build cabins for a church,  
a restaurant on 118 Ave.,  
a balloon novelty business on 118 Ave.,  
a golf course west of Edmonton,  
the Liberty Building on Jasper Ave. and 105th St. in downtown Edmonton, and  
numerous rentals and fix up properties sprinkled throughout Edmonton, Red Deer and  
other rural Alberta locations.  
Mr. MacMullin confirmed this was true.  
[408] On its surface, the business that Mr. MacMullin appeared to be in was buying distressed  
properties, renovating them, and selling them at a profit. As his need for cash spiraled out-of-  
control, the business shifted from a legitimate buy low/sell high’ business (though one using  
inappropriately obtained financing) to a business where all caution was thrown to the wind,  
where ‘making money’ became synonymous with cash flow from increasing debt through  
fraudulently obtained mortgages, based on deceitful REPCs.  
[409] This is also consistent with the evidence given by mortgage broker Dave Humeniuk. He  
testified that the quality of the transactions referred to him by Mr. MacMullin deteriorated,  
Page: 93  
finally into transactions where repeat buyers were purportedly selling their principal residence on  
multiple occasions leading Mr. Humeniuk to observe that CMHC and GE Capital would get  
suspicious.  
[410] What may have started out as a legitimate business of buying, fixing up, and selling  
houses evolved to a modified Ponzi scheme. Investors would invest cash at exorbitant rates of  
returns that were in turn paid by debt generated from straw buyer mortgages in a fraudulent  
mortgage scheme. Investors would be cajoled, entertained, kept close, and made to feel  
important until they invested and Mr. MacMullin had extracted all possible worth or benefit from  
them. Once the financial institutions threatened collection against the straw buyers, Mr. Seremet  
and Mr. MacMullin were less willing to take or return their calls.  
[411] I accept this evidence given by Mr. Seremet about the properties, corporations and Mr.  
MacMullin’s involvement in them. As a convicted felon, his evidence should be viewed with  
care and skepticism. I nevertheless do accept his account because it does nothing more than tie  
the threads together of properties and transactions that are clearly identified by the land titles  
chain of title, or the various legal files made exhibits as property in which Mr. MacMullin had an  
interest or extracted cash out of other people’s property.  
[412] In short, Mr. Seremet’s evidence is consistent with the remaining factual matrix,  
including those occasions where I have accepted Mr. MacMullin’s testimony.  
4.  
Specifics of the Mortgage Business  
[413] Mr. Seremet learned from Mr. MacMullin that people could be used. Individuals who did  
not have cash but who had good credit could be straw buyers in a fraudulent mortgage  
transaction. He learned that individuals that had investment money either through a re-financing  
of their own home or through liquid cash could be induced to make investments at astronomical  
rates of return. He learned from Mr. MacMullin that if you had two people who individually  
could not support a mortgage, you might be able to put them together to qualify for a mortgage.  
[414] Mr. Seremet learned about the concept of principal (primary) residence for insured  
mortgages. He accepted completely what Mr. MacMullin told him - that due to a loophole in the  
law, all you had to do was exhibit some type of possession over the property. If you put a plant in  
it, swept it out, or had a meal there, you would satisfy the requirement that it was your principal  
residence. He accepted these things because he did not know better. Despite his intellectual  
capacity and his degree in math and physics, Mr. Seremet was unsophisticated and unwary about  
the realities of business, and was caught up in the charismatic dream of Mr. MacMullin. He  
actually encouraged his father to take over one of these properties through a mortgage and his  
mentor, Mr. MacMullin, advised Mr. Seremet that he could motivate his father by encouraging  
this as a way to leave a legacy.  
[415] Mr. Seremet learned that down payments should be shown and that the source of the  
down payment must be identifiable. His brother, Marko Knezevic, was a useful name to use for  
 
Page: 94  
these purposes. He also learned that straw buyers have to create the illusion of having sold their  
home. REPC’s provided a tool for that, these documents could be drafted unconditionally but  
never given any real effect by registration of the title transfer with the Land Titles Office.  
[416] Mr. Seremet learned that once people have provided some financial information, you  
could recopy or replicate that information and apply it to other transactions without their  
knowledge. He learned that you could forge signatures as need required. He learned the benefit  
of multiple signatures. Mr. Seremet attempted in his testimony to leave the impression that at the  
time he was young and impressionable, and did these things because Mr. MacMullin told him so.  
While I accept he did this because Mr. MacMullin told him to do it, I rejected the idea that Mr.  
Seremet is ‘lily pure’ given the implications of this activity. I conclude that at an early time, Mr.  
Seremet realized that these were artificial transactions and fraudulent, but probably bought into  
the myth promoted by Mr. MacMullin: That their approach was designed to get around tight  
Canadian banking rules that prevented honest businessmen from getting ahead.”  
[417] Mr. Seremet knew what he was doing was wrong and a fraud. He entered a plea of guilty  
to most of the fraud charges facing him, accepted his punishment, and started serving his  
sentence. I believe his evidence about the training he received from Mr. MacMullin to set the  
documentary and contractual stage for deceit using false REPCs and false financial information.  
It too is consistent with the evidence of the straw buyers and the documentary trail, not to be  
believed.  
5.  
Dealing with Professionals  
[418] I also accept Mr. Seremet’s evidence about Mr. MacMullin’s dealings with professionals.  
These professionals were both mortgage brokers and lawyers. Mr. Seremet became aware of  
many involved lawyers but his most frequent dealings were with Mr. Elander. Mr. Seremet  
indicates that Mr. MacMullin informed him that Roy Elander was his “go to” lawyer. I also  
accept the evidence that Mr. Seremet was privy to discussions between Mr. Elander and Mr.  
MacMullin where Mr. Elander expressed concern about deals that were closing without cash.  
Mr. Elander wanted cash deposits to prove the down payments identified in the purchase  
agreements.  
[419] I also accept that Mr. Elander was prepared to teach Mr. Seremet some legal principles  
and procedures relating to real estate and completion of basic documents. I accept Mr. Seremet’s  
evidence that he stayed with Mr. Elander one night in a home owned by Mr. Elander’s wife and  
subsequently sold to a straw buyer. Finally, I accept that Mr. Seremet worked in Mr. Elander’s  
office with paralegal, Barb Rye, to learn how to complete basic real estate transactions.  
[420] All of this evidence is significant when I consider whether Mr. Elander was simply duped  
into participating in this mortgage scheme or was an active knowledgeable participant. I will  
return to this concept later but let me observe that this evidence undercuts Mr. Elander’s self-  
characterization as a dupe and instead infers active knowledge and participation.  
 
Page: 95  
[421] Mr. Seremet also gave evidence about the excuses that Mr. MacMullin would make when  
he stopped using an involved professional. For example, at one point Mr. MacMullin stopped  
using mortgage broker David Humeniuk, and started using mortgage broker David Gorn. The  
reason given by Mr. MacMullin to Mr. Seremet was that the broker was getting greedy and  
ungrateful. The same reason was given when he stopped using the lawyers Mr. Bittner and Mr.  
Elander: they were greedy and ungrateful. In fact Mr. MacMullin had to stop using Mr. Bittner  
because he had cheated him, and probably cost him his career.  
[422] I accept Mr. Seremet’s evidence that Mr. MacMullin believed he was abandoned by Mr.  
Elander and was incensed by that. Mr. MacMullin felt that he had “made Mr. Elander  
economically” and that Elander had gotten “fat” by his efforts. Mr. MacMullin also indicated  
that a joint development opportunity between MacMullin and Elander in relation to a property  
owned by Mr. Elander’s wife was now off the table. That property was already the subject of a  
mortgage arranged by Mr. MacMullin.  
[423] Mr. Seremet supplies no other evidence as why the lawyers who did one or two deals  
were not used again. However, one potential straw buyer indicated that he was with Mr.  
MacMullin to sign a deal when the lawyer took Mr. MacMullin aside for a private discussion.  
The straw buyer could hear loud discussion. Later, they left the office without signing the deal.  
6.  
The Introduction of Russellell Campbell into the Business  
[424] Initially, the relationship between Mr. Seremet and Mr. MacMullin was a guarded one.  
Mr. MacMullin had no difficulty having Mr. Seremet come to his Amway meetings because it is  
the nature of Amway to continue to reassure new participants that Amway is the way to riches and  
self-sufficiency. I conclude, however, that although Mr. MacMullin was happy to participate in  
Mr. Seremet’s education, he was guarded in letting Mr. Seremet into all of his business affairs. I  
conclude that Mr. MacMullin split his business affairs into separate isolated pockets. He deemed  
it expedient to keep these parties separate and apart.  
[425] This began to change when Mr. Seremet brought Russellell Campbell into the Amway  
business, and later Mr. Campbell became interested in other moneymaking opportunities in real  
estate. I suspect that Mr. MacMullin could hardly believe his good fortune when Mr. Seremet  
delivered Russellell Campbell to him. I accept (as supported by Exhibit 202) that Mr. MacMullin  
induced Russellell Campbell to make an investment into Mr. MacMullins business activity. This  
investment guaranteed an unsustainable rate of return, but was supported by legal-looking  
documents that really were the gloss on a Ponzi scheme.  
[426] The payback of the investment would come from a mortgage pulled by a straw buyer or  
other cash investors. The investment would either go into Mr. MacMullin’s personal lifestyle, or  
it would become a down payment (where actually required, by attentive lawyers) to allow a  
straw buyer to pull a mortgage, or it would be invested in one of Mr. MacMullin’s real estate  
ventures. None of these transactions or activities were properly booked or tracked from an  
accounting point of view.  
 
Page: 96  
[427] In typical Ponzi scheme fashion, Mr. Campbell was paid back his initial investment early  
with the interest and with perhaps a bonus. This set the stage for the ultimate usage of Mr.  
Campbell. Campbell was thereafter induced to lend more, and to ‘straw buy’, until his  
involvement with Mr. MacMullin, like that of the other witnesses, met with disaster.  
[428] Russellell Campbell served another unidentified function: because it became clear to Mr.  
MacMullin that he had in Mr. Seremet an individual who would larcenously participate, and  
work for nothing. I conclude that at that moment, Mr. MacMullin finally realized what a find he  
had in Mr. Seremet. He had a younger man who idolized him, was educated, quick and  
articulate, computer literate, but who was not worldly in real estate and other business affairs. He  
was a younger man with budding ambition that wanted to grow a business. Mr. MacMullin  
charismatically attracted Mr. Seremet, used him and turned him into a criminal. From the first  
Campbell transaction onward [Count 11, property 9], Mr. Seremet was hooked.  
[429] The fact that Mr. Seremet worked for nothing illustrates the hold that Mr. MacMullin had  
over Mr. Seremet, with the big dream of a business empire and riches. When Mr. Seremet was  
desperate, he would beg Mr. MacMullin for money. Mr. MacMullin would pull out that big roll  
of cash and peel him off a few bills. When Mr. Seremet could not afford an apartment, Mr.  
MacMullin would let him squat in one of the straw buyer-bought homes with other construction  
laborers and disciples. When Mr. Seremet needed a vehicle, Mr. MacMullin would provide him a  
rundown vehicle. He was provided a cell phone linked to Mr. MacMullin’s contract. Mr.  
MacMullin would be responsible for paying the cell phone bills. He would work, he would run  
errands, and he would do Mr. MacMullin’s bidding, all without compensation. He never got a  
paycheque or a T4. All of this clearly points out both the unorthodox nature of Mr. MacMullin’s  
business practices and are ominous indicators of fraudulent activity.  
[430] At one point when Mr. Seremet felt some other people that he had brought into the  
mortgage fraud were not properly treated, he attempted to use his own initiative and help them  
sell a house in which they had been placed. Mr. Seremet indicates (and I accept) that Mr.  
MacMullin became livid. Mr. MacMullin told Mr. Seremet he did not understand the whole  
picture. Mr. MacMullin had many irons in the fire and if he thought he knew more than Mr.  
MacMullin did, Mr. Seremet could take over and be responsible for paying back people like  
Russellell Campbell and others that he had introduced to Mr. MacMullin. That appears to have  
ended any self-initiative from Mr. Seremet.  
7.  
Count-Specific Evidence  
[431] After giving evidence about the general relationship between him and Mr. MacMullin,  
the Crown took Mr. Seremet through each of the transactions. The reality is that very little of his  
evidence is critical to my findings on a per count basis. It was useful in painting the big picture.  
Where his evidence is critical as it relates to a specific transaction, it will be included in Schedule  
A - the factual narrative of the specific counts.  
 
Page: 97  
8.  
General Conclusions  
From the point of view of this particular case and without getting into Mr. Seremet’s specific  
evidence on a charge-by-charge basis, I conclude the following:  
Mr. Seremet was an innocent law-abiding university student until he came into contact  
with Mr. MacMullin through Amway.  
Mr. Seremet came to worship and idolize Mr. MacMullin to a point that was unhealthy.  
In the relationship between Mr. MacMullin and Mr. Seremet, Mr. Seremet acted  
throughout as the agent for Mr. MacMullin. Mr. Seremet was directed by Mr. MacMullin  
and Mr. Seremet’s criminal activity was as a direct result of the inducement and request  
from Mr. MacMullin.  
Mr. MacMullin was the master. Mr. Seremet was the servant.[see also part VII, F]  
Mr. MacMullin taught Mr. Seremet sufficient real estate and mortgage concepts so he  
could assist Mr. MacMullin conduct the frauds for which Mr. Seremet was indicted.  
Mr. MacMullin encouraged Mr. Seremet to adopt two or more signatures, become a  
Commissioner for Oaths, and utilize his knowledge to facilitate criminal and other  
dishonest activity.  
D.  
The Supporting Role Participants  
[432] This fraud operated through an elaborate network of both named and numbered  
corporations. Some of them were incorporated by Mr. Elander for Mr. MacMullin. Their  
directorship varied, however I find that Mr. MacMullin was the controlling mind for all of these  
corporations and that evidence is consistent with the evidence given by John Dunne, Mr.  
Seremet, and Mr. Large (who was really a victim in this case). Mr. Large was surprised that he  
appeared as a director of one of Mr. MacMullin’s companies.  
[433] In paragraph 51, I created a chart of the numbered companies and a descriptor analysis. I  
conclude that Mr. MacMullin wanted to conceal his identity through corporate structures and the  
more of these he had, the better was his camouflage. Mr. MacMullin also had outstanding  
Canada Revenue Agency judgments, and maintenance enforcement support writs. This meant  
that whenever real property went into his name, it became difficult to clear title for downstream  
sales.  
[434] Mr. MacMullin was also aware of the legitimate business concern of limited legal  
liability and some of the companies were legitimately incorporated for that purpose. However,  
understanding the true ownership of the company makes more obvious who was benefiting from  
the fraudulent mortgage scheme because often, one or more of Mr. MacMullin’s companies  
would become intermediaries in the chains of title to either increase the purchase price, remove  
   
Page: 98  
the straw buyer from title, or both. In schedule A, I identify corporate entities as ‘MacMullin’, to  
denote that Mr. MacMullin is the equitable owner of the company irrespective of what the  
corporate legers at Corporate Registry may say.  
[435] Some of these corporations should be identified in this portion of the judgment as I am  
satisfied and find as a fact that Mr. MacMullin was the controlling mind and direct beneficiary,  
irrespective of whether or not he was a shareholder or a director of the company.  
1.  
Lam Developments International Inc.  
[436] The evidence about the ownership of this company is irrefutable. Mr. MacMullin’s ex-  
wife gave evidence that that was Mr. MacMullin’s company. The owner of EQUIPLAN, a  
properly registered equity lender that Mr. MacMullin borrowed money from, gave evidence that  
he dealt with Mr. MacMullin on the loans that went through Lam Developments. Other witnesses  
identified this company as Mr. MacMullins. Mr. Elander incorporated this company in August  
of 1999-probably for someone else. Mr. Dunne and Mr. MacMullin became directors in March  
2001.[Corporate Registry records, serv req 2798847.pdf]  
2.  
Other Corporations  
[437] Mr. MacMullin also operated through the following numbered companies:  
854067 Alberta Ltd, operating as Parallel Corporation, incorporated by Brent Bittner.  
Directors John Dunne and Al MacMullin as of November 1999.  
971298 Alberta Ltd., incorporated by Mr. Elander, Mr. MacMullin is the director and  
shareholder as of January 2002, but also for a period so is Mrs. Margaret Hendry the  
vendor in count16, property 12. She was removed as a director in June 2002.  
1034469 Alberta Ltd., incorporated March 2003 by an agent for Roy Elander, Mr.  
MacMullin is the director and shareholder at incorporation.  
1038637 Alberta Ltd., incorporated by Mr. Seremet, Marko Knezevic and Jay Silverman  
directors, March 2003. I find this to be an alter ego of Mr. MacMullin.  
1054135 Alberta Ltd., incorporated June 2003, Director Barbara Hong, [Note: Ms.  
Hong’s address is the property in count 30, property 24, where the straw buyers were  
supposed to be living as their principal residence.].  
1066888 Alberta Ltd., incorporated September 2003 by Mr. Seremet, directors John  
Dunne, Al MacMullin, and James Large [see count 28, property 22].  
1087407 Alberta Ltd, incorporated in January 2004 by Mr. Seremet, with John Dunne  
added as director in June - company struck for non-filing of annual returns.  
   
Page: 99  
[438] Lumped in this section of the judgment are also my findings of fact relating to a fax name  
bar identified as freedom!!Numerous witnesses identified this as Mr. MacMullin’s fax and in  
fact “freedom” is part of the corporate spiel of Amway.  
[439] Mr. MacMullin conceded that this fax was either at his home or place of business over  
the relevant time, but was not prepared to concede that every fax transmission from it was sent  
by him. I accept this. Mr. Seremet made numerous fax transmissions on Mr. MacMullin’s behalf,  
as perhaps others did as well.  
3.  
John Dunne  
[440] One witness rhetorically asked if there was a John Dunne. John Dunne appears often in  
legal documents, corporations, and REPCs. John Dunne gave evidence and indicated that he  
would, at the request of Mr. MacMullin (based on friendship), act as a corporate director, assist  
with some rudimentary bookkeeping, and that he conceded that he authorized Mr. MacMullin to  
sign his name from time to time.  
[441] Although Mr. Dunne was possibly wilfully blind concerning the shenanigans of his  
former friend, there is no evidence that Mr. Dunne actually signed the numerous documents that  
directly aided and abetted the frauds which occurred. Or if he did, he thought they were  
legitimate real estate.  
[442] Mr. MacMullin’s first ex-wife indicated that her ex-husband had betrayed John Dunne’s  
trust as a faithful and true friend. John Dunne allowed his name to be used to assist Mr.  
MacMullin perpetuate these frauds as the ringleader.  
4.  
Marko Knezevic  
[443] Mr. Knezevic is the stepbrother of Mr. Seremet. As the trial progressed, one was left with  
the feeling that perhaps Mr. Knezevic was in on this fraud. The notion ends quickly on  
December 11, 2013 - once he is on the witness stand. On the witness stand, he denied this, and  
after observing him for the first 20 minutes of his nearly 3 ½ hours of testimony, it became clear  
that he was a victim. His step-brother, Mr. Seremet, and Mr. MacMullin, used his name  
whenever the conspirators needed a role played.  
[444] Mr. Knezevic’s name appears in many of the specific counts. In some cases, he is shown  
as the purchaser of property, in others as the tenant in leases to generate rental revenue. In yet  
others, he goes on title at the land titles office but the property is quickly transferred at a higher  
price to a straw buyer. His name is used to sign letters of various fictions. Whenever the name  
Marko Knezevic appears in any of the real estate documents referenced in the title talesor  
elsewhere in the 90,000 pages of paper in this trial, it is a strong neon beaconthat the factual  
information in the document is not true and is created, designed, or utilized, to help Mr.  
MacMullin defraud a financial institution.  
   
Page: 100  
[445] Mr. Knezevic’s bank accounts were also used to move funds. Finally, when his bank  
account was empty and closed, his cheques [impossible to cash] were also in one instant used as  
evidence of a down payment. The cheque was copied and sent to Mr. Elander’s office so that the  
office could forward them on to the financial institution to prove compliance with their strict  
rules about down payment evidence [count 20, property 15].  
5.  
Knezevic, Dunne and Dawson  
[446] The letterhead Knezevic, Dunne and Dawson was carefully contrived to create the  
impression that these individuals, who styled themselves as public notaries, commissioners for  
oaths, and conveyancers, were a legitimate property conveyance firm. Of course, the financial  
institutions would never entrust that firm to do a mortgage, but some financial institutions  
accepted the letterhead in relation to a sale and an assumption of the mortgage. The letterhead,  
plus the registration at corporate registry of this trade name, was intended to create the image of  
legitimacy. While the Companies Branch registered document creating this trade name is said to  
be applied for by Mr. Knezevic, I conclude that it is a reasonable inference to believe that either  
Mr. MacMullin did this himself, or Mr. Seremet did it at his request.  
6.  
The Mortgage Brokers  
[447] The first three or four deals went directly to in house bank personnel, but soon after Mr.  
MacMullin began using mortgage brokers. Mr. MacMullin and Mr. Seremet had extensive  
dealings with two mortgage brokers in the subject matter of this case:  
David Gorn of Edmonton, and  
David Humeniuk of Calgary.  
[448] Mr. Gorn was working for one of Canada’s big six banks in British Columbia when he  
met Mr. MacMullin through Amway. Mr. Gorn wanted to return to Edmonton so that his spouse  
could be closer to her mother. Mr. MacMullin encouraged him to come to Edmonton and  
encouraged him to become a mortgage broker. To do this, he offered to find David Gorn  
accommodation, pay his mortgage broker’s training fees, and refer him business.  
[449] David Gorn did become a mortgage broker, received files from Mr. MacMullin, and put  
through some mortgage approvals for him and various financial institutions. Mr. MacMullin paid  
him cash for his assistance in addition to the brokers fees he may have earned. Some of those  
files are counts on this indictment. Mr. Gorn then became subject to an investigation by the Real  
Estate Council of Alberta (RECA), an investigative and disciplinary body of licensed realtors  
and mortgage brokers. His files were seized and were not available for review in this trial.  
During his work for Mr. MacMullin, Mr. Gorn formed an opinion that the relationship between  
Mr. MacMullin and Mr. Seremet was one where Mr. MacMullin was the boss and Mr. Seremet  
was an assistant or delivery person.  
   
Page: 101  
[450] David Gorn’s evidence is that as time continued, he became concerned with some of the  
transactions. He picked up on the fact that some of the buyers who he helped obtain a mortgage,  
were quickly flipping the property and applying for a new one. He appreciated that based on his  
training, this brought into question whether their declaration of a ‘principal residence’ was real.  
However, Mr. Gorn indicated that at the time of the transactions there had been little training  
given to mortgage brokers about fraud detection and avoidance on behalf of their clients, the  
financial institutions. David Gorn apologized to the Court and admitted that he is not proud of  
his involvement in these transactions.  
[451] David Humeniuk, a second mortgage broker based in Calgary, also gave evidence. He  
operated as Power Mortgage Center. Mr. Humeniuk had extensive experience also with one of  
Canada’s big six banks prior to becoming a mortgage broker. He participated in a significant  
number of the mortgages in this case. He gave evidence in two distinct areas: first in the area of  
bank practice relating to his dealings with them, and then in his relationship with Mr.  
MacMullin.  
[452] He indicated that the concept of principal residence was an evolving one but at the time  
in question if you had a legitimate intention to move into the home, and then lived in the home at  
least one day (based on his banking experience) the banks accepted this as satisfaction of the  
principal residence requirement. He believes he may have discussed this with Mr. MacMullin.  
Mr. Humeniuk fairly admits however that around the midpoint of the last decade (and possibly  
after this time line), the banks tightened up their requirements and also CMHC sent out more  
circulars to mortgage brokers about fraud.  
[453] Mr. Humeniuk is adamant that he would not have submitted applications had he known  
the REPCs were not at arm’s-length, the price had been manipulated, or the down payment was a  
fiction. In relation to the financial information in the application itself, he was adamant that the  
information must be certified correct by the borrower and that the financial institutions rely on  
that information to make their lending decision. He denied submitting any application knowing  
that the financial information, including debt loads and assets, was incorrect or fictional. He  
indicates that he would not have done so. Mr. Humeniuk indicates that the narrative placed in the  
application was the work product of Mr. MacMullin or Mr. Seremet.  
[454] Mr. Humeniuk indicated that based on his years of experience in the bank and as a  
mortgage broker, he would view misstated offers and misstated applications as fraudulent  
activity and would not participate in such. In his role as a former banker, he confirmed the  
evidence that the bankers had previously advised the Court: high-ratio mortgages are restricted to  
bona fide purchasers who intend to make the home their principal residence. He indicated that  
the banks rely on the financial information submitted. If there are fictional gift letters,  
employment letters, if the investments have been overstated or the debt understated in a  
mortgage application, then that is false information. He would not knowingly participate in a  
mortgage process with that kind of information. To do so constitutes fraud in his view.  
Page: 102  
[455] Two parts of Mr. Humeniuk’s evidence are concerning. First, he confessed to what he  
described as a “bad habit” of witnessing applications that had been signed elsewhere and where,  
in fact, he was not the witness. This certainly impacts his credibility. Second, there appears on  
some of the files to be gentle coaching and encouragement about how to perhaps restructure an  
application to find more favour with the financial institution.  
[456] In one case Mr. Humeniuk suggests that the intention of a homeowner to turn his  
principal residence into rental property so that he could buy a new principal residence will not  
work because the rental revenue is insufficient. Almost instantaneously he receives an additional  
lease purporting to rent out the basement. When the rents from the first and new second lease are  
added together the problem is solved. Of course both these leases were fictional. I accept that  
Mr. Humeniuk would not have specifically known that fact, but the speed with which the  
problem was corrected in line with his suggestion would certainly have been a ‘head scratcher’  
to many mortgage brokers. Particularly since the second lease predates the suggestion. Mr.  
Humeniuk does ultimately come to the conclusion that the quality of the business is  
deteriorating, and on that basis, he ended his relationship with Mr. MacMullin.  
[457] Mr. Humeniuk’s evidence is of interest in another area that relates to Mr. MacMullin’s  
knowledge. Mr. Humeniuk indicated that he would receive much of the documentation from Mr.  
Seremet, but on more than one occasion, he would have to go back and clarify something. If so,  
he might discuss the file either with Mr. Seremet or Mr. MacMullin. It was his assessment that  
Mr. MacMullin always seemed to know what was going on in each file. The logical implication  
is Mr. Seremet was not ‘flying solo’.  
7.  
The Realtor  
[458] During the time span of this fraud, Mr. MacMullin was spending some time in British  
Columbia and through Amway and his church, he met Barbara Hong. Ms. Hong came to  
Edmonton. She and Mr. MacMullin began dating and ultimately married. Her evidence is that  
Mr. MacMullin encouraged her to become a realtor even though she was not particularly  
interested. He paid her real estate fees and was delighted when she became a realtor. Several  
properties that Barbara Hong listed route back to Mr. MacMullin and contain misinformation and  
erroneous inflationary detail about the condition of the property in the listing sheets [count 41].  
Ms. Hong’s real estate career came to an abrupt end when she was investigated by the Real  
Estate Council of Alberta, the supervisory body for realtors.  
[459] Ms. Hong also confirms that the relationship between her ex-husband Mr. MacMullin and  
Mr. Seremet was one of mentorship, with Mr. MacMullin mentoring Mr. Seremet. She also  
confirms that “Al” had her move from house to house, and she believed Mr. MacMullin owned  
them all. They were in fact owned by straw buyers who never lived in the house. I find as a fact  
that Mr. MacMullin would not allow any straw buyer to live with his girlfriend, Barbara Hong,  
who later became his wife. Nor did any of the straw buyers intend to live in these houses. These  
transactions as they related to principal residence requirements were absolutely deceitful.  
 
Page: 103  
E.  
Reliability and Credibility of the Straw Buyers  
[460] Mr. MacMullin and Mr. Elander faced criminal prosecution. They could only be  
convicted if the alleged misconduct is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. It was therefore  
important not to get caught up in the story and the consistency of the complaints about Mr.  
MacMullin, and to a much lesser extent, Mr. Elander, and lose sight of the Crown’s obligation to  
prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  
[461] Strength in the Crown’s case flows from the documentation: the land titles records, the  
files of the financial institution, the broker, and the lawyers. The speed of transactions and the  
unusual elements of some of the registrations create an impression of fraud. However, this alone  
is not sufficient to prove that a fraud on a financial institution took place. The Crown’s case turns  
on acceptance of the evidence of the straw buyers. [Note: two straw buyers did not give evidence  
Jessie McCorkle who according to the crown was deceased and Mr. Wintringham who was ill.  
In the McCorkle matter Ms. Lamouche whose identity was stolen gave evidence. In the  
Wintringham case, the vendors supplied essential detail confirming they did not move out and  
Mr. MacMullin got all their money.]  
[462] The evidence of the straw buyers required careful review, for both reliability and  
credibility. I viewed the evidence of the straw buyers cautiously for the following reasons:  
1.  
First, fading memories! Many witnesses conceded that their memory had faded on  
significant details, and virtually every straw buyer professes some memory loss  
on some detail. Some of the straw buyers participated and got out of the  
transactions without any knowledge that anything unusual was going on. Since  
the transaction worked for them, they have few notes and little independent  
memory. I have already alluded to the time period of the fraud in relation to the  
trial. In some cases, over a decade has gone by.  
2.  
Animosity to the Accused is another reason to view the evidence of some straw  
buyers cautiously. Some of the straw buyers and other witnesses suffered greatly  
in this mortgage fraud scheme. Some had to recover their homes by paying  
penalties to other straw buyers. Some had to pay to get out of CMHC deficiency  
judgments. Others in fact lost their property. Many damaged their credit. At least  
one was trapped in a property that he did not want and only years later did he get  
out from under. One suspects that family relationships may have been damaged as  
well.  
Anger, animosity, and the obvious contempt that some of the witnesses held for  
Mr. MacMullin could color their evidence. There is such an intense likelihood of  
anger and personal animosity in the case of some witnesses that their evidence  
underwent extensive scrutiny, extending almost to the point that corroboration  
was necessary to establish the straw buyer’s evidence was credible and reliable.  
 
Page: 104  
3.  
A third concern is that neither Mr. MacMullin nor Mr. Elander ever applied for  
any mortgage in their name. In reality, the deceit is by the straw buyer against the  
financial institution. None of the straw buyers were indicted.  
Thus we have individual participants who have participated in a deceit for which  
it is not unreasonable to assume that some of them knew what they were doing  
was wrong. Some actually admitted, or implied this. Alternatively, they were  
arguably willfully blind to the fact that what they were doing was wrong.  
Perhaps some of the straw buyers could have been on the indictment together with  
Mr. Seremet, Mr. Elander and Mr. MacMullin. In such a scenario, a strong self-  
caution analogous to a ‘Vetrovec’ jury warning should be adopted. I note this  
concern does not apply to the individuals whose identity was stolen; nothing in  
their conduct impinges on their credibility.  
[463] Despite these self-imposed cautions, many of the straw buyers spoke candidly and  
frankly about their involvement in this case, why they participated and what they hoped to get  
out of it. Some expressed shame, others expressed embarrassment, but I have concluded and will  
conclude in the analysis of each specific count that the straw buyers are correct when they  
indicate that they participated in a mortgage either at the instigation of Mr. MacMullin or Mr.  
Seremet, or others within their circle. After all, Mr. MacMullin confirmed the pitch they  
received, in his evidence, on the witness stand. In addition, some straw buyers had their identity  
stolen to facilitate a second usage of their identity.  
F.  
The Relationship between Mr. MacMullin and Mr. Seremet  
[464] On 22 counts, Mr. Seremet was co-indicted with Mr. MacMullin. During the lengthy  
period of time that this case was under active case management, Mr. Seremet elected to plead  
guilty and was sentenced by the case management justice. The thrust of cross-examination of  
many witnesses was intended to create the aura that Mr. Seremet was really the leader and Mr.  
MacMullin was the dupe. A variant of this was that Mr. MacMullin was a legitimate  
businessman who delegated to Mr. Seremet the details of obtaining mortgage money and then  
turning it over to him for business purposes. It is both expedient and convenient for Mr.  
MacMullin to blame Mr. Seremet. He in fact indicated that: “Joe was the paper guy and he  
(MacMullin) the worker bee”.  
[465] Mr. Seremet’s evidence is to the contrary. Despite the caution that I must give to Mr.  
Seremet’s evidence, I accept his evidence on this point. Virtually all of the straw buyers  
indicated either that they were induced to participate by Mr. MacMullin or that Mr. MacMullin  
was the ‘closer’ to overcome their reluctance, or he was the ‘fixer’ when there were difficulties  
as the deal went badly. Mr. MacMullin was the person that straw buyers would go to when they  
could not access Mr. Seremet.  
 
Page: 105  
[466] Mr. MacMullin’s two former wives gave evidence that Mr. Seremet was a much younger  
man enthralled by Mr. MacMullin’s apparent success. Mr. Seremet idolized, and would do  
anything for Mr. MacMullin.  
[467] One witness derisively referred to Mr. Seremet by playing on his first name and calling  
him Mr. MacMullin’s “Joe boy”. Other witnesses referred to Mr. Seremet as Mr. MacMullin’s  
go-fer”. One called him a puppet! Not one of the witnesses who had observed the relationship  
between Mr. MacMullin and Mr. Seremet concluded that Mr. Seremet was the boss. The highest  
rank to which he was ever elevated (and by only a few witnesses) was Mr. Seremet as “Al’s  
partner”.  
[468] The mortgage brokers (Dave Humeniuk and Dave Gorn), both gave evidence that Mr.  
MacMullin was the leader and Mr. Seremet assisted with paperwork. His former best friend,  
John Dunne, described the respective roles between MacMullin and Seremet in a similar fashion.  
The lawyers who gave evidence indicated that their perceived client was Mr. MacMullin, not Mr.  
Seremet. Mr. Elander’s staff member, who gave evidence, also viewed Mr. MacMullin as the  
client. So did Mr. Elander!  
[469] Finally, there are at least two deals in which prominent evidence of Mr. MacMullin’s  
personal dishonesty is in play. The first of these is count 32 where he induced the Chins to go  
deeper in debt using a straw buyer, Mr. Ouellette, with Mr. MacMullin taking the surplus cash.  
That deal was Mr. MacMullin’s all the way. Second, was the Hendry deal involving straw  
buyers, Campbell and Young. Specific reference to these two deals does not undercut the  
evidence that points to Mr. MacMullin’s involvement in the other 36 deals where he is found  
guilty, but nevertheless does illustrate that the system flourished well even in Mr. Seremet’s  
absence. Mr. Seremet was not the lynchpin. There is not one deal in which the converse can be  
said. The time line presented by the Crown [Schedule B] illustrates that the alleged fraudulent  
transactions were well under way when Mr. Seremet first became involved.  
[470] In only a very few transactions did Mr. Seremet do most of the dealing with the straw  
buyers. In those cases, where the bulk of the dealings were between straw buyers and Mr.  
Seremet, and Mr. MacMullin was only collaterally involved to a limited extent, I was cautious  
not to convict Mr. MacMullin of any count simply because he may be guilty of other fraudulent  
transactions in which the same methodologies were used. Mr. Seremet had more than a little  
streak of his own personal larceny and he took the tools that Mr. MacMullin taught him and  
acted front and center in some of these frauds.  
[471] However, links to the illegal conduct can be established by evidence other than who dealt  
with a specific straw buyer. Those links were analyzed. Where Mr. MacMullin is the direct  
beneficiary of the proceeds of the larceny and has some ‘fingerprints on the file’, which amount  
to proof beyond a reasonable doubt of his involvement as an aider or abettor, he was found guilty  
despite the fact that he may have been unidentified by the straw buyer as the ringleader. The  
reality - he was the ringleader, and mastermind! It was to his advantage to hide behind Mr.  
Seremet and he did.  
Page: 106  
[472] Witnesses, other than Mr. Seremet and the straw buyers, provide an overwhelming array  
of evidence to establish that Mr. MacMullin was the ringleader and the boss. Any suggestion that  
Mr. Seremet was the ringleader is rejected as completely implausible. Any suggestion that he  
was running this mortgage fraud for an honest builder who had delegated to him the monetary  
responsibility of generating the mortgage money is likewise implausible.  
[473] I conclude that the mortgage scheme that existed here, where straw buyers were induced  
to obtain mortgages to which they were not entitled (based on the existing lending criteria, and  
on financial and other information that was intentionally misleading), was the plan, program, and  
operation of Mr. MacMullin. To suggest that Mr. Seremet is the ringleader fails to take into  
account the relationship between the two, the evidence of the witnesses, the age and business  
sophistication disparity, and the flow of the money. The boss controls the money, and Mr.  
MacMullin controlled all the money. Mr. Seremet would not have had the business experience or  
the confidence of the straw buyers to mastermind this program. It was Mr. MacMullin’s  
fraudulent scheme, all the way.  
G.  
Cash is King!  
[474] Barbara Hong was one of many witnesses who gave evidence that Mr. MacMullin,  
despite happily wearing the trappings of a businessman, loved to deal in cash. His first ex-wife  
also recounted an event in Red Deer when she, Mr. MacMullin, and their children pulled up  
behind a restaurant, and he was handed a bag of cash. He had his children count the cash and  
when their count was less than expected, he said that the bag was cash short but it didn’t matter.  
While it is not a crime to deal in cash, when a contractor businessman, in the business of  
renovating houses, is dealing in cash, paying employees in cash, and not maintaining the usual  
business records of a viable successful business, it creates an aura, image, and impression that  
rather than being a viable business, Mr. MacMullin was involved in monkey business. This  
verdict confirms that.  
[475] Few, if any, of his employees ever received employment documents, regular wages, or  
paycheques. What they generally got was a discussion about the dream, the desirability of  
sacrificing for the dream, free accommodation (often on the back of a straw buyer), and  
minimalistic cash payments when an employee became concerned enough that it appeared to Mr.  
MacMullin that they would bolt.  
[476] There is an interesting subset to this issue. A few of the properties discussed in this case  
had new housing being built on them. Mr. Elander did the transactions involving this new  
housing arising from the Blackfalds properties. In not one of the Elander legal files that relates to  
these new houses is there any reference to the GST. The GST took effect in Canada in 1991. By  
2000, it was clearly identified in the legal community that GST documents were required so that  
the purchaser could get back a GST rebate to lower the price of a new home. Often this rebate is  
assigned to the new home builder.  
 
Page: 107  
[477] Of course, dealing in cash makes it impossible for the GST to be tracked. Mr. Elander’s  
role in a new housing construction project, as lawyer, where there is no GST documentation is  
disquieting. Of course, if he knows they are really straw deals generating financing for the  
builder to complete the construction, the failure to deal with GST issues arising out of new  
housing makes sense!  
H.  
The Motive  
[478] The Crown is not obliged to prove motive. However, where motive exists, it may assist in  
determining intention.  
[479] Mr. MacMullin conceded financial difficulty. Construction workers who gave evidence  
confirmed this reality, as did Mr. Seremet and Mr. MacMullin’s ex-wives. Mr. MacMullin’s high  
interest rate borrowings are further corroboration. Some of Mr. MacMullin’s construction  
workers indicated that cash flow was always a problem. Supplies would arrive late or not at all.  
One construction employee and straw buyer indicated that he had to use his personal credit card  
to get concrete so that a basement could be poured in Blackfalds. Other employees indicated that  
cash was always in short supply.  
[480] Mr. MacMullin was both undercapitalized and working in an area where it is difficult to  
obtain speculative mortgage financing. He therefore turned to an arrangement of finding  
individuals with good or better credit who could create the aura or image, with his help, of a  
homebuyer purchasing a principal residence. This released equity from the properties.  
[481] Also, because Mr. MacMullin could not get reasonably rated mortgages from  
conventional sources, he from time to time went to equity lenders on a second mortgage basis at  
18%, and on a first mortgage basis at 15%. In one case, with bonuses he paid 40%! While I  
accept that 18% and 15% mortgages are sometimes necessary, even for legitimate business  
people, paying this high annual interest rate reflects a cash flow tension and provides  
corroborative evidence that Mr. MacMullin was cash short. In his evidence he admits this!  
[482] I conclude that Mr. MacMullin was taking on numerous construction projects, he did not  
have the cash flow to handle them economically, and he did not have the construction crews and  
contractors to build them properly. As a result, his business became the mortgage fraud business  
rather than the legitimate construction business. There is a compelling financial motive for these  
frauds, and in numerous transactions, Mr. MacMullin either directly or indirectly is benefiting  
from cash flow generated by the mortgage.  
[483] A financial motive is a powerful one, particularly when one lives the high life, plans great  
enterprises, but still is falling further and further behind.  
 
Page: 108  
VIII. Key Legal Concepts Expressed in this Judgment  
A.  
The Law in Relation to Criminal Code, s 380  
[484] The offense of fraud is defined by Criminal Code, s 380(1), with the penalty for fraud  
over $5,000.00 set by s 380(1)(a):  
380. (1) Everyone who, by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, whether  
or not it is a false pretence within the meaning of this Act, defrauds the public or  
any person, whether ascertained or not, of any property, money or valuable  
security or any service,  
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a term of imprisonment  
not exceeding fourteen years, where the subject-matter of the offence is a  
testamentary instrument or the value of the subject-matter of the offence  
exceeds five thousand dollars …  
[485] Fraud can occur in many ways so courts have resisted definitive and comprehensive  
descriptions of what does or does not constitute fraud. Fraud has been described as a crime that:  
one recognizes when one sees.  
[486] The indictment shaped the essential elements which the Crown had to prove beyond a  
reasonable doubt to obtain a conviction. The frauds particularized in this indictment were that a  
borrower obtained a real property mortgage from a financial institution based upon false and  
misleading information in the mortgage application process. The borrower, often through a  
mortgage broker, submitted to the financial institution a signed mortgage application, plus the  
supporting informational documents, and the real property purchase contract [REPC]. The  
application submitted contained a certification by the borrower that the content of the application  
is true, accurate, and complete. The terminology and handling varied between institutions, but  
often applications, approvals, or statutory declarations (or a combination) required some  
statement of veracity. In some cases more than once. The certification of truthfulness is found  
either in the application, the acceptance of the mortgage offer, or implied through the  
requirement that borrowers and financial institution solicitors notify the lender of changes about  
the applicant, property, or other material facts. Checks by the mortgage broker and a document  
review also add to this certification process. If not specified, it was implied. Based on the  
documentation received, the financial institution would conduct such investigation and due  
diligence as they saw fit, and either make the loan or reject it.  
[487] In each of the 41 counts set out in the indictment, the financial institution elected to make  
the loan. However, legal documentation had to be prepared before the lending institution would  
advance the loan or allow their solicitors to advance it. This legal documentation, to the extent  
that it also may constitute false or misleading information, or facilitate the fraud, is also part of  
the four corners of the individual counts in the indictment.  
   
Page: 109  
[488] This is a lengthy judgment, so it is useful to provide a summary of what the Crown  
identifies as the deceitful aspects and elements of mortgage applications. The Crown asserts that  
in every count, at least one of the following elements of deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent  
means” occurred, as the application failed to disclose:  
1.  
that the REPC upon which the application was based was not at arm’s-length -  
[“deceit or other fraudulent means];  
2.  
3.  
that the down payment would not be collected or would be waived - [deceit];  
that the financial and biographical information relating to the prospective  
borrower contained material misrepresentations, falsehoods, and in some cases  
fabricated documents [deceitor falsehood];  
4.  
5.  
the true condition of the property or its value - [“deceit” or “falsehood]; and  
that the borrowers, were not bona fide purchasers acquiring a principal residence,  
but in fact were applying for the mortgage to earn a fee, by assisting the true  
owner with financing- [“deceit” or other fraudulent means].  
[489] In relation to the above elements of deceitful conduct, the Crown asserted that Mr.  
MacMullin was the mastermind of the scheme - a direct principal to the offence. In addition, Mr.  
MacMullin aided and abetted the scheme by being the one who put it all together and creating  
the ‘legend’. I agree with this thesis, the Crown has proven that in 38 of the 41 counts, one or  
more of the listed deceits occurred. They occurred with Mr. MacMullin’s knowledge,  
participation, and intention both to deceive and to deprive.  
[490] The Crown asked that Mr. Elander be convicted as the lawyer who, with full knowledge  
or willful blindness, of the deceit and intention to deceive and deprive, provided at least one  
essential element: he facilitated the fraudulent confirmation of principal residence and verified as  
accurate what was really misinformation either by prepared documentation or silence in the face  
of overwhelming knowledge. Where Mr. Elander is convicted, I find that the Crown has proven  
both his knowledge of the deceit and his participation with knowledge that a deprivation would  
occur.  
[491] Many of the particulars of each count of the indictment are conceded or not in dispute.  
The date range of the indictment captures all of the allegedly fraudulent transactions. [Schedule  
B focuses the time line.] The borrowers, financial institutions [lenders], the address, and legal  
description of the relevant properties are all conceded to be correctly identified in the amended  
indictment. The Defence does not dispute that in all cases, economic dollar amount obtained by  
fraud (if fraud is found beyond a reasonable doubt) exceeded $5,000.00.  
[492] The remaining essential elements were not universally admitted that:  
1.  
there exists an element of “deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means” in the  
applications and supporting material;  
Page: 110  
2.  
3.  
the deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent meanscaused a deprivation  
that Mr. MacMullin, with knowledge and intention, deprived the financial  
institutions of something of value [deprivation];  
4.  
that Mr. Elander had knowledge of the fraudulent conduct of MacMullin and  
participated with the intention to cause the deprivation to the financial institutions  
(an aider and abettor).  
[493] As there are 41 individual counts, the determination about the existence of the disputed  
elements was made for each count. This determination was made separately for each of Mr.  
MacMullin and Mr. Elander.  
[494] The legal elements of fraud, Criminal Code, s 380, were developed in three guiding case  
authorities:  
R v Olan, [1978] 2 SCR 1175, 86 DLR (3d) 212;  
R v Théroux, [1993] 2 SCR 5, 100 DLR (4th) 624; and  
R v Zlatic, [1993] 2 SCR 29, 100 DLR (4th) 642.  
[495] In R v Olan, Justice Dickson (as he then was) discussing the precursor of the current s  
380(1). He, at p 1182, boiled the elements of criminal fraud down to two essential components:  
Courts, for good reason, have been loath to attempt anything in the nature of an  
exhaustive definition of “defraud” but one may safely say, upon the authorities that two  
elements are essential, “dishonesty” and “deprivation”. To succeed, the Crown must  
establish dishonest deprivation. [Emphasis added.]  
[496] In 1993 R v Olan was reviewed in R v Théroux by Mdm. Justice McLachlin (as she then  
was), who pointed out at pp 15-16:  
Olan marked a broadening of the law of fraud in two respects. First, it overruled  
previous authority which suggested that deceit was an essential element of the  
offence. Instead, it posited the general concept of dishonesty, which might  
manifest itself in deceit, falsehood or some other form of dishonesty. Just as what  
constitutes a lie or a deceitful act for the purpose of the actus reus is judged on the  
objective facts, so the "other fraudulent means" in the third category is determined  
objectively, by reference to what a reasonable person would consider to be a  
dishonest act. Second, Olan made it clear that economic loss was not essential to  
the offence; the imperilling of an economic interest is sufficient even though no  
actual loss has been suffered. By adopting an expansive interpretation of the  
offence, the Court established fraud as an offence of general scope capable of  
encompassing a wide range of dishonest commercial dealings. [Emphasis added.]  
Page: 111  
[497] Justice McLachlin at p 20 also summarized the elements of fraud, which have shaped  
jury instructions since, as follows:  
[T]he actus reus of the offence of fraud will be established by proof of:  
1. the prohibited act, be it an act of deceit, a falsehood or some other  
fraudulent means; and  
2. deprivation caused by the prohibited act, which may consist in actual  
loss or the placing of the victim's pecuniary interests at risk.  
Correspondingly, the mens rea of fraud is established by proof of:  
1. subjective knowledge of the prohibited act; and  
2. subjective knowledge that the prohibited act could have as a  
consequence the deprivation of another ...  
B.  
The Actus Reus by Deceit, Falsehood or Other Fraudulent Meansand  
reliance  
[498] In Schedule A, I document the actual acts of dishonesty, deceit, fraudulent behavior, and  
false information and whether they lead me to conclude that deceits [the actus reus] were  
perpetuated on the financial institutions. This is the essential element of deceit, falsehood and  
other fraudulent act”, and is decided on an objective basis. There are two other aspects to the  
actus reus. Both additional aspects spring from common sense. The deceit has to be material.  
This is to not make criminals out of minor, white lies. Much like a person who lies about their  
height on a dating website by giving their height with lifting shoes or high heels, not every  
misstatement will lead to mortgage fraud in an application for financing. In this case, the deceits  
were major and fundamental to the deal so where I find one occurred, it is also found to be  
material.  
[499] The second element is the issue of reliance. That is the deceit has to cause the  
deprivation. In, R v Park, 2010 ABCA 248, 482 AR 153, also a case against a lawyer accused,  
and acquitted, of participation in nearly similar mortgage fraud, the Alberta Court of Appeal  
concluded that the learned trial judge had erroneously set the bar too high on the issue relating to  
proof about reliance on the deceit.  
[500] While the trial judge’s acquittal of the accused was upheld on other reasons, the Court  
concluded that Crown does not have to call viva voce evidence from the institutions to prove that  
they relied on the application, when it is an integral part of their internal process. Inferences can  
be drawn from the documentation in appropriate cases.  
[501] This is a common sense ruling because the reality, both here and in modern banking, is  
that an initial mortgage approval may be decided by a computer. Just as Canada Revenue  
Agency now assesses electronic tax returns on an electronic basis, so too when a mortgage  
 
Page: 112  
application comes to a financial institution, the information may be programmed into an  
electronic database (today it is received electronically) and the computer calculates whether the  
numbers work. This is todays banking reality.  
[502] If we study a mortgage application (Mr. Humeniuk’s are appropriate because he made a  
large number of these applications for Mr. MacMullin), we observe that the application requires  
intimate personal detail about the assets and liabilities of the proposed borrower, intimate  
personal detail showing the ability to fund the down payment, the down payment source, and a  
careful mathematical calculation of two critical ratios: the ratio of the borrower’s proposed total  
debt including the mortgage and all other related debts to income, and a second calculation  
measuring only the mortgage debt against income. These debt servicing ratios and the  
complexity of the application, make clear that the application is an important part of the  
borrowing process even though it may not be the entire process. Financial institutions can, and  
occasionally will, override what the application is telling them and make the loan for other  
discretionary reasons. In R v Park, the Alberta Court of Appeal made clear that a group of  
reasons including the application does not mean that the financial institution has not relied on the  
application. Common sense is to the contrary. Justice Berger in R v Park canvases this issue in  
paras 22-30. I can add nothing further and his analysis is binding on me.  
[503] The application is not the only document submitted to the financial institution. The REPC  
is inevitably submitted. Common sense indicates that it must be relied on as it is so important to  
the security implicit in the property. Its reliance by a financial institution cannot be denied. It  
would be bizarre to believe that a single responsible adult in a free market economy, who  
thought about the issue, would ever believe that a financial institution would not be relying on  
the REPC. The same observation can be made of the wage and employment information, or  
evidence of the sale of other property, to remove debt and clear the way for a new loan. Thus if  
the supporting information contains deceitful content of the extent and quality proven here , there  
is reliance on the material deceit.  
[504] In the case against Mr. Elander and Mr. MacMullin, the Crown called some financial  
officers as part of the process of admitting the documents. The financial officers made clear that  
the application was an important part of their mortgage process. In addition the Crown called Mr.  
Humeniuk, an experienced banker turned mortgage broker. While I had some concerns about Mr.  
Humeniuk’s evidence, none of that concern applies to his extensive knowledge of the banking  
industry. His evidence confirmed the importance and reliance on the application for the loan. In  
my respectful view, when a financial institution is insisting on a copy of the REPC, a copy of the  
completed application, a copy of the supporting documentation including wage and employment  
records and income tax assessments, the inference is inescapable that they are relying on that  
information to influence their decision: whether or not to make the loan.  
[505] Where I conclude on a per count basis that the Crown has proven a deceitful act [the  
actus reus] beyond a reasonable doubt, then I am also using that conclusion for judgment  
shorthand that the deceit was both material and relied upon. Where that occurred, I then  
determined whether the Crown had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. MacMullin,  
Page: 113  
and/or Mr. Elander participated in the deceit to the extent that they are legally culpable. This  
required that the Crown prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they had knowledge that the deceit  
occurred, knowledge that the deceit could cause a deprivation, coupled with the intention to  
defraud the financial institution and some conduct that advanced the fraud. As was indicated in R  
v Park, at para 29 (citing R v Nette, 2001 SCC 78, [2001] 3 SCR 488 with approval), that  
activity must contribute to the fraud on more than a minimal level. In 38 counts in the case of  
Mr. MacMullin, the Crown did prove all required elements. In three counts, I was unable to  
conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a deceit took place so, the other issues become  
academic and Mr. MacMullin, (and in one joint charge, Mr. Elander) were acquitted of those  
counts.  
C.  
Deprivation  
[506] Deprivation is an essential element of both the actus reus, and mens rea of fraud. The  
reliance on the deceit has to lead to a deprivation (which now in law includes deprivation risk).  
Knowing of the risk of deprivation is an aspect of the mental element. The deprivation has to  
flow from the deceitful act. I am able to deal with this element at this time in relation to all of the  
counts. It is true that not all financial institutions lost money in these incidents. Others, in fact,  
recovered some of their losses from straw buyers or the insurer CMHC or GE Capital. Some  
straw buyers honored their credit commitment and paid the financial institution. However, R v  
Olan makes clear that an actual loss is not necessary to convict on fraud. In an economic sense, a  
financial institution can be put at an increased risk of loss, and that is also a deprivation of that  
institution’s economic interest, which is sufficient to constitute proof of that essential element of  
the offense.  
[507] Justice Dickson in R v Olan at p 1182-1183 adopted the reasoning in R v Allsop (1976),  
64 Cr App R 29 at 31-32 (UK CA):  
Generally the primary objective of fraudsmen is to advantage themselves. The  
detriment that results to their victims is secondary to that purpose and incidental.  
It is “intended” only in the sense that it is a contemplated outcome of the fraud  
that is perpetrated. If the deceit which is employed imperils the economic interest  
of the person deceived, this is sufficient to constitute fraud even though in the  
event no actual loss is suffered and notwithstanding that the deceiver did not  
desire to bring about an actual loss.  
We see nothing in Lord Diplock’s speech [in Scott] to suggest a different view.  
“Economic loss” may be ephemeral and not lasting, or potential and not actual;  
but even a threat of financial prejudice while it exists it may be measured in terms  
of money . . .  
Interests which are imperilled are less valuable in terms of money than those same  
interests when they are secure and protected. Where a person intends by deceit to  
induce a course of conduct in another which puts that other’s economic interests  
 
Page: 114  
in jeopardy he is guilty of fraud even though he does not intend or desire that  
actual loss should ultimately be suffered by that other in this context. [Emphasis  
added.]  
[508] Subsequently, in R v Vézina; R v Côté, [1986] 1 SCR 2, 25 DLR (4th) 82, Lamer J at pp  
21-22 observes that fraud requires “risk of prejudice”, and that need not involve loss:  
This Court's reference in Olan, supra, to "risk of prejudice" must be understood in  
the light of the facts of that case and as meaning that, for there to be a deprivation,  
it is not "essential that there be actual economic loss". In Olan, the victim  
departed with money in exchange for title, indeed very good title to money. Prior  
to the deceit the victim had ownership and possession of money. As a result of the  
deceit the victim was left with ownership and title thereto and had lost possession  
of the money. The victim's patrimony was minus possession of the money, the  
cash, and left with only title. That is deprivation. [Emphasis added.]  
[509] The role of mortgage support information is explicitly evaluated in R v Semeniuk, 2004  
BCCA 115 at para 11, 61 WCB (2d) 153 where the British Columbia Court of Appeal upheld the  
at-trial conviction of a fraud perpetrator. The trial judge concluded:  
In all five transactions the banks relied on the false information supplied by the  
accused, which information materially affected the assessment of the loan  
applications and the decision to grant the mortgages. [Emphasis added.]  
Like ‘relevant’ information, “information [that] materially affected the assessment” sets a very  
low threshold.  
[510] I conclude that a financial institution which grants a loan based on materially false  
information becomes a lender who is subject to a greater lending risk than was contemplated at  
the time the loan was made. A loan is always a gamble, but a loan based on fraudulent borrower  
and transaction information is rolling loaded dice. The lender is enticed into a gamble where the  
odds are not what they seem.  
[511] That alone is sufficient to satisfy that element. Distortions of that kind occurred in each  
transaction. In cases with insured loans the CMHC insurance may have been placed in jeopardy  
were the true circumstances, and lack of residence, revealed. In my view, an increased risk taken  
by a financial institution based on false, misleading, and deceptive information constitutes a  
deprivation.  
[512] Further, having loan default insurance does not mean that there is no deprivation to the  
lenders. Loan default insurance is an insurance policy with numerous requirements - reporting,  
protection and preservation of the property and mitigation of loss. In the detailed analysis  
Schedule A, [see count 41], a property is identified where CMHC insurance did not make the  
financial institution whole. Some of the financial institution’s claim for protection and  
preservation of the property were disallowed.  
Page: 115  
[513] Other examples abound, fraud without associated loss occurred in in R v Knowles (1979),  
51 CCC (2d) 237 (Ont CA). The Court of Appeal overturned an acquittal of a business officer  
who, contrary to company policy, obtained a loan from his company and concealed that he was  
the recipient of the loan. The trial judge had found there was no prospect of the company  
experiencing any losses from the wrongfully obtained loan, but Martin JA concluded that fact  
was irrelevant. Applying R v Olan, he concluded:  
If the respondent, by deceit, induced MacLeod Stedman Limited to believe that  
Wilson was the actual purchaser for the purpose of obtaining the loan knowing  
that the complainant would not have made the loan if it had known that Wilson  
was merely the respondent's agent, the respondent in the circumstances present  
here would have defrauded the complainant of the funds advanced to Wilson even  
if the funds were ultimately recovered, and notwithstanding the proceeds of the  
loan were used for the purpose for which they were advanced, namely the  
purchase of the hardware business. In those circumstances the dishonest  
deprivation consists in inducing the complainant to its detriment to make the loan  
which it would not have made if it had not been deceived as to the true state of  
affairs. The deceit practiced by the respondent placed him in a position where his  
personal interest might conflict with the interest of his employer Alexander Wood  
Limited, the subsidiary of the complainant, and imperil the complainant's  
economic interests. The complainant was thus placed, even though the loan was  
secured, in a position of risk in which it would not have been placed if had not  
been deceived as to the true state of affairs. There was, in our view, evidence  
upon which it was open to the trial judge to find that the respondent had  
defrauded the complainant. [Emphasis added.]  
[514] R v Wagman (1981), 60 CCC (2d) 23 (Ont CA) is another instance in which no loss  
occurred but fraud was found. Here, the fraud perpetrator was a land developer who obtained a  
construction loan that allowed progress payments to the borrower for up to 75% of the value of  
the homes under construction. The remaining 25% of the cost of each house would only be  
advanced once the developer had found a buyer for that particular home (para 3). The developer  
fraudulently obtained and funded straw buyers to unlocked the remaining 25% of the loan (para  
10), but ultimately sold each property to a genuine buyer (para 11). The lender did not suffer any  
loss, and its loan was always secured by the houses (para 11). The premature release of the 25%  
was sufficient risk to qualify for fraud.  
[515] Finally, and notwithstanding counsel’s passionate advancement of Mr. MacMullin’s  
belief that residency of a property can be satisfied by a notational period of possession, the high-  
ratio loans made to 90 or 95% of value were advanced by the financial institutions on the basis  
that the borrowers were people who had an emotional and vested interest in the property as their  
real residence.  
[516] The fact that straw buyers had no interest in these homes, beyond their fee, created the  
risk of disengagement to the property and no desire to protect and preserve it, look after it, and  
Page: 116  
follow what happened to it. If something is not really yours, you care less. Here, in virtually all  
of the cases, the straw buyers had no vested interest in the property beyond their fees. They did  
not care for the property. The real owner was spread thin and under pressure so inattentive to  
preservation of the properties. This too is an increased risk and constitutes a deprivation.  
[517] The concept of disassociation as a risk of deprivation is more than just theoretical. On  
one transaction, the fact that the property was not a principal residence may have contributed to a  
fire loss which reduced the financial institutions recovery by about 40%. The straw buyer did not  
have property insurance, nor did Mr. MacMullin. The property may have still been subject to a  
fire loss even as a principal residence with occupants in possession; however the lack of vested  
interest in the property on the part of the straw buyer who is only interested in the fee is a subtle  
but measurable increased risk.  
[518] Last, it is clear that the financial institutions identified a risk difference between a  
principal or actual residence, and rental property. Many of the statutory declarations concerning  
use expanded the concept to confirm three things:  
1.  
2.  
3.  
the straw buyer’s intention to use the property as a principal residence  
that the down payment was contributed from personal resources, and  
that no part of the property would be rented out.  
That the financial institutions would focus on these items is a common sense indicator that the  
absence of any or all of the features negatively affects the lending the risk. The absence of any of  
these factors increased the risk to the financial institution. This too is a deprivation.  
[519] The waiver of a down payment leads inescapably to two conclusions. On arm’s-length  
transactions, the price was overstated to increase the percentage of financing [see count 3,  
property 2]. The second (which occurred in virtually every case here) is that transaction is not at  
arm’s-length. A non-arm’s-length transaction also increases the risk for the financial institution.  
D.  
Knowledge and Wilful Blindness  
[520] Where the Crown established:  
1.  
2.  
2.  
a deceit falsehood or other dishonest conduct,  
reliance on the deceit, and  
an active [and material ]contribution to that element by each accused.  
I went on to determine if Mr. MacMullin had knowledge, both in the sense of knowledge of the  
deceit and knowing that it would cause a deprivation.  
[521] The Crown submitted that Mr. MacMullin, as the ringleader of the scheme, had full and  
complete knowledge of the fraud. The Crown also averred the same for Mr. Elander. However, I  
 
Page: 117  
felt obliged to determine whether their knowledge may be imputed knowledge that results from  
their willful blindness to the reality of this fraud. Mr. MacMullin implies in his evidence that he  
was busy working while Mr. Seremet was doing all these deals. I do not accept that, but even  
were it true, I would still conclude this absence of knowledge represents willful blindness.  
[522] In the case of Mr. Elander, he claims his was a limited role. He delegated the critical  
work effort to his staff, and was preoccupied with other matters. This, he says, supports his claim  
that he had no knowledge of these events. The Crown, by contrast, outlines at least 34 items  
(their identifiable ‘time stamps’) in which additional and incriminating evidence was received by  
Mr. Elander. The Crown argues that this matrix of information at some point means Mr. Elander  
must have known what was going on. Any honest denial of being Mr. MacMullin’s dupe after  
that point leads to the conclusion Mr. Elander was, at a minimum, willfully blind. That  
discussion about wilful blindness follows, while the time stamps’ of knowledge which do not  
conveniently fit in elsewhere will be dealt with in para 530- 542, or schedule A.  
[523] In R v Briscoe, 2010 SCC 13, [2010] 1 SCR 411, the Supreme Court of Canada reviewed  
the concept of willful blindness as an equivalent alternate to ‘knowledge’. The Crown submitted  
that I should find direct knowledge on the part of Mr. Elander, or alternatively, should find  
instead that the Crown has established beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Elander was  
“willfully blind” as that legal concept had been defined.  
[524] Mr. Elander takes the opposing view: that his direct evidence that he did not know about  
the frauds alleged in this case constitutes a full defense and the Crown has not proven to the  
requisite standard that he was willfully blind about the fraudulent nature of these transactions.  
[525] I am able to add nothing more to the analysis from the Supreme Court of Canada about  
the concept of willful blindness. I reviewed the evidence to determine whether the evidence was  
sufficient to evaluate that Mr. Elander, in an attempt to avoid criminal responsibility for crime  
that requires knowledge, deliberately did not inquire about the true state of affairs because he  
knew the answer and wanted to maintain plausible deniability. The critical passage is at paras 20-  
24:  
[20] … wilful blindness, correctly delineated, is distinct from recklessness and  
involves no departure from the subjective inquiry into the accused’s state of mind  
which must be undertaken to establish an aider or abettor’s knowledge.  
[21] Wilful blindness does not define the mens rea required for particular  
offences. Rather, it can substitute for actual knowledge whenever knowledge is a  
component of the mens rea. The doctrine of wilful blindness imputes knowledge  
to an accused whose suspicion is aroused to the point where he or she sees the  
need for further inquiries, but deliberately chooses not to make those inquiries. …  
As Sopinka J. succinctly put it in Jorgensen (at para. 103), “[a] finding of wilful  
blindness involves an affirmative answer to the question: Did the accused shut his  
eyes because he knew or strongly suspected that looking would fix him with  
knowledge?”  
Page: 118  
[22] Courts and commentators have consistently emphasized that wilful blindness  
is distinct from recklessness. The emphasis bears repeating. As the Court  
explained in Sansregret (at p. 584):  
. . . while recklessness involves knowledge of a danger or risk and  
persistence in a course of conduct which creates a risk that the  
prohibited result will occur, wilful blindness arises where a person  
who has become aware of the need for some inquiry declines to  
make the inquiry because he does not wish to know the truth. He  
would prefer to remain ignorant. The culpability in recklessness is  
justified by consciousness of the risk and by proceeding in the face  
of it, while in wilful blindness it is justified by the accused’s fault  
in deliberately failing to inquire when he knows there is reason for  
inquiry. [Emphasis added.]  
[23] It is important to keep the concepts of recklessness and wilful blindness  
separate. Glanville Williams explains the key restriction on the doctrine:  
The rule that wilful blindness is equivalent to knowledge is  
essential, and is found throughout the criminal law. It is, at the  
same time, an unstable rule, because judges are apt to forget its  
very limited scope. A court can properly find wilful blindness only  
where it can almost be said that the defendant actually knew. He  
suspected the fact; he realised its probability; but he refrained from  
obtaining the final confirmation because he wanted in the event to  
be able to deny knowledge. This, and this alone, is wilful blindness.  
It requires in effect a finding that the defendant intended to cheat  
the administration of justice. Any wider definition would make the  
doctrine of wilful blindness indistinguishable from the civil  
doctrine of negligence in not obtaining knowledge. [Emphasis  
added.]  
[24] Professor Don Stuart makes the useful observation that the expression  
“deliberate ignorance” seems more descriptive than “wilful blindness”, as it  
connotes “an actual process of suppressing a suspicion”. Properly understood in  
this way, “the concept of wilful blindness is of narrow scope and involves no  
departure from the subjective focus on the workings of the accused’s mind”  
(Canadian Criminal Law: A Treatise (5th ed. 2007), at p. 241). While a failure to  
inquire may be evidence of recklessness or criminal negligence, as for example,  
where a failure to inquire is a marked departure from the conduct expected of a  
reasonable person, wilful blindness is not simply a failure to inquire but, to repeat  
Professor Stuart’s words, “deliberate ignorance”.  
Page: 119  
[Italics for original emphasis, underlining for emphasis, citations omitted.]  
[526] Mr. MacMullin is convicted on 38 counts because the crown proved all elements of the  
fraud including knowledge both of the deceit and knowledge that it could cause a deprivation.  
No other conclusion is possible. Along the way Mr. MacMullin had learned enough about  
mortgage lending practices that he could and did manipulate the system of checks and balances.  
He used straw buyers as tools to get mortgages he could not get himself at amounts and interest  
rates he could not achieve. Where he is convicted it is because I have found full knowledge on  
his part.  
[527] Where Mr. Elander is convicted it is because the combined evidence against him  
including file irregularities which are directly attributable to him overwhelms his denials of  
knowledge. He is not convicted on any count where Mr. MacMullin is acquitted but he is  
acquitted on some counts where Mr. MacMullin is convicted. This flows from the Crown being  
unable to prove that the file irregularities are so great that he had to have knowledge or have  
been wilfully blind.  
E.  
Intention  
[528] These frauds are not crimes of passion, accidents evolving to crime, or being at the wrong  
place at the wrong time. They are not criminal activity precipitated by drugs or alcohol. The  
frauds perpetrated by Mr. MacMullin were organized, sophisticated, and planned- commercial  
activity. The inclusion of this commentary on intention is simply to serve as a checklist that all  
essential elements have been considered by me. These are crimes fueled by commercial greed.  
Mr. MacMullin intended throughout to defraud these financial institutions using the concept of  
the straw buyers. He sought out weaker lawyers or territorially limited lawyers, and mortgage  
brokers that were beholden to him, or territorially restricted in what they could do in terms of  
investigation. In the 38 counts where he is convicted his intention is clear and consistent on a per  
count basis, never mind looking at the entire situation.  
[529] As for Mr. Elander his intention was to protect his income. He saw chance to do real  
estate work for an individual who would deliver repeat business. Where he had knowledge (or  
imputed knowledge) of fraudulent conduct he elected to carry on. There are subtle indicators in  
Mr. Elander’s files that he would distance himself from the fraudulent conduct by hiding behind  
his legal assistants, and by fielding out the last four files out of his office. I have convicted Mr.  
Elander because he had direct knowledge of the fraud, and he contributed one important final  
element. The report of legitimacy to the financial institution and the concurrent failure to report  
on irregularities which affected their security negatively. This was despite many of the financial  
institutions having specific terms in their instructions to solicitors to report on changes to closing  
proceeds, to report on recently acquired titles, and to report on unusual financing irregularities.  
He did none of these things! Where he is convicted it is because I have also found that he  
intended to assist Mr. McMullen defraud the financial institutions.  
 
Page: 120  
F.  
Using Evidence Between Counts  
[530] In closing argument and earlier in an unsuccessful non-suit application by Mr. Elander,  
the issue arose about how I should consider certain evidence between counts. The reason that this  
discussion is important is to ensure that one does not engage in propensity-based reasoning that  
the fact a person did something in one instance affects the probability that in a separate  
circumstance the same behaviour will emerge a second time. The evidence would likely have  
been allowed, based on a similar fact evidence application, because it was clearly evidence of a  
consistent scheme or pattern. The Crown however did not make such an application relying  
instead on their understanding that the law permitted evidence to be utilized between counts  
when it was to be utilized for reasons other than propensity evidence: two examples given by the  
Crown as the trial progressed was knowledge piling up; or to help explain conduct in  
downstream transactions. At the end of the day the Crown made no similar fact application and  
indicated their reasons for believing it was not necessary.  
[531] By itself, a finding of guilt on one count cannot constitute proof beyond a reasonable  
doubt on a second alleged offence. There is nothing further that I can add to the analysis I  
developed in the nonsuit application: R v MacMullin, 2014 ABQB 139. In that ruling, I  
concluded that evidence that is relevant and could have been admitted on any count can be used  
for any count.  
[532] This includes, for example, evidence that explains a pattern, or circumstances where  
accumulating knowledge is evidence that is applicable to each count and therefore can be used  
on each. For example, in evaluating willful blindness the first occasion an anomaly arises is  
plausibly not a cause for concern and attention. However, inferences may be drawn where an  
alarm has gone off time and time again.  
[533] For the sake of completeness, I incorporate certain paragraphs from the nonsuit  
application into this judgment to explain my reasoning:  
[28] I suggest it is a misnomer to describe this evidence as ‘evidence between the  
counts’. Using evidence between counts contemplates that the evidence might not  
be admissible without a preliminary similar fact ruling. That is not the case here.  
Mr. Elander is not accused of multiple, distinct separate criminal activity  
scenarios but what instead is a single long and integrated criminal transaction with  
multiple victims.  
[29] The interrelationship between the various counts can be illustrated by a  
hypothetical alternative prosecution. Had the Crown proceeded with any one  
count involving Mr. Elander (say for the sake of argument only the last), it could  
have still applied to prove his knowledge of a fraud by introducing all of the  
earlier evidence of conversations between the Accused and eyewitnesses,  
communications from Mr. Elander’s staff, communications from realtors, and  
communications and discussions between himself and his clients. Some of these  
items may have engaged solicitor-client privilege concerns but would have been  
 
Page: 121  
otherwise admissible. All this earlier evidence is relevant because it relates to  
whether Mr. Elander should have been suspicious of a particular straw buyer”  
transaction.  
[30] The Crown could also have introduced evidence of Mr. Elander’s conduct  
that may lead to an inference he knew the buyers were not genuine home  
purchasers but instead only “straw buyers”. One potential piece of this evidence is  
Mr. Elander’s response to complaints about non-payment from “straw buyers”; he  
then collected mortgage payments for the “straw buyers” from Mr. MacMullin.  
This is all background knowledge about what Mr. Elander knew and when he  
knew it. While the courts conveniently classify this argument as ‘utilizing the  
evidence between the counts’, the reality is that the evidence could have been  
adduced on any one count. The same evidence does not have to be repeated 22  
times to apply to 22 counts. This is particularly so where the critical issue is an  
issue of knowledge.  
[31] In R v Sahaidak, [1990] OJ No 3228 (Ont HCJ) a lawyer was charged with  
five counts of fraud for assisting in the preparation of mortgages for five different  
entities. Behind the scenes another individual was the beneficiary. Mr. Sahaidak  
had set up various companies as well as performed the financing transaction. The  
court considered all of the background. The trial judge observed:  
150 In most cases where a multi-count indictment is before the  
court, evidence adduced on one count is not admissible for against  
an accused on the other counts. Where, however, the events  
underlying the various counts are part of an ongoing course of  
dealings, and where those events are interwoven and interrelated so  
that as a matter of logic and common sense, the events underlining  
one count also enlighten and assist the trier of fact in  
understanding and assessing the evidence on the other counts, then  
evidence directly relevant to one count is admissible on the other  
counts as well. R.v. McNamara et al (No.1) (1981) 56 C.C.C.2nd  
193 at 284 (Ont. C.A), affirmed without reference to this point.  
[1985]1 S.C.R. 662.  
151 In this case [the lawyer’s] knowledge of the fraudulent nature  
of these transactions is the central issue. In my view evidence of  
his involvement in and knowledge of the nature of any of these  
transactions is relevant to a determination of his state of knowledge  
on the other transactions. … Although evidence of knowledge of  
the nature of any one of the transactions is therefore relevant on the  
question of his knowledge as to the nature of the transactions  
which occurred before or after the transaction, I find that the  
Page: 122  
evidence is much more probative as it relates to subsequent  
transactions. ... [Emphasis added.]  
[32] The same reasoning was applied in Alberta Court of Appeal ruling of R v  
deKock, 2009 ABCA 225 (CanLII), 2009 ABCA 225 at para 35, 454 AR 102,  
where the court observed;  
... The trial judge did not use a forbidden chain of reasoning to link the verdicts on  
the counts. All of the evidence was admissible on all of the counts as the context  
of each event. ...  
[33] While I accept the Defense counsel submission that these comments were  
made in the context of the main participant in an alleged fraud, there is no judicial  
basis to separate the application of this legal rule between persons alleged to be  
the ‘main player’ and those alleged to be aiders and abettors. It is never clear  
during the evidentiary portion of a trial who (if anyone) will wear those nametags,  
and what evidence will be said to apply to what defendant. In R v deKock, the  
Court cautions triers of fact to avoid propensity reasoning, and I accept that means  
avoiding propensity reasoning both at the end of the case and during a nonsuit  
application, however, this becomes less significant in a nonsuit application where  
the Crown only must raise some evidence. Propensity reasoning creates a risk of  
conviction on weak evidence, but a nonsuit application is focused not on weak  
(nor strong) evidence but whether there is any at all.  
[34] Therefore I conclude that for the purpose of this nonsuit application, I may  
consider what the Crown identifies as timeline evidence culled from the marked  
exhibits, and the viva voce evidence of witnesses.  
[534] Using evidence between counts is especially significant in the case facing Mr. Elander.  
To show knowledge over time, the Crown developed “time stamps”. These time stamps are  
mostly documentary evidence that the Crown has identified primarily from Mr. Elander’s files,  
but in some cases, from the mortgage brokers’ and financial institutions’ documentary materials.  
[535] These time stamps illustrate how, even if Mr. Elander began his business with Mr.  
MacMullin in an innocent context, Mr. Elander was receiving additional ‘intelligence’ as time  
went on that these transactions were irregular. The factors will be developed more fully in  
discussion of the issue of Mr. Elander’s knowledge or willful blindness in Schedule A. A brief  
review of two examples provides context for my explanation.  
1.  
Example #1 The Hendry Sale  
[536] A Crown ‘timestamp’ [by no means the first] occurred on count number 16, where Mrs.  
Hendry sold her property to two straw buyers: Mr. Campbell and Mr. Young. Neither ever  
intended to live in the property. On its surface, Mr. MacMullin had no interest in the property,  
 
Page: 123  
however, Mrs. Hendry disclosed to Mr. Elander (and Mr. Elander admits this disclosure) that she  
was concerned about Mr. MacMullin and was afraid she would not get her money.  
[537] Around that time, Mr. Elander witnesses a short document in which Mr. MacMullin  
guarantees the mortgage payments of the straw buyers. According to the Crown, Mr. Elander  
must have known that if Mrs. Hendry remained interested in the mortgage payments on her home  
after an arm’s-length sale, then either:  
a) the sale could not have been at arm’s-length; or  
b) she has continued to have some kind of interest (even a tenant’s interest as suggested  
by counsel for Mr. MacMullin) in the property.  
[538] The problem was that the mortgage was a CMHC insured mortgage that required the  
borrowers to reside in the home. Mr. Elander did 15 mortgage transactions involving Mr.  
MacMullin after that point in time.  
2.  
Example #2 The Cipperley Transaction  
[539] Mr. MacMullin got Lance Cipperley and Mr. Rauckman involved in count 19. Mr.  
Cipperley’s father was a Sheriff’s bailiff. Wayne Cipperley confronted Mr. Elander in his office  
and alleged that Mr. Elander had gotten his son and friend into a fraud. He threatened Mr.  
Elander with a report to the RCMP if he did not reverse the transaction.  
[540] While there is a factual dispute about when and why the transaction was reversed (or  
even if it was this transaction, as Mr. MacMullin also attempted to use these gentlemen on  
another deal), it is clear that a few days later, Mr. W. Cipperley (or his son) picked up documents  
in which the property in question had been transferred to someone else. The Crown asserts that  
confrontation and deal reversal is graphic evidence of knowledge that should have alerted any  
person that something unusual was going on. Mr. Elander admits this confrontation did occur,  
but that the reversal had nothing to do with Mr. Wayne Cipperley or the threat of police  
involvement.  
[541] Count 19 occurred in early 2002. Mr. Elander worked on an additional and subsequent 8  
mortgage files on deals which involved Mr. MacMullin.  
[542] In total, Crown presents 34 of these ‘timestamps’ that indicate increasing knowledge. If  
the Crown is wrong in its assertion that Mr. Elander had knowledge right from the start because  
he was a full co-conspirator with Mr. MacMullin, the alternative is that at some point, this  
accumulating evidence should have made Mr. Elander realize something was wrong. If Mr.  
Elander thought nothing was wrong, as he has testified, then he was willfully blind to the  
ongoing frauds passing through his office.  
 
Page: 124  
G.  
Piercing Solicitor-Client Privilege  
[543] The Crown called two lawyers, Mr. Brent Bittner and Mr. Brett Barclay. Each had  
received instructions from Mr. MacMullin on some of the counts. Mr. Bittner’s retainer predated  
Mr. Elander, while Mr. Barclay followed. The purpose in calling these witnesses was first to  
confirm that Mr. MacMullin had instructed them, then to determine if solicitor-client privilege  
should be pierced to provide evidence of complicity in these frauds.  
[544] Evidence was also sought about Mr. MacMullin’s conduct in the context of his  
instructions to them in their role as conveyancing solicitors. In other cases, learned Defense  
counsel simply admitted the lawyer’s conveyancing file, but the Crown wanted more from these  
two witnesses. An issue arose as to whether this information was protected in Mr. MacMullin’s  
favour by solicitor-client privilege. This portion of my judgment confirms my mid-trial ruling on  
this issue.  
1.  
The Position of the Parties on Solicitor-Client Privilege  
[545] The Crown submitted that there is no protection against self-incrimination through  
privilege where the lawyer participated knowingly or unknowingly in the crime: the “crime  
exception to privilege. Further, certain acts, even if provided by a solicitor, are not privileged:  
for example delivering documents, sending out money, and making attendances for a client.  
These are physical acts or actual facts, which are not and have never been privileged.  
[546] Therefore, the Crown says it is entitled to call these two lawyers by subpoena. The  
Crown intended to question these two lawyers in a specific way about their relationship with Mr.  
MacMullin and the instructions the lawyers received from him. The Crown also sought to obtain  
a confirmation that he was their client, as well as acting for others in routine real estate  
transactions. Last, the Crown seeks evidence of some of the activity and exchanges that went on  
between the lawyers and Mr. MacMullin.  
[547] Mr. MacMullin conceded that the Crown had established the threshold requirement to  
pierce the protection of solicitor-client privilege, but that even if I concluded that the Crown has  
successfully overcome the issue of solicitor-client privilege, I should ensure that the questioning  
of the two solicitors is kept narrow and does not become a fishing trip for the Crown to embellish  
their case.  
[548] Counsel for Mr. Elander did not make a submission nor file any written brief.  
2.  
Legal Analysis  
[549] The relationship of the lawyer and his own client is one that provides both the ethical  
duty of confidentiality, which may be overcome by a subpoena, and a second protection which is  
more limited, but also stronger in scope, when it applies: solicitor-client privilege.  
     
Page: 125  
[550] Stevenson and Côté, Civil Procedure Encyclopedia (Edmonton: Juriliber, 2003), provide  
a useful starting point summary on the law of privilege and the related issues that flow from this.  
While focused on civil matters the cornerstone principles are the same. The authors observe that:  
1) Privilege is the property of the client.  
2) Privilege should not be lightly set aside.  
[551] Privilege, however can be pierced in a few limited situations. One exception is where the  
privilege relates to the conduct of criminal activity. There is no privilege where a lawyer’s  
services are either knowingly or unknowingly (as the Crown submits I may assume is the  
situation for Mr. Barclay and Mr. Bittner) used to further criminal activity. Real estate frauds are  
a specific example of where a lawyer may unwitting assist criminal activity. The hypothesis  
accepted by Defense for the purpose of the mid-trial ruling was that material, but likely false or  
misleading information, was provided to a financial institution which, based on the fraudulent  
material, approved a loan and instructed the lawyers.  
[552] In Westra Law Office (Re); Westra, Re, 2009 ABQB 391, 476 AR 60, Greckol J,  
allowed solicitors documents to be introduced in a court proceeding even though some or all of  
the documents might be privileged.  
[553] In doing so, she relied on a previous case from the Supreme Court of Canada which  
reminded judges that privilege will not protect the exposure of crime. Solicitor-client privilege is  
intended to protect legal advice given to the accused by his or her lawyer after a crime has  
occurred, or to legal advice given to the lawyer in a non-criminal situation when the epicenter of  
the relationship and the advice is legitimate legal advice sought to deal with a civil or criminal  
problem. This is true for both written and oral advice.  
[554] A client cannot orchestrate a crime with a third-party lawyer and then claim solicitor-  
client privilege over those communications. Nor can a lawyer unwittingly be used as an  
instrument of crime by a third-party and the law then allow the third-party to claim solicitor-  
client privilege.  
[555] I concluded that the Crown has established to the requisite balance of probability  
standard that the services of the lawyers Barclay and Bittner were used to facilitate a crime,  
albeit unknowing to them. This outcome was not much in doubt based on the position taken by  
counsel for Mr. MacMullin; however, the remaining two issues that arose in this trial that relate  
to privilege are also interesting.  
3.  
When Does the Ability of the Crown to Pierce the Solicitor-Client  
Privilege End?  
[556] One of the straw buyers gave evidence that he received a call from a collection center of  
a financial institution in a situation where the straw buyer knew nothing about having  
participated in a mortgage. The inference that flows from his evidence is that after he  
 
Page: 126  
participated willingly in one transaction, his informational documents were later re-used to  
include him in another transaction.  
[557] When the straw buyer received the call from the collection agency, he contacted Mr.  
Bittner. The straw buyer alleged that his signature had been forged. Mr. Bittner believed  
throughout that the straw buyer was his client, as was the financial institution. Mr. MacMullin  
had referred the straw buyer to him. Mr. Bittner believed as well that Mr. MacMullin was also  
his client. Mr. Bittner then contacted Mr. MacMullin, put certain questions to him, and received  
responses from Mr. MacMullin.  
[558] Could those responses become evidence in this trial? I concluded they cannot. Returning  
to first principles, if privilege is pierced, it should be pierced on a limited exceptional basis. In  
the case of mortgage frauds like the ones allegedly perpetrated (now found to have been  
perpetrated) by Mr. MacMullin and his co-accused, the lawyer’s involvement usually ends, at the  
latest, at the point where the lawyer concludes all of the cleanup elements to the file and  
produces his solicitor’s final report on the efficacy of the transaction.  
[559] The crime exception ends at that point, at least when the alleged fraud flows from the  
lawyer’s unknowing assistance in the preparation of a mortgage granted by a financial institution  
on the basis of the receipt of deceitful and dishonest material. Subsequent communications in  
time must be protected by privilege unless another crime exception or other exception can be  
established.  
[560] Implicit in this ruling is my conclusion that where a crime exception exists that allows for  
the piercing of privilege, that exception ends when the work in relation to the transaction relating  
to the fraud has ended. This factual demarcation is not capricious or arbitrary. There comes a  
point in the transaction where the financial institution has already approved the loan based on  
presumptively deceitful material, the solicitor has drafted and registered the documents, the  
financial institution has advanced their money, and the last activity - the solicitor’s final report to  
the financial institution has occurred. At this point, the lawyer’s file is ready for closing and that  
specific real estate transaction has ended. A client can successfully assert privilege for  
communications of a legal advice nature that occur subsequent to that event.  
4.  
Cross Examination by the Accused to Elicit Favourable Evidence  
Protected by Privilege  
[561] During cross-examination of Mr. Bittner, counsel for Mr. MacMullin wanted to question  
Mr. Bittner about some of the legal advice he had imparted to Mr. MacMullin.  
[562] My conclusion was that a client is entitled to waive solicitor-client privilege that would  
allow the questioning of his former solicitor on additional issues. The additional issue was  
whether the lawyer had issued an opinion to Mr. MacMullin about what constitutes principal  
occupancy or personal residence in connection with an insured high-ratio mortgage.  
 
Page: 127  
[563] The court ruling that I made during the trial was that if the Accused (for whose benefit  
the privilege existed) unconditionally and unequivocally waived privilege the question could be  
put to Mr. Bittner. Further, any redirect examination from the Crown would have to be narrow  
and relate specifically to the issues raised by the questioning which followed waiver of privilege.  
[564] Mr. MacMullin confirmed in open court that he waived his privilege so as to permit his  
counsel to address that question to Mr. Bittner. There was no re-direct evidence from the Crown  
on this point, as the lawyer, Mr. Bittner, took the position that he had never instructed Mr.  
MacMullin that temporary possession met the requirement for a principal residence in a high-  
ratio mortgage.  
H.  
Revisiting Document Admissibility  
[565] At the commencement of the trial, a lengthy voir dire was held to determine the  
admissibility of the 90,000 pages more or less of documents and files referred to earlier. This  
was reported: R v MacMullin, 2013 ABQB 741, 89 Alta LR (5th) 65. Despite this, it was  
necessary to revisit the issue of admissibility in the context of motor vehicle’s records. The  
legislation enables admission of this evidence in certain circumstances: Canada Evidence Act,  
RSC 1985, c C-5, s 30; Motor Vehicle Administration Act, RSA 2000, c M-23, ss 3, 104.  
[566] The Crown applied to admit address or pictorial information about Mr. Elander, and  
about the co-occupant of Mr. Elander’s residence. This person later became Mr. Elander’s wife.  
She sold her home to a straw buyer. To facilitate this, the Crown called a responsible officer  
from the motor vehicles branch that is able both to certify for admissibility motor branch  
documents and also give evidence about the system.  
[567] Learned counsel for Mr. Elander took the position that the Crown’s application to admit  
certified copies of the motor vehicles records (which also included a photo of Mr. Elander and  
his wife) were not covered by my judicial ruling on documents and that I should rule these  
documents inadmissible for the following reasons:  
1.  
A provincial court ruling is directly on point: R v Lodeon, 2009 ABPC 274, 480  
AR 327 the dealt specifically with the admissibility of motor vehicles branch  
documentation. That case concluded (in context) that because these documents are  
retained and collected by private motor vehicles offices licensed by the  
government, the documentation is not reliable.  
2.  
There is no longer any original documentation which can be copied and certified  
as the motor vehicles branch has now completely abandoned paper records and  
instead has converted to digital or microfiche records. Thus the certification is a  
hearsay certification of an electronic document, not any original.  
[568] I concluded that these documents would be admissible: They bear the appropriate  
certification, the legislation permits this, and the viva voce evidence did satisfy me that the  
document was reliable. Further, and with respect to the Provincial Court which ruled to the  
 
Page: 128  
contrary, if the only documents now retained by the motor vehicles branch are electronic, or  
microfiche, a ruling that an electronic copy cannot be reproduced in hard copy and certified for  
admission in a court would effectively mean that no motor vehicle document could ever be  
admitted under any statutory authority entry of documentary evidence.  
[569] Any concerns on potential issues with this method of document storage and recovery  
should go to weight, not admissibility. Last, any systemic unreliability that is asserted on the  
basis of a government decision to privatize and create numerous private registries cannot in and  
of itself create presumptive unreliability.  
[570] The analysis expressed in my written judgment applies to this document as well. Based  
on the certificate of the registrar and the viva voce evidence of the registrar, the document is  
reliable. Evidence in this form is necessary because the original no longer exists. The fact that  
the government has elected to privatize a registry system does not mean that those documents  
lose their character of government documents admissible by certification of the registrar that  
controls them.  
I.  
Inferences from Circumstantial Evidence  
[571] The Crown elected to engage in a limited cross-examination of Mr. MacMullin and Mr.  
Elander. The short length of time that Mr. MacMullin was engaged in cross-examination caught  
Defense counsel by surprise. They anticipated a more lengthy cross-examination of someone  
described as the “ringleader of a major mortgage fraud involving numerous transactions”.  
[572] Likewise, Mr. Elander’s cross-examination was limited, many disconcerting documents  
were not put to him either directly or in cross examination. While defense counsel concede that  
the Crown can conduct their case as they see fit, they argue against the Court making adverse  
inferences from documents that the Crown did not cross examine about.  
1.  
The Position of the Defence  
[573] In advancing this legal argument, the defense raises legal authority and overarching  
adjudicative fairness. They cite R v I.I., 2013 ABCA 2, 542 AR 52. In that decision, the Court of  
Appeal considered a combination of two factors:  
1.  
2.  
a lack of vigorous cross-examination of the accused by Crown, and  
the Crown’s advice to a jury that the complainant in a sexual assault case had  
withstood vigorous cross-examination by defence.  
The Court felt that adjudicative fairness should have resulted in a special direction from the  
judge.  
[574] By extension, counsel for both Mr. MacMullin and Mr. Elander shaped this argument  
into one in which I should not draw an adverse inference about documents that Mr. Elander and  
   
Page: 129  
Mr. MacMullin were not cross-examined upon. They also pointed out that the Crown’s duty is  
not to procure convictions, but to present all of the evidence fairly.  
2.  
The Position of the Crown  
[575] The Crown counters with the analysis in R v Shead (1996), 114 ManR (2d) 42 at para 30,  
32 WCB (2d) 318 (Man QB) affirmed on other grounds (1997), 115 ManR (2d) 215 (Man CA).  
To paraphrase those judicial comments, the Crown asserted that they are not prohibited from  
asking the Court to find an adverse inference flowing from a document merely because of their  
failure to cross-examine on a document.  
[576] They are entitled to use the document on its face and in the surrounding circumstance to  
ask the Court to draw an adverse inference. When considered in the overarching context of  
adjudicative fairness, the Crown notes how it has raised the context of these documents. There is  
no inherent unfairness. The Crown points out that these items were introduced in some fashion,  
either through specific direct examination, of other witnesses, or cross examination of other  
witnesses. This includes documents that Mr. Elander did elect to touch on.  
[577] The Crown also referred the Court back to the extensive argument filed by the Crown in  
Mr. Elander’s application for a nonsuit. It was clear to Mr. Elander prior to him getting on the  
witness stand what documents the Crown would likely be submitting in final argument. Just as  
the Crown cannot control the questions that Mr. Elander answers on direct examination, they  
should not be somehow estopped from asking the Court to find an adverse inference from a  
document in Mr. Elander’s files.  
3.  
Ruling  
[578] There are unique elements to this case. First, defence counsel were retained late in the  
legal proceedings, coming on board not long before the trial commenced. There was no  
preliminary inquiry. This was a document intensive case, went on for six months, and numerous  
witnesses were called. These practical realities do put some breeze in the Defence argument sail:  
that where the Crown is completely and fully conversant with the documents that they believe  
are a sinister reflection of knowledge and intention, those documents should have been put to the  
witnesses.  
[579] Conversely, Mr. MacMullin and Mr. Elander, having elected to give evidence, were also  
not prohibited from touching on documents that had earlier in trial been the subject of attention  
by the Crown. Direct and cross examination of the accused who elect to give evidence, are  
common sense propositions of strategy; but any cross-examination shortcomings must fall far  
short of prohibiting a trial judge from drawing an inference from circumstantial documentation,  
where the inference is glaring and obvious. Of the so-called 34 time stamps’, the vast majority  
come from Mr. Elander’s own files. As the Crown noted, many of these critical items were  
specifically identified in the Crown’s response to the nonsuit application.  
   
Page: 130  
[580] The few that were not touched on at all could, from a common sense point of view, leave  
a trier of fact reluctant to infer the worst from those documents, particularly when the witness  
was not confronted with the suspect document. Such cases may raise concerns about adjudicative  
fairness, and this may be a unique situation such as was alluded to in the decision of the Alberta  
Court of Appeal in R v I.I.  
[581] In that case, the Court of Appeal concluded that it was inappropriate for the Crown to not  
cross-examine the accused and then later submit to the jury that the complainant was subjected to  
extensive aggressive cross-examination and held up well. That was an issue of balancing the  
credibility of the complainant and accused. It was not an issue about inferring facts from the  
circumstantial evidence of documents. At the point that Mr. Elander and Mr. MacMullin took the  
witness stand, they knew the case they had to meet. They were both represented by competent  
legal counsel, and although they are under no legal obligation to give evidence or prove  
anything, the failure on the part of the Crown to cross-examine them about documents in their  
own handwriting, or in Mr. Elander’s case from his own files, does not prohibit a fact finder  
from making such inferences from the documents as seem appropriate considered in the totality  
of the evidence.  
[582] We are not dealing with a jury trial. A judge is expected to approach circumstantial  
evidence cautiously, fairly and legally informed.  
[583] In the final analysis, the decision about what inference to draw from the evidence is made  
by the Court and cannot be restricted by the failure on the part of one party to cross-examine. In  
this case, since Mr. Elander had all but three of the notional timestamps brought to the forefront  
of this trial prior to him taking the witness stand, a blanket rule prohibiting the Court from  
drawing adverse inferences would be contrary to the law, public policy, and common sense. In  
Mr. MacMullin’s case, Mr. Seremet and other witnesses were carefully taken through documents  
the Crown thought the Court may find relevant. I am not restricted in the inferences I make about  
documentation by the failure to put those documents to the witness against whom the adverse  
inference may be made.  
IV.  
The Conclusion  
[584] Schedule A, sets out each count (as finally amended) and conducts a count by count  
analysis and conclusion. However, the review of schedule A, may not be necessary for all who  
review this judgment. This section outlines my conclusions for those engaged in a less detailed  
review of this litigation.  
A.  
Conclusions Relating to the Existence of Mortgage Fraud  
[585] My analysis, which is documented in Schedule A on an individual count-by-count basis,  
proceeded as follows:  
   
Page: 131  
1.  
2.  
Actus reus issues: identify evidence which I accept and by which the Crown has  
proven beyond a reasonable doubt, both “a deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent  
means” in obtaining the mortgage. Plus the finding that the deceit was relied  
upon, was material, and caused deprivation.  
As will become apparent in most cases there were many deceits and all were  
serious, material and relied upon.  
Indictment issues: further, this deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means must  
be found in the mortgage application, the related documentation supplied with it  
to the financial institution, the creation of the mortgage documentation, and  
reporting or failure to report on something critical by the solicitor leading to the  
advance (as particularized in the indictment).  
Other instances of a ‘deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means’ are irrelevant,  
and also potentially prejudicial to Mr. MacMullin and Mr. Elander. As a  
consequence, although I may mention that evidence for context, I will not  
consider that evidence in evaluation of the existence (or not) of “a deceit,  
falsehood or other fraudulent means”.  
3.  
4.  
Mens rea issues: determine whether the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable  
doubt that Mr. MacMullin and Mr. Elander (in those counts where Elander is  
joined with MacMullin) had the requisite knowledge of the deceit, falsehood or  
other fraudulent means, and also knowledge that the deceit could cause a  
deprivation, and with this knowledge intended the ‘dishonest deprivation’.  
Participation by these individual: determine if the Crown has proven that Mr.  
MacMullin and as applicable, Mr. Elander, with knowledge of the deceit  
falsehood or other fraudulent means actively, and above a de minimus level, did or  
contributed something to advance the fraud.  
[586] The analysis I adopted satisfied the approach identified in Olan. In most counts, the  
evidence is glaring and overwhelming outrageous in fact. This means not all of the specific  
analysis components need to be developed as extensively as others in Schedule A, but the  
thought process I have described has been used in all counts.  
[587] I am satisfied beyond a doubt that on 38 of the 41 counts, the Crown has proven beyond a  
reasonable doubt that deceitful activity (the actus reus) took place because of one or more factors  
which have been proven in evidence. These factors include:  
1.  
deceitful documentation [deceitful REPCs, deceitful information in the mortgage  
application];  
2.  
3.  
a lack of any intention by the buyer to reside in the property;  
manipulation, and falsification of the down payments; and  
Page: 132  
4.  
the fact that the transactions were not at arm’s-length, or if they were, the  
purchase price was inflated.  
[588] Not all of these factors are found in all counts, but in all counts, at least one is found. This  
is sufficient to satisfy the objective requirement for deceit, falsehood or other dishonest  
conduct.  
[589] In conjunction with this finding of a deceit falsehood or other dishonest conduct, I have  
concluded that the deceit was material, that the financial institution relied on it, and that the  
reliance led to a deprivation.  
[590] When I add to this those essential elements flowing from the indictment which were  
admitted, I am left only with the decision as to whether in each case Mr. MacMullin and/or Mr.  
Elander had knowledge and did something (greater than a de minimus level standard) to advance  
the fraud. The follow-up decision about whether each had knowledge that the deceit could cause  
a deprivation is answered on a positive basis where conviction occurs. The deceits here were  
major - and common sense shapes the conclusions of guilt.  
[591] In the cases where a deceit was not proven, I am fairly certain that a deceit occurred but  
cannot conclude this beyond a reasonable doubt. Those three counts are:  
count 5, property 4; straw buyer Grace Nichol [issues: down payment made,  
conventional mortgage did not require residency]  
count 10, property 8, straw buyer Lane Wiechnik, [issues: down payment  
believed to have been made , and residency intention accepted. Mr. Elander  
jointly charged also gets this benefit]  
count 35, property 28, straw buyer Mr. Steven Lu, [issues: BMO file not  
available, lawyers file not completely available, limited evidence]  
[592] In result, those three counts are dismissed against Mr. MacMullin [and Mr. Elander -  
count 10] as one essential element of fraud has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.  
B.  
Conclusions Relating to Mr. Al MacMullin  
[593] On the remaining 38 counts against Mr. MacMullin, I do not believe Mr. MacMullin’s  
denials of guilt, nor do they raise a reasonable doubt. The evidence which I do accept from the  
Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt (virtually to the absolute certainty level referenced  
in R v Starr, 2000 SCC 40, [2000] 2 SCR 144) that:  
1.  
2.  
Mr. MacMullin was the ringleader of a mortgage fraud scheme,  
the intention of which was to obtain mortgages on properties and in circumstances  
where if the financial institutions had known of the true state of affairs, the loan  
would not have been made.  
 
Page: 133  
[594] Mr. MacMullin had direct knowledge of the fraudulent information passed on to the  
financial institutions, intended that it be passed on, and intended it to be relied upon by the  
financial institution. In all cases, he actually created it or directed its creation. As the result of his  
dealings, the financial institutions were deprived of appropriate security in all of the mortgage  
situations.  
[595] The conduct that has been described in this lengthy judgment was organized and  
executed by Mr. MacMullin. He intended to defraud the financial institutions and he succeeded.  
He was aware that these loans were risky and that he placed the financial institutions in  
economic jeopardy because of these risky loans.  
[596] He was the ringleader and he contributed in a material way to every one of the frauds as  
described in this judgment. He is guilty of the remaining 38 counts.  
C.  
Conclusions Relating to Mr. Elander  
[597] Mr. Elander was an incredibly incompetent, grossly negligent solicitor, who probably  
knew that the MacMullin’s mortgage fraud scheme was going on in all counts. I reject his  
denials of knowledge about the fraud in some counts because such denial is not possible in light  
of the overwhelming evidence of mortgage and real property purchase irregularity. These  
irregularities were consistent with knowledgeable participation in fraudulent activity.  
[598] For him to have never come to conclude that his office was being used to assist in illegal  
activity is inconceivable. If he did so, then that was only the result of him being willfully blind to  
Mr. MacMullin’s activities.  
[599] However, his incredible incompetence, gross negligence, and a close to regular file, (or a  
missing file) does at least raise a reasonable doubt in some cases. In addition to Count 10  
identified above in which the Crown has not proven a fraudulent act beyond a reasonable doubt,  
Mr. Elander gets the benefit of the doubt in seven additional counts.  
[600] These counts are: Count 2, 6, 8, 9, [10 noted above], 17, 25, 28; for which he is found not  
guilty.  
[601] I am, however, satisfied that the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr.  
Elander aided and abetted in the following counts namely: 11, 12, 14, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23,  
24, 26, 29, 30; while knowing (or being willfully blind to) the fact he was assisting in the  
criminal activity of fraud. I therefore find him guilty of those counts. He is likely guilty of others  
but the Crown evidence about his guilt does not coalesce into proof beyond a reasonable doubt.  
Heard between the 9th day of September, 2013 and the14th day of April, 2014.  
Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 1st day of August, 2014.  
 
Page: 134  
A.W. Germain  
J.C.Q.B.A.  
Page: 135  
Appearances:  
James G. Pickard  
Leah J. Boyd  
Alberta Justice  
for the Crown  
Alex S. Millman  
Alexander Millman Law Office  
for the Accused, A. MacMullin  
Greg J. Worobec &  
Kaylyn M. A. Johnson  
Worobec Law Offices  
for the Accused, R. Elander  
Page: 136  
Schedule A : R v MacMullin and Elander: Findings of Charge Specific Facts  
A.  
Introduction  
[602] This schedule contains count-specific facts and analyzes the relevant evidence on a  
count-by-count basis. The structure of the analysis will be similar and often repetitive. Each  
analysis is anchored by the land titles records [“Title Tales”], augmented (where available) by:  
1.  
2.  
3.  
the evidence and files of the mortgage broker and lawyer involved in the file,  
documents from the lending financial institutions file, and  
the count specific viva voce evidence of the ‘straw buyer’ and other witnesses.  
Mr. MacMullin and Mr. Elander both gave evidence. Their evidence has been evaluated on a  
count-specific as well as a general basis. Their credibility and weight I place on their evidence is  
discussed both in the main body of this judgment and this schedule.  
[603] This schedule will focus less on the overall common evidence contained in the main body  
of the judgment, and more specifically on individual counts.  
[604] It became readily apparent as the trial progressed and is beyond dispute that the direct  
indictment by the Crown (as amended) was accurate as far as the technical details of each count  
including:  
1.  
2.  
3.  
4.  
the identity of the straw buyer or buyers,  
the address or location of the property,  
the name of the lending financial institution, and;  
that the monetary amounts involved were all over $5,000.00.  
[605] Defence counsel conceded that the Crown had proven those essential elements. The  
identity of Mr. MacMullin and Mr. Elander were never in dispute and there are no identity issues  
even where, with the passage of time, some of the straw buyers could not specifically identify  
Mr. MacMullin or Mr. Elander.  
[606] Two further elements of the offence of fraud (Criminal Code, s 380), reliance and  
deprivation, are the same for all counts and were addressed in the main part of the judgment.  
[para 498 to 519]. In summary, reliance and deprivation exists for all counts where a finding of  
guilt has been made. The Crown has proven those two elements of fraud beyond a reasonable  
doubt.  
   
Page: 137  
[607] Intention to defraud exists where convictions are recorded and this was also discussed in  
the main judgment [paras 528, 529].  
[608] This schedule focuses on whether the Crown had proven deceitful conduct (the actus  
reus) and the mental elements, beyond a reasonable doubt. This required the Crown to prove  
beyond a reasonable doubt Mr. MacMullin and Mr. Elander had knowledge of, and played a  
significant role [above a de minimus level] in the deceitful conduct. The role must be to the level  
of a principal or an aider and abettor. It also requires that the Crown prove an intention to  
deprive the financial institution. Where convictions have been recorded I am satisfied that the  
Crown has proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, all elements of the offence of fraud as shaped by  
the guidance from the Supreme Court of Canada and reviewed in the main part of the judgment.  
[609] The LTO utilizes a date convention that formats dates by day/month/year. I have elected  
in this judgment to set out dates by month/day/year. This change was to assist at a glance how  
quickly properties turned over, often to a MacMullin connection, or went into foreclosure post-  
purchase. Rapid changes in value and the inferences that flow from that are more apparent.  
[610] Effort has been made to reduce technical errors. Despite this, it is inevitable that some  
may have occurred. During preparation of this judgment approximately 90,000 pages of  
documentation were accessed, numerous dates and numbers were identified and reviewed. My  
hope is that errors are few in number, but I accept that with this volume of material certain  
inaccuracies are unavoidable. Technical and mechanical errors relating to dates, times, places,  
monetary errors, and witness misidentification however, do not affect the outcome of the  
judgment or my key findings. Those depend on broader arrays of facts and factors.  
[611] Last, for clarity, for each count I will identify my bottom line finding.  
B.  
Count 1 and Count 2 - Property 1(a) and 1(b)  
1.  
Allan Dawson MacMullin stands charged that he:  
1. Between the 1st day of January, 2000 and the 31st day of July, 2005, at or near  
The Alleged Misconduct  
the city of Edmonton, in the province of Alberta, did by deceit, falsehood or other  
fraudulent means, defraud Royal Bank of Canada of money, of a value exceeding  
$5,000.00, by providing false information to Royal Bank of Canada in support of a  
mortgage application in the name of Raymond King for 17907-80 Avenue, Edmonton,  
Alberta (also known as Plan 1160 TR; Block 1; Lot 21), contrary to section 380(1)(a) of  
the Criminal Code.  
Allan Dawson MacMullin and Roy Elander stand charged that they  
2.  
Between the 1st day of January, 2000 and the 31st day of July, 2005, at or near  
the city of Edmonton, in the province of Alberta, did by deceit, falsehood or other  
   
Page: 138  
fraudulent means, defraud London Life Insurance Company of money, of a value  
exceeding $5,000.00, by providing false information to London Life Insurance Company  
in support of a mortgage application in the name of Darcy Stromsmoe for 17907-80  
Avenue, Edmonton, Alberta (also known as Plan 1160 TR; Block 1; Lot 21), contrary to  
section 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.  
2.  
Title Tales  
[612] The land titles summary [exhibit 1, scan 7593] follows:  
LTO Reg.  
Date  
Document  
$ value  
Observations  
Date m/d/y m/d/y  
5/13/76  
1/19/00  
1/19/00  
2/28/00  
6/29/00  
9/24/01  
12/5/01  
4/27/02  
4/29/02  
4/29/02  
9/17/02  
N/A  
title  
86,500  
174,900  
161,340  
7,000  
162,000  
15,000  
45,000  
Owned by Goodwin and Pamela Boe  
Transfer to Raymond King  
To Royal Bank (CMHC mortgage)  
Charge agreement to Mr. Boe  
King to MacMullin  
1/17/00  
1/18/00  
2/18/00  
6/27/00  
9/12/01  
11/30/01 mortgage  
caveat  
4/23/02  
4/22/02  
9/12/02  
transfer  
mortgage  
caveat  
transfer  
mortgage  
To Gohar Pervez (10%)  
To EQUIPLAN [CEDAR MTG ](18%)]  
Schmidtkes [purchase agreement]  
MacMullin to Stromsmoe  
London Life  
Stromsmoe to 971298 Alberta Ltd.  
(MacMullin)  
transfer  
mortgage  
transfer  
218,900  
202,053  
218,900  
7/26/04  
5/26/04  
foreclosure 120,000  
London Life recovers title  
3.  
The Facts  
[613] This property was used by Mr. MacMullin to first deceive the Royal Bank, utilizing  
Raymond King, a straw buyer. Later the same property was used to deceive London Life with  
straw buyer, Darcy Stromsmoe. In the first transaction, Mr. MacMullin used lawyer Brent  
Bittner, but by the time of the second count, two years later, his relationship with Bittner had  
ended badly. MacMullin now used lawyer Roy Elander. It was Mr. Elander’s 13th deal with Mr.  
MacMullin that resulted in charges.  
[614] The land titles records reveal that Mr. and Mrs. Boe owned this property since 1976. On  
January 19, 2000 a transfer of the property, prepared by lawyer Brent Bittner, was registered at  
the land titles office transferring the property to Raymond King at a price documented of  
$174,905.00. A mortgage in favor of the Royal Bank was registered for $161,345.00. This  
mortgage was a CMHC insured high-ratio mortgage restricted by CMHC regulation to  
individuals planning to use the property as their principal residence. One month after the  
   
Page: 139  
mortgage and transfer were registered, Mr. Bittner receives documentation to the effect that Mr.  
MacMullin and Mr. King had jointly pledged this property to secure a loan from the Boes to  
MacMullin and King for $7,000.00. This is effectively the net amount the Boes obtained after  
paying out their property debt [Bittner’s file scan 7707, p 75/150].  
[615] Mr. Bittner’s file reveals irregularities. Mr. Bittner accounts to the vendors for just  
$160,000.00, not the total $174,900.00 purchase price. That reduced amount was explained in a  
memo [scan 7709, p 123/150] on Mr. Bittner’s file from Mr. Boe to Mr. MacMullin. The memo  
asserts that Mr. MacMullin will be paid a finder’s fee of $8,750.00 and will receive a credit of  
$6,150.00 for appliances. Mr. MacMullin was really the one who purchased this property; Mr.  
King facilitated the transaction. The discounts provided by the vendor to the purchaser  
effectively reduced the market price to $160,000.00. The Royal Bank was not informed of these  
kick backs. The REPC [Real Estate Purchase Contract] did not indicate the appliance credit, and  
while banks are well aware that 3rd party realtors may get a selling commission this comes off  
the vendor’s full purchase price, and is not an artificial and hidden reduction which effectively  
lowers the price. What really happened here is that Mr. and Mrs. Boe sold this property to Mr.  
MacMullin for $160,000.00. All the rest was fictional, a documentary matrix designed to obtain  
a mortgage from the Royal Bank that was close to $160,000.00. Mr. MacMullin came close:  
$157,410.00, net.  
[616] The application made to the Royal Bank, is not on file and was not available for review.  
However, the mortgage granted had to have been based in part on three documents relied on by  
RBC: a gift letter from Mr. King’s father, a REPC of his existing property, and the REPC for this  
transaction. REPCs, upon which the loan was based, were deceitful and dishonest because they  
were premised on a REPC that, although apparently at arm’s-length, was price inflated to ensure  
financing nearly to the true value of the property. The mortgage was also based on a primary or  
principal residence requirement, but Mr. King had no intention of residing in the property for any  
time. He had neither connection with nor knowledge of the property. The REPC for the sale of  
his existing house to qualify him for a new CMHC mortgage was false. His assets were  
overstated on the application. Mr. King’s participation was in exchange for a fee. Mr. MacMullin  
was directly involved in this, including taking Mr. King to the Royal Bank. Mr. MacMullin had  
direct knowledge of the deceit perpetrated on the Royal Bank, and with that knowledge  
participated in it, and benefited from it. The Royal Bank file [scan 7635, p 7/132] reveals a gift  
letter from Joe King to his son for $8,745.00, which allegedly became the down payment. There  
was no such gift or gift letter. That was really the finder’s fee. The deal between the Boes and  
King was witnessed and written by Mr. MacMullin. There is no indication that the down  
payments and deposit were ever made. Mr. King’s evidence is to the contrary.  
[617] Less than four months later (June 29, 2000) Mr. MacMullin obtained the title from  
Raymond King on a handwritten transfer at a stated consideration and value of $162,000.00 -  
$12,000.00 less than Mr. King notionally paid for the property, and only $655.00 greater than the  
mortgage.  
Page: 140  
[618] I find beyond a reasonable doubt that the Royal Bank was deceived to believe the home  
was worth $174,900.00 when the Bank provided their mortgage to Mr. King. This fraud flowed  
from a REPC created to make it appear this was an arm’s-length transaction with a motivated  
purchaser who was willing to pay $174,000.00 for the property. It is clear that Mr. MacMullin  
orchestrated and was the beneficiary of this deceit. This conclusion is confirmed by the fact that  
less than four months later the title came back to him with effectively 100% financing. Mr.  
MacMullin obtained a second mortgage from Mr. Pervez in September and a larger mortgage  
from EQUIPLAN in November.  
[619] Mr. MacMullin hung onto the property for nearly two years, but several creditor claims  
were registered against it. A mere two days before it was transferred in 2002 to Mr. Stromsmoe a  
couple, the Schmidtkes, filed a caveat, claiming that they had a purchaser’s interest in the  
property. Despite this, Mr. Stromsmoe acquired title, assisted by the financing of a London Life  
CMHC mortgage. Five months after acquiring title, Mr. Stromsmoe transferred the property back  
to a MacMullin company. MacMullin hangs on for another two years but finally loses this  
property in a foreclosure. During this foreclosure London Life had to pay off undischarged  
encumbrances due to lawyer error. London Life also suffered significant losses because of a fire  
loss to the property.  
[620] Both Mr. Raymond King and Mr. Darcy Stromsmoe were straw buyers recruited by Mr.  
MacMullin. He encouraged them to apply for a mortgage on the basis that they would get a fee.  
The ‘pitch’ was as described in the main part of this judgment. Its factual details were admitted  
by Mr. MacMullin in his evidence. Neither straw buyer intended to live in the property. The  
price that Mr. MacMullin purchased the property back from each of the straw buyers was really  
the mortgage amounts. The property was always his!  
[621] The Royal Bank ultimately received all of their money on their mortgage because after  
holding onto the property for a couple years, Mr. MacMullin engaged Darcy Stromsmoe to act as  
a straw buyer to ‘pull a higher mortgage’ that paid out the Royal Bank. By the time of this  
second deal, Mr. MacMullin’s relationship with discredited lawyer Brent Bittner had ended and  
Mr. MacMullin had adopted Mr. Elander as his ‘go to’ lawyer.  
[622] Mr. MacMullin transferred the property to Darcy Stromsmoe for $218,000.00. At the  
same time a new mortgage, in favor of London Life and insured by GE Capital for $202,053.00,  
was registered. This mortgage was granted on the basis that Mr. Stromsmoe would live in the  
home. Mr. Stromsmoe gave evidence which confirmed that he was a straw buyer and never  
intended to become the equitable owner of that property, nor reside it. He was ‘pulling a  
mortgage’ for Mr. MacMullin. I accept his evidence, which is consistent with the paper trail. He  
also confirmed that he did not pay a deposit or a down payment and never contributed any equity  
to the property. He never intended to make any mortgage payments and never intended to be the  
equitable owner. He was purchasing this property to assist Mr. MacMullin and in turn receive a  
fee for lending his credit. London Life would never have made the mortgage had they known the  
true circumstance.  
Page: 141  
[623] To facilitate this second transaction, Mr. MacMullin referred the paperwork to mortgage  
broker David Humeniuk. In the main part of the judgment, I discussed Mr. Humeniuk’s role in  
these frauds. Mr. Humeniuk never saw Mr. Stromsmoe sign either the application or the  
mortgage commitment. This weakness in Mr. Humeniuk’s procedure – in his words his “nasty  
habit” - directly contributed Mr. MacMullin’s ability to commit these deceits. The “nasty habit”  
defeated one of the safety mechanisms used by the lending financial institutions who deal with  
registered mortgage brokers. This mortgage application was typical in that the financial  
institution required Mr. Stromsmoe to certify that the content of the application was “correct to  
the best of his knowledge”. Despite this certification, the application contained one or more  
significant lies (deceitful statements)!  
[624] There was another significant deceit in the mortgage application in addition to the fact  
that the REPC was not an arm’s-length contract, and the inflated price selected by Mr.  
MacMullin. Mr. Stromsmoe had very poor credit and provided no down payment. Mr.  
Humeniuk, ran out of mortgage companies before he found that London Life that would make  
the loan. To create the illusion of a down payment an investment company, Parallel Corp.  
(which appears in many transactions and is a numbered company of Mr. MacMullin’s operating  
under the name and style of Parallel Corp.), was set out in the application to represent an asset  
investment of $25,000.00, [Humeniuk Mortgage Broker file, scan 7237, p 35/200].  
[625] This statement in the application was untrue. Mr. Stromsmoe had no such equity interest.  
I am satisfied that although Mr. MacMullin never signed the application he knew what was in it,  
had contributed to its particulars, and had aided and abetted Mr. Stromsmoe in providing false  
information by creating the illusionary $25,000.00 equity source for the down payment fiction. I  
accept Mr. Seremet’s evidence about how he may have created this documentation at Mr.  
MacMullin’s direction. Mr. MacMullin orchestrated this transaction, and in doing so was party to  
a deceit committed on the financial institution set out in count two.  
[626] There are also some indicators that at the time of this transaction Mr. Elander was aware  
that Mr. Stromsmoe was a straw buyer and that there had been misrepresentations made in the  
mortgage application relating to residency. This was not Mr. Elander’s first deal despite the early  
count number. The frauds had been underway for some time. However we do not have Mr.  
Elander’s file to review clearly what he knew and when. However, the London Life file later  
reveals an ominous element relating to Mr. Elander’s potential knowledge of Mr. MacMullin’s  
mortgage fraud scheme.  
[627] On September 23, 2002 [London Life - Deal 1(b) (no scan number), p 1073/1350], Mr.  
Elander, who had incorporated 971298 Alberta Ltd. for Mr. MacMullin and was the registered  
officer of the corporation, wrote to London Life and reported that Mr. MacMullin’s numbered  
company had acquired the property and assumed the London Life mortgage. Thus,  
approximately seven months after Mr. MacMullin had sold the property to Mr. Stromsmoe he  
purchased it back for the same approximate mortgage value. September 2002 fell between counts  
23 and 24 (about two thirds of the way through the run of fraud allegations), as count 30 was the  
last involving Mr. Elander.  
Page: 142  
[628] In 2004, London Life completed a foreclosure procedure. The adjudicated value of the  
land (and building) was $120,000.00, 40% less than the 2002 sale price from MacMullin to  
Stromsmoe. However, a fire loss had severely damaged the premises in the intervening time  
between Mr. MacMullin’s numbered company taking ownership and the foreclosure. There was  
no insurance. This is another subtle example of deprivation through an increased risk. The home  
may still have burnt, but with a live-in owner there may have been more diligence about issues  
like insurance, as well earlier detection of the fire. The Court received no information on the  
cause of the fire.  
4.  
Conclusion  
[629] The Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt all of the elements of this offense in  
both count 1 and 2. In addition to the elements admitted by the defense, the Crown has proven  
that Mr. MacMullin had knowledge of the deceit, actively participated in and orchestrated the  
fraud first using Raymond King then Darcy Stromsmoe as straw buyers. The financial  
institutions suffered a deprivation because they made a loan on property in which the purchase  
price was artificially overinflated and the purchaser never intended to be a resident in the home.  
Mr. MacMullin intended this deprivation. The deals were not at arm’s-length.  
[630] Mr. MacMullin’s general denials of guilt are not believed (see the main judgment), nor  
do they raise a reasonable doubt. I conclude that Mr. MacMullin is guilty of both count one and  
count two. I come to that conclusion on evidence which I accept, including that of Mr. King, Mr.  
Stromsmoe, plus the “title tale” and other documents referenced above.  
[631] On the other hand, and despite strong suspicion to conclude that Mr. Roy Elander knew  
of the fraudulent situation when he prepared the mortgage and reported to London Life, there is  
insufficient evidence to prove his knowledge or willful blindness beyond a reasonable doubt. On  
count 2, Mr. Elander receives the benefit of the doubt and is acquitted.  
C.  
Count 3 - Property 2  
1.  
The Alleged Misconduct  
Allan Dawson MacMullin stands charged that he  
3.  
Between the 1st day of January, 2000 and the 31st day of July, 2005, at or near  
the city of Springbrook, in the province of Alberta, did by deceit, falsehood or other  
fraudulent means, defraud CIBC Mortgages Inc. of money, of a value exceeding  
$5,000.00 by providing false information to CIBC Mortgages Inc. in support of a  
mortgage application in the name of Michael James Kerr for 644 Maple Crescent,  
Springbrook, Alberta (also known as Plan 9524360; Block 9; Lot 4), contrary to section  
380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.  
     
Page: 143  
2.  
[632] The land titles summary [exhibit 2, scan 6629] follows:  
LTO Reg. Date Document $ value Observations  
Title Tales  
Date m/d/y m/d/y  
5/2/00  
5/2/00  
8/25/00  
4/27/00 transfer  
4/27/00 mortgage 106,348 To CIBC Mortgage CMHC insured  
8/11/00 transfer  
107,900 Johnsons to Michael Kerr  
115,500 To 3rd party  
3.  
The Facts  
[633] Dave and Lori Johnson met Mr. MacMullin through Amway. The Johnsons wanted to  
sell the property and move to a larger rural acreage.  
[634] Mr. MacMullin indicated that he could assist with their sale. He presented an offer that  
was inflated over the true selling price that the Johnsons wanted and put forward Michael J. Kerr  
(one of Mr. MacMullin’s youthful construction employees) as the proposed purchaser.  
[635] Mr. Johnson indicated he did not care what the documents said as long as he received a  
certain sum of money clear in his pocket. He felt he could sell for around $99,000.00. Mr.  
Johnson indicated that he assumed the markup amounts were for legal fees and commissions. As  
the vendor, he gave no thought how the REPC might be used to influence a financial institution.  
Based on the inflated price in the agreement Michael Kerr became the registered owner of the  
property on May 2, 2000. A CIBC (CMHC insured) mortgage of $106,348.00 was registered at  
the same time. This represented over 100% of the true sale price.  
[636] Mr. Kerr testified that he never made a down payment, never intended to be the equitable  
owner, and went along with this proposal on direction from his boss and mentor, Mr. MacMullin.  
MacMullin (operating under the name Dawson Enterprises) received a commission out of the  
sale price.  
[637] Lawyer Brent Bittner was used for this transaction. Mr. Bittner gave evidence that during  
that period of his life he was in a dark place, consuming alcohol and non-prescription drugs to  
excess, and was lax in his due diligence. I draw an inference that Mr. MacMullin sought him out  
because of this fact.  
[638] Bittner’s file reveals irregularities. The key irregularity is that he only accounts for the  
net mortgage money of $102,340.00, rather than the total notional purchase price received. The  
REPC [Bittner Legal File, scan 7382, p 40/41] reflects an initial deposit and a further down  
payment of $4,395.00, which was to be paid to Mr. Bittner; however, this payment never  
occurred. This is particularly ominous because on the CIBC file there is a letter from Bittner that  
is not found in Bittner’ own file. In that letter, he confirms in writing to the CIBC he has in his  
account $7,200.00, which represents the balance of the down payment and closing costs. There is  
   
Page: 144  
no statement of sale and adjustments on his file, and no indication of report letters to anyone.  
The mortgage is used to pay the Kerr legal bill, Mr. MacMullin gets a commission, the Johnsons  
existing mortgage is paid, and the Johnsons get the rest [Bittner Legal File, scan 7382, p 14/41].  
The Johnson’s total is $99,000.00, the true market price and intended sale price.  
[639] The mortgage commitment required an affidavit to confirm that the property would be  
occupied by its new owner [Bittner Legal File, scan 7382, p 27/41]. There was no such intention.  
On the CIBC file [Deal 2, Kerr e-file], Mr. Kerr is described as having a job with Parallel  
Construction Limited as a foreman earning $38,000.00 per year. Mr. Kerr worked for Mr.  
MacMullin but he was never paid that amount, or anything close to it. There was no formalized  
employment, no T4’s, no regular wages, and no government social deductions. The documented  
income was a sham. Despite this Parallel Construction Limited issued a false wage summary and  
a letter over the signature of John Dunne who confirmed this employment was ongoing for at  
least two years. CIBC was cautious enough to phone somebody and believed they were talking to  
John Dunne, who confirmed Mr. Kerr’s alleged work arrangement. In fact, CIBC were probably  
talking to Joe Seremet. [CIBC, p 8-12/ 18]  
[640] Mr. Kerr is described in the application to have $11,000.00 in his checking account. That  
was also untrue. He had no money, nor did he own assets claimed in the mortgage documents:  
carpenter tools worth $10,000.00, mechanics tools worth $15,000.00 and a vehicle worth  
$5,000.00. These values were overstated. Mr. Kerr was simply a young man with no real career,  
putting in time with Mr. MacMullin and living the dream. The mortgage application contains  
material misrepresentations and deceitful information about job structure and assets [CIBC, p  
4/18]. Any and all of these are capable of forming the deceit necessary in this count. The big-  
ticket item, however, is the falsified REPC that overstates the market value of the true purchase  
price, assisted by the letter from Mr. Bittner to CIBC confirming a down payment and closing  
costs of over $7,000.00 [CIBC, p 7/18]. These were all relied on by CIBC.  
[641] Mr. MacMullin’s involvement is beyond question. He lined up the whole deal and  
received a fee for it. He first participated by persuading the Johnsons that the markup in price to  
match what the electronic CMHC value would reveal was appropriate. He participated in the  
application and knew it was false. Mr. MacMullin hired Bittner because Bittner was in ‘that dark  
place’. Mr. MacMullin was the ringleader; he intended to deceive the CIBC to both get a  
commission and with the property in Mr. Kerr’s name he effectively owned it with 100%  
financing. Mr. Johnson confirmed and I accept his honest evidence that he did not understand  
that the REPC would improperly allow 100% financing. Mr. Johnson was straight forward; he  
simply wanted to receive a certain amount after all expenses were paid.  
[642] The most basic of deceits was committed on this transaction. Mr. MacMullin aided and  
abetted Michael Kerr in purchasing a property with no down payment by inflating the purchase  
price on the REPC. This type of transaction is described in the main portion of the judgment  
(para 147). The financial institution was deceived because the documented purchase price has  
been increased above the market value, with the objective being that the mortgage would cover  
all that the vendor wanted out of the transaction, and then some. The benefit of this for Mr.  
Page: 145  
MacMullin was an immediate cash infusion (his commission), and secondarily a property that he  
could control because he was, in effect, in full control of Mr. Kerr. I conclude beyond a  
reasonable doubt that Mr. MacMullin was the ringleader, who aided and abetted Mr. Kerr to  
commit a fraud on the CIBC and obtain the mortgage referred to in count three.  
4.  
Conclusion  
[643] The Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt all of the elements of this offense. In  
addition to the admitted elements, the Crown has proven that Mr. MacMullin had knowledge of  
the deceit, actively participated in and orchestrated the fraud that used Mike Kerr as a straw  
buyer. The financial institution suffered a deprivation because they made a loan on property in  
which the purchase price was artificially inflated, the purchaser never intended to be a resident in  
the home, and where the down payment documentation, buyer biography, and mortgage  
application particulars were deceitful. Mr. MacMullin intended this deprivation.  
[644] Mr. MacMullin’s general denials of guilt are not believed, nor do they raise a reasonable  
doubt. The evidence I do accept including the evidence of Mr. Johnson and Mr. Kerr is  
overwhelming proof of Mr. MacMullin’s guilt. Mr. MacMullin is guilty of fraud on count 3.  
D.  
Count 4 - Property 3  
1.  
That: Allan Dawson MacMullin stands charged that he:  
4. Between the 1st day of January, 2000 and the 31st day of July, 2005, at or near the city of  
The Alleged Misconduct  
Edmonton, in the province of Alberta, did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, defraud  
CIBC Mortgages Inc. of money, of a value exceeding $5,000.00 by providing false information to  
CIBC Mortgages Inc. in support of a mortgage application in the name of Grace Nichols for  
8608-177A Street, Edmonton, Alberta (also known as Plan 1012 TR; Block 15; Lot 61), contrary  
to section 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.  
2.  
[645] The land titles summary [exhibit 3, scan 6584] follows:  
LTO Reg. Date Document $ value Observations  
Title Tales  
Date m/d/y m/d/y  
1/18/94  
title  
125,000 Owners Keith Woodruff, Yvonne Woodruff  
132,000 Sale to Grace Nichols  
5/5/00  
5/2/00  
7/25/00  
9/20/00  
2/23/00 transfer  
5/1/00  
mortgage 145,379 To CIBC CMHC insured  
7/20/00 transfer  
9/18/00 transfer  
155,000 Nichols to MacMullin  
165,000 MacMullin to Hayford  
       
Page: 146  
3.  
The Facts  
[646] This property (8608-177A Street, Edmonton) was historically owned by Keith Woodruff  
and Yvonne Woodruff. They transferred this property to Grace Nichols on May 5, 2000. Mr.  
MacMullin was involved in that deal and arranged for the lawyer, Mr. Bittner, who handled all  
of the matters relating to the sale.  
[647] There are irregularities in the Bittner file and inconsistencies between it and the CIBC  
file. The transfer registered at the land titles office is partially typed and the rest is handwritten.  
A review of Mr. Bittner’s documents on all of his files reveals that he generally filled in forms  
by handwriting. The transfer appears to have been supplied by the vendor’s lawyer, with the  
transferee left blank.  
[648] The transfer of land clearly indicates that the selling price was $132,000.00. There is no  
indication of an intervening purchaser. Mr. Bittner completes the affidavit of transferee swearing  
under oath that the value of the property is $148,000.00, and that consideration was paid. There  
is no REPC on the Bittner file, but on the CIBC file there is a REPC between the Woodruff and  
Nichols purporting to sell for $147,500.00. A CIBC mortgage for $145,380.00 was registered  
concurrent with the real property transfer.  
[649] Mr. Bittner’s file reveals that the mortgage was sufficient to pay the vendor’s law firm  
the full cash to close, also provide Mr. MacMullin with a commission of $8,602.00, and pay the  
transaction legal fees. Although there is no statement of sale and adjustments, simple math  
reveals the deceit. If the sale had really been at the price of $147,500.00, as stated in the REPC,  
the cash to close would be approximately $142,125.00, having taken into account other  
payments: the $2,000.00 deposit paid directly, and $5,375.00 paid to Mr. Bittner by trust cheque.  
However, Mr. Bittner only sent the original seller’s law firm $130,722.00 [Bittner Legal File,  
scan 7914, p 6/50]. This sum is more consistent with a $132,000.00 purchase price with a $2,000  
deposit, and a tax adjustment.  
[650] The CIBC file application indicates that the purchase price is $147,500.00. This price  
overstated the true price of $132,000.00. CIBC received a false or falsified REPC and on that  
basis lent more than 100% of the purchase price. This mortgage, insured by CMHC, required that  
Grace Nichols live in the property.  
[651] Less than three months later (July 25, 2000), Grace Nichols conveyed this property to  
Mr. MacMullin. I am satisfied that this was MacMullin’s purchase all along and Grace Nichols  
simply assisted by providing a documentary cover and straw buy that facilitated financing to  
purchase the property.  
[652] Of course, to purchase a new CMHC insured home Grace Nichols had to sell her existing  
property. A REPC was created that indicated she was selling her existing property in Devon to  
Neil Wilson for $179,000.00. This is not an arm’s-length sale! It may even be a complete forgery  
(Ms. Nichols’ evidence). Either way, it was part of Mr. MacMullin’s deceit on the financial  
institution. Mr. Wilson is Ms. Nichols common-law husband. John Dunne is the purported  
 
Page: 147  
witness to this REPC. The evidence is that Wilson and Nichols never did move into the  
purchased property. Two months after MacMullin got title he transferred it to the Minister of his  
church, who still lives at that location.  
[653] Grace Nichols gave evidence about the relationship she and her husband had with Mr.  
MacMullin. It was an extensive one which involved full ‘buy in’ to Mr. MacMullin’s dreams,  
then investment in Mr. MacMullin’s projects. Ms. Nichols and Mr. Wilson participated in house  
building, a restaurant, several demolition projects, plus the two mortgage transactions that make  
up counts four and five.  
[654] I was concerned by Ms. Nichols’s evidence. She is currently a mortgage broker and was  
extremely guarded about admitting wrongdoing in ‘pulling mortgages’. She also admitted that  
there was animosity between Wilson, herself, and MacMullin, which ultimately led to their  
falling out. Mr. MacMullin stripped most of their profit from the sale of this couples’ unrelated  
business. Despite this, I am satisfied that her evidence, coupled with the documentary trail and  
the land titles records clearly reveals that CIBC was deceived into lending an amount greater  
than the market value of the home, and that the interim REPC supplied to the lender was created  
by Mr. MacMullin and was deceitful. The deceit is obvious. There is overwhelming evidence  
from these documents, particularly those supplied by a bona fide and credible third-party law  
firm, which establishes the purchase price was manipulated. CIBC was deceived in a material  
way.  
[655] It is clear that Mr. MacMullin authored and quarterbacked this deceit. He created the  
documents and he worked with Mr. Bittner to get the transaction completed in such a way that he  
would get a commission, when Grace Nichols really became the legal (but not equitable) owner  
of the property. The speed with which re-transfer occurred supports this conclusion. A notional  
principal residence purchased by someone in May 2000 was already transferred twice by  
September of the same year. All this occurred under the control and direction of Mr. MacMullin.  
4.  
Conclusion  
[656] The Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt all of the elements of this offense. In  
addition to the admitted elements, the Crown has proven that Mr. MacMullin had knowledge of  
the deceit, actively participated in and orchestrated the fraud. He used Grace Nichols as a straw  
buyer. The financial institution suffered a deprivation because they made a loan on property in  
which the purchase price was artificially inflated, where the purchaser never intended to be a  
resident in the home and the REPC and mortgage application particulars were deceitful. Mr.  
MacMullin intended this deprivation.  
[657] Mr. MacMullin’s general denials of guilt are not believed, nor do they raise a reasonable  
doubt. The evidence which I do accept, including that of Grace Nichols, on this property is  
overwhelming. Mr. MacMullin is guilty of this offense.  
 
Page: 148  
E.  
Count 5 and Count 6 - Properties 4(a) and 4(b)  
1.  
Allan Dawson MacMullin stands charged that he:  
5. Between the 1st day of January, 2000 and the 31st day of July, 2005, at or near the  
The Alleged Misconduct  
county of Parkland, in the province of Alberta, did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent  
means, defraud Canada Trustco Mortgage Company of money, of a value exceeding $5,000.00,  
by providing false information to Canada Trustco Mortgage Company in support of a mortgage  
application in the name of Grace Nichols for #16, 53424 RR 13, Parkland county, Alberta (also  
known as Plan 8020087; Block 2; Lot 6), contrary to section 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code  
Allan Dawson MacMullin and Roy Elander stand charged that they:  
6.  
Between the 1st day of January, 2000 and the 31st day of July, 2005, at or near the  
county of Parkland, in the province of Alberta, did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent  
means, defraud M.R.S. Trust Company of money, of a value exceeding $5,000.00, by providing  
false information to M.R.S. Trust Company in support of a mortgage application in the name of  
Rick Waring and Molly Shaw for #16, 53424 RR 13, Parkland county, Alberta, (also known as  
Plan 8020087, Block 2, Lot 6) contrary to section 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.  
2.  
Title Tales  
[658] The land titles summary [Exhibit 4, scan 6516] follows:  
LTO Reg.  
Date  
Document $ value  
64,000  
Observations  
Date m/d/y m/d/y  
2/3/00  
1/13/00 transfer  
584067 Alberta Ltd. (a MacMullin Company)  
2/3/00  
1/25/00 mortgage 54,000  
Carried by developer  
3/28/00  
6/29/00  
6/29/00  
9/20/02  
3/27/00 mortgage 220,000 Equity lender (44% interest counting bonus)  
6/26/00 transfer 180,000 To Grace Nichols  
6/23/00 mortgage 135,000 Canada Trust conventional mortgage  
8/26/02 judicial  
sale  
122,000 971298 Alberta Limited (MacMullin Company)  
9/20/02  
1/9/03  
1/9/03  
10/7/03  
2/3/04  
N/A  
1/2/03  
1/2/03  
9/19/03 transfer  
1/28/04 transfer  
mortgage 150,000 EQUIPLAN  
transfer  
219,900 Waring and Shaw  
mortgage 216,838 MRS Trust  
225,900 To 1066888 Alberta Ltd. (MacMullin)  
226,000 To Hurdman  
     
Page: 149  
3.  
The Facts  
[659] The same property is featured in both counts 5 and 6.  
[660] In February 3, 2000, 584067 Alberta Ltd. (operating as Parallel Corp., a MacMullin  
company) acquires title to this and three other lots in Parkland County in the Kathmarkham  
Estates subdivision. The total purchase price was $64,000.00 plus GST (affidavit of transferee  
completed for $68,000.00). Mr. MacMullin’s best friend, John Dunne, signed on behalf of  
584067 Alberta Ltd.  
[661] The vendor carried $50,000.00 as a mortgage back. Shortly after purchase, Mr.  
MacMullin took out a high interest equity mortgage for a short six-month term. The effective  
rate of this mortgage (with bonus) is 44%. The very short-term and high interest rate provide  
ample motive for Mr. MacMullin to move these titles. No matter how many companies and straw  
buyers are involved, this project is Mr. MacMullin’s from start to finish.  
[662] Mr. MacMullin formed a business relationship with Grace Nichols and her common-law  
husband, Neil Wilson. Nichols and Wilson had money and invested with Mr. MacMullin. At this  
point, Wilson had just sold a trucking business and owned some equipment that could assist in  
construction. He entered into a loose partnership with Mr. MacMullin.  
[663] Ms. Nichols agrees to purchase this property for $180,000.00. To fund the purchase she  
applied for a conventional mortgage, which did not require the purchaser reside in the property.  
A REPC for $180,000 was created [Bittner Legal File, scan 6915, p 17-18/ 91]. Mr. Bittner acted  
as a lawyer in this transaction.  
[664] The REPC indicates on its face that the house is not complete. Further work would occur  
after the purchase closed. Grace Nichols signed a certificate of possession which says nothing  
except that there are defects and she has taken possession. Again, Mr. Bittner accounts only for  
the mortgage money. In a few months, Ms. Nichols transferred the property back to Mr.  
MacMullin’s company.  
[665] This file probably cost Mr. Bittner his career! Mr. Bittner desperately wanted to go on  
vacation. Mr. MacMullin persuaded him to give him all of the mortgage money and promised to  
clear off the prior mortgages. However, Mr. MacMullin did not honor this promise. Not  
surprisingly, Canada Trust foreclosed. Mr. Bittner commenced a lawsuit against Mr. MacMullin.  
This was the last deal Mr. Bittner did for Mr. MacMullin.  
[666] Mr. MacMullin (hidden behind another company) hired Mr. Elander as his lawyer and  
purchased the property back in the judicially approved sale for $122,000.00. This is $58,000.00  
less than the earlier sale from Parallel Corp. to Ms. Nichols. This is the strongest evidence that  
the price in the Mr. MacMullin to Ms. Nichols’ sale was artificially inflated to maximize the  
amount of mortgage financing. A similar inference could be drawn from the fact that Ms.  
Nichols transferred the title back to Mr. MacMullin after a few months of ownership.  
 
Page: 150  
[667] However, Ms. Nichols testified she concluded that the house was not as far along as she  
had hoped, and that she was able to swap houses with Mr. MacMullin trading for the house next  
door (not a count in this trial). That is the explanation given for the rapid re-transfer of the  
property. Ms. Nichols evidence was vague and at times defensive. Her current career as a  
mortgage broker and the fact that she had completed some other transactions with Mr.  
MacMullin in that capacity causes me concern. In addition, she and her husband felt  
economically used by Mr. MacMullin, and so there is animus there.  
[668] While I am highly suspicious that Canada Trust was deceived as to the true value of the  
home in the sale between Mr. Nichols and Mr. MacMullin (specifically, that the same was for a  
finished and complete rather than partially built property), a memo from Canada Trust indicates  
that the buyer should ensure completion before funds were advanced clearly indicates they knew  
the house was not finished. There are also deceitful REPCs which created the image that Ms.  
Nichols does not own any other property. Despite this, there is still a doubt about this issue. Mr.  
MacMullin and Ms. Nichols had an element of arm’s-length to their dealing because Ms. Nichols  
wanted to protect herself for monies that she had advanced into the project.  
[669] While highly suspicious, I conclude that the Crown has not proven a deceit on Canada  
Trust beyond a reasonable doubt.  
[670] The title to this property comes back to a MacMullin company as a consequence of the  
Canada Trust foreclosure process. Mr. MacMullin hung onto the property for four months, and  
then transferred it to Rick Waring and his partner Molly Shaw. The mortgage application to pay  
for that purchase was made to MRS Trust. This mortgage to facilitate the sale of the property  
from 971298 Alberta Ltd. to Rick Waring and Molly Shaw constitutes the second alleged fraud  
which involved this property. The stated purchase price was $219,900.00. MRS Trust provided  
first mortgage financing of $216,837.00.  
[671] The application was presented as though this purchase was to provide a principal  
residence for the purchasers: Rick Waring and Molly Shaw. However, Mr. Waring gave  
evidence that neither he nor Molly Shaw ever lived in the property nor did they intend to do so.  
They were induced to purchase this property on the promise of a fee without risk. In other words,  
they allowed Mr. MacMullin to use their name to ‘pull a mortgage’.  
[672] Rick Waring and Molly Shaw transferred the property on September 19, 2003  
(approximately 8 months after acquiring title) to 106888 Alberta Ltd. (another MacMullin  
Corporation). Mr. Seremet signed the documents, and his brother Marco Knezevic acted as  
witness. This was obviously not an arm’s-length sale. Roy Elander also did this transaction.  
[673] Robert Hurdman acquired this property on February 3, 2004 from 106888 Alberta Ltd.  
for $226,000.00. The purchase consisted largely of Hurdman assuming the MRS Trust mortgage.  
[674] On this transaction, several pieces of false and misleading information were provided to  
MRS Trust in the mortgage application. The mortgage application, signed by Rick Waring and  
Molly Shaw, contained the following certification:  
Page: 151  
We hereby certify that the information given in my/our mortgage application is  
complete and correct and has been given for the purpose of obtaining the  
mortgage loan and/or financial services applied for.  
This type of wording was common in all the applications.  
[675] The mortgage application contained false information:  
1.  
The implied commitment was to make the home a principal residence. There was  
no such intention. In fact Rick Waring had already ‘pulled a mortgage’ for  
another property (241 Harrison, see count 26, property 21(a)), so the mortgage  
statement that he was going to sell that property and move into this new unit with  
his soon-to-be wife was completely false, a pure fiction.  
2.  
Ms. Shaw did not work. She received income from AISH, a government support  
program. AISH issues a T4 which appears as income and is treated as such in a  
Canadian tax return and assessment. Either Mr. MacMullin, (or Mr. Seremet  
under his direction) created a false payroll statement in the name of ELPIS Ltd. to  
make it appear that Molly Shaw’s AISH payments were, in fact, wages. This  
creation of the picture of employment for someone on a government assistance  
program is the epitome of false and fraudulent information. I find as a fact that  
Mr. MacMullin is responsible for this deception. The ELPIS Ltd. letterhead,  
complete with its catchy logos and slogans, was entirely a scheme by Mr.  
MacMullin. However, as given in evidence by Mr. Seremet, he may well have  
used Mr. Seremet to act as a secretary for computer services. ELPIS Ltd. was a  
fictional unincorporated trade name (another alter ego of Mr. MacMullin) to help  
patch over difficulties that straw buyers might have with their true histories and  
activities.  
3.  
The narrative also contained a false image and notes, what Mr. Seremet in his  
evidence called a ‘legend’. The reason the parties were purchasing this home was  
because Molly Shaw did not like the home at 241 Harrison (count 26). The couple  
were therefore selling that property to purchase this new one. However, 241  
Harrison was not being sold at this time. A fictional offer to purchase was created  
by Mr. MacMullin with Rick Waring as the vendor, and Mike Kerr (MacMullin’s  
employee, who had no money, nor interest in a purchase) as purchaser. The  
fictional sale of 241 Harrison was to create the illusion of the $11,000.00 down  
payment. As that sale was fictional, so too was the down payment. Thus the  
mortgage application contains another deceit: an inference that a down payment  
was actually paid on this property.  
4.  
The final deceit was that at this time CMHC was getting, in the words of  
mortgage broker David Humeniuk, “more paranoid and picky about ensuring that  
the down payment and closing costs were achieved”. Since Mr. Humeniuk had  
Page: 152  
already received from Mr. MacMullin and/or Mr. Seremet the false interim  
purchase agreement on 241 Harrison they could not rewrite it to increase the  
equity. To solve the shortage in the combined down payment and closing cost  
ELPIS Inc. again came to the rescue. ELPIS Inc. provided Ms. Shaw a letter  
indicating how pleased they were to provide her a $3,000.00 bonus. Marko  
Knezevic signed that letter. Marko Knezevic was not an executive he was Mr.  
Seremet’s brother, a high school student. Naturally, there was no bonus, after all  
Ms. Shaw did not have a job!  
[676] Thus a significant number of deceitful acts took place. Mr. MacMullin took advantage of  
a war veteran who had suffered medical damage during his long military career including active  
duty in Afghanistan. Mr. Waring found a compatible but fragile woman in Ms. Shaw. Ms. Shaw  
was on AISH. The couple could clearly use the money. Mr. MacMullin built on this to  
orchestrate, aid, and abet a fraud. He was again the ringleader. There are at least four if not more  
specific incidents of major material misrepresentation, any of which would support a finding of  
deceitful conduct. In this transaction, Mr. MacMullin was using Mr. Seremet, Seremet’s brother,  
and Mike Kerr, to distance himself from the paperwork, and any allegations that might flow from  
that. That avoidance pattern reoccurs.  
[677] Nevertheless, Mr. MacMullin did not distance himself sufficiently far from this scheme! I  
pierce through all of that paperwork and conclude that Mr. MacMullin created, orchestrated, or  
manipulated every single deceit on this count. He was the boss, the ringleader, and the key  
individual. He is guilty of fraud. The Crown has proven this beyond any reasonable doubt and  
has moved reasonable doubt to absolute certainty on this count.  
[678] We turn to consider Mr. Elander’s involvement.  
[679] Although this is an early numbered count, it is one of the last deals Mr. Elander did for  
Mr. MacMullin. He was aware of the lower market value when he concluded the purchase for the  
MacMullin Company in the Canada Trust foreclosure. He has by this time already seen several  
irregular transactions. Mr. Elander had seen, and witnessed several transactions where Mr.  
MacMullin first sold a property and in eight months (or less) bought it back and assumed the  
mortgage, or transferred it to someone else for about the mortgage amount. We now see another  
situation where the same thing happened in seven months.  
[680] While not involved in the Canada Trust mortgage transaction with Grace Nichols, Mr.  
Elander was aware of the buyback by Mr. MacMullin in the foreclosure, and the virtually  
contemporaneously resale to Waring and Shaw at a significantly higher price. He had  
incorporated the company that purchased the property from Canada Trust. While I appreciate  
that certain evidence, such as knowledge may flow through the entire timeline and history of Mr.  
MacMullin and Mr. Elander, one must observe that even had Mr. Elander known that Mr.  
MacMullin was committing fraud on historic or other deals, he is entitled to receive each deal on  
a bona fide basis. I must continue to be careful throughout all of these counts, even this latter  
one, not to convict Mr. Elander or Mr. MacMullin simply because of egregious history.  
Page: 153  
[681] Conversely, if there are significant and substantial irregularities on a file, it could well  
lead to an inference that there was either knowledge or willful blindness of a fraud on the part of  
Mr. Elander. Once there is direct knowledge or willful blindness of a fraud, the subsequent role  
of the solicitor in assisting in completion of the paperwork, drawing the money, and distributing  
the money, constitutes the aiding and abetting of that fraud on that count. Not identifying the true  
situation to the financial institution would aid and abet the fraud.  
[682] Here, Mr. Elander’s file is not available to us for review, so file irregularities that should  
have triggered his knowledge of the frauds are not available.  
4.  
Conclusion  
[683] The Crown has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that a deceit occurred in count 5.  
Mr. MacMullin must get the benefit of that. I find him not guilty on that count.  
[684] However, the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt all of the elements of the  
offense on count 6. In addition to the elements admitted by the Defense, the Crown has proven  
that Mr. MacMullin had knowledge of numerous deceitful acts, actively participated in and  
orchestrated the deceit, and used Mr. Waring and Ms. Shaw as straw buyers. The financial  
institution suffered a deprivation because it made a loan on property in which the purchase price  
was artificially overinflated, the application contained significant deceit, the purchaser never  
intended to be a resident in the home and the down payment documentation was deceitful. Mr.  
MacMullin intended this deprivation. Mr. Waring corroborated Mr. Seremet’s description of the  
false creation of an employment ‘legend’ for Ms. Shaw.  
[685] Mr. MacMullin’s general denials of guilt are not believed, nor do they raise a reasonable  
doubt. More specifically, the fact he denied knowing anything about the false employment  
history is incapable of belief or raising a reasonable doubt. On evidence which I accept, Mr.  
MacMullin is guilty of this offense.  
[686] Mr. Elander was charged on count 6 but not count 5. I conclude by this point in time,  
(this one of the last deals he did for Mr. MacMullin), Mr. Elander has had several indicators that  
Mr. MacMullin is not what he seems. Mr. Elander has himself participated in numerous  
transactions where he takes title back for Mr. MacMullin in a property that Mr. MacMullin  
historically sold. By this point, the Crown’s descriptor timestamps are now history.  
[687] Despite this, Mr. Elander had no contact with Ms. Shaw or Mr. Waring that might have  
led to a discussion about what themselves and this transaction. The purchase and mortgage  
documents left Mr. Elander’s office for signature. There is no legal file for this transaction for  
me to review. Mr. Elander denied any knowledge of fraud. Although I do not believe his general  
denials, they here at least raise a reasonable doubt, particularly when Mr. Elander had nothing to  
do with the actual mortgage application. On that basis I conclude Mr. Elander must get the  
benefit of the doubt. I find Mr. Elander not guilty of this count.  
 
Page: 154  
F.  
Count 7 - Property 5  
1. The Alleged Misconduct  
Allan Dawson MacMullin stands charged that he  
7.  
Between the 1st day of January, 2000 and the 31st day of July, 2005, at or near  
the city of Red Deer, in the province of Alberta, did by deceit, falsehood or other  
fraudulent means, defraud Bridgewater Financial Services Ltd. of money, of a value  
exceeding $5,000.00, by providing false information to Bridgewater Financial Services  
Ltd. in support of a mortgage application in the name of Larry Wintringham for 5873-70  
Street Drive, Red Deer, Alberta (also known as Plan 5031 HW; Block C; Lot 6), contrary  
to section 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.  
2.  
Title Tales  
The land titles summary [exhibit 5, scan 6532] follows:  
LTO Reg.  
Date  
Document  
$ value  
Observations  
Date m/d/y m/d/y  
11/17/92  
title  
78,000  
105,000  
96,863  
110,000  
Shane Anderson acquires property  
Anderson to Larry Wintringham  
Bridgewater Financial - CMHC insured  
Wintringham to MacMullin  
10/25/00  
10/25/00  
3/28/01  
12/18/01  
2/25/02  
10/12/00 transfer  
10/12/00 mortgage  
3/23/01? transfer  
11/30/01 foreclosure 86,000  
Bridgewater Financial  
2/15/02  
transfer  
80,000  
Bridgewater Financial to 3rd party  
3.  
The Facts  
[688]  
Count 7 involves 58733-70th Street, Red Deer - the personal home of Shane Anderson,  
occupied by Mr. Anderson and his spouse Liza Anderson. Shane Anderson and Liza Anderson  
were introduced to Mr. MacMullin through Amway and through another of his investors Rick  
Purdy. Mr. MacMullin persuaded the Andersons to become involved in MacMullin’s dream, and  
he used them as straw buyers. The Andersons bought what MacMullin was selling and they were  
soon referring other straw buyers.  
[689]  
Mr. MacMullin wanted Shane Anderson to invest in one or more of his various projects.  
The alternate plan was to sell the Andersons one of his construction projects at Blackfalds,  
Alberta. The Andersons had credit, property that had appreciated, and naivety, so they were a  
target for Mr. MacMullin. Mr. MacMullin found their soft spot. Liza Anderson’s sister had  
children, but the sister’s parenting skills came under Child and Family Services scrutiny. Liza  
Anderson felt her nieces would be better raised by her. The Andersons were sympathetic to  
disadvantaged children and Mr. MacMullin had answers for that. These would consist of buying  
       
Page: 155  
homes to renovate into group homes, and in particular the purchase of a bigger home for the  
Andersons’ own use.  
[690]  
The Andersons did want a bigger house so they were persuaded by Mr. MacMullin to sell  
their home, then take title to one of Mr. MacMullin’s new construction properties in Blackfalds,  
Alberta [see count 14, property 11(a)]. The proposal would be that the Andersons would take  
their equity from the sale of their home to invest and buy a bigger home, while continuing to  
reside in their old home. It was clear that the new home was not completed, as Mr. MacMullin  
had just acquired title to that raw land only a short time before. This transaction is easy to  
understand conceptually. The Anderson’s are trading in their older home to Mr. MacMullin for  
the down payment to purchase a brand-new home that was larger and could accommodate the  
potential foster children. They would stay in their existing home, pay rent, and they would start  
paying the mortgage on their new home.  
[691]  
On October 25, 2000, Larry Wintringham acquired this property for $105,000.00, with a  
$96,862.00 mortgage granted under the CMHC program for purchase of a principal (primary)  
residence. Although Mr. Wintringham did not testify, the Andersons both did, as did Mr. Purdy.  
Nevertheless, Mr. Wintringham indirectly provided evidence that he never resided nor intended  
to reside in the property. On purchase he swore a false statutory declaration that, “I am the  
purchaser ... of the [subject property]. It is my ... intention to occupy this property as my  
principal residence” [Bridgewater Mortgage file exhibit, p 186/196]. We know this is untrue  
because the Andersons did not move out!  
[692] On sale, Mr. Wintringham’s true colors as an honest man come out. When Mr.  
Wintringham transfers the property back to Mr. MacMullin a few months later, the transfer, a  
hand written document [scan 6532, p 37/69], contains a dower affidavit. The date and name of  
the Commissioner are both illegible but a handwritten notation in the dower affidavit states as  
follows: neither myself or my spouse have resided on the within mentioned lands at any time  
since our marriage. In this statement by Mr. Wintringham it becomes clear that he was not  
prepared to swear a false affidavit about the historic future intention residency lie.  
[693] Mr. Elander acted for the Andersons, while Mr. Moore of Red Deer acted for the buyer.  
Mr. Moore gave evidence. His conduct is above reproach and he acted throughout as an ethical  
competent solicitor. He did not know Mr. Wintringham did not intend to live in the home. Mr.  
Moore’s law firm received the down payment, which came not from the purported sale of Mr.  
Wintringham’s personal residence (as described), but really from Mr. MacMullin through a loan  
documented between Mr. Wintringham (as borrower) and Rick Purdy (standing in for  
MacMullin). On the witness stand, Mr. Purdy expresses surprise about the existence of this  
document; it could well be a complete forgery.  
[694] On March 28, 2001, approximately five months after Mr. Wintringham acquired the  
property, Mr. Elander registered a handwritten transfer in which Mr. Wintringham transferred  
the property back to Mr. MacMullin for $110,000.00. The mortgage was assumed, but the cash  
difference was never paid. Further, Mr. Elander delayed notifying the financial institution for  
Page: 156  
another four months thus maintaining the deception that Mr. Wintringham was the owner and  
responsible for the mortgage payments.  
[695] Mr. MacMullin as titleholder was no more effective in paying the mortgage payment then  
Larry Wintringham as straw buyer, and therefore the property went into foreclosure and  
ultimately title passed to Bridgewater on December 18, 2001 for $86,000.00. This was about  
$10,000.00 less than their mortgage and $19,000.00 less than the notional sale price between  
Wintringham and Anderson. On February 25, 2002 in an arm’s-length sale Bridgewater would  
sell the property for only $80,000.00.  
[696] Bridgewater lost money on this transaction and obtained a judgment against Mr.  
MacMullin and Mr. Wintringham. Both became judgment debtors in the Bridgewater  
foreclosure.  
[697] When Larry Wintringham applied for a mortgage with Bridgewater, material  
misrepresentations (deceits) were made in the initial mortgage application. I conclude the  
following constituted deceitful conduct which has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt:  
1.  
The fact that Wintringham was held out as purchasing the home for a principal  
residence for himself constitutes a deceit.  
2.  
Shane Anderson did not move out of the house so the interim agreement, upon  
which the mortgage was based, which contemplated a vacant possession date,  
contained material false information. The former Anderson residence was to be a  
rental property. The financial institution would not (and by banking law could  
not) have made a 90% loan to value mortgage had they been told their mortgage  
was to fund a rental property. The entire transaction was to transfer the property to  
Mr. MacMullin, using Mr. Wintringham as his alter ego who would “pull a  
mortgagefor Mr. MacMullin. In this manner Mr. MacMullin would get higher  
financing on the real estate trade in. There is an obvious and clear monetary  
motive in Mr. MacMullin’s conduct in this file. Mr. MacMullin intended to get  
the property all along but could not finance it himself.  
On October 5 2000, Bridgewater Financial faxed to Mr. Moore the following note  
[Moore Legal file, scan 7223, 118/244]:  
... please be advised that we also require, prior to funding a copy of  
the statement of adjustments to show down payment from the sale  
of the Borrower's existing property.  
Since Mr. Wintringham was not moving into the Anderson property, any REPC of  
his existing home was a sham. The down payment came from Mr. MacMullin.  
When Bridgewater Financial questioned the down payment Mr. Moore was duped  
by Mr. MacMullin sending a Promissory note [investment agreement] structured  
to look like Rick Purdy, another of Mr. MacMullin’s investors, had lent Larry  
Page: 157  
Wintringham the down payment, pending the sale of the Wintringham residence.  
This is a total fabrication!  
4.  
Mr. Wintringham had a sketchy work history. He had just changed jobs.  
Therefore, Mr. MacMullin’s alter ego company, Parallel Corp, stepped forward  
with an employment letter to the effect that Mr. Wintringham earned $3,000.00  
per month from Parallel Corp. This employment letter was either signed by John  
Dunne or Mr. Dunne’s signature was forged. The job probably did not exist. Mr.  
MacMullin did not pay wages. However, as Mr. Wintringham was a framer  
working on the Blackfalds project, I am unable to use this evidence to conclude it  
is deceitful.  
[698] Mr. Anderson gave evidence over several days. He was an honest family man who got in  
over his head. He was initially supportive of Mr. MacMullin’s get rich schemes, to the point that  
other straw buyers he induced to come along were hurt and bitter about him. In Ponzi scheme  
fashion, he was rewarded for his first investment, and then was hooked on MacMullin and the  
dream. He and his family suffered when the roof fell in.  
[699] He grew concerned about his purchase of the Blackfalds property, concerned that Mr.  
Elander had advanced all the funds, concerned about the construction delays and poor or non-  
existent workmanship. He found out that he was switched to a less desirable and less complete  
home at the Blackfalds construction site because other investors were potentially violent and had  
frightened Mr. MacMullin. Mr. Seremet gave evidence that Mr. MacMullin had been beaten so  
badly that he was unable to work for many weeks.  
[700] To add salt to Mr. Anderson’s wounds, a Bailiff came to his former home (that he had  
sold to Mr. Wintringham and where he was in a type of lease-back situation) and gave him 24  
hours to get out. Mr. MacMullin, although taking the rent, had not been paying the Wintringham  
mortgage or taxes on the property. In fact, Mr. Elander transferred title from Mr. Wintringham to  
Mr. MacMullin, but did not notify the Mortgage company for several months about the  
assumption of the mortgage. This is not an issue of a solicitor not knowing about the paperwork  
of a conveyancer on a file; this is direct inferential evidence of knowledge that the property was  
always Mr. MacMullin’s and Mr. Elander letting time go by to facilitate continued deception on  
the financial institution.  
[701] Liza Anderson indicated that one night Mr. MacMullin came to the door badly injured  
and it appeared he had been assaulted. While that does not make him guilty of fraud, nor do I  
condone self-help punishment, it mirrors the increasing risky business conduct of Mr.  
MacMullin. Ms. Anderson is a woman of character. Despite how these frauds, starting with this  
one, affected her and her family, when she was asked how she felt, she expressed compassion  
and sadness about the beating, and that a business man and lawyer had to stoop so low to cheat  
people. She, like her husband, believed greatly in Mr. MacMullin. He let her down.  
[702] She respected the legal profession and believed that Mr. Elander would protect her and  
her husband. He betrayed that trust. Mr. MacMullin orchestrated the fraudulent information in  
Page: 158  
the mortgage application and I accept Mr. Wintringham’s role as a straw buyer despite the fact  
he did not testify.  
4.  
Conclusion  
[703] Mr. MacMullin orchestrated the fraudulent information in the mortgage application and I  
accept Mr. Wintringham’s role as a straw buyer. The Crown has proven beyond a reasonable  
doubt all of the elements of this offense. In addition to the elements admitted by the Defense, the  
Crown has proven that Mr. MacMullin knew about, actively participated in, and orchestrated the  
fraud. He used Mr. Wintringham as straw buyer. The financial institution suffered a deprivation  
because it made a loan on property in which the purchaser never intended to be a resident in the  
home and where the down payment documentation was deceitful. The net worth of Mr.  
Wintringham was deceitful. Mr. MacMullin intended this deprivation.  
[704] Mr. MacMullin’s general denials of guilt are not believed nor do they raise a reasonable  
doubt. Specifically, his denial of knowing anything about the creation of the false employment  
documentation is impossible, and incapable of belief, or raising a reasonable doubt. On evidence  
which I accept, including on this count the evidence of the Andersons, Mr. Purdy and Mr.  
Seremet, Mr. MacMullin is guilty of this offense.  
G.  
Count 8 - Property 6  
1.  
The Alleged Misconduct  
Allan Dawson MacMullin and Roy Elander stand charged that they  
8.  
Between the 1st day of January, 2000 and the 31st day of July, 2005, at or near the city of  
Red Deer, in the province of Alberta, did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, defraud  
Xceed Mortgage Corporation of money, of a value exceeding $5,000.00, by providing false  
information to Xceed Mortgage Corporation in support of a mortgage application in the name of  
Richard Zimmerman for 76 Wright Avenue, Red Deer, Alberta (also known as Plan 2886 TR;  
Block 43; Lot 13), contrary to section 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.  
2.  
The land titles summary [exhibit 6, scan 6619] follows:  
LTO Reg. Date Document $ value Observations  
Title Tales  
Date m/d/y m/d/y  
5/31/96  
title  
137,000 Howard Miller acquires property  
140,000 Miller to 854067 Alberta Ltd. (MacMullin)  
152,000 854067 Alberta Ltd. to Zimmerman  
11/7/00  
11/7/00  
11/7/00  
10/25/00 transfer  
11/1/00  
11/1/00  
transfer  
mortgage 140,220 XCEED mortgage CMHC insured  
       
Page: 159  
3/2/01  
3/2/01  
3/2/01  
4/30/02  
1/17/01  
2/26/01  
2/26/01  
3/17/02  
transfer  
transfer  
155,220 Zimmerman to Dunning  
157,000 Dunning to Hill  
mortgage 145,000 To Hill  
transfer 154000 Hill back to Dunning  
3.  
The Facts  
[705] In 1996, Howard Miller acquired 76 Wright Avenue, Red Deer for $137,000.00. On  
November 7, 2000, Mr. Miller transferred this property to 854067 Alberta Ltd. (a MacMullin  
company) for $140,000.00. On the same day (November 7, 2000), a new mortgage and a new  
transfer were registered on this property. The borrower/ buyer was Richard Zimmerman. He was  
a straw buyer. Even before 854067 Alberta Ltd. took title to this property, Mr. MacMullin had  
been working on a mortgage application for Mr. Zimmerman through mortgage broker David  
Gorn.  
[706] Mr. Zimmerman was just recently out of bankruptcy so Mr. MacMullin sold him on the  
idea of both making money and rebuilding his credit by pulling mortgages. To facilitate the  
down payment of this purchase, Mr. MacMullin worked with Mr. Elander and created a statutory  
declaration selling a Cadillac for $15,500.00. There was no such sale. This transaction and its  
documentation were false. The same was true for statements that Mr. Zimmerman would live in  
the purchase property.  
[707] Mr. Elander acted for both Mr. Zimmerman and MacMullin’s company. When the  
transfer was registered to Mr. Zimmerman, the price escalated to $152,000.00. The interim  
agreement between the numbered company and Mr. Zimmerman was dated October 8, 2000,  
significantly in advance of the completion of the purchase between Mr. Miller and the numbered  
company. It also sets the purchase price of $152,000.00, notionally a market value price between  
arm’s-length parties as of October 8, 2000.  
[708] There is an awkward reality here for Mr. Elander. On the transfer by which Mr.  
MacMullin’s company acquired title, Mr. Elander completes the affidavit of transferee and  
swears on November 1, 2000 that in his opinion the property is worth $142,000.00. At some  
point on that same day, he commissions Mr. Zimmerman’s affidavit and allows Mr. Zimmerman  
to assert that the property is worth $152,000.00. Had Mr. Elander thought about it he was taking  
a false affidavit. If he truly believed the notional arm’s-length sale between Mr. Zimmerman and  
Mr. MacMullin was at market value, his affidavit should have indicated $152,000.00. This is  
extremely troubling; it either indicates an absolute lack of situational awareness about real estate  
and about the same document, signed the same time, on the same file, or that Mr. Elander knew  
the sale to Mr. Zimmerman was not at market value. This has sinister implications.  
[709] Mr. Zimmerman obtained an XCEED CMHC insured mortgage of $140,220.00. This  
became effectively 100% financing of the real purchase price between Mr. Miller and Mr.  
MacMullin. Brian Adair, a Red Deer lawyer, acted for XCEED in that transaction. The fraud, if  
one exists, is in Mr. Zimmerman’s application. Nevertheless, the downstream history reveals that  
 
Page: 160  
this property was sold to Mr. and Mrs. Dunning for $155,000.00 on January 24, 2001, less than  
90 days after Mr. Zimmerman purchased it. The mortgage broker in this file was David Gorn.  
His files were no longer available because they had been seized by the Real Estate Council of  
Alberta. In this case an independent lawyer acted for XCEED. Communication from the lawyer  
to Mr. Elander focuses on a requirement of proof of principal residency and the down payment.  
[710] Mr. Zimmerman attended before Mr. Elander and swore two statutory declarations on or  
about November 1, 2000. The first statement indicated:  
1.  
2.  
that the property was going to be his principal residence, and  
the purchased home would not be used as a rental property.  
That was false. Mr. Zimmerman, never intended to move in the home, and was not purchasing it  
as his principal residence.  
[711] The second declaration confirmed the source of the down payment was the sale of a  
Cadillac vehicle. Mr. Elander did not get any money from Mr. Zimmerman and he did not sell  
his car. Nevertheless, Mr. Elander signed a letter [Elander exhibit 173, scan 7567, p 76/144] to  
the XCEED solicitor stating:  
Copy of Treasury Branch Draft for the net proceeds of the sale of the car. The  
funds were paid directly to us and there are no bank statements as the same were  
not deposited  
[712] Interestingly, in the distribution of funds Mr. Elander does reference the distribution of  
more than just the mortgage money, so it is possible here that Mr. MacMullin brought in the  
down payment to mask from Mr. Elander the true state of affairs.  
[713] The evidence of a deceit in this case is confirmed by the direct evidence of Mr.  
Zimmerman, his false statutory declarations, and the rapid transfer and price escalation of the  
property. Mr. Zimmerman himself felt uneasy about the false affidavits. His swearing a false  
statutory declaration means his credibility must be weighted cautiously. However, his evidence  
does have ring of truth about it. There is also the statutory declaration about the down payment  
coming from the sale of the Cadillac, which was never sold!  
4.  
Conclusion  
[714] The Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt all of the elements of this offense. In  
addition to the elements admitted by the Defense, the Crown has proven that Mr. MacMullin,  
knew about, actively participated in, and orchestrated the fraud which used Mr. Zimmerman as  
the straw buyer. The financial institution suffered a deprivation because it made a loan on  
property in which the purchaser never intended to be a resident in the home, and the down  
payment documentation was deceitful.  
 
Page: 161  
[715] Mr. MacMullin’s general denials of guilt are not believed nor do they raise a reasonable  
doubt. Mr. MacMullin is guilty of this offense on evidence which I accept, including on this  
count the evidence of Mr. Zimmerman.  
[716] Mr. Elander did not act for the mortgage company. He did facilitate the transmission of  
false statutory declarations and he must have been aware of the rapid price escalation as two  
transfers were registered but with substantially different prices. He participated in both affidavits  
of transferee. The vehicle sale based down payment was false information Mr. Elander directly  
passed to a financial institution on behalf of his real client, Mr. MacMullin.  
[717] In addition, his statement of sale and adjustments and statement of monies distributed  
indicate Mr. MacMullin paid his legal fees. Interest was waived, which also effectively reduced  
the purchase price, a fact unknown to the lending financial institution. However, here the  
evidence is capable of a more benign explanation; that Mr. MacMullin pulled the wool over Mr.  
Elander’s eyes. It is their first deal together. Mr. Elander has to get the benefit of that doubt and  
so I acquit him on this count.  
H.  
Count 9 - Property 7  
1.  
The Alleged Misconduct  
Allan Dawson MacMullin and Roy Elander stand charged that they  
9.  
Between the 1st day of January, 2000 and the 31st day of July, 2005, at or near the city of  
Red Deer, in the province of Alberta, did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, defraud  
CIBC Mortgages Inc. of money, of a value exceeding $5,000.00, by providing false information  
to CIBC Mortgages Inc. in support of a mortgage application in the name of Mark and Karla  
McClain for 5819-60 Avenue, Red Deer, Alberta (also known as Plan 9520065; Block D; Lot  
25), contrary to section 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.  
2.  
Title Tales  
[718] The land titles summary [exhibit 7, scan 6630] follows:  
LTO Reg.  
Date m/d/y m/d/y  
7/22/97  
Date  
Document  
title  
$ value  
Observations  
86,045  
Grabo  
11/30/00  
11/30/00  
2/13/01  
2/13/01  
5/4/01  
11/22/00 transfer  
11/24/00 mortgage  
caveat  
121,000  
119,260  
Grabo to McClain  
CIBC CMHC insured  
Vendors lien  
McClain to Jeff Lowe  
Lowe to Guidolin  
CIBC  
2/8/01  
4/24/01  
transfer  
transfer  
125,000  
123,780  
12/3/02  
11/12/02 foreclosure 110,000  
     
Page: 162  
113,500  
Sale to 3rd party  
4/14/03  
3/28/03  
transfer  
3.  
The Facts  
[719] Mark and Karla McClain were introduced to Mr. MacMullin through Amway. They were  
both teachers just starting out in the Red Deer area, hoping to make some money and then get  
back to Medicine Hat. Mark McClain’s mother had previously encouraged him to purchase a  
home and she had assisted him as co-owner with a CMHC mortgage on his own home. As his  
relationship developed with Karla McClain, they contemplated purchasing a home in the Red  
Deer area. They hoped for a home that would be in the middle of their commute to their  
respective teaching jobs which were located in different communities. Despite aggressive cross-  
examination from counsel for Mr. MacMullin, I am satisfied that although they actually looked  
at some of the ‘straw bought’ homes they never intended to live in any.  
[720] Mr. MacMullin persuaded them to pull a mortgage for him on property 7. The long-  
standing owner of this property, McQuig/Grabo, may have been connected with Mr. MacMullin,  
although on this chain of title Mr. MacMullin never took title to this property. Grabo transferred  
the property to McClain on November 30, 2000 for $121,000.00 against which was registered a  
CIBC mortgage for $119,260.63. This is consistent with a 95% mortgage and the addition of the  
CMHC fee bringing the financing very close to 100%.  
[721] This mortgage was granted on the basis it would be the principal (primary) residence for  
the McClains. Their evidence was that they never moved into the home and did not intend to.  
They were induced to lend their name and credit to this mortgage application by Mr. MacMullin,  
who in turn was to pay them a fee. On February 13, 2001, less than 90 days after they took title,  
the property was transferred to Jeff Lowe at a stated price of $125,000.00. Mr. Elander acted for  
all parties on all of these transactions. Mr. Elander also acted for the CIBC. He prepared,  
registered and reported to CIBC on their mortgage and state of security.  
[722] The transaction ended badly for the McClains who, along with the others in their title  
chain, sustained a deficiency judgment in the foreclosure action. The foreclosure market value  
appraisal was $110,000.00, much less than any of the earlier sale values. When the CIBC  
actually sold the property several months later it got $113,500.00.  
[723] There is a ‘title tale’ difference in this property. Neither Mr. MacMullin, nor any of his  
corporations ever on its face appeared to acquire title to this property. Jeff Lowe did not give  
evidence, however his name also appeared in count 7: Wintringham. Mr. Lowe was supposedly  
going to buy Mr. Wintringham’s home to make Wintringham eligible for the CMHC insured  
financing. Mr. Elander did receive a notional down payment and did account for it. Despite Mr.  
MacMullin’s apparent lack of involvement, there is documentary corroboration that he was  
involved. Mr. Elander’s assistant prepared a note for Mr. Elander informing him that although a  
cheque did come from the Parkland Credit Union on this transaction, the $2,000.00 deposit  
referenced in the REPC to close this transaction had not been made. The note to Mr. Elander  
 
Page: 163  
indicates that somehow between McClain, McQuig, and MacMullin there is a $2,000.00 credit  
so “Scott authorized me to show a down payment of $2000” [Elander file, exhibit 171, scan  
7575, p 67/107].  
[724] The mortgage broker was David Gorn. We do not have his file for this transaction.  
However, on the Elander file there is a payout of the CIBC student loan of $372.00 and a Canada  
Trust MasterCard for $763.00. Mr. McClain gave evidence that these were paid out by Mr.  
MacMullin. The McClains both also indicated that they never banked at the Parkland Credit  
Union which was the source of the approximately $6,900.00 to close the transaction.  
[725] The Elander file contains a traditional statement of sale and adjustments using the double  
entry system that I discussed in the main part of the judgment (para 110). Down payments were  
made and paid; the law firm reacted appropriately with a normal statement of sale and  
adjustments. Early in the relationship between Mr. MacMullin and various straw buyers he was  
better in control so this transaction dated in late 2000 (the first year into the overall range of  
fraud) appears orthodox. The documents are both regular and proper.  
[726] For example, Mr. Elander did not use mortgage funds to pay out the debt of purchasers.  
That payment occurred external to his office. Receipts were provided. The CIBC mortgage in  
this case, although CMHC insured, was also a cashback type of mortgage. CIBC knowingly  
returned to Mr. and Mrs. McClain a cashback bonus and a 3% interest rate rebate totaling very  
close to $5,000.00. This money flowed through the mortgage calculation and increased the total  
that Mr. Elander received from CIBC on behalf of the McClains. He accounted for this money by  
showing that the McClains received a fee back (paid to yourself, $5,100.00 - scan 7575 at  
p.18/107). The Crown asks me to reject the implication of that document and assume that Mr.  
MacMullin got that money, not the McClains. Both McClains indicated they never got the cash  
back monies, and in a true straw buyer situation they would not expect to. Those funds would go  
to the equitable owner, Mr. MacMullin, who would be saddled with the full debt by which the  
cash back was created. Despite that, there is no reason for me to assume the document on the file  
is inaccurate.  
[727] We do not have Mr. Elander’s trust ledgers, nor do we have copies of all of his account  
cheques and other third-party business records. We do not have David Gorn’s mortgage file and  
the CIBC file contains very little. Some of the CIBC documents entrained in this deal relate to  
another purchase by Mark McClain from Shane Anderson (a different property). In the final  
analysis, I am left with the evidence of Mr. and Mrs. McClain, both who indicated that they  
never intended to live in this property and both who indicated that they participated in this  
transaction for a fee. They were honest and credible witnesses. The title pattern reflects their  
ownership was short-lived and it is clear that they had a home in which they lived, and that was  
purchased by Mr. McClain, even before their relationship started. They suffered memory loss  
about details and about the understandings of their relationship with Mr. Elander. They also  
indicated that near the end of the school year they ended up with two titles in their name: their  
own home and a straw-bought purchase. They transferred both of these properties to Mr.  
MacMullin. Nothing in the ‘title tales’ of this property reflects the fact it was one of those two  
Page: 164  
properties. The transfer out of this property occurred in April, which may coincide with the point  
that the McClains knew they were going to be returning to Medicine Hat, but perhaps not.  
[728] I accept the evidence of the McClains that they were sold on acquiring this property for  
Mr. MacMullin for a fee. Mr. MacMullin arranged deceitful information to persuade the CIBC to  
make this loan.  
[729] This transaction developed exactly as the McClains said it had. The McClains never  
intended to live in the property. Everything was set up by Mr. MacMullin.  
[730] The Crown asserts that Mr. Elander was a party to this fraud; however, the file here is  
completely orthodox, with the exception of the note from the conveyancer to Mr. Elander about  
the request from parties outside their office to show a $2,000.00 deposit. There are proper  
documents on this file and when Mr. Elander assisted the McClain’s in the sale of the property  
he filed a vendor’s caveat to protect them. The Crown has not proven that Mr. Elander knew or  
participated actively in this fraud. This count against him must be dismissed.  
4.  
Conclusion  
[731] The Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt all of the elements of this offense. In  
addition to the elements admitted by the Defense, the Crown has proven that Mr. MacMullin,  
knew about, actively participated in, and orchestrated the fraud. Mr. and Mrs. McClain  
participated as straw buyers. The financial institution suffered a deprivation because it made a  
loan on property where the purchaser never intended to be a resident in the home and the down  
payment documentation was deceitful. Mr. MacMullin intended this.  
[732] Mr. MacMullin’s general denials of guilt are not believed nor do they raise a reasonable  
doubt. Mr. MacMullin is guilty of this offense on evidence which I accept, including the  
evidence of Mr. McClain and Mrs. McClain.  
[733] The evidence against Mr. Elander is insufficient to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable  
doubt.  
I.  
Count 10 - Property 8  
1.  
The Alleged Misconduct  
Allan Dawson MacMullin and Roy Elander stand charged that they  
10.  
Between the 1st day of January, 2000 and the 31st day of July, 2005, at or near the city of  
Red Deer, in the province of Alberta, did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, defraud  
Maple Trust Company of money, of a value exceeding $5,000.00, by providing false information  
to Maple Trust Company in support of a mortgage application in the name of Lane Wiechnik for  
18 Canyon Heights, Red Deer, Alberta (also known as Plan 7722301; Block 1; Lot 9), contrary to  
section 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.  
     
Page: 165  
2.  
Title Tales  
[734] The land titles summary [exhibit 8, scan 6533] follows:  
LTO Reg.  
Date m/d/y m/d/y  
9/4/97  
11/1/00  
12/5/00  
12/5/00  
6/12/01  
12/18/01  
3/15/02  
Date  
Document  
title  
$ value  
Observations  
163,500  
265,000  
265,000  
220,888  
265,000  
Steve Carbone  
10/16/00 transfer  
11/29/00 transfer  
11/29/00 mortgage  
Carbone to 854067 Alberta Ltd.(MacMullin)  
854067 Alberta Ltd. to Wiechnik  
Maple Trust CMHC insured  
Wiechnik to MacMullin  
3/30/01  
transfer  
12/21/01 foreclosure 198,000  
3/7/02  
To Maple Trust  
transfer  
165,000  
Maple Trust to 3rd party  
3.  
The Facts  
[735] 18 Canyon Heights was owned by Steve Carbone. Mr. Carbone is an acquaintance of Mr.  
MacMullin. Mr. Carbone transferred the property at 18 Canyon Heights to 854067 Alberta Ltd.  
(a MacMullin company) with the stated value of the property as $265,000.00. The company  
acquired title November 1, 2000, and resold the house to Lane Wiechnik in December at the  
same stated price. The purchase was financed by a Maple Trust mortgage for $221,000.00. Mr.  
Elander acted for Mr. MacMullin and Mr. Wiechnik. Mr. Elander also acted for Mr. Carbone in  
the initial sale.  
[736] In March, the property was transferred back to Mr. MacMullin, but the transfer was not  
registered until June, three months later. Mr. MacMullin’s ownership is short-lived. He did not  
pay the mortgage payments and he and Mr. Wiechnik were foreclosed. Title went Maple Trust  
on January 7, 2002. The foreclosed value is significantly less (nearly 33% less) than the  
$265,000.00 purchase price. A deficiency judgment was obtained against both Mr. MacMullin  
and Mr. Wiechnik. Mr. Elander acted for both on the foreclosure. Mr. Wiechnik was not  
informed about this until years later when his credit is affected. Maple Trust ended up taking  
$165,000.00 for the home in a subsequent sale.  
[737] Mr. Wiechnik was an impressive, credible witness. He is an engineer for a major oil  
company in Alberta. He gave evidence by closed-circuit television from the capital of Tunis,  
Tunisia. He lost money through his dealings with Mr. MacMullin, but shrugs that off as an  
education. All told, he lost over $100,000.00 through an investment agreement with Mr.  
MacMullin and to repair his credit after these ‘straw buyer’ deals. He bears Mr. MacMullin no  
animus because Mr. Wiechnik credits Mr. MacMullin for introducing him to real estate. Mr.  
Wiechnik has subsequently amassed a major real estate portfolio in Calgary. Inflation has done  
the rest.  
[738] I assess Mr. Wiechnik as an individual who was careful and thoughtful, but who  
completely accepted Mr. MacMullin’s explanations of the law for short time residence in a  
   
Page: 166  
property. Mr. Wiechnik was prepared to move into all of the properties he bought on behalf of  
Mr. MacMullin, but they were simply uninhabitable. He drove to them, entered them, and  
intended to stay there. Mr. Wiechnik concedes that he never intended to reside in these properties  
as his home. He was going to camp there for a few days to meet Mr. MacMullin’s legal(ish)  
definition of principal residence.  
[739] Further, I accept completely Mr. Wiechnik definition of a ‘straw buyer’. He uses himself  
as an example: a person who purchases a property to assist someone else for a fee. I accept his  
discussion of the deal: that he would use his credit to purchase properties for Mr. MacMullin. He  
would not be obliged to make a mortgage payment, pay legal fees, or other expenses in  
connection with the property. He would receive a fee for “pulling the mortgage”.  
[740] However Mr. Wiechnik had the down payment to close this transaction. He issued a  
cheque for it and he intended to live in the home to satisfy the principal residence requirements.  
[Maple Trust mortgage file, scan 7238, p 176/203]. The mortgage application was presented by  
Dave Gorn. We do not have his files, but we do have the mortgage application received on the  
Maple Trust file. There is no indication that the assets or liabilities are overstated.  
[741] We do not have Mr. Elander’s legal file.  
[742] Mr. Wiechnik carried out the residency intention by going to the home planning to live  
there. He left only when he found that more renovations were required. On this transaction, I am  
simply not able to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Maple Trust was deceived. While the  
‘title tales are highly suggestive, particularly given the very substantial decrease in value  
between the notional purchase and the foreclosed amount, that evidence is not conclusive beyond  
a reasonable doubt.  
4.  
Conclusion  
[743] While I am highly suspicious that Maple Trust was deceived into granting a mortgage on  
a property with an incorrect and an overstated value, there is an apparent arm’s-length  
transaction between Mr. Carbone and Mr. MacMullin that sets the initial price of $265,000.00.  
The price did not change in the resale to Mr. Wiechnik. He was prepared to accept a residence  
requirement and made a down payment. Both Mr. MacMullin and Mr. Elander must get the  
benefit of that doubt. I acquit them both on this charge.  
J.  
Count 11 - Property 9  
1.  
The Alleged Misconduct  
That Allan Dawson MacMullin and Roy Elander stand charged that they  
11.  
Between the 1st day of January, 2000 and the 31st day of July, 2005, at or near the  
county of Parkland, in the province of Alberta, did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent  
means, defraud MCAP Service Corporation of money, of a value exceeding $5,000.00, by  
     
Page: 167  
providing false information to MCAP Service Corporation in support of a mortgage application in  
the name of Russellell Campbell and Gerald Reger for #7 Chickakoo Estates, Parkland county,  
Alberta (also known as Plan 7922583; Block 1; Lot 7), contrary to section 380(1)(a) of the  
Criminal Code.  
2.  
Title Tales  
[744] The land titles summary [exhibit 9, scan 6618] follows:  
LTO Reg.  
Date m/d/y m/d/y  
Date  
Document  
$ value  
15,000  
Observations  
12/15/99  
3/28/00  
10/20/00  
11/6/00  
1/8/01  
12/9/99  
3/27/00  
10/16/00 transfer  
11/1/00  
1/3/01  
1/3/01  
6/13/01  
transfer  
mortgage  
Morrison to 854067 Alberta Ltd. (MacMullin)  
220,000 To 8302719 Alberta Ltd (18%)  
65,000 To Petra Corp. (Dan Corns)  
173,000 To 854067 Alberta Ltd. (MacMullin)  
145,000 854067 Alberta Ltd. to Campbell/Reger  
133,762 MCAP CMHC insured  
transfer  
transfer  
mortgage  
transfer  
1/8/01  
6/15/01  
1/13/01  
2/21/02  
145,000 Campbell/Reger to Gibson/Radcliff  
11/13/01 foreclosure 140,000 To MCAP  
1/29/02  
transfer  
135,000 To 3rd parties  
3.  
The Facts  
[745] In late 1999, a MacMullin Company, 854067 Alberta Ltd., acquires this vacant lot in an  
Edmonton area subdivision (Chickakoo Estates) for $15,000.00. There follows a series of  
unusual financing, a transfer to a co-investor Dan Corns, and then almost immediately thereafter,  
a re-transfer back to the same MacMullin Corporation. This sets the stage for the sale to straw  
buyers, Mr. Campbell and Mr. Reger.  
[746] On January 8, 2001, Mr. MacMullin transfers the property to them. This purchase is for  
$145,000.00 and financed by an MCAP (CMHC-principal residence) mortgage. Campbell and  
Reger subsequently transferred the property to John Gibson and Toni Radcliffe. By November  
13, 2001, the transaction unraveled to the point that MCAP obtained a foreclosure order and a  
deficiency judgment against Campbell, Reger, Gibson and Radcliffe.  
[747] Lawyer Brent Bittner initially assisted Mr. MacMullin and his numbered company  
acquire title, but by the time of the MCAP mortgage, Roy Elander was involved. Despite this,  
there is no indication that Mr. Elander acted for Campbell and Reger in the resale five months  
later to Gibson and Radcliffe. Instead, what is documented is a hand written transfer in which  
Mr. MacMullin and Joe Seremet play various roles of Commissioner and agent for the new  
purchasers. It is clear from this that despite the superficial appearance that Mr. MacMullin had  
   
Page: 168  
sold the property in an arm’s-length transaction to Campbell/Reger, he was nevertheless still  
very much involved with this property. The same is true of his young apprentice Mr. Seremet.  
[748] Both Mr. Campbell and Mr. Reger gave evidence. Mr. Reger gave his evidence by  
closed-circuit television from a hospice in Saskatchewan. It was clear that he is in failing health  
and in an extreme medical condition. He admitted in his evidence that he may have forgotten  
some of the collateral details about the deal. He opined that Mr. Elander knew what was going  
on and that Mr. MacMullin set it all up.  
[749] He indicated that neither he nor Mr. Campbell ever lived in the home, nor intended to live  
in the home. Neither of them put a down payment into the home. Mr. Reger gave evidence that  
he was simply doing this for the fee promised by Mr. MacMullin. He and Mr. Campbell attended  
at Roy Elander’s home (he believed that to be in Red Deer but it is also possible it was in  
Lacombe, and indeed he is mistaken about the location).  
[750] He was emphatic that he told Mr. Elander he would not be living in the home. This  
discussion occurred when he was offered a statutory declaration to sign about the residency  
issues. He indicated, in graphic fashion, that Mr. Elander looked at him, put his finger to his lips  
and said; “Shush - I didn’t hear that”. Joseph Seremet confirms that conversation took place.  
[751] Mr. Campbell also gave evidence. Mr. Campbell also made clear that some conversations  
took place between himself and Mr. Elander that showed Mr. Elander knew Mr. Campbell was  
not going to be living in the home (see discussion of this direct knowledge in main judgment,  
paras 295-298). He too confirmed that he and Mr. Reger were straw buyers and had no intention  
to live in the property, despite obtaining a principal residence mortgage. He also confirmed that  
he did not put up the down payment or the deposit. Mr. Campbell and Mr. Reger did not pay  
legal fees. In fact, neither had even seen the property by the time of the actual mortgage  
application. I accept this evidence as it relates to that consistent and basic information.  
[752] Mr. Campbell also gave evidence about the interchange between himself and Mr. Elander  
concerning the principal residence requirement. While his version is somewhat different than Mr.  
Reger’s, it is clear that his version entails Mr. Elander did not want to hear about the purchasers’  
lack of intention to move into the property. Nevertheless, Mr. Elander went ahead and swore the  
affidavit. Mr. Campbell admits the affidavit is false.  
[753] Mr. Elander gave conflicting evidence about the meeting and discussion about the  
principal residence requirement. He did however admit the topic came up. His evidence is that he  
received some inquiry from either Mr. Reger or Mr. Campbell about the possibility of non-  
residency. The straw buyer’s version of this is that Mr. Elander made a ‘shushing’ gesture and  
diverted the discussion. He said he did not want to hear about that. Mr. Seremet supports the  
Campbell/Reger version. It is not necessary for me to definitely confirm which version is correct.  
This is because there are numerous other irregularities on this real estate file which provide  
significant evidence that leaves me with the view that the Crown has proven that a fraud  
occurred here, and that Mr. Elander, with knowledge or willful blindness, assisted in it.  
Page: 169  
[754] MCAP’s instructions to Mr. Elander include this condition:  
SPECIAL CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO ADVANCE  
We must receive the following, in form and content satisfactory to us, 10 days  
prior to the advance of the Mortgage. Failure to do so may delay or cancel the  
advance of funds.  
Written confirmation of down payment of $14,500 from non-borrowed cash  
equity showing accumulation of 3 months, via bank statements or passbooks, GIC  
deposits, RRSP, Canada Savings Bonds, etc. or Gift Letter including copy of  
deposit, or Solicitors Copy of Direction to Pay on a Sale. (Received $8,000.00 -  
require Statement of Adjustments for additional funds)  
Confirmation that the following debts have been repaid prior to funding: - TO  
Visa in the amount of $1, 450. [Emphasis mine]  
[755] The sale from MacMullin’s company to Mr. Campbell and Mr. Reger did go through a  
real estate office. Mr. MacMullin had found a realtor who was prepared to accept a $1,000.00  
(plus GST) commission on a $145,000.00 property sale. This significantly reduced fee is also  
consistent with Mr. MacMullin having lined up the straw buyers so all the realtor had to do was  
process the initial $1,000.00 down payment and send documents to the lawyer, Mr. Elander.  
Why else in Alberta at that period would a realtor be working for real estate fees of less than  
1%?  
[756] The home was not finished and there were significant defects. These issues were glossed  
over in the sales description material. The balance of the down payment, representing the  
difference between the net new mortgage, and the purchase price less deposit, was to have been  
handled in Mr. Elander’s office. There were irregularities there.  
[757] MCAP was concerned about the down payment. It asked Mr. Elander to provide a  
statement of sale and adjustments showing the down payment coming from another sale. This  
was a non-arm’s-length (both fictional and false and possible signature forged) sale where Mr.  
Campbell purported to sell his home to Mike Kerr. Mike Kerr was a casual employee of Al  
MacMullin (see count 3 and others - Kerr is a frequent buyer). Mr. Kerr had no money to  
purchase a home and no intention to purchase Mr. Campbell’s home, unless he was doing it for  
Mr. MacMullin. Mr. Kerr claimed no knowledge of this deal. Mr. Campbell did not sell the  
home he was living in at that point.  
[758] MCAP asked Mr. Elander for a copy of the statement of sale and adjustments relating to  
the sale of Mr. Campbell’s home to clear the way for him to purchase the new CMHC insured  
property. Mr. Elander obtained a copy of that document. It is an unusual document that does not  
appear to have been prepared in a lawyer’s office. It does not use the double entry bookkeeping  
style almost universally used in Alberta when a lawyer prepares a statement of sale and  
adjustments. The statement does not have a tax adjustment. It is signed by both Mr. Campbell  
Page: 170  
and Mr. Kerr. A document prepared in a solicitor’s office would not be signed by the purchaser  
and vendor, at least until the closing attendance where they might sign to indicate approval. The  
statement does not have a closing date or a legal description of the property. A member of the  
bar, familiar with real estate transactions, should immediately have noticed that document was  
irregular.  
[759] Undeterred, Mr. Elander sends this document to MCAP [Elander file exhibit 171, scan  
7577, p 91/162]. MCAP obviously picked up some of the irregularities because they asked Mr.  
Elander to confirm that it was his work [scan 7577, p 89/162]. This forces Mr. Elander’s office to  
reply that they did not do the work. Mr. Elander indicates he thinks it was done by Mr. Kerr’s  
solicitor, whose identity is unknown [scan 7577, p 87/162]. In Alberta, the vendor rather than the  
purchaser would likely be the party who prepared the statement of sale and adjustments,  
although competent law firms will often do one even where their client is the purchaser. Mr.  
Elander’s client (the purchaser in the MCAP mortgage deal) was the vendor in the fictional sale  
to Mr. Kerr. This is a substantial irregularity which defies rational explanation in the context of  
Alberta residential real estate conveyancing.  
[760] There are other issues. Mr. Elander faxes MCAP that he holds in his trust account two  
trust checks representing the balance of the down payment. However, in his statement of receipts  
and disbursements (internal handwritten distribution document) he accounts only for the MCAP  
Mortgage proceeds. He never accounts for the trust proceeds, which notionally represented the  
balance of the down payment, which he claims he had. His own paperwork indicates he does not  
have these funds.  
[761] Further, there is nothing in the REPC between the parties that indicate that the vendor (a  
MacMullin company) will be paying Mr. Campbell’s legal fees and other charges. Yet that is  
exactly what happened. The legal fees were paid from mortgage money, notionally earmarked to  
close an arm’s-length sale, as is Mr. Campbell credit card debt of $1,400.00. This is despite the  
clear instruction from MCAP that these purchaser debts had to be liquidated first! Further, there  
appears to have been no calculation on this sale of the tax adjustment even though some tax  
arrears were paid to the taxing authority.  
[762] I am drawn inescapably to the conclusion that this transaction, which is notionally stated  
to be an arm’s-length sale, is really just a re-financing. Mr. Elander accounts to the parties only  
for the mortgage proceeds. He also misleads MCAP deliberately, intentionally, and in writing,  
about the down payment and is dishonest about the true state of the monies in his account. Mr.  
Elander reports to MCAP [scan 7577, p 157/162] that taxes have been paid. That is a legitimate  
vendor obligation. However, Mr. Elander’s records also shows he paid out a GM Visa statement.  
In short, Mr. Elander used mortgage money to pay the purchaser’s debt’s. This brings the  
situation in line with the commitment letter. However, the vendor’s concession is not  
documented in the REPC, nor was it disclosed to MCAP that the mortgage funds were being  
used for purposes unrelated to the property purchase.  
Page: 171  
[763] What this obviously means is that the stated purchase price was artificially reduced by a  
type of cash-back to the buyer in the form of a debt payment. In the cash distribution Mr. Elander  
also pays out an old Campbell and Kerr (P&S), which I take to mean purchase and sale legal bill  
on another property, or maybe even billing for the notional sale that did not go through his  
office, thereby reducing further the monies to the notional arm’s-length vendor.  
[764] I will first comment on the implications of these transactions for Mr. MacMullin. It is  
clear that he orchestrated and arranged the various players to facilitate a deceit on MCAP. The  
deceit consisted of an overstated purchase price, a sale of a home that was unfinished yet  
portrayed as finished, a non-arm’s-length sale, a second fictional REPC, fictional down  
payments including a possible gift letter never called upon for funding. Mr. MacMullin also  
allowed the mortgage monies to be used in part to pay Mr. Campbell’s outstanding credit card  
debt, which was conditional on finance. If one goes back to the definition of market value set out  
in the main part of the judgment inter-party inducements are contra-indicated to market value.  
The buyers had no intention to reside in the property. Mr. MacMullin’s evidence does not  
provide him a defense. His theories about principal residency and that he had a right to waive  
deposits have no air of reality.  
[765] I turn to consider Mr. Elander’s role. I have to accept that his version of the discussion  
about the principal residence affidavit could possibly be correct. The passage of time may have  
affected Mr. Campbell and Mr. Reger’s memory. Mr. Reger was particularly affected by the  
impact of time, therapeutic prescription drugs, and his health condition. I am therefore going to  
assume that Mr. Elander’s version of that discussion is correct. This still reveals a focused  
discussion with these straw buyers about principal residence. The discussion itself (not the  
version) aggravates the other file irregularities. Here, his general denials of knowledge of fraud,  
and his claims to have been an unknowing dupe who had delegated the relevant details to his  
staff, fail. He was still in charge of the monetary matters.  
[766] First, the math simply does not add up. Second, Mr. Elander had a direct inquiry from the  
financial institution about the down payment. Mr. Elander said he had those funds yet no such  
down payment is accounted for in his distribution of cash. Third, he had to specifically deal with  
questions about the irregularities in the sale documentation by which Mr. Campbell was freeing  
up equity to purchase this property along with Mr. Reger. Fourth, Mr. Elander knew that MCAP  
required Mr. Campbell’s credit card debt liquidated, but Mr. Elander did not tell MCAP the debt  
was being liquidated out of the mortgage proceeds. This effectively reduced the purchase price  
with a cash-back. Mr. Elander would have been obliged to sign those cheques because he was the  
only cheque signing authority in his office. I am therefore satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt,  
after considering Mr. Elander’s evidence that he either had to know that this deal was irregular in  
that it was not at arm’s-length, the Campbell sale to acquire another principal residence was also  
false, or he was willfully blind about that as defined by the Supreme Court of Canada in R v  
Briscoe.  
[767] Despite careful consideration and fully taking into account Mr. Elander’s denials of guilt,  
the evidence in this case is overwhelming. It is simply impossible to ignore the ‘smoking guns’,  
Page: 172  
including the file irregularities, the focused inquiries directed to him, the payment of the  
purchaser’s debt out of the vendor’s mortgage money, in addition to the payment of all of the  
legal fees. In this count, Mr. Elander is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of aiding and abetting  
the commission of a fraud against MCAP.  
4.  
Conclusion  
[768] The Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt all of the elements of this offense. In  
addition to the elements, admitted by the Defense, the Crown has proven that Mr. MacMullin  
knew about, actively participated in, and orchestrated the fraud where Mr. Campbell and Mr.  
Reger were straw buyers. The financial institution suffered a deprivation because it made a loan  
on a property where the purchase price was artificially overinflated, the purchaser never intended  
to be a resident in the home, and where the down payment documentation was deceitful. Mr.  
MacMullin intended this deprivation.  
[769] Mr. MacMullin’s general denials of guilt are not believed, do not raise a doubt, and are  
inconsistent with the weight of the other evidence (see main judgment). Mr. MacMullin did not  
specifically discuss this transaction in his evidence so there is no specific denial evidence to be  
weighed. Mr. Campbell’s and Mr. Reger’s evidence is believable. This transaction was not at  
arm’s-length, they had no intention to live in the property, nor did they place a down payment  
into the property. Mr. MacMullin is guilty of this offense on evidence which I accept.  
[770] Mr. Elander acted in the transaction. There are significant material indicators evident in  
his file to confirm wilful blindness beyond a reasonable doubt, if not actual knowledge of the  
fraud. Still he assisted Mr. MacMullin pull it off. I have concluded on this count that the Crown  
has proven his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. No other conclusion is possible from the weight  
of the evidence.  
K.  
Count 12 and Count 13 - Property 10(a) and 10(b)  
1.  
The Alleged Misconduct  
Allan Dawson MacMullin and Roy Elander stand charged that they  
12.  
Between the 1st day of January, 2000 and the 31st day of July, 2005, at or near the town  
of Blackfalds, in the province of Alberta, did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means,  
defraud National Bank of Canada of money, of a value exceeding $5,000.00, by providing false  
information to National Bank of Canada in support of a mortgage application in the name of Lane  
Wiechnik for 57 Laurel Close, Blackfalds, Alberta (also known as Plan 9925236; Block 2; Lot  
15), contrary to section 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.  
Allan Dawson MacMullin stands charged that he  
     
Page: 173  
13.  
Between the 1st day of January, 2000 and the 31st day of July, 2005, at or near the town  
of Blackfalds, in the province of Alberta, did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means,  
defraud Resmor Trust Company of money, of a value exceeding $5,000.00, by providing false  
information to Resmor Trust Company in support of a mortgage application in the name of  
Rodney Milford for 57 Laurel Close, Blackfalds, Alberta (also known as Plan 9925236; Block 2;  
Lot 15), contrary to section 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.  
2.  
Introduction  
[771] The property that makes up count 12 and 13 is in Blackfalds, Alberta. In November 2000,  
a MacMullin company purchases this and four other lots from a developer. Almost immediately,  
Mr. MacMullin sold this lot to Lane Wiechnik, who later transferred it back to Mr. MacMullin.  
The property was foreclosed in September of 2000, but Mr. MacMullin recovered title in a  
convoluted process that involved an equity mortgage lender. He soon resold the property to  
Rodney Milford where it is again was foreclosed. Mr. Elander acted only on the first deal.  
3.  
Title Tales  
[772] The land titles records [exhibit 10, scan 6530] reveal:  
LTO Reg.  
Date m/d/y m/d/y  
11/27/ 00  
Date  
Document  
transfer  
$ value  
42,500  
Observations  
7/11/00  
854067 Alberta Ltd. purchases from  
developer  
11/27/00  
2/13/01  
2/13/01  
6/12/01  
11/11/01  
3/10/02  
11/20/03  
1/14/04  
1/14/04  
1/14/04  
6/14/04  
6/7/05  
11/17/00 mortgage  
225,500  
185,000  
170,662  
191,000  
Chinuke Investments (44% with bonus)  
854067 Alberta Ltd. sale to Wiechnik  
National Bank  
2/9/01  
2/12/01  
3/29/02  
transfer  
mortgage  
transfer  
Back to MacMullin  
11/08/01 transfer  
150,000? to Silvo (investor with MacMullin)  
20/9/02  
foreclosure 116,000 National Bank accepts sale to EQUIPLAN  
21/10/03 transfer  
12/22/03 transfer  
12/19/03 transfer  
12/22/03 mortgage  
(nominal) to 1042017 (EQUIPLAN corporation)  
145,000  
220,000  
205,988  
215,000  
1042017 to Knezevic  
Knezevic to Milford  
RESMOR  
Milford to Seremet  
RESMOR acquires title  
Arm’s length 3rd party  
6/--/04  
4/29/05  
3/7/06  
transfer  
foreclosure 140,000  
transfer 180,000  
3/16/06  
4.  
The Facts  
[773] A MacMullin limited company (854067 Alberta Ltd.) acquired five raw lots on  
November 27, 2000, in Blackfalds. Mr. Elander incorporates this company. Mr. Elander takes  
     
Page: 174  
the affidavit of transferee November 2000 in which he certifies under oath the value of the  
property is $42,500.00.Mr. Elander also acts in the February 2001 sale to Lane Wiechnik.  
[774] Mr. MacMullin borrows money at an effective rate of 44% on a short-term basis (due in  
May 2001) to begin construction. The purchaser (as a new Alberta company) had no credit, and  
Mr. MacMullin’s personal credit rating is poor. This was the result of numerous writs and  
judgments against him on other properties.  
[775] Mr. MacMullin met Calgary-based engineer Lane Wiechnik who was interested in real  
estate transactions. This was their second deal together (see property 8, count 10). Mr. Wiechnik  
gave honest evidence confirming that this was a straw purchase deal. Again, although he may  
have put on up the down payment and was prepared to fulfill such residency requirement as he  
believed was necessary on the advice of Mr. MacMullin, his stated reason for acquiring this  
property was to assist in obtaining a mortgage for the equitable owner, and to receive a fee. Mr.  
Wiechnik defined a straw deal confirming the essential elements in his mind: that he was not the  
equitable owner, and was involved in the transaction in exchange for a fee. Mr. Wiechnik did not  
participate in setting of the price or the details of the transaction. This transaction was not at  
arm’s-length.  
[776] Mr. MacMullin used an REPC which indicated: that unless otherwise noted the price  
included GST.” GST is usually calculated separately during the purchase of a newly constructed  
home, because the GST program allows the rebate of some of the GST thereby reducing the  
purchaser’s GST component price. A lawyer must consider this. Here, Mr. MacMullin diverted  
Mr. Elander’s attention away from the GST requirement on new housing. I accept Mr.  
Wiechnik’s evidence that the individual with whom he was dealing and who his straw purchase  
was intended to benefit was Mr. MacMullin. I accept his evidence completely that this was not  
an arm’s-length deal. There was no rational setting of the purchase price. The property was  
transferred to him in an unfinished and incomplete state.  
[777] Mr. Wiechnik obtained the property from Mr. MacMullin at a stated value of  
$185,000.00. This occurred in less than 90 days, and in the dead of an Alberta winter, after Mr.  
MacMullin acquired the lot for less than $50,000.00. Obviously, this kind of property  
improvement would be very unlikely.  
[778] Mr. Elander acted for all parties. Mr. Elander appears oblivious to the improbability that  
this property’s value has increased by $135,000.00 in two months, and the implications of that  
claim. Mr. Elander seems to have no problem commissioning Mr. Wiechnik’s affidavit of value  
at $185,000.00 price despite his own affidavit taken for much less on the same property just a  
short time interval earlier. However, the construction project had started and had advanced at  
least to the point where on December 7, 2000 an Alberta land surveyor was able to show the  
outline of the home on the lot, so that document evidence (assuming it is correct) reflects at least  
some construction had occurred by that point on the property.  
[779] Mr. Elander does not register an unpaid vendor’s lien caveat to protect Mr. MacMullin.  
Based on Mr. Elander’s evidence on the witness stand this would have been a mandatory  
situation in his practice if the deal between Mr. Wiechnik and Mr. MacMullin was at arm’s-  
Page: 175  
length. As the vendor, Mr. MacMullin would have been vulnerable, relying on some of the  
purchase price being advanced from a third party financier. This fact alone could lead to an  
inference that Mr. Elander was aware and had direct knowledge that this was not an arm’s-length  
deal.  
[780] Even if it could be said that Mr. Elander did not know that the property was unfinished,  
he had to know it was new construction. His file contains a copy [Elander Exhibit 171 property  
10(a), scan 7570, p 13 /156] of the special form National Bank uses for funding new construction  
in Alberta. None of those boxes are checked off. A responsible lawyer would have picked up on  
the fact that National Bank did not know this was new construction and would at least have  
inquired on that point. Mr. Elander later did get a memo from National Bank confirming that the  
construction had to be complete. National Bank believed this was a completed home, not new  
construction. The REPC between the MacMullin company and Mr. Wiechnik on the Elander file  
[scan 7570, p 22/156] requires deposits that total $12,000.00. These funds were to be delivered  
to Mr. Elander. This did not occur and Mr. Elander did not account for this money, other than a  
note on one of his internal documents that the deposits had been paid. The statement of sale and  
adjustments for this transaction [scan 7570, p 113/156] credits a deposit of $12,000.00, however  
those funds were never received by Mr. Elander.  
[781] The other irregularity in this statement of adjustments is that this was clearly new  
construction. Building essentially ceased after the roof was put in place. The absence of the GST  
calculation, which is mandatory in new home construction, is troubling. One interpretation is an  
inference that Mr. Elander knew that this was simply a financing arrangement for 854067  
Alberta Ltd. with no change of equitable ownership. The other inference is that Mr. Elander was  
incompetent and did not know about the desirability and requirement for GST to apply on new  
construction.  
[782] There is more: before Mr. Elander finally reported to the lender on this file, he was  
involved in heated discussion and negotiation with Liza and Shane Anderson who had also been  
placed on title to an unfinished Blackfalds property. The conclusion is inescapable that by the  
time Mr. Elander was making his final reports to the lender he already knew that Blackfalds  
homes being sold as completed properties were, in fact, not complete. Absent holdbacks and  
specific instructions from the financial institutions, he failed to seek instructions from them. I  
conclude Mr. Elander therefore aided the deceitful conduct of Mr. MacMullin.  
[783] More yet - Mr. Elander had at this point just completed the sale of property (a principal  
residence) to Mr. Wiechnik from Mr. MacMullin in Red Deer. Now Mr. Elander’s client is back  
buying a new principal residence in Blackfalds. Mr. Elander gave evidence that he believed that  
Mr. Wiechnik was moving on because of the level of unfinished work on the Red Deer property.  
None of these questions were put to Mr. Wiechnik in his cross-examination. Counsel for the  
Defendants seemed comfortable with Mr. Wiechnik’s self-confident evidence that he was  
MacMullin’s straw buyer (as was the Court). Nevertheless, if Mr. Elander truly believed the  
deals were regular, and likewise had believed his explanation for the various Wiechnik  
transactions, a question or two about that would not have hurt. The bottom line here is that there  
Page: 176  
is overwhelming evidence Mr. Elander knew that Mr. MacMullin is selling unfinished homes to  
straw buyers to get construction financing to replace 44% interest on interim financing.  
[784] Mr. Elander’s future conduct may also assist in shaping the analysis about what he knew  
about the true state of affairs during the placement of the National Bank mortgage. In March  
2002, two months after placing the National Bank mortgage, he received two hand written  
transfer’s in which he completed the various executions. In those transfers, Mr. Wiechnik  
transferred back to Mr. MacMullin the two properties Mr. Wiechnik acquired from Mr.  
MacMullin. Mr. Elander does not register those documents until three months later, in June of  
the year. Then he does not report the transfers to National Bank until August, several months  
after the transfers were formally registered. Negligence, incompetence, or knowledge of crime?  
His evidence to the Crown in cross-examination indicated documents are generally registered  
promptly.  
[785] I am certain that Mr. Elander knew that those Blackfalds properties were not complete.  
He communicated otherwise to the lender. By doing so, he assisted Mr. MacMullin defraud  
financial institutions into thinking they were lending money secured by properties that did not  
exist as described. The second thing I am positive of is that by March 2002, Mr. Elander had  
direct, positive, unavoidable, knowledge that Mr. MacMullin, a developer and a vendor of real  
estate property, was buying the property back from purchasers a short time after the placement of  
new CMHC principal residence mortgages. Mr. Elander admits that for a developer to buy back  
property is an unusual phenomenon in the real estate marketplace. However, for Mr. MacMullin,  
that was a standard operating procedure.  
[786] Within a few months Mr. MacMullin sold the property to a business investor: Mr. Silva.  
The stated sale price is one dollar and the affidavit of transferee is completed at $150,000.00.  
This is $30,000.00 less than notional value price in the transfer to Mr. Wiechnik.  
[787] The property goes into foreclosure but rather than take title, National Bank sold the  
property to EQUIPLAN, a legitimate mortgage company that Mr. MacMullin has dealt with  
from time to time for financing at higher interest rates. EQUIPLAN purchased the property in the  
foreclosure for $116,000.00, what I conclude was its at-market price. EQUIPLAN negotiates a  
transfer to Mr. MacMullin’s company but the consideration is only set out at one dollar although  
an affidavit of transferee values it at $190,000.00. This arrangement had been negotiated before  
EQUIPLAN bought the property in the foreclosure, as Mr. MacMullin was a defendant in that  
foreclosure and agreed to the sale. National Bank/CMHC therefore took a considerable loss.  
[788] Mr. Elander acted in the foreclosure for both Mr. Wiechnik and Mr. MacMullin. It is  
unclear if Mr. Wiechnik was ever served with the statement of claim. His evidence was that these  
CMHC judgments caught up to him years later and he had to pay the money back to restore his  
credit rating. Mr. MacMullin also faced a deficiency judgment but he got the property back so  
his loss was theoretical. Mr. Wiechnik got only the deficiency judgment. Mr. Elander appeared  
oblivious to the obvious conflict between his two clients - one who gets the property and the  
other who gets the debt. Mr. Elander indicated that he stayed on the foreclosures to try to help  
the purchasers on transactions he believed were legitimate. One wonders!  
Page: 177  
[789] With the property now back in Mr. MacMullin’s hands, he starts the second chain of  
transfers leading to count 13.  
[790] First, Mr. MacMullin directs EQUIPLAN to transfer the property to Marko Knezevic at a  
price stated of $145,000.00, but with a value asserted on the affidavit of transferee of  
$210,000.00. Mr. MacMullin then persuades Rodney Milford to purchase the property in a non-  
arm’s-length transaction for $220,000.00. A mortgage application to ResMor Trust was made for  
$205,980.00. This sale and mortgage involving Rodney Milford constitutes the particulars of  
count 13. Mr. Elander was at this point no longer involved. He and Mr. MacMullin had their  
falling out. Mr. Barclay was now the ‘go to’ lawyer of choice.  
[791] Working through Rodney Milford Mr. MacMullin intended to convince a financial  
institution that the value of the property Mr. Milford was purchasing was near $220,000.00,  
although Mr. MacMullin had acquired the property for considerably less. However, the property  
was still not finished! In the earlier foreclosure, an arm’s-length purchaser acquired it for  
$116,000.00! Mr. MacMullin arranged for the transfer of the property to Mr. Marko Knezevic in  
a non-arm’s-length transaction with absolutely no money. Knezevic was a high school student  
and had no money. The land titles registration states a value of approximately $220,000.00. The  
two transfers were registered same day, so Mr. Knezevic was not even the legal owner for one  
day.  
[792] Dave Humeniuk presented this transaction to ResMor Trust. He received untrue  
information from Mr. MacMullin, but that data was nevertheless incorporated into the  
transaction. First, he described the property as having been built in 2000 when in fact it was still  
not completed. Mr. Humeniuk advised ResMor that Mr. Milford was getting his funds from the  
sale of an existing home. However, the Milford property that was being sold was one that had  
been transferred to him previously on a straw buyer arrangement by Mr. MacMullin, but without  
Milford’s knowledge. There were no funds coming from that sale. The mortgage broker was  
concerned that CMHC would not buy into this transaction so he specifically directed the file to  
GE Capital.  
[793] The narrative that is provided under the general notes in the mortgage application  
[Humeniuk file, scan 673, p 25 /76 ] indicates:  
RES stability looks weak. Client sold his home in Calgary and bought in  
Beaumont because he felt it would be closer to job sites. His wife however felt  
isolated, and has insisted that they sell the Beaumont property. They have now  
sold the home and have made an offer on property in Blackfalds as this is where  
her family is located. Job stability is good. Credit habits are good and debt  
servicing is in line.  
[794] The commentary about the Beaumont property and the pressure from the spouse to move  
to Blackfalds is dishonest and deceitful. The Blackfalds property was not completed and not  
habitable. The Beaumont property was a straw deal on a property that the Milfords did not reside  
in! Mr. Milford did not even know about the deal.  
Page: 178  
[795] The offer from Mr. Milford to Mr. Knezevic for this property at $210,000.00 is pure  
fiction. Barbara Hong was used as the realtor to give this transaction an aura of legitimacy. The  
total down payments, an initial deposit of $5,000.00, and a follow-up deposit of $5,500.00, were  
pure fiction. The offer makes no mention of the incomplete state of the property and the  
remaining work required to finish the property [Humeniuk file, scan 6737, p 36/76].  
[796] Mr. Humeniuk also obtained a fictional real estate purchase contract for the sale of Mr.  
Milford’s identity theft, straw purchased, Beaumont home to Miguel Romero. That home was  
being sold unconditionally for $265,000.00, with a reference that the deposit check of  
$10,000.00 would be delivered to Mr. Barclay followed by a further deposit of $9,000.00.  
[797] Mr. MacMullin was the mastermind of a mortgage fraud in this case where the purchase  
price was artificially inflated through a series of one or more non-arm’s-length transactions. Mr.  
MacMullin recruited Mr. Milford to purchase this or another property. Mr. Milford claimed he  
never knew about this deal but even if he is not believed (i.e. he is evading his guilty action) the  
alternate conclusion must be that Mr. Milford never intended to be the equitable owner, but  
purchased the property for a fee. Mr. MacMullin, the true owner, orchestrated all of the  
paperwork to bring about that deceit.  
[798] After the Milford mortgage was completed, Mr. Milford (or someone) transferred the  
property to Mr. Seremet. This was, of course, a non-arm’s-length transaction simply designed to  
get the property out of Mr. Milford’s name. Mr. Seremet gave evidence, which I accept, that  
even after two straw purchases and the passage of four years after Mr. MacMullin acquired the  
raw land, the property was still not completely developed.  
[799] Despite the lower count number, this second transaction on this property is among the  
last transactions in Mr. MacMullin’s career of fraud. Mr. Elander is out of the picture and  
MacMullin had a new ‘go to lawyer’ - Mr. Barclay. Mr. Barclay did not live in nor carry-on  
practice in the Edmonton area so he forwarded all of the documentation to either Mr. Seremet or  
Mr. MacMullin for signature. It was therefore easy for Mr. MacMullin and Mr. Seremet to get  
the signatures they needed, forge the ones that they could not or would not get, than return the  
documents to Mr. Barclay for registration and mortgage funding. Mr. Milford (a straw buyer)  
never intended to make the home his principal residence, and did not put up any down payment.  
The financial institution was deceived both on the state of the property and the finances of the  
transaction participants.  
5.  
Conclusion  
[800] On count 12, the Wiechnik transaction, the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt  
all of the elements of this offense. In addition to the elements admitted by the Defense, the  
Crown has proven that Mr. MacMullin had knowledge and actively participated in and  
orchestrated the deceit (passing off a home under construction of as complete). Lane Wiechnik  
was involved as straw buyer. National Bank suffered a deprivation because they made a loan on  
property in which the purchase price was overinflated based on the state of construction. Mr.  
MacMullin intended this deprivation.  
 
Page: 179  
[801] Mr. MacMullin’s general denials of guilt are not believed nor do they raise a reasonable  
doubt. Mr. MacMullin did discuss this transaction in his evidence, but was not responsive to the  
fact that an unfinished house was marketed and financed as if it were complete. Mr. MacMullin  
is guilty of this offense on evidence which I accept.  
[802] Mr. Elander’s denials of guilt do not explain the irregularities and knowledge indicators  
in this deal. Only one explanation makes sense. I conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Mr.  
Elander knew the true state of affairs and despite that assisted his client, Mr. MacMullin, as Mr.  
MacMullin defrauded the financial institution. He too is guilty of this count.  
[803] On Count 13, the Milford transaction, the Crown has again proven beyond a reasonable  
doubt all of the elements of this offense. In addition to the elements admitted by the Defense, the  
Crown has proven that Mr. MacMullin had knowledge of, actively participated in, and  
orchestrated the fraud of passing off a home under construction as complete. This time, Rodney  
Milford was used as a straw buyer, or victim of identity fraud. ResMor Trust suffered a  
deprivation because they made a loan on property in which the purchase price was overinflated  
based on the state of construction. Mr. MacMullin intended this deprivation.  
[804] Mr. MacMullin’s general denials of guilt are not believed nor do they raise a reasonable  
doubt. Mr. MacMullin did discuss this transaction in his evidence, but did not respond to the fact  
that under his direction an unfinished house was marketed and financed as if it were complete.  
Mr. MacMullin is also guilty of this offense.  
L.  
Counts 14 And 15 - Property 11(a) and 11(b)  
1.  
The Alleged Misconduct  
Allan Dawson MacMullin and Roy Elander stand charged that they  
14.  
Between the 1st day of January, 2000 and the 31st day of July, 2005, at or near the town  
of Blackfalds, in the province of Alberta, did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent  
means, defraud Toronto Dominion Bank of money, of a value exceeding $5,000.00, by  
providing false information to Toronto Dominion Bank in support of a mortgage  
application in the name of Shane and Liza Anderson for 53 Laurel Close, Blackfalds,  
Alberta (also known as Plan 9925236; Block 2; Lot 14), contrary to section 380(1)(a) of  
the Criminal Code.  
Allan Dawson MacMullin stands charged that he  
15.  
Between the 1st day of January, 2000 and the 31st day of July, 2005, at or near the town  
of Blackfalds, in the province of Alberta, did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent  
means, defraud BMO Bank of Montreal of money, of a value exceeding $5,000.00, by  
providing false information to BMO Bank of Montreal in support of a mortgage  
application in the name of Eric Marney for 53 Laurel Close, Blackfalds, Alberta (also  
   
Page: 180  
known as Plan 9925236; Block 2; Block 14), contrary to section 380(1)(a) of the  
Criminal Code.  
2.  
Introduction  
[805] Counts 14 and 15 represent two transactions involving the same property in Blackfalds  
Alberta. These are also part of the Blackfalds project discussed in counts 12 and 13. Mr.  
MacMullin through a holding company acquired five lots to build houses. He financed these with  
a high-interest short-term loan. Mr. MacMullin had an immediate economic need to get rid of  
these properties, or at least finance them on a replacement basis as quickly as possible. He was  
motivated to conduct these two transactions by a need for money. The project was a disaster.  
Many were hurt. In total, the Blackfalds project led to four charges including counts 14 and 15.  
[806] 53 Laurel Close (property 11) was originally sold to the Andersons, returned to Mr.  
MacMullin, transferred to Mr. Rauckman and Mr. Cipperley without their knowledge, reversed  
when the bank would not advance mortgage funds, was foreclosed, reacquired by Mr.  
MacMullin, than sold again in a non-arm’s length sale to Mr. Marney. Mr. Marney was involved  
in two deals with Mr. MacMullin: one unknown to him and this one. The facts follow. They are  
hauntingly similar to the facts in count 11and 12.  
3.  
Title Tales  
[807]  
The land tiles record [exhibit 11, scan 6527] reveals the following:  
LTO Reg.  
Date  
Document  
$ value  
38,900  
Observations  
Date  
m/d/y  
m/d/y  
11/27/00 11/7/00  
transfer  
854067 Alberta Ltd. (a MacMullin company)  
11/27/00 11/17/00 mortgage  
225,500 Chinuke (44%)  
Vendors lien caveat  
185,000 to Andersons.  
170,662 Toronto Dominion - CMHC insured  
195,000 Anderson to Cipperley and Rauckman  
179,887 First Marathon (CMHC mortgage)  
2/20/01  
2/20/01  
2/20/01  
2/5/02  
2/5/02  
3/3/02  
caveat  
2/9/01  
transfer  
mortgage  
transfer  
mortgage  
transfer  
back  
2/19/01  
1/28/02  
1/29/02  
1/29/02  
1
Sale Anderson to Cipperley and Rauckman  
reversed (see narrative)  
7/8/02  
7/8/02  
3/5/03  
4/30/03  
1/12/04  
1/12/04  
6/24/02  
6/7/02  
1/28/03  
4/17/03  
12/22/03 transfer  
12/17/03 transfer  
transfer  
mortgage  
185,000 To 971298 Alberta Ltd. (MacMullin)  
28,500 To Equiplan  
foreclosure 102,000 Foreclosure to Toronto Dominion bank  
transfer  
100,000 1042017 Alberta Ltd. [an Equiplan company]  
145,000 To Knezevic  
210,000 To Eric Marney (straw buyer)  
   
Page: 181  
1/12/04  
4.  
12/19/03 mortgage  
205,984 BMO (CMHC mortgage)  
The Facts - Count 14  
[808] Mr. MacMullin acquired five lots through a limited company: 854067 Alberta Ltd. This  
purchase occurred in late 2000. The land titles transfer occurred on November 27, 2000. Mr.  
Elander incorporates the company that purchased the lots. Mr. Elander shortly after then also  
acted in the sale to Shane and Liza Anderson. To develop these five properties, Mr. MacMullin  
borrowed money on a short-term basis at an effective rate of 44%. Repayment was due May  
2001. The purchaser, a new Alberta company, had no credit, and Mr. MacMullin’s personal  
credit rating was poor. Mr. MacMullin by this time had numerous writs and judgments against  
him on other properties.  
[809] On November 17, 2000 Mr. Elander took an affidavit in which he swears both that he  
knows the property and that in his opinion it is worth $38,900.00. Less than 90 days later the  
property is re-sold to Shane and Liza Anderson for $185,000.00. The TD mortgage is a high-  
ratio insured mortgage. It is again very troubling that Mr. Elander asserted under oath that he  
knows the property and it is worth $185,000.00. Mr. Elander is specifically indicating in a sworn  
affidavit that in 90 days his client (MacMullin) had taken a piece of raw land and turned it into  
$185,000.00 piece of property despite the intervention of an Alberta winter and the Christmas  
festive season falling between Mr. MacMullin’s purchase of the property and the Andersons’  
mortgage.  
[810] Shane and Liza Anderson did intend to purchase a property and actually planned to move  
into the home, except that they believed they were purchasing one of the other five properties  
under development by Mr. MacMullin.  
[811] The facts here are interwoven with count 4: the Andersons’ sale of their home to a  
MacMullin straw buyer, Mr. Wintringham. Mr. and Mrs. Anderson had given Mr. MacMullin  
something of value! The home in which they were residing was transferred to Mr. MacMullin  
[Wintringham] on the basis that the equity from it would represent the down payment for their  
new home. Likewise, they did intend to live in the home as soon as it was completed. So with a  
down payment, plus an intention to live in the home, it is not possible for me to conclude that  
those representations made to the financial institution were fraudulent. This transaction is  
significantly different from the true ‘straw buyer’ deal. Here, the Andersons trusted Mr.  
MacMullin and thought they were dealing with a legitimate builder. They trusted Mr. Elander  
and thought they were dealing with a competent lawyer. Regrettably, they were wrong on both  
counts.  
[812] The key issue is that the Toronto Dominion bank financed this purchase as a completed  
home, not a framed skeleton, which I find was the true state of the property. At the time this  
transfer and mortgage went through it is incredibly difficult to swallow, that improvement of  
over $125,000.00 occurred on the property in the 90 days since Mr. Elander took first one  
affidavit and later the second.  
 
Page: 182  
[813] Mr. MacMullin was fully aware of the true circumstances of this transaction. He knew  
that when he assisted the Andersons get a mortgage, helped by David Gorn as the mortgage  
broker, that the property was over-financed because at that point the house was not completed.  
David Gorn’s file is not available.  
[814] In addition, the REPC was written up specifically to disguise the fact that this was a new  
home [TD - deal 11(a), Anderson pdf]. The mortgage application said nothing about a warranty,  
or about the obligation for a builder of new homes to adjust for GST. There was a suggestion in  
the REPC that some work was not completed, but that is a matter only of finishing. That is a  
deception. The property was a long way from the builder just focussing on finishing. It was still  
just a frame.  
[815] The narrative in the application is as follows:  
... they bought a house that was too big for them in the summer, sold it. They  
bought a house they planned on renovating in the fall it was too big a job. They’re  
buying a brand-new home. He has been at his job for five months but has been a  
heavy duty mechanics for many years. This started a housecleaning business  
recently.  
[816] Of course, the real estate transactions Mr. Gorn identifies in the application are straw  
deals involving Mr. MacMullin. At no time did the Andersons ever have a home that was too big  
for them. In fact, their residence sold to Wintringham (see count 4) was too small. The TD file  
also contains a purported sale from Shane and Liza Anderson for $122,000.00 to Mr. Seremet.  
This is simply a REPC created to get rid of their prior ‘straw purchase’ property. The Andersons  
had no equitable interest in that property. It was a straw purchase deal for Mr. MacMullin. The  
Toronto Dominion Bank authorized the mortgage once it was armed with the fictitious REPC of  
property in the name of Andersons to Seremet, and an REPC for the purchase of the Blackfalds  
property.  
[817] On February 17, 2001 Mr. Elander witnessed a statutory declaration in which Shane and  
Liza Anderson swore under oath that:  
The property they are purchasing will be their primary residence, and occupied by  
them. That they are not obtaining secondary financing for the purchase, the down  
payment is from our own resources and not borrowed and there has been no  
material change in their financial status since acceptance of the commitment.  
[818] The property was surveyed on December 7, 2000. This indicates construction of at least  
the roofline. When this deal went through that was the extent of the construction. The home was  
not finished, nor would the items identified in the REPC as finishing upgrades constitute all of  
the work. In fact, when this deal went through, the home was barely framed and none of the  
interior was completed. Mr. Elander did file a vendor’s lien caveat, protecting Mr. MacMullin’s  
company on the transfer to Andersons.  
Page: 183  
In the subsequent foreclosure, due to its incomplete condition, TD accepted $102,000.00 for the  
property. The TD/CMHC loss was 35%. When CMHC investigated after the foreclosure, they  
concluded that the granting of the mortgage represented poor due diligence. CMHC concluded  
that a mortgage for a completed property had been granted on property that was substantially  
unfinished. The independent appraiser in the foreclosure supplied an affidavit under oath about  
the state of the property. The appraiser estimated it was 69% completed only and photos showing  
a significant and substantial amount of work not completed. The basement shows unfinished  
wires and plumbing hanging down, the interior of the garage is exposed to the roof rafters. This  
is significantly after the Andersons bought a completed home.  
[819] This appraisal contains the definition of market value that I have incorporated in the main  
judgment (para, 61), referencing that the market value cannot be set in contemplation of hidden  
benefits flowing between purchaser and seller. In this transaction, the vendor paid the  
purchaser’s legal fees. This was not documented in the REPC. There is also a suggestion in the  
TD file that the property was built so poorly that it was structurally unsound [TD file, p  
245/256]. A deficiency judgment was entered against the Andersons and the MacMullin  
numbered company to which the Andersons transferred the property. An EQUIPLAN mortgage  
that Mr. MacMullin arranged to be registered at the same time was foreclosed. Equiplan bought  
the property hoping to recover something of it. The arm’s length sale was for $100,000.00. The  
deficit judgment affected the Anderson’s credit rating badly. Only Mr. MacMullin seemed to  
benefit from this transaction. He ended up again with title to this property, which set the stage for  
the alleged misconduct in count 15.  
[820] Mr. MacMullin set up and orchestrated this deceit. The Andersons did not understand  
enough about new housing real estate, and believed that they were paying $185,000.00 for a  
finished home; their down payment came from their existing home. Mr. Elander did not protect  
them. His professional service was grossly negligent. The quality of legal service to a member of  
the public is frightening. I am convinced that Mr. Elander knew he was swearing a false affidavit  
on February 16, 2001 when he asserted that the value of this property and its improvement was  
worth $185,000.00. Mr. Elander’s apparent lack of insight into the GST obligations in a purchase  
of new residential property is more consistent with knowledge of fraud. Though he argues  
incompetence, the degree of alleged incompetence by a member of the bar is so great that it loses  
credibility. The knowledge of fraud inference fits so much better!  
[821] Mr. Elander did not challenge or investigate the state of this home. He accepted  
documents that appear to describe a home that was being marketed as new construction, but with  
upgraded features yet to be done. I conclude he knew that was false. He saw the astonishing  
increase in value between the affidavits he had sworn, he was aware that this land was raw land a  
mere 90 days earlier, and the sale without GST provides an overwhelming inference that Mr.  
Elander knew this was a not a bona fide deal.  
Page: 184  
5.  
Conclusion - Count 14  
[822] The Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt all of the elements of this offense. In  
addition to the elements which were admitted by the Defense, the Crown has proven that Mr.  
MacMullin had knowledge of the deceit: passing a home under construction of as complete. Mr.  
MacMullin actively participated in and orchestrated the fraud where Shane and Liza Anderson  
were his innocent dupes. The TD bank suffered a deprivation because they made a loan on  
property in which the purchase price was overinflated based on the state of construction. Mr.  
MacMullin intended this deprivation.  
[823] Mr. MacMullin’s general denials of guilt are not believed. They are inconsistent with the  
weight of the other evidence (see main judgment), nor do they raise a reasonable doubt. Mr.  
MacMullin did discuss this transaction in his evidence, but he dwelt on the collateral issue that  
Liza Anderson felt that she had received the wrong piece of property (the bait and switch). That  
is not the fraud alleged in the indictment. Mr. MacMullin did not respond to the fact that an  
unfinished house was marketed and financed as if it was completed. On evidence which I accept,  
Mr. MacMullin is guilty of this offense.  
[824] It is not possible for a lawyer to be so incompetent as to not know that fraud was taking  
place here. Mr. Elander is guilty of this count. He either knew or was willfully blind to the  
fraudulent aspects of this transaction that he assisted. His denials of knowledge are overwhelmed  
by his direct involvement in critical elements such as the affidavits’ of value.  
6.  
The Intervening Deal on this Property  
[825] There is an important intervening real estate transaction, which occurs with this property.  
The intervention into this property by Chris Rauckman and Mr. Lance Cipperley must have  
given Mr. Elander knowledge that his client, Mr. MacMullin, is a fraudulent con artist. The  
Andersons’ relationship with Mr. MacMullin began to unravel after the Andersons ended up with  
title to their notional new home in Blackfalds:  
1.  
2.  
they now had the mortgage payments to pay on their new house,  
they were renting their old house back from Mr. MacMullin and they could not  
keep up the payments, and  
3.  
Mrs. Anderson discovered that they had received title to property (the land  
representing count 14), but that property was not the home they wanted.  
[826] At this time Mr. MacMullin was developing Mr. Cipperley and Mr. Rauckman into straw  
buyers. Cipperley and Rauckman were friends who became legitimate co-owners of a property  
with a down payment coming from a gift provided by Mr. Cipperley’s father. Although Mr.  
Cipperley and Mr. Rauckman did agree to do one deal they claimed on the witness stand that  
they did not agree to do this transaction. They both assert that the signatures on the transactions  
documents are not theirs nor do they do not look like their signatures. Both these witnesses were  
explicit: they did not participate in this deal.  
   
Page: 185  
[827] Mr. Anderson received a final demand letter, dated January 28, 2002, from the solicitors  
doing the foreclosure. Mr. Anderson confronted Mr. Elander and showed him the letter [Elander  
Exhibit 171, scan 7564, p 154/240].  
[828] In his evidence, Mr. Elander did not touch on the importance of that letter, though Mr.  
Elander wrote on it. I accept the evidence of Mr. Elander’s employee who identified the  
handwriting as that of Mr. Elander’s. That notation, in Mr. Elander’s handwriting, reads:  
Sale of ppty w/new mtge  
Cipperley/Rauckman  
[829] It is useful to consider the significance of this event and information. Mr. Elander is now  
aware that there is difficulty with the principal residence first mortgage between the TD Bank  
and the Andersons. He is aware the property is not completed, and foreclosure is eminent. He has  
had increasingly strident communication with Mr. Anderson who has made some serious  
allegations that Mr. Elander cannot answer or deny, such as how his legal interest was protected  
on the purchase in Blackfalds (putting aside the issue of the alleged property swap).  
[830] When Mr. Elander gets the foreclosure notice, he is sufficiently in-the-know that he is  
aware of a sale of that property with a new mortgage to other straw buyers. However, the  
notional legal owner did not know! Mr. Anderson would certainly have been aware about that if  
he was the legitimate owner of the property. The only logical inference is that Mr. Elander knew  
that Mr. MacMullin was quarterbacking this property and its ownership, and that the plan was  
there was going to be another straw deal paying out the TD Bank.  
[831] Mr. Rauckman and Mr. Cipperley were placed on the title with a First Marathon  
Mortgage and a purchase price of $195,000.00. Mr. Elander acted for all sides. Mr. MacMullin,  
however, could not get the property value inflated enough to pay out the TD Bank without a real  
down payment. Mr. Elander on the witness stand indicated that he had to reverse the  
Anderson/Cipperley/Rauckman deal because the vendor could not clear the Toronto Dominion  
mortgage and other encumbrances. On its face, the deal would generate more than TD needed,  
but instead the First Marathon mortgage fell short because there was no true down payment. A  
builder’s lien filed may also indicate the property was still not yet complete!  
[832] This evidence is telling. Mr. Elander was fully informed that his client, Mr. MacMullin,  
is utilizing innocent victims to generate financing to bail out Mr. MacMullin’s earlier victim. The  
knowledge comes crashing in like a tsunami. Mr. Elander has rolled up his sleeves and is  
‘plugging the dikes’. Mr. Elander betrays his allegiance he is plugging gaps and shortfalls for  
his one true client: Mr. MacMullin.  
[833] A true client needs a true bill - but Mr. Elander billed neither the Andersons, Mr.  
Cipperley or Mr. Rauckman for this aborted attempt at another straw deal. Instead, he billed Mr.  
MacMullin [Elander Legal File, exhibit 171, scan 7564, p 27/240]. Mr. Elander’s direct  
knowledge of the illegal character of this transaction is absolute, overwhelming, and certain.  
[834] This sets the stage for count 15.  
Page: 186  
7.  
The Facts - Count 15  
[835] Things did not go well for the Andersons or the TD Bank after the abortive transaction to  
Mr. Cipperley and Mr. Rauckman. The Andersons desperately wanted out of the property so they  
transfer the property to a numbered MacMullin company. Mr. MacMullin then placed a second  
mortgage on the property with EQUIPLAN. The foreclosure continued with the MacMullin  
Company joining the Andersons as a defendant. Mr. MacMullin never complied with the TD  
workout deal, so TD got title back. The appraisal concluded the incomplete house was worth  
$102,000.00. Even that proved unworkable. TD ultimately sold the property to EQUIPLAN  
(numbered company) for $100,000.00. This value makes sense because the property was still  
incomplete and simply a shell, and worse, a shell with structural problems. Nevertheless,  
EQUIPLAN had a mortgage loss to recover, if possible.  
[836] The title was quiet until January 12, 2004 at which point two transfers were registered  
concurrently. The first is a transfer from the EQUIPLAN company to Mr. Knezevic (Mr.  
Seremet’s stepbrother), an individual who had absolutely no money, no credit, and no ability to  
purchase this property. Despite that, the purchase price was set at $145,000.00. On the same day,  
another transfer reflected a sale from Mr. Knezevic to Mr. Eric Marney for $210,000.00. A new  
BMO (CMHC) mortgage was registered for most of the $210,000.00. Thus, the property which  
EQUIPLAN had acquired on April 2003 for $100,000.00 in an arm’s-length deal was resold to a  
straw buyer Eric Marney on January 12, 2004 at a notional price of $210,000.00 twice the  
earlier fair market and appraised value.  
[837] When Mr. Marney acquired this property, it was still not completed. What, if anything,  
was done between Mr. MacMullin getting the property back in April 2003 and reselling it 2004  
is only speculative. Mr. MacMullin masterminded and directed the rapid transfer of the title from  
EQUIPLAN to Mr. Knezevic, rather than directly to Mr. Marney, to throw off the scent of the  
price escalation in the land titles records and supervised the immediate flip of this property to  
Mr. Marnie for $210,000.00. I accept that this price is artificial. This was a non-arm’s-length  
deal. Mr. Marney, like most of the other straw buyers, was in it for a fee. Mr. Marney had no  
intention of living in the property. Interestingly, Mr. Marney did ultimately protect his credit. He  
stayed the course and continued to own this property. It was later finished and sold after 2005 for  
a fair profit.  
[838] By this time, Mr. MacMullin had stopped dealing with Mr. Elander and had now found  
Brett Barclay from the Chinook Legal Center. Mr. Barclay is based in southern Alberta. Mr.  
Barclay was prepared to send documentation to Mr. MacMullin and Mr. Seremet and allowed  
them (both Commissioners for Oath by this time) to handle document execution. All the  
documents registered as part of this transaction are witnessed by Mr. Seremet, Mr. MacMullin  
and Mr. Knezevic. It is difficult to ascertain whether those signatures are forged or whether they  
really did sign the documents. Mr. Seremet believed that his brother probably did not sign the  
documents and that he and Mr. MacMullin just filled the various roles that were required.  
[839] David Humeniuk was the mortgage broker on this file. His file contains the REPC. Mr.  
Marney had a condominium in Edmonton in his name but he asserts this was unknown to him.  
 
Page: 187  
Either way it was either a straw deal or a straw deal overlaid on identity fraud. This Edmonton  
count is reviewed later but a false REPC was necessary to get Mr. Marney out of that property so  
that he could qualify for a new first mortgage. A notional but untruthful unconditional REPC for  
that property was written up for $205,000.00. The buyer was Marko Knezevic. The REPC  
between Marko Knezevic and Eric Marney indicates a total deposit and balance of $10,500.00  
with the deposits delivered to Barbara Hong at Economy Real Estate. [Humeniuk file, scan 7119,  
p 23/ 123].  
[840] Mr. Humeniuk also has a copy of the application presented to BMO on behalf of this  
client on file. He again indicated that the home was built in 2000 and does not acknowledge it is  
in any way not completed. Mr. Marney is said to have signed the commitment acceptance on  
October 27, 2003 but the witness Dave Humeniuk did not see him sign. Suspiciously, Mr.  
Marney’s first name was misspelt. Mr. Humeniuk’s file contains a fax from Mr. MacMullin  
indicating the following:  
Dave here’s Marney’s deal. You have all his info on file if you need me to resend it or  
update anything please call me ASAP. He has sold his condo to an associate as he  
discovered the house in Blackfalds came down in price and he really likes it. He still  
works all over Alberta and thought he wanted the big city but now realizes the country  
life is for him.  
This is a direct indication that Mr. MacMullin is feeding Dave Humeniuk false information that  
can then be included in the narrative of the mortgage process. Of course, Marney’s condominium  
is a straw deal, his first with Mr. MacMullin, and an identity theft straw deal (see count 36; note  
count 36 predates this count despite higher numbering)!  
[841] The Barclay legal file (scan 6725, p 20/ 116) contains a direction to pay dated January 14,  
2004 and signed by Marko Knezevic. It confirms that he will pay the purchaser’s closing costs;  
including legal fees, GST, disbursements, and title insurance, and also that he has received all of  
the deposits from the purchaser directly and he will be responsible for directly collecting any  
shortfall or interest on the cash to close from the purchaser.  
[842] This is a significant indicator that there was no cash involved in this transaction beyond  
the mortgage. This is another example of an undisclosed benefit to the purchaser that is coming  
directly from the vendor. The acceptable appraisal definition of market value assumes that there  
are no hidden benefits which common sense indicates artificially reduce the purchase price and  
its market value. That that is exactly what occurred in this instance! BMO money was distributed  
and nothing else [Barclay, scan 6725, p 26 /116].  
[843] The Barclay file contains another memo from Marko Knezevic which confirms that the  
remainder of the deposit of $5,500.00 has been paid in cash. The memo requests the lawyer  
release Mr. Marney from the obligation to deposit that money into the lawyer’s trust account [p  
37/116]. Mr. Marnie took a statutory declaration that confirmed that the property would be a  
principal residence. It was not. Mr. Marney never lived in it - the property was uninhabitable,  
and Mr. Marney never intended live in it. Mr. Marney only intention was to obtain a $5,000.00  
fee, which he did indeed receive.  
Page: 188  
[844] BMO advanced their loan based on deceitful information. The offer between Knezevic  
and Marney was not at arm’s-length. The indicated deposit was never made. BMO was not  
aware that it was the vendor and not the purchaser who was paying the purchaser’s legal fees.  
The history and background story about Mr. Marney selling his existing property to get the down  
payment were entirely false. Mr. Marney never intended to live in this property. His statutory  
declarations were sworn falsehoods.  
[845] Mr. MacMullin directly participated in this fraud. He lined up the straw buyer, prepared  
the documentation, set up the deal, attended with Mr. Seremet to sign the documents. It seems  
possible Mr. Marney’s signature may have been forged by either Mr. MacMullin or Mr. Seremet.  
The list of deceits here is overwhelming. Mr. MacMullin was behind them all. This was his  
project all the way.  
[846] The title tale ends with Mr. Marney acquiring title. He held on to protect his credit rating,  
completed the house, and in the market upswing between 2005 and 2008 made some money.  
BMO did not lose a penny, but they were still imperiled and put at risk by Mr. MacMullin’s  
fraud.  
8.  
Conclusion - Count 15  
[847] The Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt all of the elements of this offense. In  
addition to the elements which were admitted by the Defense, the Crown has proven that Mr.  
MacMullin had knowledge of the deceit: passing a home under construction of as complete yet a  
second time; plus set up a ‘straw deal’ with no down payment and no intention to reside in the  
home. Mr. MacMullin actively participated in and orchestrated the fraud involving Mr. Marney.  
The BMO suffered a deprivation because they made a loan on a property where the purchase  
price was over-inflated, based on the state of construction. Mr. MacMullin intended this  
deprivation.  
[848] Mr. MacMullin’s general denials of guilt are not believed, nor do they raise a reasonable  
doubt. Mr. MacMullin did not specifically discuss this transaction in his evidence. This  
overwhelming volume of evidence establishes Mr. MacMullin is guilty of this offense beyond a  
reasonable doubt.  
M.  
Count 16 - Property 12  
1.  
The Alleged Misconduct  
Allan Dawson MacMullin and Roy Elander stand charged that they:  
16.  
Between the 1st day of January, 2000 and the 31st day of July, 2005, at or near the city of  
Edmonton, in the province of Alberta, did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, defraud  
Bridgewater Financial Services Ltd. of money, of a value exceeding $5,000.00, by providing false  
information to Bridgewater Financial Services Ltd. in support of a mortgage application in the  
     
Page: 189  
name of Russellell Campbell and Scott Young for 17903-80 Avenue, Edmonton, Alberta (also  
known as Plan 1160 TR; Block 1; Lot 20), contrary to section 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.  
2.  
Title Tales  
[849]  
LTO Reg.  
The land tiles record [exhibit 12, scan 6616] reveals the following:  
Date  
Document  
title  
$ value  
Observations  
Date m/d/y m/d/y  
2/23/90  
5/14/01  
5/14/01  
5/14/01  
3/3/02  
132,000 Mrs. Hendry acquires her home  
190,000 Hendry transfer to Young/Campbell  
187,260 Bridgewater - CMHC insured  
Vendors lien caveat  
5/10/01 transfer  
5/10/01 mortgage  
caveat  
5/10/01 transfer  
back  
1
Young/Campbell back to Hendry  
3/22/02  
5/17/02  
3/20/04  
3/1/02  
5/3/02  
3/12/04 mortgage  
foreclosure 185,000 To Bridgewater  
order 185,000 Sets aside foreclosure (restoration order)  
194,851 Toronto Dominion new mortgage to Hendry  
3.  
The Facts  
[850] Mr. MacMullin does not appear on any title nevertheless he set up this entire deal  
whereby his acquaintance, Mrs. Hendry, would sell her property to the straw buyers Mr. Young  
and Mr. Campbell. The supporting cast were Mr. Gorn as the mortgage broker and Mr. Elander  
as the lawyer. Mrs. Hendry had acquired her property in early 1990 at a price of $132,000.00. Its  
sale to Mr. Young and Mr. Campbell was for $190,000.00. That sum was not unusual; in fact  
when the property was foreclosed a short time after the purchase the property was appraised to  
have a fair market value of $185,000.00.  
[851] The Bridgewater commitment letter [Bridgewater deal 12, Young and Campbell.pdf, p  
11/304] contains a standard term and condition as follows:  
This mortgage commitment is based upon the application submitted as being  
accurate and true, and receipt of supporting documentation satisfactory to  
Bridgewater and CMHC.  
[852] The commitment letter contemplated down payment equity of $9,500.00. Mr. Young and  
Mr. Campbell never paid this. Bridgewater also required evidence of the sale of the  
Campbell/Reger property they had previously purchased as straw buyers for Mr. MacMullin.  
This REPC was filed with Bridgewater and showed an unconditional sale at $145,000.00.  
[853] Neither Mr. Young nor Mr. Campbell ever intended to live in the property; there is a  
strong inference that Mrs. Hendry, continued to live in the property. That was certainly, what Mr.  
Campbell understood. Mr. MacMullin brought Mr. Elander to Mrs. Hendry’s house to introduce  
   
Page: 190  
him. She then signed the documents which transferred the property to Mr. Campbell and Mr.  
Young.  
[854] The next day, she phoned Mr. Elander’s conveyancing assistant and made clear that she  
had not received the deposit reflected in the REPC, and that she was concerned that the new  
buyers would not pay the mortgage payments. Mr. Elander’s conveyancing assistant gave Mr.  
Elander a written memo on this subject [Elander e-exhibit 171, property 12, scan 7569, p 21/  
249]. That concern would only be rational if the sale was not at arm’s-length. I am satisfied that  
Mr. Elander knew that this was not an arm’s-length sale after Mr. Elander’s staff briefed him  
about Ms. Hendry’s concerns. It is clear he received and reviewed that memo because he phoned  
Mrs. Hendry.  
[855] There is a second more ominous memo from the assistant to Mr. Elander. It informs Mr.  
Elander of the irregularities in the transaction and about a commitment made by Mr. MacMullin  
to guarantee mortgage payments. Mr. MacMullin attended at Mr. Elander’s office prior to the  
advance of the Bridgewater mortgage and Mr. Elander witnessed a MacMullin-drafted  
agreement in which Mr. MacMullin was in effect guaranteeing the first six months of mortgage  
payments in favor of Mrs. Hendry. This is consistent with the scheme of flipping the properties  
back after about six months had gone by.  
[856] This is as close to a ‘smoking gun’ as one is able to get in a commercial fraud case. You  
have an ostensibly arm’s-length transaction between Mrs. Hendry and Mr. Campbell and Mr.  
Young, but the lawyer is getting strident messages from his staff that the vendor is alleging that a  
third party, Mr. MacMullin, is involved in the deal and persuaded the seller to acknowledge  
receipt of the down payment which she claims not to have received.  
[857] Then the client that has notionally nothing to do with the transaction (Mr. MacMullin) is  
asking Mr. Elander to witness a document where (as a presumptively disinterested third party);  
he is guaranteeing someone else’s mortgage payment. These revelations all occurred prior to the  
Bridgewater mortgage advance. Mr. Elander’s response cannot simply be dismissed as  
professional negligence, unbelievable incompetence, or any versions of those adjectives that I  
have used throughout this lengthy judgment to describe Mr. Elander’s professionalism. He was  
witnessing a fraud, knew it, and then intervened to assist the kingpin of that scheme.  
[858] I am satisfied Mr. Elander had knowledge that Mr. MacMullin had masterminded a fraud  
on Bridgewater in the assembled dealings between Mrs. Hendry and Mr. Campbell and Mr.  
Young. On the Elander file there are several post-mortgage communications between the  
solicitor for Bridgewater arising out of defaults. This property is in the name of Mr. Campbell  
and Mr. Young, but Mr. Elander is taking money to satisfy the Bridgewater legal demands from  
an account identified as the Schielke/LAM file. I infer that this is LAM Developments (a  
MacMullin company) and that in fact Mr. Elander knows that notwithstanding the title situation,  
the property interest here is really with his client: Mr. McMullan. Mr. Elander knew that before  
the deal closed and he continued to know it by taking payments from other MacMullin accounts  
Page: 191  
to satisfy his negotiations while staving off the foreclosure. Mr. Elander did all this but did not  
inform his other client, Bridgewater.  
[859] Mr. Elander asserted under oath that it was his practice to file vendor’s caveats to protect  
vendors. While Mr. Elander did file vendor’s lien caveats on some transactions, that was not his  
universal practice. He did so in this case because of Mrs. Hendry’s call, as she demanded it in  
her call to Mr. Elander’s assistant. This information appears in the memos.  
[860] Mr. MacMullin did not come through with his commitment to reimburse the straw buyers  
Mr. Campbell and Mr. Young for the mortgage payments. The property went into foreclosure  
then, in what has to be either gross negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, or additional criminal  
conduct Mr. Elander used the May 10, 2001 ‘transfer back’ to re-convey the property to Mrs.  
Hendry. That ‘transfer back’ should have been destroyed, marked against future use, or returned  
to Mr. Young and Mr. Campbell after the mortgage had funded.  
[861] The purpose of a ‘transfer back’ is reviewed in the main judgment (see paras 104 to 107).  
A transfer back is never intended for the solicitor to transfer back property in a new deal. It is an  
emergency document that allows re-conveyance of property where a mortgage company refuses  
to advance their loan. This is a security mechanism for the vendor. That is the only legitimate use  
for the transfer back and at that time used to re-convey the property. Here the transfer back  
prepared and executed at the time of the sale was utilized nearly eight months later to transfer the  
property back to Mrs. Hendry, without instruction, and after the property had gone into  
foreclosure.  
[862] Bridgewater obtained its foreclosure order on March 1, 2002. The ‘transfer back’ was  
used in the middle of the foreclosure, on March 13, 2002. The foreclosure order was later  
registered at the land titles office on March 22, 2002. Mr. Elander acted on the foreclosure and  
knew that he had negotiated a short period of grace during which the mortgage could be  
redeemed. When he failed to deliver the funds during that grace period foreclosure was  
inevitable. Despite the re-transfer back to Mrs. Hendry the property was ultimately still  
transferred to Bridgewater.  
[863] Mr. Elander later was able to negotiate the restoration order identified in the title tales.  
[864] The transaction between Mrs. Hendry and Mr. Young and Mr. Campbell was not at  
arm’s-length. Neither Mr. Young nor Mr. Campbell paid the deposit indicated in the REPC. Mr.  
Young and Mr. Campbell never intend to live in the home. The affidavits that were signed by  
them before Mr. Elander in which they asserted that it would be their principal residence and  
they would occupy the home were false. Mr. MacMullin set this up. I am satisfied that Mr.  
Elander knew before he reported to Bridgewater and called for the funds that this transaction was  
a fraud. There is no other rational explanation for the participation by him in the mortgage  
payment agreement. Even if Mr. Elander did not know the true state of affairs when he attended  
on Mr. Campbell, Mr. Young and Mrs. Hendry, he unquestionably knew the true state of affairs  
when he reported to Bridgewater.  
Page: 192  
[865] Mr. Elander’s knowledge here goes beyond willful blindness; it is direct and real  
knowledge. Mr. Elander participated in this fraud and assisted his true client, Mr. MacMullin, to  
defraud Bridgewater Financial Services Ltd. His attempt to maintain plausible deniability on this  
file failed when he witnessed the unique special agreement between Mr. MacMullin and Ms.  
Hendry. He received a loud clear and ample warning message from his assistant who had sent  
him a memo indicating Mrs. Hendry’s concerns. His evidence given under oath that he simply  
did not understand the significance of the payment guarantee agreement is ludicrous. It is  
nothing more than a blatant lie.  
[866] I conclude that Mr. Elander had knowledge of this fraud and with this knowledge  
nevertheless acted in a way that was detrimental to his client Bridgewater by continuing to  
pretend that this was a legitimate deal.  
5.  
Conclusion  
[867] The Crown has proven beyond all reasonable doubt all of the elements of this offense. In  
addition to the elements admitted by the Defense, the Crown has proven that Mr. MacMullin  
knew about, participated in, and orchestrated the deceit, which used Mr. Campbell and Mr.  
Young as straw buyers. The financial institution suffered a deprivation because it made a loan on  
property in which the purchaser never intended to be a resident in the home and where the  
documented down payment simply did not exist. Mr. MacMullin intended this deprivation.  
[868] Mr. MacMullin’s general denials of guilt are not believed, nor do they raise a reasonable  
doubt. The Campbell and Young evidence is believable. This transaction was an artificial one as  
they had no intention to live in the property nor did they make a down payment into it. The  
evidence that I accept proves Mr. MacMullin is guilty of this offense.  
[869] Mr. Elander acted in the transaction with direct knowledge of the deceit involved. His  
actions contributed to the success of the fraud: he aided and abetted the fraud. His denials of  
knowledge do not stand up to the obvious and glaring documentation in his own file. He is guilty  
of this count.  
N.  
Count 17 - Property 13  
1.  
The Alleged Misconduct  
Allan Dawson MacMullin and Roy Elander stand charged that they  
17.  
Between the 1st day of January, 2000 and the 31st day of July, 2005, at or near the city of  
Edmonton, in the province of Alberta, did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, defraud  
Toronto Dominion Bank of money, of a value exceeding $5,000.00, by providing false  
information to Toronto Dominion Bank in support of a mortgage application in the name of  
Gerald Reger for #1707, 13910 Stony Plain Road, Edmonton, Alberta (also known as  
Condominium Plan 8722879; Unit 280), contrary to section 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.  
     
Page: 193  
2.  
Title Tales  
[870]  
LTO Reg.  
Date m/d/y m/d/y  
The land tiles record [exhibit 13, scan 6622] reveals the following:  
Date  
Document  
$ value Observations  
7/11/00  
5/28/01  
5/28/01  
5/28/01  
5/12/03  
6/27/00 transfer  
N/A caveat  
5/24/01 transfer  
5/10/01 mortgage  
51,000 CMHC to Don Horboway  
Vendor’s lien caveat  
85,000 Horboway to Reger  
78,413 TD CHMC insured  
75,410 Reger to Horboway  
N/A  
transfer  
3.  
The Facts  
[871] On May 28, 2001, Mr. Horboway transfers his home to Gerald Reger for $85,000.00. The  
purchase was partially paid by a $79,000.00 first mortgage in favor of the Toronto Dominion  
Bank. Mr. Elander acted for all parties. On May 12, 2003, the property was transferred back to  
Donald Horboway. The copy of that last transfer is not on the exhibit, but the title reflects the  
title change.  
[872] The transaction was a straw deal a sham to allow Horboway to extract extra funds from  
the property. Mr. Reger never intended to move into the residence. He never provided a down  
payment. The extra funds were to fuel an investment with Mr. MacMullin on the Liberty  
Building in Edmonton. Mr. Horboway gave evidence that Mr. MacMullin came up with this  
plan. I accept the evidence of Mr. Horboway. It is constant with the documentary trail and Mr.  
Reger and Mr. Campbell’s evidence. Mr. MacMullin did not discuss this transaction in his  
evidence.  
[873] Mr. Elander’s file is not available for review.  
[874] The TD file reveals that Mr. Reger applied for a CMHC insured mortgage based on the  
CMHC principal residence program (95% financing). He used the services of mortgage broker  
David Gorn. Mr. Reger already owned a property jointly with Mr. Campbell. The Toronto  
Dominion Bank file reveals a REPC of that property with the probable signing witnesses as  
either Joe Seremet or Al MacMullin, or forgeries of their signatures. The TD mortgage  
application stated that the down payment is coming from a gift letter from a family member.  
[875] Mr. Reger gave evidence. He indicated that the Horboway deal was not one that he  
initiated but that Mr. MacMullin asked he facilitate the deal for a fee. Mr. Reger did not advance  
the down payment. The mortgage proceeds were to go to a MacMullin investment. Mr. Reger is  
clear that he never got any gift to purchase the property and that it was not an arm’s-length  
purchase but rather a straw buyer transaction. There is an oddity on the TD file in that the REPC  
reflecting the sale from Horboway to Reger has no monetary details whatsoever. However, the  
   
Page: 194  
standard mortgage application has space for all of those details so it is probable TD assumed the  
accuracy of the broker’s assertions.  
[876] Mr. Horboway gave evidence that he did not intend to move out of his property and that  
the purpose of the transaction was to generate money through a type of equity takeout. The  
equity would be invested with Mr. MacMullin. Mr. Horboway’s evidence is consistent with the  
re-transfer of the property back to him in 2003. It is also of a consistent pattern to the  
Chin/Ouellette deal [count 34, property 27].  
[877] However, absent Mr. Elander’s file there is nothing about the available material that  
unequivocally raises any concern about his handling of the file. The report letters to the TD bank  
found on their file add little. Mr. Elander specifically denied knowledge of any fraud on this  
transaction. Despite any suspicion I may have about his evidence, on the facts of this transaction  
alone the Crown has not proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, nor knowledge or willful  
blindness of fraud. Mr. Elander therefore must get that benefit.  
[878] There are more indicators on the file that Mr. MacMullin or Mr. Seremet were involved.  
Mr. Reger’s evidence must be cautiously weighed. His evidence was given under very  
distressing circumstances as he was clearly in medical extremis and conceded that his memory  
was not good, and rendered worse because of therapeutic prescription drugs and the passage of  
time.  
[879] However, Mr. Campbell corroborates Mr. Reger’s explanation. He also acknowledged  
that this was a straw buyer deal. In addition, REPCs taking Campbell/Reger out of their straw  
purchase in the Chickakoo Estates, and a fictional deal on Mr. Campbell’s real residence, all  
support Mr. MacMullin’s involvement. Mr. Horboway supported Mr. Reger’s evidence by  
indicating that he never intended to, nor did he, move out of the property. It is clear that the TD  
Bank was defrauded. I accept the evidence of Mr. Horboway that implicates Mr. MacMullin. Mr.  
MacMullin benefited from the fraud as it freed up investment money for his Liberty Building  
project. Mr. MacMullin masterminded the transaction and created where necessary the  
documentation to pull it off.  
4.  
Conclusion  
[880] The Crown has proven beyond all reasonable doubt all of the elements of this offense. In  
addition to the elements admitted by the Defense, the Crown has proven that Mr. MacMullin had  
knowledge of, actively participated in, and orchestrated the deceit. Mr. Reger was the straw  
buyer. The financial institution suffered a deprivation because it made a loan on property in  
which the purchaser never intended to be a resident in the home, and where the down payment  
documentation was deceitful. Mr. MacMullin intended this deprivation.  
[881] Mr. MacMullin’s general denials of guilt are not believed, nor do they raise a reasonable  
doubt. The Reger and Horboway evidence is believable, and supported by the ‘title tales’. This  
transaction was an artificial one. Mr. Reger had no intention and did not live in the property, nor  
 
Page: 195  
did he make a down payment into it. On evidence, which I accept, Mr. MacMullin is guilty of  
this offense.  
[882] I conclude the Crown has not proven the guilt of Mr. Elander beyond a reasonable doubt.  
The missing Elander file makes it difficult to observe file irregularities that may indicate  
knowledge. While I am suspicious that Mr. Elander knew what was going on, my suspicion has  
not coalesced into a finding of guilt.  
O.  
Count 18 and 19 - Property 14(a) and 14(b)  
1.  
The Alleged Misconduct  
Allan Dawson MacMullin and Roy Elander stand charged that they  
18.  
Between the 1st day of January, 2000 and the 31st day of July, 2005, at or near the town  
of Lacombe, in the province of Alberta, did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means,  
defraud MCAP Service Corporation of money, of a value exceeding $5,000.00, by providing  
false information to MCAP Service Corporation in support of a mortgage application in the name  
of Mark and Karla McClain for 5624-50 Street (also known as 5624-50 Avenue), Lacombe,  
Alberta (also known as Plan RN1C(IC); Block 11; Lot 8), contrary to section 380(1)(a) of the  
Criminal Code.  
Allan Dawson MacMullin and Roy Elander stand charged that they  
19.  
Between the 1st day of January, 2000 and the 31st day of July, 2005, at or near the city of  
Edmonton, in the province of Alberta, did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, defraud  
Bank of Montreal of money, of a value exceeding $5,000.00, by providing false information to  
Bank of Montreal in support of a mortgage application in the name of Lance Cipperley and Chris  
Rauckman for 5624-50 Street (also known as 5624-50 Avenue), Lacombe, Alberta (also known  
as Plan RN1C(IC); Block 11; Lot 8), contrary to section 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.  
2.  
Introduction  
[883] It is useful to consider counts 18 and 19 together.  
[884] The property involved is located in Lacombe, Alberta. It was the principal residence of  
Heather Draus, Mr. Elander’s spouse. The property was twice purchased by ‘straw buyers’; twice  
transferred (indirectly) to Mr. MacMullin, and also foreclosed twice. Mr. Elander acted on all of  
these transactions! He also acted for all of the parties! Astonishingly, all of this occurred in the  
space of just over two years!  
3.  
Title Tales  
[885] The land titles records [exhibit 14, scan 6522] reveals:  
LTO Reg.  
Date  
Document  
$ value  
Observations  
       
Page: 196  
Date  
m/d/y  
m/d/y  
5/5/99  
3/15/99 order  
107,900 Heather Draus acquires title  
160,000 Draus sale to McClain  
157,700 MCAP mortgage  
159,000 McClain to Lam Developments (MacMullin  
corporation)  
7/19/01  
7/19/01  
9/15/01  
7/17/01 transfer  
7/17/01 mortgage  
9/12/01 transfer  
3/5/02  
3/5/02  
5/3/02  
9/13/02  
2/1/02  
foreclosure 118,500 Lam Developments loses property  
4/10/02 transfer  
4/29/02 mortgage  
9/10/02 transfer  
166,000 MCAP to Cipperley and Rauckman  
172,484 BMO Mortgage  
185,000 Cipperley & Rauckman to 971298 Alberta Ltd.  
(MacMullin corporation)  
7/22/03  
10/16/03 9/22/03 transfer  
5/22/03 foreclosure 125,000 MacMullin loses property  
125,000 BMO to 3rd party arm’s length sale  
4.  
The Facts  
[886] I heard under-oath evidence relevant to these transactions from Mark and Karla McClain,  
Lance Cipperley, Chris Rauckman, Mr. Seremet, and Mr. Elander. I also heard from the renter  
who occupied the property after title went into the name of Mark and Karla McClain. Mr.  
MacMullin did not give direct evidence about these two counts. Mr. Elander’s evidence  
indicated that this was an arm’s-length deal in which he paid Mr. MacMullin $10,000.00 to find  
a buyer, despite the property being listed with a licensed realtor.  
[887] The land titles records reveal that two months after Heather Draus sold her home to the  
McClains, it was transferred to Mr. MacMullin, and ultimately foreclosed.  
[888] Despite the fact of that Mr. MacMullin lost the property in foreclosure, he acquired it  
back in some fashion for $166,000.00 even though MCAP had foreclosed it at a market value of  
$118,500.00. On the same day the foreclosure order was registered a transfer of the property took  
place from MCAP to Mr. Cipperley and Mr. Rauckman. That transfer itself indicates that the  
price was $166,000.00 however, the affidavit of value sworn by Mr. Cipperley before Mr.  
Elander on behalf of the purchasers alters that value upward to $185,000.00.  
[889] A BMO mortgage was registered for $172,482.00. The inference which I take from this is  
that MCAP agreed to transfer the property back to Mr. MacMullin following foreclosure if he  
paid the full MCAP principal amount, which started with a principal of $157,700.00 and perhaps  
some fees and interest. Alternatively, in light of a lower value appraisal, MCAP got permission  
from their mortgage insurer to take the deal and lessen their loss. They provided Mr. MacMullin,  
an intervening transfer (see paras 108-109 main judgment), allowing a party who acquires the  
property to resell it and use the same document thereby removing one land titles registration and  
its related fees. The document was not completed correctly, as there is no modification of it to  
indicate the role of the intervening purchaser.  
 
Page: 197  
[890] Mr. MacMullin could never qualify for a mortgage so he used the straw buyers: Mr.  
Cipperley and Mr. Rauckman. BMO based their loan on a $185,000.00 REPC from Mr.  
MacMullin to Mr. Cipperley and Mr. Rauckman.  
[891] Three documents were registered at the same time:  
1.  
2.  
3.  
the court order by which MCAP acquired title through foreclosure;  
the transfer from MCAP to Mr. Cipperley and Rauckman;  
the new mortgage.  
That could only have happened if Mr. Elander had collected all of those documents and  
submitted them to the land titles office at the same time.  
[892] Mr. MacMullin repurchased the property that he had just lost in a foreclosure for  
$166,000.00, increased the price to $185,000.00, and sold it to Mr. Cipperley and Mr. Rauckman  
on the same day. Mr. Elander facilitated this documentation. It is ominous that at that moment in  
time Mr. Elander was prepared to swear an affidavit that his ex-wife’s property, which she had  
sold in July 2001 for $160,000.00, was now in September 2002 worth, $185,000.00. I stress that  
Mr. Elander knew that Mr. MacMullin had just lost this very property in a foreclosure based on a  
much lower appraised market values of $118,000.00. However, he had concurrently had  
purchased it from MCAP for $166,000.00.  
[893] Less than five months after Mr. Cipperley and Mr. Rauckman acquired the property they  
transferred it to another numbered company owned by Mr. MacMullin. Seven months after that,  
Mr. MacMullin lost it for a second time in a foreclosure. There was no coming back from the  
‘foreclosure grave’ a second time! The affidavit of transferee completed by BMO on the  
registration of their foreclosure order set a price based on market value of $125,000.00. In  
Alberta, it is required that an appraisal be conducted for CHMC foreclosures in which deficit  
judgments occur. I conclude the appraised value is the market value of that property. Two  
months later BMO sold the property at arm’s-length for the same amount: $125,000.00. In the  
intervening period Mr. MacMullin (assisted by the legal services of Mr. Elander) was able to  
overstate the value of Heather Draus’ property up to $185,000.00 before it plummeted back to  
reality at $125,000.  
[894] Ms. Draus did intend to sell her property and give up title. The McClains were the legal  
purchasers but not the equitable purchaser. Mr. MacMullin purchased the property; the  
McClain’s were straw buyers. I accept the McClains’ evidence that they never intended to live in  
the property, nor did they do that. Mr. Elander was motivated to ignore this because his spouse  
was getting an attractive price for a home on an expedited basis. He was aware of the  
downstream tenancy. He also paid Mr. MacMullin a $10,000.00 finder’s fee out of the  
$160,000.00 sale price. By contrast, his wife had listed the property with a competent realtor less  
than two weeks before and the commission was only $1,000.00.That is less than 1 % of the sale  
price, an atypical and artificially low listing price for the time unless the realtor is not required to  
do any work!  
Page: 198  
[895] Mr. Elander indicated under oath that he accepted the proposal from Mr. MacMullin to  
find his wife a buyer because the realtor had not brought anyone through the house. However,  
the property had only been listed for two weeks! An equally compelling inference is that a listing  
agent was used to support an artificially high price of $160,000.00. Earlier I spoke of smoking  
guns in the context of commercial crime; - found on Mr. Elander’s file is a statement of sale and  
adjustments by which the home was sold for $140,000.00!  
[896] A very strong inference can be drawn from the evidence that Ms. Draus’ property was  
not worth $160,000.00. The real purchaser was Mr. MacMullin, using straw buyers. Mr. Elander  
manipulated the market value by giving the true buyer, Mr. MacMullin, a $10,000.00 kickback!  
That sale was at arm’s-length (between Draus and MacMullin) but not at market value. The  
straw buyer intervention was not at arm’s length. Something that Mr. Seremet said in his  
evidence makes a lot of sense. When Mr. Elander stopped working for Mr. MacMullin, Mr.  
MacMullin lost his temper and went on a rant about how they were not going to develop the  
Lacombe property together with Mr. Elander. Mr. Seremet understood that development  
proposal in question was the Draus property. I accept that evidence! Mr. Elander indicated that  
the McClains later sold to Mr. MacMullin because they had both got jobs in Medicine Hat. That  
is true, but they were not selling Mr. MacMullin this house for that reason. I conclude the  
McClains were simply transferring it because they never considered themselves the equitable  
owner. That was Mr. MacMullin.  
[897] On count 18, the fraud is the McClains’ MCAP mortgage. I conclude that Mr. MacMullin  
thought the size of the lot made it a good property for future development, probably using Mr.  
Elander in some fashion. He saw an opportunity to ingratiate himself further with Mr. Elander  
and earn a finder’s fee, simply by locating gullible straw buyers. He found the McClains. He put  
together a deal where the vendor wanted to sell but Mr. MacMullin, not the McClains, was the  
purchaser. The McClains had no part of the negotiation of this deal, setting the price, the  
payment of a down payment or the legal fees.  
[898] Ms. McClain was very curious about this transaction and asked Mr. Elander questions  
about it in the office. She reported that Mr. Elander indicated that people could own more than  
one piece of property. That is true from an investment point of view, but is a strange explanation  
in the context of a CMHC purchase, where the newly purchased property has to be your primary  
residence. Mr. Elander had an obvious conflict. He was nominally acting for his wife, but his real  
clients were Mr. MacMullin and the McClains. MCAP was deceived because they believed that  
the McClains were bona fide purchasers for value and going to be living in the home.  
[899] MCAP was very interested in the down payment. It was supposedly coming from the sale  
of the McClain true residence. At first, Mr. Elander simply said the deposit had been received.  
This was noted in handwriting on the statement of sale and adjustments [exhibit 171 Elander file,  
scan 7579, p 39 /161]. However, that could not be true. Mr. McClain and his mother (not his  
spouse) had that title and at the time had no intention to sell as the McClains did not know  
whether that they would get jobs in Medicine Hat.  
Page: 199  
[900] MCAP wanted more evidence, so Mr. MacMullin created a bridge financing letter [scan  
7579, p 14/161]. Mr. Elander sent that on to the lender knowing that the bridge financing letter  
was false as there was no deposit placed in his account nor did he ever account for anything more  
that the mortgage proceeds. Two other documents seal the deal on Mr. Elander’s guilt: the sale  
for $160,000.00 morphs into a $140,000.00 statement of sale and adjustments, and that is  
reflected as such in the accounting [exhibit 171, scan 7579, pp 37, 40/162]. The McClains had no  
true intention to buy this property; they were doing it for a fee as their first deal with Mr.  
MacMullin had not yet gone bad. MCAP was deceived. They suffered a deprivation by making a  
loan to buyers who had no money in the property, and who had not purchased at an inflated  
price. MCAP lost money on this transaction through the foreclosure. The fact that they sold the  
property back to MacMullin for $166,000.00 indicates his willingness to commit to the property  
at that price for his future planning and reduce deficiency judgment exposure, with a new deal.  
[901] After Mr. MacMullin negotiated the property back from MCAP, he lined up Mr.  
Cipperley and Mr. Rauckman to purchase the property. Shane Anderson had referred them to  
him. They were living elsewhere, with no intention of moving to Lacombe. They agreed to  
purchase the property for a fee promised them by Mr. MacMullin. There was other deceitful  
conduct on this transaction because a gift letter that had been provided by Mr. Wayne Cipperley  
to assist his son purchase his actual residence was duplicated or fabricated in some fashion by  
Mr. MacMullin, and created a down payment source where none existed. In addition, Mr.  
Cipperley and Rauckman had to sell their home to facilitate this purchase due to CMHC rules.  
[902] Mr. Elander’s evidence is incredible as it relates to the sale from Mr. MacMullin to Mr.  
Cipperley and Mr. Rauckman. He knows MacMullin wants the property; he knows that  
MacMullin bought it back in the foreclosure for $166,000.00. He knows that it was valued in the  
foreclosure at 118,500.00, and here he is assisting Mr. Cipperley take an affidavit which states  
that the property is worth much more: $185,000.00. All of those documents registered the same  
day. Mr. Elander is using the transfer supplied by legal counsel for MCAP in a fashion that  
makes it look like MCAP sold to Mr. Cipperley, while knowing full well that the REPC upon  
which this mortgage was based, was a sale from MacMullin to Cipperley and Rauckman. He had  
to have knowledge of price manipulation by, and accommodation financing for, his client Mr.  
MacMullin.  
[903] I cannot believe his denials of knowledge of fraud in this transaction. Although Mr.  
Elander was not yet approached by Mr. Wayne Cipperley with his allegations of fraudulent  
conduct (that occurred later), Mr. Elander had enough unusual facts here that he had a duty to  
inform himself. I find he had direct knowledge of the fraud, but even if I am wrong about that,  
his failure to inquire about the unusual circumstances of this transaction constitute willful  
blindness a substitute for direct knowledge of fraud, measured against the standard legal  
question: don’t ask because you know the answer!  
[904] Mr. Elander also incorporated a company for Mr. Cipperley and Mr. Rauckman and  
advised them to transfer their personal residence into the company. It is difficult to believe that  
Page: 200  
there is a practicing lawyer anywhere in Alberta that would take a homeowner, and put their  
principal residence into a corporation - but Mr. Elander did it. This has two legal effects:  
1.  
corporate ownership removes the tax-free capital gain benefit that there is in  
Canadian tax law - the tax-free growth of a principal residence; and  
2.  
corporate ownership removes the debtor’s exemption in a principal residence.  
Both of these disadvantages strongly favour personal rather than corporate ownership.  
[905] Any responsible lawyer would have a confirming risk letter and maybe a collateral  
accountant’s opinion to justify a step that is rarely appropriate. What logical explanation could  
there be for this transfer? Mr. Elander on the witness stand said it was because Mr. Cipperley and  
Mr. Rauckman wanted to do some investment and development and purchase houses. Mr.  
Elander therefore claimed that he incorporated the company for them at their specific request to  
hold title to investment properties. That may be logical, but when he instead transferred their  
principal residence into a company that effectively set the stage for Mr. Cipperley and Mr.  
Rauckman to obtain another high-ratio mortgage on a second piece of property. The explanation  
would be that the new purchase became their principal residence. In other words, what Mr.  
Elander did was exactly what Mr. MacMullin had been doing, but he utilized a more  
sophisticated method: a corporation. There is also the possibility that Mr. Cipperley and Mr.  
Rauckman simply had no idea that their entire principal residence was transferred to a third party  
for a short while to do this straw deal.  
[906] Mr. Elander’s explanation on the witness stand is incredible, beyond belief, and I can  
only conclude that he took this step for the specific purposes of allowing Mr. Cipperley and Mr.  
Rauckman to acquire and purchase real property as a principal residence by transferring their  
actual residence into a company. Mr. Elander also indicated that the company paid an extra  
$25,000.00 for the home so that is how the shareholders got money to buy the Andersons’ house  
(see prior property).  
[907] This too is absurd. Why would you pay $25,000.00 of your own money to buy a house  
you already owned? If this was a legitimate transfer, it would likely be a shareholder’s loan –  
again not creating real cash, but the explanation covers a non-existent down payment on a straw  
purchase! Where would a company get $25,000.00 if, as Mr. Elander suggested, company loans  
required personal guarantees, and if borrowed, with guarantees, why would the guarantors not  
appear before Mr. Elander to get those signed to complete a deal?  
[908] A further difficulty arises. At some point after this transaction completed the mortgage  
payments were not reimbursed by Mr. MacMullin. Mr. Cipperley’s father, Wayne Cipperley, got  
wind of this transaction. Wayne Cipperley is no fool. He happened to be a Red Deer Sheriff’s  
bailiff assisting in the court process doing services and seizures. He got wind that his son and  
Mr. Rauckman had been put on title to this property, and acted accordingly.  
[909] Mr. Wayne Cipperley - the dad - came into Mr. Elander’s office and confronted Mr.  
Elander. He alleged that Mr. MacMullin and Mr. Elander were participating in a fraud and gave  
Page: 201  
Mr. Elander until the weekend to get his son out of the transaction or Mr. Wayne Cipperley was  
going to the RCMP. Mr. Elander transferred the property back to a MacMullin company in  
September of 2002. Mr. Elander also supplied evidence to Mr. Cipperley (either father or son)  
that the deal had reversed. The LTO registration request was given to the Cipperleys and ended  
up in Mr. Rauckman’s personal documents. There would have been no need to do that had it  
been a simple title reversal. Mr. Cipperley was insisting on the evidence. The transfer back to  
Mr. MacMullin on demand from Wayne Cipperley is a critical time element. I find as a fact that  
the principal reason why the transaction was reversed is that Mr. Elander had been confronted  
with the allegation that Mr. MacMullin was participating in mortgage fraud. He considered the  
threat of Mr. Cipperley going to the RCMP real and he transferred the property back in an  
attempt to defuse this situation. The transfer of the property away from the straw buyers was less  
than the notional 6-month window of straw buyer ownership. Yet unlike other deals, there are no  
further flips or financing the title stayed with a MacMullin company until foreclosed.  
[910] September 2002, is a defining date in this trial. A credible 3rd party has put before Mr.  
Elander an allegation that his client, Mr. MacMullin, is committing fraud. Mr. Elander  
nevertheless continues to act for Mr. MacMullin through six more deals, however on the last four  
the documents are sent out for signing.  
[911] Mr. Elander gave evidence that he incorporated a company for Cipperley and Rauckman  
because they wanted to get involved in development. A more logical explanation is that Mr.  
Elander knew that Cipperley / Rauckman could not own two houses both financed on a CMHC  
high-ratio basis, so to facilitate the purchase of a second CMHC insured home required the  
removal of their existing home from their names. I reject Mr. Elander’s testimony that he did not  
know that a fraud was going on. I do not believe it, it does not raise a doubt and I prefer the  
logical explanation: that he did it to assist in the pulling of a mortgage for the direct benefit of  
Mr. MacMullin. Even if I were wrong about that, the willful blindness here is of textbook  
quality, that nobody could ever assume that Mr. Elander did anything other than put his head in  
the sand and pretend all was well.  
[912] In these transactions, there was price manipulation, documentary frauds, missing down  
payments, and the false intention to make the properties principal residences. First Ms. Draus  
acquired the property by a court order removing her ex-husband from title in March, 1999. The  
value of the property at that time was $107,900.00. Under Mr. MacMullin’s careful hand the  
price was jacked up as high as $160,000.00 before it crashed to the earth in a foreclosure that  
valued the property at $118,500.00. Once more the property came into Mr. MacMullin’s hands,  
and once more the value increased to $185,000.00. On the second foreclosure, the value crashed  
to earth, again, at $125,000.00. Price manipulation is but one piece of the puzzle. When one  
applies common sense, the puzzle bits arrange together in a neat pattern. The puzzle presents a  
picture of Ms. Draus wanting to sell her property. The property price was adjusted to ensure that  
Mr. MacMullin would get his commission, and Ms. Draus got what she wanted. Mr. Elander had  
a direct stake and thereafter he was caught up, going with the flow on the sales, foreclosures, and  
re-sales. From the point the title transfer from Ms. Draus to the McClains was registered the  
Page: 202  
property was foreclosed twice in no less than 24 months and three days. This is truly amazing  
when one considers how much redemption time is built into a routine foreclosure in Alberta.  
5.  
Conclusion  
[913] The Crown has proven beyond all reasonable doubt all of the elements of count 18. In  
addition to the elements admitted by the Defense, the Crown has proven that Mr. MacMullin  
knew of, participated in, and orchestrated the deceit which used Mr. and Mrs. McClain as straw  
buyers. The financial institution suffered a deprivation because it made a loan on property in  
which the purchasers never intended to reside in the home and where the down payment  
documentation was deceitful, and the transaction not at arm’s length. Mr. MacMullin intended  
this deprivation.  
[914] Mr. MacMullin’s general denials of guilt are not believed, nor do they raise a reasonable  
doubt. The McClain evidence is believable: this transaction was an artificial one as they had no  
intention to live in the property, nor did they make a down payment. On evidence which I accept,  
Mr. MacMullin is guilty of this offense.  
[915] Mr. Elander acted in the transaction with direct knowledge of the deceit. His actions  
contributed to the success of the fraud. He aided and abetted it. He had a direct important motive  
to do so because it was the sale of his wife’s property. The finder’s fee paid was outrageously  
high but was a direct reflection of the overstatement of the purchase price. The sale was not at  
market value because of a kickback to the true buyer of some of the sale price. Mr. Elander’s  
denials of knowledge do not stand up to the obvious and glaring documentation in his own file  
and in the title tales. He is guilty of this count.  
[916] The Crown has also proven beyond all reasonable doubt all of the elements of count 19.  
In addition to the elements admitted by the Defense, the Crown has proven that Mr. MacMullin  
knew about the deceit, was an active participant and organizer of the scheme where Mr.  
Cipperley and Mr. Rauckman acted as straw buyers. The financial institution suffered a  
deprivation because it made a loan on property in which the purchaser never intended to be a  
resident in the home. The down payment documentation was deceitful. Mr. MacMullin intended  
this deprivation.  
[917] Mr. MacMullin’s general denials of guilt are not believed, nor do they raise a reasonable  
doubt. The Cipperley / Rauckman evidence is believable. This transaction was an artificial one.  
They had no intention to live in the property, the down payment made did not exist nor did the  
straw buyers even intend to make that payment. Mr. MacMullin is guilty of this offense on the  
evidence I accept.  
[918] Mr. Elander acted in the transaction with direct knowledge of the deceit. His actions  
contributed to the success of the fraud. He aided and abetted it. His denial of knowledge about  
the fraud does not stand up to the obvious and glaring documentation in his own file, including  
the transfer of the personal home into a company; and the title tales. He is guilty of this count.  
 
Page: 203  
P.  
Count 20 - Property 15  
1.  
The Alleged Misconduct  
Allan Dawson MacMullin and Roy Elander stand charged that they  
20.  
Between the 1st day of January, 2000 and the 31st day of July, 2005, at or near the city of  
Edmonton, in the province of Alberta, did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, defraud  
MCAP Service Corporation of money, of a value exceeding $5,000.00, by providing false  
information to MCAP Service Corporation in support of a mortgage application in the name of  
Robbie and RachelSakac for 10804-107 Street, Edmonton, Alberta (also known as Plan 7540  
AH; Block 7; Lot 429, contrary to section 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.  
2.  
Introduction  
[919] In July of 2001, Robbie Sakac and his spouse Rachel Sakac purchased this property from  
a MacMullin company. In less than a year, it was foreclosed. Mr. Elander acted for all of the  
parties on the purchase!  
3.  
Title Tales  
[920] The land titles records [exhibit 15, scan 6606] reveal:  
LTO Reg.  
Date  
m/d/y  
Date  
m/d/y  
Document  
$ value  
90,000  
Observations  
6/21/01  
6/21/01  
7/19/01  
9/19/01  
5/13/02  
transfer  
transfer  
mortgage  
mortgage  
foreclosure 84,000  
854067 Alberta Ltd. takes intervening transfer  
7/25/01  
7/25/01  
9/24/01  
7/4/02  
122,900 Above transfer used to sell to Sakac  
121,133 MCAP mortgage  
15,000  
Gohar Pervez @10%  
MCAP gets title  
10/30/02 10/21/02 transfer  
5/3/02 4/29/02 transfer  
95,000  
95,000  
MCAP to 3rd party  
3rd party resale  
4.  
The Facts  
[921] On count 20, I heard evidence under oath from Mr. Robbie Sakac, Ms. Rachael Sakac,  
Mr. Seremet, and Mr. Elander. Mr. MacMullin did not give direct evidence about this count. I  
reviewed the land titles documents summarized above [Mr. Elander’s legal file, exhibit 171, scan  
7568]. I also reviewed the routine mortgage foreclosure file, which had been marked as an  
exhibit. The foreclosure file consists of foreclosure documents plus an evaluation of the property  
at the time of foreclosure. It also discloses some communications between Mr. Elander and the  
         
Page: 204  
MCAP solicitor conducted in an attempt to postpone the foreclosure by making some periodic  
payments.  
[922] 854067 Alberta Ltd. (incorporated by Mr. Elander for Mr. MacMullin) acquired this  
property for $90,000.00 but resold it to the Sakacs less than 30 days later for $122,900.00. This  
purchase was financed by a MCAP mortgage of $121,133.00. Mr. Elander was clearly aware of  
the intervening purchase because he had to make extensive modifications to the affidavit of  
transferee. The modifications are troubling. He treated the $121,133.00 mortgage as if it had  
been fully advanced to the ultimate purchaser (effectively Mr. MacMullin) and therefore showed  
a very small additional down payment [scan 6606, p 38/68]. That was in fact incorrect. If this  
was a legitimate bona fide sale for $122,900.00 the true down payment for this transaction was  
near $6,200.00.  
[923] Mr. Elander’s file is deficient, uninformative, and simply indicates nothing less than  
incompetence and dereliction of duty. The issue is whether those deficiencies warrant a  
conclusion that Mr. Elander had knowingly directly participated in a fraud on a financial  
institution?  
[924] These are the deficiencies in the Elander office file:  
no transaction REPC;  
no statement of sale and adjustments between MacMullin’s numbered company and the  
Sakacs, though there is a statement of sale and adjustments properly provided by the  
initial transferor);  
no statement of mortgage proceeds received and disbursed, or any indication of a ledger  
card or accounting card for this transaction;  
the $6,200.00 down payment was never received, however the law firm did accept a  
photocopy of a cheque from Mr. MacMullin and sent a copy of that on to MCAP  
certifying that Mr. Elander held that cash to close in the law firm’s trust account;  
no vendor’s caveat was prepared and registered (note: while a vendor’s caveat is not a  
legal requirement and many competent law firms view this as excessive unnecessary  
work, the absence here takes on significance only because Mr. Elander was emphatic that  
it was his universal practice in arm’s-length transactions to prepare and register this  
caveat unless the transaction was not at arm’s-length or the vendor or was not at risk for  
any cash payable by the purchaser);  
the solicitor’s report to the purchaser is also deficient and does not list the routine  
documents mandated by a bona fide arm’s-length sale (the lack of mention of these in the  
report to the purchaser belies any suggestion that they existed on the original file but  
were not delivered to the RCMP and thus not marked as exhibits); and  
a required payout of the Royal Bank VISA credit card was made after the fact with  
mortgage proceeds, not before mortgage funding was advanced as conditionally required  
by MCAP.  
[925] The MCAP file [scan 7627, p 130/136] indicates special conditions precedent to advance.  
Two are particularly relevant:  
Page: 205  
1) Written confirmation of down payment of $6,145.00 from ... gift letter,  
including confirmation of deposit. NEED COPY OF DEPOSIT SOLICITOR TO  
PROVIDE.  
...  
4) Confirmation of the following debts have been repaid prior to funding: RB visa  
in the amount of $1,049.00-solicitor to provide.  
[926] The application submitted by David Gorn at the request of Al MacMullin contemplated  
that the Sakacs’ down payment was coming from a gift. The donor was initially a friend who got  
cold feet after first Mr. Seremet then Mr. MacMullin pushed him about actually providing a  
cheque.  
[927] So once again, Marko Knezevic, the beacon of fraud, was used. Mr. Knezevic claimed (in  
the gift letter) to be a cousin of the Sakacs’. This information was false [Elander file, exhibit 171,  
scan 7568, p 79/121]. The second problem was Mr. Knezevic had no money but only an unused  
ATB account and some blank cheques. A cheque payable to Mr. Elander’s office was un-  
cashable because the account was closed [ATB, scan 7630, p 8/10]. Nevertheless this worthless  
document was faxed to Mr. Elander’s office where his assistant, on his behalf, passed on a  
photocopy of the faxed cheque to satisfy condition 1, above.  
[928] The Elander law firm also advised that they had sufficient funds in their trust account to  
pay out the Royal Bank VISA [MCAP, scan 7627, p 85/136]. The law firm did indeed arrange  
for the payment of the Royal Bank VISA but it was paid out of the mortgage proceeds and not  
prior to funding as required. While Mr. Elander may not have known about these letters, he did  
know about the payment of the credit card because only he had authority to sign trust cheques at  
that law firm.  
[929] Mr. Elander attended in Edmonton with the Sakacs and completed the affidavit of  
transferee, very specifically stroking out the $90,000.00 purchase price (the actual sale price  
between the original vendor and Mr. MacMullin’s company) and replacing it with $122,900.00.  
Mr. Elander obviously knew about this rapid escalation in purchase price. He also made a  
specific entry about how the purchase price had been paid, and he assisted the Sakacs in  
participation of a false affidavit by taking the entire mortgage amount (which included the  
CMHC fee) from the purchase price. This showed that the additional monies required was only  
approximately $1,200.00, not the $6,200.00 actually required.  
[930] Without any special letter of authority or authorization, Mr. Elander distributed the  
mortgage funds by paying out the original vendor, and the Sakacs legal fees and the credit card.  
The payment of both the purchaser’s legal fees, and the credit card debt by the vendor effectively  
reduced the purchase price. When the Sakacs accepted the mortgage approval, they signed a  
statement saying:  
We further certify that the information given on the mortgage application is true  
and correct.  
Page: 206  
Although I have covered the issue of reliance in the main part of the judgment, a statement such  
as this reinforces the importance financial institutions place on accurate reporting in the  
application process [MCAP, scan 7627, p 93/136].  
[931] MCAP was deceived because the purchase price was inflated, the purchase financed was  
a non-arm’s-length transaction, the down payment not made, and the Sakacs’ credit worthiness  
was overstated in the mortgage application. Further, the Sakacs never intended to move into the  
home and it did not become their principal (primary) residence.  
5.  
Mr. MacMullin’s Involvement in the Fraud  
[932] Mr. MacMullin was the true purchaser. He found the Sakacs, got them to act as arm’s  
length purchasers for a fee. There is no doubt he was the equitable owner because less than a  
month after the deal closed, the Sakacs were approached to sign a 2nd mortgage in favor of Gohar  
Pervez - a business acquaintance of MacMullin not the Sakacs. MCAP financed over 100% in  
a deal in which it was deceived about something as basic as the equitable owner. Mr. MacMullin  
paid off the Sakacs’ credit cards to make the deal work. He worked with Mr. Seremet to get the  
cheque from Mr. Knezevic and to fabricate a gift letter. All this was done to support the  
appearance of the down payment.  
[933] Mr. MacMullin was the mastermind. He had direct knowledge of all of the essential  
elements of the deceit. The mortgage application contained deceitful information. MCAP did not  
know that the purchase was not at arm’s-length or the price escalation that flowed from that.  
MCAP did not know that the Sakacs would not be living in the home as their principal residence,  
which was a requirement of their funding.  
[934] On July 4, 2002 MCAP foreclosed the property. The affidavit of value was supported by  
appraisal which valued the property at $84,000.00. That means there are two prices which  
sandwich Mr. MacMullins involvement with this property. Mr. MacMullin purchased it in 2001  
for $90,000.00. In 2002, an arm’s-length buyer purchased the property from MCAP for  
$95,000.00. A reasonable inference can be drawn that that the price in the sale to Sakacs, near  
$122,000.00, was artificially escalated by Mr. MacMullin to defraud MCAP. The Sakacs ended  
up with a deficiency judgment against them for the difference.  
6.  
Mr. Elander’s Involvement  
[935] Did Mr. Elander participate in this fraud?  
[936] Mr. Elander denied any knowledge, suggested his office was running on autopilot under  
the care and control of his assistants such that he may not have known of the issues with this  
transaction. I am not able to believe his denials of knowledge nor do they raise a doubt. I  
conclude that there was direct knowledge on his part that there was no down payment in this  
transaction and that the property was being purchased by his client Mr. MacMullin, who used the  
Sakacs as straw buyers.  
   
Page: 207  
[937] The file deficiencies set out above are consistent with knowledge and participation in a  
fraud. Also, Mr. Elander was directly and actively involved in the amendment of the affidavit of  
value that had the effect of overstating the net mortgage amount and lowering the cash available,  
which had not been received. Viewed together, any doubt flees! The Crown has proved the  
knowledge element beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly when these events are coupled with  
the direct positive acts assisting in that fraud:  
the law office sending on a photocopy of a cheque that was not (and could not) be  
deposited in its trust account, and  
the law firm confirming a fictional down payment.  
[938] I do not believe Mr. Elander’s denial he knew of this deceit, nor does his evidence raise a  
reasonable doubt because it is internally inconsistent with his own evidence about vendor’s  
caveats, inconsistent with his law firm’s documentation and inconsistent with the sworn affidavit  
of transferee which he commissioned.  
[939] The only rational explanation for what went on in Mr. Elander’s file in this case and his  
own contribution to the process is that he knew the down payment was nonexistent, that the  
Sakacs were not arm’s-length buyers and that the purchase price had been inflated. When Mr.  
Elander reported to the Sakacs [Elander, exhibit 171 property 15, 7568, p 108/121], his list of  
enclosures does not include a traditional statement of sale and adjustments. That document is an  
integral and essential document in a real estate sale. It could have been missing in the copying of  
the file but when that item is not listed on the cover letter on the file, that simply supports an the  
inference of knowledge. Despite this knowledge, Mr. Elander participated in a material way. He  
was therefore aiding and abetting Mr. MacMullin.  
[940] Mr. Elander made clear that he was the only person with cheque signing authority on his  
law office trust account. He had to have known that the $6,200.00 cheque associated with Marko  
Knezevic’s gift letter on this transaction was never deposited nor paid out.  
7.  
Conclusion  
[941] The Crown has proven beyond all reasonable doubt all of the elements of count 20. In  
addition to the elements admitted by the Defense, the Crown has proven that Mr. MacMullin,  
had knowledge of the deceit, actively participated in and orchestrated the deceit. Mr. MacMullin  
used Mr. and Mrs. Sakac as straw buyers. The financial institution suffered a deprivation because  
they made a loan on property where the purchaser never intended to be a resident in the home.  
The down payment documentation was deceitful. Mr. MacMullin intended this deprivation.  
[942] Mr. MacMullin’s general denials of guilt are not believed, nor do they raise a reasonable  
doubt. The Sakac evidence is believable. This transaction was an artificial one. The Sakacs had  
no intention of living in the property, nor did they or Mr. Knezevic make the documented down  
payment. Mr. MacMullin is guilty of this count on the evidence I accept.  
 
Page: 208  
[943] Mr. Elander acted in the transaction with direct knowledge of the deceit. His actions  
contributed to the success of the fraud. He aided and abetted it. His denials of knowledge do not  
stand up to the obvious and glaring documentation in his own file. He is guilty of this count.  
Q.  
Count 21 - Property 16  
1.  
The Alleged Misconduct  
Allan Dawson MacMullin and Roy Elander stand charged that they  
21.  
Between the 1st day of January, 2000 and the 31st day of July, 2005, at or near the city of  
Red Deer, in the province of Alberta, did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, defraud  
First Marathon Mortgage Corporation of money, of a value exceeding $5,000.00, by providing  
false information to First Marathon Mortgage Corporation in support of a mortgage application in  
the name of Richard Zimmerman for 156 Cosgrove Crescent, Red Deer, Alberta (also known as  
Plan 8020563; Block 11; Lot 15), contrary to section 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.  
2.  
[944] The land titles records [exhibit 16, scan 6631] reveal:  
LTO Reg. Date Document $ value Observations  
Title Tales  
Date m/d/y m/d/y  
8/18/98  
title  
transfer  
11/26/01 transfer  
124,500 Mark McClain and Eileen McClain (mother)  
135,000 To Lam Developments (MacMullin)  
149,900 To Zimmerman  
9/15/01  
11/30/01  
11/30/01  
1/22/02  
8/12/01  
11/26/01 mortgage 147,740 To First Marathon CHMC insured  
1/16/02  
transfer  
154,800 To Moume  
3.  
The Facts  
[945] When Mark McClain came to the Red Deer area to begin his teaching career, his mother,  
Eileen McClain, assisted him in purchasing a home. This property became the subject matter of  
this count. Mark McClain and his fiancée Karla McClain had met Mr. MacMullin and he first  
persuaded them to ‘pull a mortgage’ for a fee. When the McClains obtained jobs in Medicine  
Hat, they had to sell this home - their true residence. Mr. MacMullin offered to purchase it for  
$135,000.00, but indicated he would need time to get the money. In the meantime, he would take  
over their mortgage. They agreed to use Mr. Elander as their lawyer. They left a signed transfer  
with Mr. Elander. What follows next is unbelievable - but true - frighteningly true!  
[946] Mr. Elander transferred the property to LAM Developments International Inc. a  
MacMullin company; however he did this prior to having the difference between the assumed  
mortgage and the sale price in his trust account. Mr. Elander did not file a vendor’s lien caveat,  
       
Page: 209  
despite his evidence that he would do this routinely to protect vendors at risk. The McClains’  
were indeed at considerable risk after the title had transferred. The McClains were not paid until  
Mr. MacMullin lined up Mr. Zimmerman as a straw buyer. This was the second straw deal Mr.  
Zimmerman did for Mr. MacMullin. He was tired of hounding Mr. MacMullin for his payment  
on the first deal and allowed Mr. MacMullin to talk him into doing this second deal. That would  
pay both his fees.  
[947] The REPC between Mr. MacMullin and Mr. Zimmerman calls for $7,500.00 of funds as  
a down payment. Allegedly, this was a gift from Mr. Zimmermans mother. There was no gift.  
Mr. Elander’s file reveals a memo from his staff indicating that First Marathon wants to see the  
gift letter. Instead, Mr. Elander forwarded to First Marathon’s broker a confirmation that Mr.  
Elander had the funds in trust [scan 7565, p 22/132]. That was a lie. Mr. Elander never accounts  
for these funds in trust.  
[948] Mr. Elander only distributed the mortgage money he received. His office prepared an  
estimate indicating that he needed at least $4,789.00 to (legitimately) close this deal. There is no  
indication that money was received. Mr. Elander certainly does not account for it [Elander file,  
exhibit 173, scan 7565, p 24/132]. The file documentation only accounts for the net mortgage  
proceeds of $142,225.00 [scan 7565, p 89/132]. The gift letter somehow ends up on the First  
Marathon file with an unsigned cover letter from Mr. Elander. It is unclear who generated that  
letter.  
[949] First Marathon wanted to know who was acting for LAM Developments International Inc.  
Mr. Elander was - he prepared the documents both on the McClain to MacMullin transaction,  
and the subsequent MacMullin to Zimmerman deal. Despite this, Mr. Elander sent a letter to the  
lender, dated December 10, 2001, which stated LAM Developments International Inc. acted on  
its own behalf [Elander, exhibit 173, scan 7565, p 93/ 132]. There is only one rational  
explanation for this. First Marathon insisted (in bold in their conditions) that Mr. Elander could  
not act for the vendor, except with specific approval. The letter was a deceitful response to First  
Marathon’s requirement. There is no way this scenario can be described away as an error by a  
conveyancing assistant. This correspondence required a specific thought process with the intent  
to deceive.  
[950] When Mr. Elander reported to Richard Zimmerman, he did not include a copy of a  
statement of sale and adjustments. He only explains receipt of the mortgage proceeds:  
$142,225.00 [scan 7565, p 83/132]. Simply put, this file has the appearance of a refinancing  
rather than an arm’s-length sale.  
[951] Mr. Zimmerman lived elsewhere; he never intended to make this home his principal  
residence. He was involved for a fee. Despite this, he completed a statutory declaration before  
Mr. Elander, certifying under oath that:  
he would be living in the home as his primary residence;  
that there was no secondary financing;  
Page: 210  
the down payment came from his own resources, and was not borrowed; and  
there been no material change in his financial sat status since he accepted the mortgage  
commitment.  
[First Marathon ING, deal 16 (Zimmerman), PDF page 20/ 229]  
[952] First Marathon was deceived into believing that the transaction between LAM  
Developments International Inc. (Mr. MacMullin) and Mr. Zimmerman was an arm’s-length  
transaction at market value. It believed that the down payment in the REPC was actually paid.  
First Marathon expected that the purchaser would live in the home. None of that was true. First  
Marathon was deceived. Mr. MacMullin used Mr. Zimmerman simply to finance the purchase of  
the McClain home in a way that got him as much cash as possible. Mr. MacMullin was the direct  
beneficiary of this deceit and fraud; he orchestrated, planned, and arranged it all.  
[953] Mr. Elander also contributed in a material way to this fraud. First Marathon was  
suspicious about the down payment. In response, Mr. Elander wrote a letter effectively telling  
them not to worry. The money was in his trust account. It was not. He did not account for it to  
anybody. Mr. Elander took away the lender’s chance to have an independent set of eyes on the  
file by pretending he did not act for the vendor the individual who was his true client: Mr.  
MacMullin.  
[954] Less than two months later, the property was again transferred. There are no further title  
details.  
4.  
Conclusion  
[955] The Crown has proven beyond all reasonable doubt all of the elements of count 21. In  
addition to the elements admitted by the Defense, the Crown has proven that Mr. MacMullin,  
knew about, actively participated in, and orchestrated the deceit. He used Mr. Zimmerman as a  
straw buyer. The financial institution suffered a deprivation because it made a loan on property  
in which the purchaser never intended to be a resident in the home and where the down payment  
documentation was deceitful. Mr. MacMullin intended this deprivation.  
[956] I do not believe Mr. MacMullin’s general denials of guilt, nor do they raise a reasonable  
doubt. The Zimmerman evidence is believable; this transaction was an artificial one. Mr.  
Zimmerman had no intention to live in the property, nor did he make a down payment. Mr.  
MacMullin is guilty of this offense on the evidence I accept.  
[957] Mr. Elander acted in the transaction with direct knowledge of the deceit. His actions  
contributed to the success of the fraud; he aided and abetted it. His denials of knowledge do not  
stand up to the obvious and glaring documentation to the contrary found in his own file. Mr.  
Elander is guilty of this count.  
 
Page: 211  
R.  
Count 22 - Property 17  
1.  
The Alleged Misconduct  
Allan Dawson MacMullin and Roy Elander stand charged that they  
22.  
Between the 1st day of January, 2000 and the 31st day of July, 2005, at or near the  
county of Thorhild, in the province of Alberta, did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means,  
defraud M.R.S. Trust Company of money, of a value exceeding $5,000.00, by providing false  
information to M.R.S. Trust Company in support of a mortgage application in the name of Rith  
Ngeth for RR #2, Radway, Alberta (also known as Plan 4103; MC; Block 10; Lot 1), contrary to  
section 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.  
2.  
Title Tales  
[958] The land titles summary [exhibit 17, scan 7595] follows:  
LTO Reg.  
Date m/d/y m/d/y  
9/24/96  
Date  
Document  
title  
$ value  
97,000  
Observations  
Larry West, owner  
2/18/00  
2/10/00  
6/21/00  
2/20/02  
2/25/02  
3/21/02  
3/21/02  
9/23/02  
10/16/03  
10/20/04  
2/10/00 foreclosure 102,000 To Josip Seremet (senior)  
2/14/00 mortgage  
6/20/00 transfer  
94,095  
105,000 To MacMullin  
RBC CHMC insured  
N/A  
2/14/02 writ  
mortgage  
44,000  
16,782  
EQUIPLAN  
Canada Revenue Agency  
3/14/02 transfer  
131,980 To Rith Ngeth  
3/7/02  
9/6/02  
mortgage  
transfer  
130,004 M.R.S. Trust - CMHC insured  
131,900 To Joy Langley  
9/30/03 mortgage  
50,000  
To 1066888 Albert Ltd. (18%)  
9/15/04 judicial sale 90,000  
M.R.S Trust to MacDonald.  
3.  
The Facts  
[959] This property in Radway, Alberta is closely connected to Mr. MacMullin, who acquired it  
in a foreclosure February 2000. He did not take title in his name but instead assigned his buyer’s  
interest to Mr. Seremet Sr. (Josip Seremet’s father). Mr. Seremet (the son) gave graphic evidence  
about how Mr. MacMullin fed him pressure point tactics to encourage his father to get involved  
by ‘leaving a legacy’. Mr. Seremet Sr. purchased the property utilizing a RBC first mortgage, but  
four months later, transfers it back to MacMullin. Mr. MacMullin transferred the property to Mr.  
Ngeth who acquired the property utilizing an M.R.S. Trust mortgage. Six months later, the  
property went back to Ms. Joy Langley, Mr. MacMullin’s mother. A month later, it was lost in a  
foreclosure. Mr. Ngeth sustained a deficiency judgment. M.R.S. Trust could only obtain  
       
Page: 212  
$90,000.00 in the judicial sale, despite the fact that Mr. Ngeth purported to pay close to  
$132,000.00 for the property less than a year earlier.  
[960] Mr. Ngeth gave evidence about this transaction, one of several he did with Mr.  
MacMullin. They all turned out badly. Mr. Ngeth made clear that he never paid any down  
payment, never intend to live in the property, never set any of the prices, and was doing this for a  
fee promised him by Mr. MacMullin. Like other ‘straw buyers’, Mr. Ngeth provided a void  
cheque to allow the mortgage payments to come out of his account but he was to be reimbursed  
by Mr. MacMullin. Mr. MacMullin did not reimburse him. Mr. Seremet indicated that the  
gullible Mr. Ngeth was traded to Mr. MacMullin (to be used as a straw buyer) by a Red Deer  
individual, Mr. Steve Carbone; an individual that Ms. Juneau indicated was very threatening to  
Mr. MacMullin and Mr. Elander.  
[961] The M.R.S. Trust file (deal 17 (Ngeth).pdf, p 24/276) includes a statutory declaration  
dated March 17, 2002, that was commissioned by Mr. Elander. This sworn statement certifies  
that the property would be Mr. Ngeth’s primary residence, occupied by him, and that he would  
inform M.R.S. trust of the status of occupancy. There was also a declaration that the down  
payment came from his own resources and not borrowed funds. Finally, the declaration  
contained a statement that there had been no material change to his financial status since  
acceptance of the commitment. This statutory declaration was, of course, deceitful, and was one  
of the documents that induced M.R.S. Trust to advance the monies after approving the loan. It  
relied on this and other documents.  
[962] The M.R.S. trust file contains a fax purported to have come from MacMullin on March 5,  
2002, containing Mr. Ngeth’s void check (M.R.S. Trust file, p 33/ 276).  
[963] Mr. Humeniuk, acting as the mortgage broker on this transaction and in the application  
for funding, inserted the following general notes:  
“RES and job stability good. Income and ability in line. Credit habits good. Net worth  
acceptable. Down payment from own resources.”  
This again serves as a reminder how important the financial institutions view the down payment.  
Certainly M.R.S. Trust did. It made special mention of it in their prescribed statutory declaration.  
[964] Mr. Ngeth was a wonderful mortgage puller for Mr. MacMullin because he had a good  
job and good saving habits. He just did not want to live in Radway. He was not a detail person  
and had little detail about the specifics of each deal.  
[965] The REPC between MacMullin and Ngeth is on the M.R.S. Trust file [p 96/276] as well  
as Mr. Elander’s file. The deposit payable to Mr. Elander is $1,000.00, with a further down  
payment of $5,595.00. The balance was to come from a new mortgage.  
[966] Mr. Elander’s assistant reported to him that they will be $8,894.77 short to complete the  
purchase [Exhibit 171, property 17, scan 7566, p 104/177]. This is because the statement only  
Page: 213  
accounts for the mortgage proceeds received: $125,140.00. This was despite the fact that the  
REPC reflected the deposits were to have been paid to the lawyer [scan 7566, p 152 to 154]. Mr.  
Elander reports to Mr. Ngeth on March 27, 2002. His report letter [p 155/177] does not reference  
a statement of sale and adjustments for this transaction. There is a document called a trust  
account statement, which presumably is the document identified earlier.  
[967] Mr. Elander did not file a vendor’s lien caveat to protect his client Mr. MacMullin from  
the risk of non-advance of the mortgage. It was Mr. Elander’s evidence at trial that this was his  
inevitable practice. It was also his evidence at trial that he does not read REPCs or commitment  
letters. He does account for the monies, sign the cheques and he witnessed the mortgage  
documentation including the statement that Mr. Ngeth paid approximately $132,000.00 for this  
property. His trust ledger accounts for only 125,000.00 (the mortgage advance). In the main body  
of the judgment, I referred to a refinancing file in a lawyer’s office having a look and feel that is  
distinctly different from a bona fide arm’s-length purchase. This is one of the files that had that  
look.  
[968] This was Mr. MacMullin’s arrangement, all the way. He took Mr. Ngeth in a trade to pull  
a mortgage or two, lined up Mr. Ngeth, sold him on being a straw buyer, and with mortgage  
broker, Mr. Humeniuk, put in place the mortgage application. Mr. MacMullin intended to  
deceive M.R.S. Trust into believing that they were dealing with a true arm’s-length transaction at  
market value with a legitimate down payment, and a homeowner who was prepared to move into  
the home to thereby qualify for 95% CMHC financing. None of this was true. M.R.S. Trust was  
deceived. Mr. MacMullin intended it, planned it, and assisted in it.  
[969] As for Mr. Elander, his file contains significant accounting and document irregularities  
which make it impossible for me to accept that Mr. Elander’s denial of knowledge of fraud on  
this file. I do not believe his evidence, it does not raise a doubt.  
[970] Mr. Elander remains involved in this transaction after the sale has concluded. In October  
of 2002, he forwards a trust cheque for $1,200.00 to pay an arrears mortgage payment and a  
general check for $25.00. The general cheque has an endorsement at the bottom:  
MacMullin/Rycrsa/Ngeth. This may have been in conjunction with the assumption by Joy  
Langley, but if the transaction was normal and regular with no knowledge on the part of Mr.  
Elander about continued MacMullin involvement, why is he assisting Mr. MacMullin pay off  
mortgage arrears? That should have been Mr. Ngeth’s problem. [NRS file, p 116/276] .Thus, it  
appears that on a real estate transaction where Mr. Ngeth is owner, Mr. Elander was using  
general account monies from his office to pay charges on the M.R.S. Trust mortgage. This  
betrays that the transaction is another MacMullin fraud.  
4.  
Conclusion  
[971] The Crown has proven beyond all reasonable doubt all of the elements of count 22. In  
addition to the elements admitted by the defense, the Crown has proven that Mr. MacMullin  
knew about, actively participated in, and orchestrated the deceit. He used Mr. Ngeth as a straw  
 
Page: 214  
buyer. The financial institution suffered a deprivation because it made a loan on property in  
which the purchaser never intended to be a resident in the home and the down payment  
documentation was deceitful. Mr. MacMullin intended this deprivation.  
[972] Mr. MacMullin’s general denials of guilt are not believed, nor do they raise a reasonable  
doubt. The Ngeth evidence is believable. The Seremet evidence adds context. This was an  
artificial transaction. Mr. Ngeth had no intention to live in the property nor did he make a down  
payment into it. On evidence which I accept, Mr. MacMullin is guilty of this offense.  
[973] Mr. Elander acted in the transaction with direct knowledge of the deceit. His actions  
contributed to the success of the fraud. He aided and abetted it. His denials of knowledge do not  
stand up to the obvious and glaring documentation in his own file. He is guilty of this count.  
S.  
Count 23 - Property 18  
Allan Dawson MacMullin and Roy Elander stand charged that they  
23.  
Between the 1st day of January, 2000 and the 31st day of July, 2005, at or near the city of  
Edmonton, in the province of Alberta, did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, defraud  
Bank of Montreal of money, of a value exceeding $5,000.00, by providing false information to  
Bank of Montreal in support of a mortgage application in the name of Rith Ngeth for 11607-126  
Street, Edmonton, Alberta (also known as Plan RN46 (XLVI); Block 32; Lot 19), contrary to  
section 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.  
1.  
[974] The land titles summary [Exhibit 18, scan 6607] follows:  
LTO Reg. Date Document $ value Observations  
Title Tales  
Date m/d/y m/d/y  
2/21/02  
title  
110,000 Petra Corp  
5/10/02  
5/10/02  
6/12/02  
12/04/02  
4/2/02  
5/9/02  
6/7/02  
transfer  
124,000 To Rith Ngeth  
mortgage 142,914 BMO - CMHC insured  
transfer  
148,000 Ngeth to Ryerse  
135,000 Ryerse to Bergsma  
11/29/02 transfer  
2.  
The Facts  
[975] There is a relationship between Petra Corp. and Mr. MacMullin. Petra Corp. involves an  
Edmonton area family by the name of Corns. Mr. Rick Purdy is shown as a director. Mr. Purdy  
was a straw buyer. According to Mr. Seremet, the Corns were investors with Mr. MacMullin in  
the Kathmarkham building project. That was a MacMullin project that went badly. Various  
caveats and collection efforts by the Corns family against Mr. MacMullin are sprinkled  
throughout the land titles files. These do not necessarily make it into the ‘title tales’.  
     
Page: 215  
[976] Mr. MacMullin gave no evidence about his relationship with the Corns and Petra Corp.  
No one from that corporation was called as a witness, although Rick Purdy did testify about  
other subjects.  
[977] Petra Corporation acquires the title to this property in February, 2002 for $110,000.00.  
In May 2002, it is transferred to Mr. Ngeth for $124,000.00 in a transaction financed by a  
CMHC insured BMO first mortgage of $142,914.00. How can that be? Mr. Ngeth then  
transferred the property to Ryerse (note the mention of this name in the cheque on the previous  
transaction at Mr. Elander’s office). Ryerse ultimately transferred the property to a third-party  
for $135,000.00. The Ryerses were sisters who purchased the property from Mr. MacMullin  
shortly after the BMO mortgage was registered.  
[978] This is an outrageous transaction where the deceit and fraud on BMO was so obvious that  
it hardly warrants description and analysis. Both Mr. MacMullin and Mr. Elander are guilty of  
this count. I will, nevertheless, point out how this count strips away any pretense of a cover-up  
for their fraudulent activity. The story is amazing. The documents astounding.  
[979] We begin with the notional arm’s-length transaction where Mr. MacMullin purchased  
this property for $124,000.00 from Petra Corporation. The solicitors for Petra Corp. supply to  
Mr. Elander the transfer of property, with the transferee (purchaser) left blank.  
[980] This ‘opened for completion transfer document is not itself unusual. There could be an  
intervening purchaser situation, or the vendor’s lawyer may want to ensure he or she does not  
incorrectly describe the purchaser. Their statement of sale and adjustments shows no deposit and  
(if I ignore the tax adjustment in favor of the purchaser) Petra Corporation’s independent  
lawyers expect $124,000.00 to close the deal. Mr. Elander was initially going to act for Lam  
Developments - a MacMullin company. Mr. MacMullin turned to straw buyer, Mr. Ngeth, since  
he himself had no ability to fund this purchase.  
[981] There are three issues! First, Mr. MacMullin has to deal with the fact that Mr. Ngeth had  
just obtained a fraudulent mortgage from M.R.S Trust (see prior count). Second, Mr. MacMullin  
needed to convince the BMO that Mr. Ngeth was paying more on this property than the  
$124,000.00 price for the transaction between Petra Corp. and Mr. MacMullin (through his  
company LAM Developments). (We will assume the Petra Corp. to LAM transaction was at  
arm’s-length, and for market value, although there is no evidence confirming that.)  
[982] While Mr. MacMullin could argue it was his right to waive down payments, I conclude  
Petra Corp. would not be doing that! Mr. MacMullin had no money; Mr. Ngeth was not paying.  
For this fraud to work, Mr. MacMullin needed to obtain a mortgage that was larger than the  
value of the property by at least the CMHC fee and legal fees.  
[983] Third, Mr. MacMullin had to gamble that his lawyer, Mr. Elander, has the stomach to do  
this transaction. Mr. Elander would swear an affidavit saying the property is worth $124,000.00,  
and yet not be concerned about his client BMO (with CMHC insurance) lending $142,000.00 to  
complete a $124,000.00 purchase. Proving that truth is stranger than fiction, here is how it all  
went down.  
Page: 216  
[984] Mr. Humeniuk again acted as the mortgage broker on this transaction. He just assisted  
Mr. MacMullin put through the earlier transaction in which Mr. Ngeth was (allegedly) now the  
proud owner of a principal residence in Radway, Alberta. A new fiction was required, and  
according to Mr. Humeniuk, that was supplied either by Mr. Seremet or Mr. MacMullin. The  
new application states:  
Please note that the client purchased a home in Radway Alberta, about one month  
ago. He absolutely hates living outside of Edmonton and he has sold this property  
and has made an offer on property in Edmonton. …  
[Humeniuk scan 7156, p 59/76]  
[985] The REPC which accompanied the mortgage application indicates, conveniently enough,  
that Mr. Ngeth was in an unconditional sale of the Radway property to Mr. Seremet for  
$140,000.00. The closing date is not filled in, however possession was to be granted on May 3,  
2002. We know from the ‘title tale’ in count 22 (property 18) that the Radway transfer was never  
registered to Mr. Seremet and certainly not in May, 2002. Mr. Ngeth sold the Radway property  
to Mr. MacMullin’s mother (Joy Langley) in September. This is an example of how false and  
manipulated REPCs were used (see main judgment at paras 156-158) to create an illusion that  
the sale of one principal residence would facilitate the purchase of a replacement.  
[986] Mr. Elander acted for Mr. Ngeth on this transaction. That meant Mr. Elander saw this  
individual purchase a second CMHC-insured principal residence within 60 days of the first. Mr.  
Elander’s explanation was that he views Radway as a conservative community. Mr. Ngeth would  
be a single resident and a visible minority. It made sense to Mr. Elander that Mr. Ngeth would  
feel so uncomfortable that it did not strike Mr. Elander as unusual when Mr. Ngeth decided to  
sell his recently purchased home.  
[987] This file also tested the patience of Mr. Elander’s assistant, Barb Rye, who wrote her boss  
as follows:  
Important: if Al continues to have me lie to get him out of a jam, continues to get  
on my case to get things done and tells me how to do my job and when - I don’t  
get paid enough to put up with that bullshit and if it continues I will not be doing  
any of his files. And if it puts me out of a job so be it.  
[Elander file scan 7561, p 87/87]  
[988] This is where the transaction becomes unbelievable sloppy! The application for funding  
submitted by Mr. Humeniuk reflects a request for a total mortgage of $142,915.62. That would  
exceed the market value. This amount is based on a deceitful REPC between LAM Developments  
and Mr. Ngeth for 145,000.00, not the $124,000.00 that Mr. Ngeth is said to have paid for this  
property. The fraud becomes glaring and obvious. The deal between Lam Developments and Mr.  
Ngeth is written for $145,000.00, but the transfer registered from the Petra Corp. to Mr. Ngeth is  
only for $124,000.00. There is no reference to an intervening purchaser [LAM].  
Page: 217  
[989] Mr. Elander, as agent for Mr. Ngeth, completes the affidavit of transferee in the  
$124,000.00 transaction between Petra Corporation and Mr. Ngeth [LTO, scan 6607 p 26/51].  
Mr. Elander at this point swears as agent of the transferee:  
1) That the consideration paid by the transferee is $124,000 by way of cash and  
mortgage.  
2) That Petra Corporation is the party from whom Mr. Ngeth acquired the lands.  
3) That in his opinion the lands are worth $124,000.  
[990] But BMO based their mortgage on an REPC in which Mr. Ngeth was paying  
$145,000.00, not $124,000.00.  
[991] Not only is there deceit apparent on the documentation in this file, there was no effort to  
even conceal it! Mr. Ngeth purchased this property as Mr. MacMullin’s straw buyer agent for  
$124,000.00. The REPC purporting to sell the property from LAM Developments to Mr. Ngeth  
for $145,000.00 was fraudulent, deceitful, documentation. There was no such sale and no such  
down payment. The transfer as registered reveals it. Mr. Elander could not have been unaware of  
this. He was an active and direct participant in the affidavit of transferee.  
[992] This transaction is outrageous and over the top. The evidence of fraud is registered right  
on the land title. BMO lent over 100% of the true purchase price of the property. There is no  
denying Mr. MacMullin’s complicity and guilt in this file:  
1.  
2.  
he set up this arrangement;  
he arranged to purchase the property from Petra Corp. for $124,000.00 using a  
straw buyer;  
3.  
4.  
he then created two deceitful REPCs: the LAM sale to Ngeth and the Ngeth sale to  
Seremet; and  
he had Mr. Humeniuk submit an application for funding based on a $145,000.00  
purchase when, in fact, the purchase was for $124,000.00.  
The Crown has proven Mr. MacMullin’s guilt on this count to the level of absolute certainty  
alluded to in R v Starr.  
[993] As for Mr. Elander, I just cannot accept his evidence denying guilt or knowledge. He  
registered a BMO mortgage for $142,000.00 on a $124,000.00 property. Could he ever have  
believed that CMHC would insure a loan exceeding 100%? The amount of excess here is close to  
15%.  
[994] There is no sense saying more about either individual. I accept Mr. Ngeth’s evidence that  
he was involved in exchange for a fee. Mr. Ngeth had no part in setting the prices. He did not  
care about the properties. He signed what he was told to sign and provided the documents he was  
told to supply. Mr. Seremet and Mr. MacMullin made it easy for him by using documents from  
one transaction to further the other.  
Page: 218  
3.  
Conclusion  
[995] The Crown has proven beyond all reasonable doubt all of the elements of count 23. In  
addition to the elements admitted by the Defense, the Crown has proven that Mr. MacMullin,  
knew about, participated in, and orchestrated the deceit. Mr. Ngeth was a straw buyer. The  
financial institution suffered a deprivation because it made a loan on property in which the  
purchase price was overstated, the purchase was not at arm’s-length and the purchaser never  
intended to be a resident in the home. The down payment documentation was deceitful. Mr.  
MacMullin intended this deprivation.  
[996] Mr. MacMullin’s general denials of guilt are not believed, nor do they raise a reasonable  
doubt. The Ngeth evidence is believable. This transaction was an artificial one. Mr. Ngeth had no  
intention of living on the property nor did he make a down payment towards its purchase. Mr.  
MacMullin is guilty of this offense on evidence that I accept.  
[997] Mr. Elander acted in the transaction with direct knowledge of the deceit. His actions  
contributed to the success of the fraud. He aided and abetted it. His denials of knowledge do not  
stand up to the obvious and glaring documentation in the LTO records. He is convicted on his  
own sworn affidavit of transferee. Ironically, his sworn statement is truthful, but incriminating.  
He is guilty of this count.  
T.  
Count 24 - Property 19  
1.  
The Alleged Misconduct  
Allan Dawson MacMullin and Roy Elander stand charged that they  
24.  
Between the 1st day of January, 2000 and the 31st day of July, 2005, at or near the city of  
Edmonton, in the province of Alberta, did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, defraud  
First Marathon Mortgage Corporation of money, of a value exceeding $5,000.00, by providing  
false information to ING Mortgage Broker Services Inc. in support of a mortgage application in  
the name of Rick Purdy for 7327-112 Avenue, Edmonton, Alberta (also known as Plan 7196 ET;  
Block 3; Lot 6), contrary to section 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.  
2.  
[998] The land titles summary [exhibit 19, scan 6535] follows:  
LTO Reg. Date Document $ value Observations  
Title Tales  
Date m/d/y m/d/y  
9/17/02  
9/17/02  
9/17/02  
12/17/02  
8/30/02  
9/13/02  
9/12/02  
transfer  
transfer  
135,000 Bladon Estate to MacMullin  
159,000 MacMullin to Purdy  
mortgage 156,714 First Marathon - CMHC insured  
161,714 To Sakac  
11/14/02 transfer  
       
Page: 219  
3.  
The Facts  
[999] Mr. MacMullin purchased this property from an estate for $135,000.00. He entered into a  
non-arm’s-length REPC with Mr. Rick Purdy to make it appear that the property was then sold  
from Mr. MacMullin to Mr. Purdy for $159,000.00. Based on that REPC, First Marathon was  
induced to lend $156,700.00 on a CMHC insured mortgage. Mr. Purdy in evidence said he never  
intended to live in the property. It was, in fact, occupied by the Sakacs.  
[1000] Mr. Elander acted for all sides. The REPC contemplated that he was to handle the  
deposits. He created letters for the parties to sign that authorized him to handle the deposits. The  
down payments were never paid. The MacMullin/Purdy transaction was a sham orchestrated by  
Mr. MacMullin. It was intended to provide sufficient financing to complete the lower-priced  
purchase from the estate and give Mr. MacMullin control of this property with nothing down.  
Mr. Elander’s legal file superficially has the appearance of a normal real estate transaction but  
there are extensive irregularities, which includes the following:  
The affidavit of transferee sworn by Mr. Purdy and commissioned by Mr. Elander  
indicates that the cash to close is only approximately $2,300.00 and not $8,000.00. Mr.  
Elander credits the full mortgage face value even though nearly $4,700.00 is a deducted  
for a CMHC insurance fee [scan 6535, p 26/60].  
Mr. Elander commissioned the Purdy affidavit with a purchase value of $159,000.00, but  
commissions Mr. MacMullin’s affidavit at $135,000.00. Then both affidavits are  
registered at the LTO on the same date [scan 6535, p 46/60].  
The statement of sale and adjustments on the file does not reconcile with the statement of  
monies received and disbursed. Mr. Elander accounts only for the mortgage proceeds and  
not the cash necessary to close the transaction [Elander, exhibit 171, scan 7573, pp 96,  
109/164].  
The file attempts to address the absence of a down payment by several letters that  
indicate the down payment was handled directly between vendor and purchaser.  
However, that is contrary to the agreement. Further, the math still does not add up.  
The transaction cannot be an arm’s-length deal because mortgage proceeds vital to close  
the transaction are, in fact, used in part by Mr. Elander to pay off approximately  
$5,500.00 worth of Mr. Purdy’s credit card debts.  
Finally, in what has to be the most bizarre misdirection of mortgage proceeds, Rick Purdy  
personally receives a $1,286.00 surplus out of the mortgage. This still further reduces the  
purchase price.  
[1001] In total, the purchase price is artificially lowered by approximately $7,000.00 by Mr.  
Elander’s directed payments to individuals and organizations other than to the vendor, Mr.  
MacMullin. In essence, the vendor, Mr. MacMullin, allowed his lawyer Mr. Elander to use  
 
Page: 220  
$7,000.00 of First Marathon’s mortgage money to pay other purchaser debt rather than the  
vendor debt created by the sale.  
[1002] Mr. Elander gave evidence that he never read any REPCs, commitment agreements, nor  
instruction letters from the financial institutions. That said, he did admit he was the only one who  
signed the cheques. A CMHC insured mortgage contemplates the purchasers contribute the  
lowest possible down payment often because those buyers have limited cash. This reflects the  
public policy legislation objective of making homeownership available to the widest range of  
Canadians. There is no rational basis for how an experienced solicitor in Alberta could have  
further diverted this amount of money out of a mortgage and away from the vendor, and still  
believe that the transaction is at arm’s-length.  
[1003] Mr. Elander’s direct participation in commissioning the affidavit of transferee is  
ominous. He knew the affidavit contained false information. Learned counsel for Mr. Elander  
struggled to convince me that file irregularities can be explained simply by a combination of  
incompetent practice and negligence. Mr. Elander’s documents, conduct, and testimony could  
lead to two inferences. One is that Mr. Elander’s conduct of this file does not show willfully  
blindness to the ongoing fraud because he was so removed from the file that he lacked capacity  
to be willfully blind. This is also a basis to claim Mr. Elander simply did not know that this was  
not an arm’s-length transaction.  
[1004] However, the common-sense inference is that Mr. Elander knew that the REPC between  
Mr. MacMullin and Mr. Purdy was simply a financing vehicle for Mr. MacMullin. It is too  
difficult to conclude that Mr. Elander did not have ‘file attachment’ during commissioning of the  
affidavits, and therefore failed to link the documentation for the two purchases (from the estate to  
Mr. MacMullin, then from Mr. MacMullin to Mr. Purdy) and their very different prices. It is also  
obvious from the pay-out scheme that the transaction between Mr. Purdy and Mr. MacMullin  
was not at arm’s-length.  
[1005] Mr. Elander, as solicitor for First Marathon, received written instructions that obliged  
him to:  
advising us of any significant escalation in the value of the property over a short period of  
time or if the vendor under the agreement of purchase and sale was not the registered  
owner at the time the agreement of purchase and sale was executed; .....  
you will advise us immediately in the event that it comes to your attention that any credits  
toward the purchase price in favor of the purchaser on a conveyancing transaction arise  
other than by way of payment of funds through your trust account and/or monies held in a  
licensed realtor’s trust account. This duty to report includes, but is not limited to,  
credits for deficiencies in the statement of adjustments, deposits allegedly paid  
directly from the purchaser to vendor, obligations for extraordinary realtor  
commissions and allowances or credits in favor of the purchaser of an unusual  
nature.  
Page: 221  
[Bolding in the original, scan 7573, p 130/164].  
[1006] One can see from these instructions that this is not First Marathon’s brush with real estate  
deception! The instruction list is a textbook checklist of what actually occurred, but Mr.  
Elander’s lips were sealed.  
[1007] In addition, the instructions from the lender oblige Mr. Elander confirm the down  
payment from Parallel Corp. (a trade name Mr. MacMullin and Mr. Seremet used to create  
illusions of investment), and also to ensure that the buyer first paid certain credit cards debts that  
totalled about $6,000.00.  
[1008] First Marathon had a requirement in their mortgage instruction letter that the solicitor was  
obliged to notify them of anything unusual about the transaction. The unusual elements of this  
transaction should have lit up the sky like a Canada Day fireworks display. It is not possible for  
me to conclude that Mr. Elander did not know that the transaction between Mr. MacMullin and  
Mr. Purdy was not at arm’s-length. Despite that knowledge, Mr. Elander prepared documents  
and reported to First Marathon. Mr. Elander added just more layers to the deceitful fiction.  
[1009] First Marathon also required that Mr. Elander not act for the vendor, except where First  
Marathon confirmed that was acceptable. This is obviously a fraud protection mechanism. Mr.  
Elander did not seek the First Marathon’s permission and instead acted for the vendor: Mr.  
MacMullin.  
[1010] David Humeniuk’s file reveals that the mortgage was obtained in part on the basis of an  
alleged $40,000.00 investment in Mr. Purdy’s favor with Parallel Corp. The Parallel Corp.  
confirming letter was signed by Mr. Seremet [Humeniuk file, scan 6745, p 45]. This investment  
is another fiction. Mr. Purdy did not have an investment with Parallel Corp. Mr. Purdy did not  
have the down payment for this purchase and never intended to make one. He was another straw  
buyer ‘pulling a mortgage’ to assist Mr. MacMullin purchase the estate property with 100%  
financing and yet more money in his pocket. Mr. Purdy got the benefit of the pay down of his  
credit cards and the ‘refund’ of the mortgage surplus.  
[1011] Mr. Purdy’s involvement here does not reflect well on his character. He got close to  
$8,000.00 for going along with this deal. His evidence should be viewed cautiously; however his  
evidence that he did not pay a down payment is consistent with the documentary record. I accept  
that fact. I also accept that he had no investment with Parallel Corp.  
[1012] Mr. MacMullin set this transaction up to deceive First Marathon and he succeeded. Mr.  
Elander aided and abetted that by having direct knowledge of the true nature of this transaction.  
Mr. Elander did not disclose those irregularities to First Marathon.  
[1013] Even if conduct of the file was largely delegated to his staff Mr. Elander still signed the  
cheques. The distribution of the mortgage funds was irregular to the point of being inconsistent  
with the alleged character of this transaction. Mr. Elander must have known that mortgage  
money that was notionally part of a sale purchase, was instead being diverted to pay the  
Page: 222  
purchaser’s credit card debt, and with the concurrence of the vendor! That leaves only one  
possible loser in this scenario the lending organization.  
4.  
Conclusion  
[1014] The Crown has proven beyond all reasonable doubt all of the elements of count 24. In  
addition to the elements admitted by the Defense, the Crown has proven that Mr. MacMullin,  
knew about, actively participated in, and orchestrated the deceit. He used Mr. Purdy as a straw  
buyer. First Marathon suffered a deprivation because it made a loan on property where the  
purchase price was overstated, based on a non-arm’s-length transaction, and where the purchaser  
never intended to be a resident in the home. The down payment documentation was deceitful.  
Mr. MacMullin intended this deprivation.  
[1015] Mr. MacMullin’s general denials of guilt are not believed, nor do they raise a reasonable  
doubt. The Purdy evidence is believable. This was an artificial transaction. Mr. Purdy had no  
intention to live in the property nor did he make a down payment into it. Mr. MacMullin is guilty  
of this offense on the evidence, which I accept.  
[1016] Mr. Elander had direct knowledge of the deceit in this transaction. His actions  
contributed to the success of the fraud; he aided and abetted it. His denials that he knew what  
was going on do not stand up to the obvious and glaring documentation in his own file and the  
LTO records. He is guilty of this count.  
U.  
Count 25 - Property 20  
1.  
The Alleged Misconduct  
Allan Dawson MacMullin and Roy Elander stand charged that they  
25.  
Between the 1st day of January, 2000 and the 31st day of July, 2005, at or near the city of  
Edmonton, in the province of Alberta, did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, defraud  
M.R.S. Trust Company of money, of a value exceeding $5,000.00, by providing false information  
to M.R.S. Trust Company in support of a mortgage application in the name of Desmond  
Parenteau and Richard Cannon for 8511-178 Street, Edmonton, Alberta (also known as Plan 1012  
TR; Block 15; Lot 30), contrary to section 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.  
2.  
Title Tales  
[1017] The land titles summary [exhibit 20, scan 6602] discloses:  
LTO Reg.  
Date  
Document $ value  
Observations  
Date m/d/y m/d/y  
8/13/02  
8/13/02  
7/9/02  
transfer  
162,500  
Cook to LAM Developments (MacMullin)  
EQUIPLAN  
unknown mortgage 168,500  
       
Page: 223  
11/7/02  
11/7/02  
10/17/03  
10/18/04  
10/31/02 transfer  
10/31/02 mortgage 212,895  
10/17/03 transfer 215,000  
216,000  
LAM Developments to Cannon and Parenteau  
M.R.S. Trust - CMHC insured  
To 1048427 Alberta Ltd. (Silverman)  
10/7/04  
transfer  
212,895? To Silverman  
3.  
The Facts  
[1018] LAM Developments International Limited (MacMullin) purchased this property from the  
Cooks for $162,500.00 with an EQUIPLAN mortgage. About 90 days later, Mr. MacMullin  
arranged for Mr. Cannon and Mr. Parenteau to purchase this property as straw buyers for  
$216,000.00, financed with a $212,895.00 CMHC insured M.R.S. Trust mortgage. Mr. Cannon  
was married and never intended to leave his wife and move into the property. Mr. Parenteau  
never intended to move into the property. Both of them were purchasing the property based on  
the marketing representation from Mr. MacMullin that it was legal, that all of their fees would be  
paid, and they would receive a fee for using their credit to get a mortgage. Approximately a year  
later, the property returned to another MacMullin company.  
[1019] The REPC between MacMullin / Parenteau / Cannon called for a $5,000.00 deposit and a  
further $5,500.00 direct payment. Both were to be paid to Mr. Elander. Mr. MacMullin indicated  
these payments had been made when he supplied the REPC to Mr. Elander. Cannon and  
Parenteau had minor credit card debts that were to be paid off before the transaction. Mr.  
Humeniuk arranged for this and forwarded confirmation of that payment to Mr. Elander.  
[1020] Mr. Parenteau was an impressive but extremely angry witness. He could barely contain  
his disdain for Mr. MacMullin. Mr. Cannon was an honest and impressive witness who was more  
relaxed and exhibited virtually no animus toward Mr. MacMullin. This transaction is memorable  
because it was signed at the ‘Hooters Bar’ in the West Edmonton Mall on Halloween night,  
2002. Mr. Parenteau and Mr. Cannon worked there. They met Mr. Elander at the bar, probably  
the least conducive setting possible when concentrating on the minutia of real estate documents.  
[1021] I accept the evidence of Mr. Parenteau and Mr. Cannon that they were pulling this  
mortgage at Mr. MacMullin’s request for a fee. Both of them signed a declaration for M.R.S  
Trust that indicated they would reside in the property. This was false. I am also satisfied that Mr.  
MacMullin waived any down payments. This is supported both by his memo to Mr. Elander, and  
also by the fact that the Elander file includes a copy of a cheque dated October 31, 2003 and  
made payable to LAM Developments and which represented the cash to close. I am satisfied that  
cheque was never cashed. The cheque has an incomplete date so it may well have been un-  
cashable. Mr. Elander may not have identified that irregularity.  
[1022] Mr. MacMullin set up this deal to get extra cash through a CMHC mortgage.  
EQUIPLAN, a lending organization that Mr. MacMullin had dealt with on several occasions,  
was probably charging a higher interest rate than the CMHC insured mortgage. The mortgage  
with EQUIPLAN is not on the LTO file. I do not have documentation that identifies the  
 
Page: 224  
mortgage interest rate. Other EQUIPLAN mortgages to Mr. MacMullin charged either 10%  
interest on first mortgages, occasionally 15% on second mortgages.  
[1023] I conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that M.R.S. Trust was deceived. If M.R.S. Trust  
were aware of the true state of affairs, it would not have granted a CMHC insured mortgage to  
these individuals. Critical factors include:  
1.  
2.  
3
an unexplained increase in price,  
waiver by the seller of down payments, and  
the purchasers did not intend to make the home their principal residence.  
[1024] Both Parenteau and Cannon independently gave evidence which confirmed that Mr.  
MacMullin had promoted this deal to them. I accept their evidence. It alone is sufficient to  
establish the deceit beyond a reasonable doubt, and Mr. MacMullin’s role as the ringleader and  
author of documents necessary to facilitate the deceit.  
[1025] Mr. Elander’s file for this transaction contains some irregularities but looks close to  
normal. The transfer from LAM Developments to Mr. Parenteau and Mr. Cannon was later and  
separate from the purchase from Cook by LAM Developments. Although Mr. Elander makes the  
same error on the affidavit of transferee (crediting the entire mortgage (before the deduction of  
CMHC fees to the purchase price)), the Crown’s case against Mr. Elander is weakened by the  
combination of the MacMullin memo and the on-file copy of the Parenteau cheque payable to  
LAM Developments. These challenge Mr. Elander’s knowing there was no down payment.  
[1026] The irregularities in Mr. Elander’s file may be explained in innocent ways. The statement  
of monies received and disbursed is not on his file, but the report letter to Mr. Parenteau and Mr.  
Cannon states it was attached. The file contains a statement of sale and adjustments, which  
appears accurate and normal for an arm’s-length sale. Third parties paid out the purchaser’s  
credit card debts, which was a condition of mortgage funding.  
[1027] Although, there is nothing in the interim agreement to indicate that it was a condition of  
the sale that the vendor would pay the purchaser’s legal fees, there is an undated fax note  
purported to be from “Allen” which directs all fees to be paid from the ‘proceeds’. If one accepts  
the date placed on the document during the fax process then this document was faxed on October  
31, 2002. This directed all fees should be paid from the ‘proceeds’. Mr. Elander’s invoice  
directed to the purchasers indicates payment of the legal fees.  
[1028] About a year later, the property was transferred to an acquaintance of Mr. MacMullin for  
the approximate mortgage amount.  
4.  
Conclusion  
[1029] The Crown has proven beyond all reasonable doubt all of the elements of count 25. In  
addition to the elements admitted by the defense, the Crown has proven that Mr. MacMullin  
 
Page: 225  
knew about, participated in, and orchestrated the deceit. He used Mr. Parenteau and Mr. Cannon  
as straw buyers. M.R.S. Trust suffered a deprivation because it made a loan on property where  
the purchase price was overstated, based on a non-arm’s-length transaction, and where the  
purchaser never intended to be a resident in the home. The down payment documentation was  
deceitful. Mr. MacMullin intended this deprivation.  
[1030] Mr. MacMullin’s general denials of guilt are not believed, nor do they raise a reasonable  
doubt. The Parenteau/Cannon evidence is believable. This transaction was an artificial one. The  
purchasers had no intention to live in the property nor did they make a down payment into it. Mr.  
MacMullin is guilty of this offense on the evidence that I accept.  
[1031] Conversely, the Crown’s evidence is insufficient to convict Mr. Elander, who denied  
knowledge of this fraud.  
V.  
Counts 26 and 27 Property 21(a) & 21 (b)  
1.  
The Alleged Misconduct  
Allan Dawson MacMullin and Roy Elander stand charged that they  
26.  
Between the 1st day of January, 2000 and the 31st day of July, 2005, at or near the city of  
Edmonton, in the province of Alberta, did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, defraud  
First Marathon Mortgage Corporation of money, of a value exceeding $5,000.00, by providing  
false information to First Marathon Mortgage Corporation in support of a mortgage application in  
the name of Rick Waring for 241 Harrison Drive, Edmonton, Alberta (also known as  
Condominium Plan 7620801; Unit 58 and 131), contrary to section 380(1)(a) of the Criminal  
Code.  
Allan Dawson MacMullin stands charged that he  
27.  
Between the 1st day of January, 2000 and the 31st day of July, 2005, at or near the city of  
Edmonton, in the province of Alberta, did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, defraud  
Resmor Trust Company of money, of a value exceeding $5,000.00, by providing false  
information to Resmor Trust Company in support of a mortgage application in the name of  
Stephen Lu for 241 Harrison Drive, Edmonton, Alberta (also known as Conduminium Plan  
7620801; Unit 58 and 131), contrary to section 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.  
2.  
Introduction  
[1032] This property, a condominium at 241 Harrison Drive, was utilized twice, in counts 26 and  
27. Mr. MacMullin was involved in both transactions. Mr. Elander was only involved in count  
26. Rick Waring, a Canadian war veteran, was the straw buyer in count 26, while Stephen Lu  
was the straw buyer in count 27. The common connection was Mr. MacMullin.  
     
Page: 226  
3.  
Title Tales  
The land titles summary [exhibit 21, scan 6517] follows:  
LTO Reg.  
Date  
Document $ value  
Observations  
Date m/d/y m/d/y  
11/28/02  
11/24/02 transfer  
11/23/02 transfer  
11/20/02 mortgage 91,564  
57,000  
92,900  
Bevilacqua to 971298 Alta. Ltd. (MacMullin)  
To Waring  
First Marathon - CMHC insured  
11/28/02  
11/28/02  
9/28/03  
2/9/04  
2/9/04  
9/29/04  
8/24/05  
9/19/03  
1/29/04  
1/29/04  
9/25/04  
8/12/05  
transfer  
transfer  
100,000 To 1066888 Alberta Ltd. (MacMullin)  
115,000 To Stephen Lu  
mortgage 112,800 ResMor Trust  
transfer  
transfer  
114,000 To 1087407 Alberta Ltd (MacMullin)  
112,000 To ARMAC Investments Inc.  
4.  
The Facts Count 26  
[1033] Elaine Bevilacqua wanted a bigger home. Mr. MacMullin agreed to find her one. She  
agreed to sell her $55,000.00 condominium to Mr. MacMullin. He bought it through 971298  
Alta. Ltd., one of his numbered companies. Roy Elander acted for him. On the same day title was  
registered to Mr. MacMullin’s company, a transfer to Rick Waring and a mortgage of $91,564.00  
in favor of First Marathon was also registered. Mr. Elander acted for everyone in this transaction.  
[1034] Mr. MacMullin utilized the First Marathon mortgage and the immediate resale of the  
property, to over financed the condominium, and acquire it in the name of Rick Waring as a  
straw buyer. In this way, Mr. MacMullin got the property with no down payment, and through  
the mortgage generated, surplus cash, for his various purposes.  
[1035] Mr. Elander took the affidavit of transferee on behalf of Mr. Waring on November 23  
2002. His client, Mr. MacMullin, acted as Commissioner of Oaths. Mr. Elander swore that the  
value of the property was $92,900.00 and that Mr. Waring had paid for the purchase with an  
$88,255.00 mortgage and $4,645.00 in cash, for a total of $92,900.00. Mr. Elander swore the  
property was worth $92,900.00.  
[1036] On the same day, Mr. Elander commissioned the affidavit of transferee sworn by Mr.  
Seremet on behalf of Mr. MacMullin’s company. Mr. Seremet swore that the company had  
purchased the property for a $57,000.00 mortgage, and that in his opinion, the condominium was  
worth $57,000.00. The massive inconsistency between these two affidavits (one commissioned  
by Mr. Elander, the other taken by him) with two very different property values sworn the same  
day does not seem to have bothered Mr. Elander. Instead, Mr. Elander submitted the  
documentation for registration.  
[1037] The REPC between 971298 Alta. Ltd. and Rick Waring called for two deposits that  
totaled $4,645.00. These funds were to be placed in trust with Mr. Elander. This REPC was  
made on November 7, 2002, and accepted by Mr. MacMullin on November 12, 2002. These  
   
Page: 227  
dates predate the signing of the transfer between Ms. Bevilacqua and Mr. MacMullin, so clearly  
Mr. MacMullin had arranged this straw purchase well prior to signing the purchase documents.  
A second REPC on the Humeniuk mortgage broker’s file [scan 7145, p 51/ 80] mistakenly  
identifies Mr. MacMullin (instead of his company) as the vendor but otherwise the details are the  
same.  
[1038] On November 6, 2002, Mr. Humeniuk notifies Mr. Seremet that the only way the debt  
servicing will work is if Mr. Waring shows his existing home as sold. The second issue is the  
CMHC principal residence requirement cannot be met with an existing home. Mr. Seremet  
responds by sending Mr. Humeniuk an REPC in which Mr. Waring sells his home to Mr. Marko  
Knezevic for $94,000.00. The purchaser makes that offer on November 14, but the vendor  
accepts it a week earlier on November 7! Naturally, this transaction was a sham. Mr. Knezevic  
had no money to purchase real estate. He was the younger school-age brother of Mr. Seremet.  
[1039] Mr. Elander, as solicitor for First Marathon had agreed to certain terms:  
advising us of any significant escalation in the value of the property over a short period of  
time or if the vendor under the agreement of purchase and sale was not the registered  
owner at the time the agreement of purchase and sale was executed; .....  
you will advise us immediately in the event that it comes to your attention that any credits  
toward the purchase price in favor of the purchaser on a conveyancing transaction arise  
other than by way of payment of funds through your trust account and/or monies held in a  
licensed realtor’s trust account. This duty to report includes, but is not limited to,  
credits for deficiencies in the statement of adjustments, deposits allegedly paid  
directly from the purchaser to vendor, obligations for extraordinary realtor  
commissions and allowances or credits in favor of the purchaser of an unusual  
nature.  
[Bolding in the original, Elander exhibit 171, scan 7558, p 29/102].  
[1040] Mr. Elander obviously did not meet those obligations. He did not report that Mr.  
MacMullin did not own the property at the time he sold it. He did not report on the rapid increase  
in value which was obviously a concern for First Marathon, given their specific requirement to  
disclose that detail.  
[1041] There are other irregularities and incorrect information. Mr. Elander commissioned the  
affidavit taken on November 20, 2002, where Rick Waring indicates under oath he will be living  
in the premises and not renting it out. Mr. Elander does not file a vendor’s lien caveat although  
obviously this would be a circumstance where one would be justified because 971298 Alta. Ltd.,  
needs the Waring mortgage proceeds to close the deal between 971298 Alta. Ltd., and  
Bevilacqua. As I have previously observed, Mr. Elander in his testimony emphasized that he  
filed vendor’s lien caveats where a mortgage advance cancellation could leave the purchaser  
without closing funds. This transaction is a perfect example. One of his exceptions was for non-  
arm’s-length transactions.  
Page: 228  
[1042] The solicitor’s interim report to First Marathon has this certification immediately above  
Mr. Elander’s signature:  
... the undersigned certifies that there are no unusual adjustments to the purchase  
price in the statement of adjustments.  
Mr. Elander’s file [scan 7558, p 91/102] includes a statement of monies received and disbursed.  
It reflects the net mortgage money of $87,950.00 transferred to Mr. MacMullin’s company.  
However, the statement of sale and adjustments says the cash to close, taking into account  
closing adjustments, was $88,187.44. There is no mention of that discrepancy. There is also no  
accounting for the deposit of $4,645.00, which was to be paid directly to Mr. Elander. There is  
no letter from the vendor, which confirms that this deposit was received directly from the buyer.  
[1043] Mr. Waring is a war veteran. I completely accept his evidence that he never lived in this  
property. He was induced to participate because of the “pitch”. He would get a fee for the use of  
his name in a mortgage. It was Mr. MacMullin who needed to use him because Mr. MacMullin  
purchased the property from Ms. Bevilacqua. He needed Mr. Waring’s money (through the new  
mortgage) to close that deal. On its face, Mr. MacMullin got the mortgage advance of  
$87,950.00 to close a $57,000.00 purchase for the very same property and on the very same  
day!  
[1044] First Marathon was deceived. It would not have made the loan if it had known that Mr.  
MacMullin did not own the property at the time of the sale to Mr. Waring as First Marathon’s  
specific instructions to the solicitor makes explicit. Mr. MacMullin intended this deceit on First  
Marathon and engaged Mr. Seremet, Mr. Knezevic, Mr. Humeniuk and Mr. Waring as a straw  
buyer to pull it off.  
[1045] This was another transaction where Mr. Elander was advised in the mortgage instructions  
(in capital bolded text) that he was not to act for the vendor without specific consent of the  
lender. Despite this, Mr. Elander again hid from First Marathon the fact he was acting for the  
vendor.  
[1046] Mr. Elander’s conduct is egregious. There are financial irregularities in his file. He knew  
there were two different affidavits of value sworn the same day for property transferred twice in  
the same day with a $35,000.00 price difference. His evidence that he never read any REPCs, or  
mortgage instructions is one thing, but to participate in two affidavits that aid in the creation of  
the title that hides a purchase of real estate for $57,000.00 by escalating the value of that same  
property to $92,900.00 cannot be sloughed off as incompetence or negligence. This represents  
direct, first-hand knowledge of real property price manipulation. Even absent the specific and  
explicit instruction by First Marathon to report incidents of this kind, it defies common sense that  
a lawyer would observe these anomalies and not smell a rat. (Or a whole nest of rats.)  
Page: 229  
5.  
Conclusion - Count 26  
[1047] The Crown has proven beyond all reasonable doubt all of the elements of count 26. In  
addition to the elements admitted by the Defense, the Crown has proven that Mr. MacMullin  
knew about, orchestrated, and participated in the deceit. He used Mr. Waring as straw buyer.  
First Marathon suffered a deprivation because it made a loan on a property in which the purchase  
price was overstated, that was a non-arm’s-length transaction, where the purchaser never  
intended to live in the condominium, and where the down payment documentation was deceitful.  
Mr. MacMullin intended this deprivation.  
[1048] Mr. MacMullin’s general denials of guilt are not believed, nor do they raise a reasonable  
doubt. The Waring evidence is believable. This was an artificial transaction, as Mr. Waring had  
no intention to live in the property, nor did he make a down payment. Mr. MacMullin is guilty of  
this offense on the evidence that I accept.  
[1049] Mr. Elander had direct knowledge of the deceit in this transaction. His actions  
contributed to the success of the fraud; he aided and abetted it. His denials that he knew what  
was going on does not stand up to the obvious and glaring documentation in his own file and the  
‘title tales’. He is guilty of this count.  
6.  
The Facts - Count 27  
[1050] About three months after Mr. Waring took title to this property Mr. MacMullin bought it  
back, notionally for a hundred thousand dollars. Mr. Waring gave evidence (which I accept) that  
he never got any money. This sets the stage for a transfer to a second straw buyer, Mr. Stephen  
Lu. Mr. Lu’s purchase was financed by a mortgage with a value $20,000.00 higher than the  
previous one. Again, this was a high-ratio mortgage that would require personal residence in the  
property by Mr. Stephen Lu.  
[1051] Mr. Lu gave evidence that he did not intend to live in the property. He had nothing to do  
with the setting the purchase price. He only participated in order to receive a fee. This is the  
second property where Mr. Lu assisted Mr. MacMullin. This is the transaction where Mr.  
Humeniuk reported to the financial institution that Mr. Lu wanted to leave a home he purchased  
only three months earlier because of an adverse Feng Shui assessment. Mr. Lu, of course, gave  
evidence that this was nothing of the sort. Mr. Lu became involved with Mr. MacMullin in 2004,  
by that time Mr. MacMullin had moved on to Mr. Barclay as his “go to” lawyer.  
[1052] A false REPC was created between Mr. Lu and Mr. Mike Law (one of Mr. MacMullin’s  
employees/followers) that purported to sell Mr. Lu’s earlier straw purchase ( for Mr. MacMullin)  
for $120,000.00, with the assumption of the first mortgage ($114,000.00) and $6,000.00 in cash  
[ResMor Trust mortgage, scan 7659, p 29/ 71].  
[1053] Mr. Barclay acted for Mr. Lu and the financial institution. An Edmonton lawyer acts for  
Mr. MacMullin. Mr. Barclay received a cheque (or check copy) from Mr. Lu for $5,900.00. This  
was the deposit. It was never cashed. Mr. Lu had no money. Mr. Seremet assured Mr. Lu the  
cheque was just for show.  
   
Page: 230  
[1054] I accept the evidence of Mr. Lu and the evidence of Mr. Seremet. It is consistent and is  
supported by the false transaction between Mr. Lu and Mr. Law for the sale of the other property  
he had mortgaged for Mr. MacMullin.  
[1055] Mr. Lu had no intention to live in this property. The mortgage was granted on the basis  
that this was an arm’s-length transaction, and to provide the purchaser a principal residence. The  
transaction was linked to a purported bona fide arm’s-length sale of the existing home that would  
then generate the down payment.  
[1056] None of these statements were true. Mr. MacMullin orchestrated the entire transaction to  
artificially increase the equity that he could extract from this property through a new mortgage.  
Mr. MacMullin was the direct beneficiary of this mortgage fraud, and the one with the obvious  
money motive. Another MacMullin company purchased the property back a few months after the  
ResMor Trust mortgage.  
7.  
Conclusion - Count 27  
[1057] The Crown has proven beyond all reasonable doubt all of the elements of count 27. In  
addition to the elements admitted by the Defense, the Crown has proven that Mr. MacMullin,  
had knowledge of, orchestrated, and actively participated in the deceit. He used Mr. Lu as the  
straw buyer. ResMor Trust suffered a deprivation because it made a loan on property in which  
the purchase price was overstated, based on a non-arm’s-length transaction, and where the  
purchaser never intended to be a resident in the home. The down payment documentation was  
deceitful. Mr. MacMullin intended this deprivation.  
[1058] Mr. MacMullin’s general denials of guilt are not believed, nor do they raise a reasonable  
doubt. The Lu evidence is believable. It is supported and confirmed by Mr. Seremet’s evidence.  
This was an artificial transaction. The buyer had no intention to live in the property, nor did he  
make a down payment into it. Mr. MacMullin is guilty of this offense on the evidence that I  
accept.  
W.  
Count 28 - Property 22  
1.  
The Alleged Misconduct  
Allan Dawson MacMullin and Roy Elander stand charged that they  
28.  
Between the 1st day of January, 2000 and the 31st day of July, 2005, at or near the  
county of Strathcona, in the province of Alberta, did by deceit, falsehood or other  
fraudulent means, defraud Bank of Montreal of money, of a value exceeding $5,000.00,  
by providing false information to Bank of Montreal in support of a mortgage application  
in the name of Desmond Parenteau and Elaine Lawrence (Bevilacqua) for 52056 RR 214,  
Strathcona County, Alberta (also known as Plan 4059 RS; Lot B), contrary to section  
380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.  
     
Page: 231  
2.  
[1059] The land titles summary [exhibit 22, scan 6520] follows:  
LTO Reg. Date Document $ value Observations  
Date m/d/y m/d/y  
Title Tales  
8/12/02  
6/24/0 transfer  
2
260,000 Willis to 971298 Alberta Ltd. (MacMullin)  
8/12/02  
2/5/03  
2/5/03  
9/17/03  
7/1/02 mortgage  
2/2/03 transfer  
2/2/03 mortgage  
9/12/0 transfer  
3
244,000 To EQUIPLAN (15%)  
305,000 To Parenteau & Bevilacqua  
281,363 BMO  
315,000 To Large  
3.  
The Facts  
[1060] This count reveals how adaptable Mr. MacMullin was. He exploited an otherwise  
straight-forward real estate transaction into a significant personal advantage. Fraud is also  
involved!  
[1061] Mr. MacMullin met Jim Large and his wife Anna Louise Large. Mr. Large was a  
contractor who had run into credit issues and wanted to relocate to the Edmonton area. Mr.  
MacMullin offered him work and promised to help Mr. Large obtain a mortgage if he found a  
house he liked. The Larges found an acreage that the Willis wanted to sell for $260,000.00.  
[1062] The Larges delivered their down payment (nearly $30,000.00) to Mr. Elander. However,  
the Larges did not get title; instead, that went to 971298 Alberta Ltd., a numbered Alberta  
company controlled by Mr. MacMullin. Mr. MacMullin used an EQUIPLAN loan and the  
Larges’ money to buy this home for himself. He then placed the Larges in it as notional renters  
while he attempted to get them a mortgage. The excuse given by Mr. MacMullin was that the  
Larges just could not qualify for a mortgage. The Larges moved into the home and began paying  
Mr. MacMullin rent until this issue settled.  
[1063] It is here that the fraud on BMO occurs. Mr. MacMullin and David Humeniuk, the  
mortgage broker, arranged for a BMO mortgage application for Ms. Bevilacqua and Mr.  
Parenteau to acquire this property. Parenteau and Bevilacqua did not even know each other. Ms.  
Bevilacqua had earlier sold her home to Mr. MacMullin (count 26); and invested with him. Mr.  
MacMullin was finding her a larger home. Mr. Parenteau had earlier assisted Mr. MacMullin as a  
straw buyer. He was prepared to assist again but was unaware of the details of the transaction.  
Ms. Bevilacqua did not agree to assist. Mr. MacMullin misused the documents and information  
he had obtained from Ms. Bevilacqua, provided for the purported legitimate purpose of finding  
Ms. Bevilacqua a larger house.  
[1064] Mr. Parenteau and Ms. Bevilacqua did not intend to acquire this home as a couple, nor  
apply for a BMO mortgage. Mr. MacMullin put them together - a team of straw buyers. If they  
knew that they were being used this way, they did not know the details. Parenteau and  
   
Page: 232  
Bevilacqua explain the BMO mortgage application was a combination of straw buy and identity  
theft. I accept their evidence.  
[1065] Either way BMO was deceived! Mr. Parenteau and Ms. Bevilacqua never saw the  
property, they never negotiated the REPC, and the never set any prices. Neither made a down  
payment. A non-arm’s-length price inflated REPC was presented to BMO. BMO approved a  
CMHC insured first mortgage for $281,000.00. This is $21,000.00 more than the value the  
Larges believed they paid for the home they occupied.  
[1066] The Larges became increasingly concerned and pressured Mr. MacMullin. Mr.  
MacMullin arranged for the home to be transferred to them for $315,000.00. This represents the  
$30,000.00 down payment paid through Mr. Elander’s officer that allowed Mr. MacMullin to  
acquire title using his contacts with EQUIPLAN, plus the approximate BMO mortgage amount  
owing.  
[1067] By defrauding BMO, Mr. MacMullin pocketed about $45,000.00, less expenses. The  
Larges were victims. They paid $315,000.00 for a home they believe they had purchased for  
$260,000.00. The property did not go into foreclosure. The Larges took their loss, remained  
owners of the property throughout the post-2005 Alberta real estate boom and ultimately sold the  
acreage at a tidy profit.  
[1068] Mr. MacMullin set up this entire transaction. He saw an opportunity to profit. His role is  
clear; he intended to deceive BMO and the Larges. The Crown has proven Mr. MacMullin’s  
guilt to absolute certainty. Ignoring all other deceits that occurred on other people, BMO was  
deceived into granting a mortgage on a piece of real estate where the price was artificially  
inflated. The mortgage was made to a couple BMO was told were in a relationship. In fact, they  
did not even know each other. The details of the REPC were deceitful. No down payment was  
ever paid. Mr. Elander’s involvement is discussed below.  
[1069] Mr. Elander’s file on this transaction contains few, if any, irregularities. The REPC  
between the MacMullin numbered company and Bevilacqua and Parenteau is not on his file, but  
was found on other files. The REPC indicates the purchase would be paid by a $30,500.00 down  
payment and a new mortgage, but the down payment was to be paid to the vendor, rather than  
Mr. Elander. The statement of sale and adjustments [Elander file, exhibit 173, property 22, scan  
7571, p 14/125] matches the information on the REPC.  
[1070] The statement of sale and adjustments states the outstanding balance needed is  
$274,728.26. BMO advanced $274,500.00 (net of CMHC fees). No other money was collected  
from the purchasers. Instead, it appears that Mr. Elander simply gave Mr. MacMullin the net  
mortgage proceeds. He ignored the $228.26 shortfall. The vendor’s money paid the straw buyers’  
legal fees. When reviewed within the overall matrix of Elander/MacMullin transactions, this  
conduct is suspicious. Nevertheless, the $228 difference could well be administrative error. The  
statement of monies received and disbursed indicates that some of the money was given to  
Marco Knezevic at Mr. MacMullin’s direction, and some to one of Mr. MacMullin’s companies.  
[1071] There is nothing on Mr. Elander’s file to indicate irregularity in this transaction to the  
standard of criminal culpability. He had no opportunity to meet with the parties because these  
Page: 233  
documents were sent to Edmonton to be signed. All were witnessed by Mr. MacMullin, Mr.  
Knezevic or Mr. Seremet (or forged combinations of those). In other counts, I have expressed  
concerns that Mr. Elander’s affidavit of transferee calculating the cash contribution used 100%  
of the mortgage amount and not the net. In this transaction, the calculation is correct and regular.  
[1072] In short, while the file has much intrigue, there is little to suggest in the documents that  
Mr. Elander’s office was informed that this transaction was not an arm’s-length sale. Nor could  
this readily be ascertained from either the distribution of cash or the land titles documentation.  
Mr. Elander has under oath denied any knowledge of this fraud. His evidence at least raises a  
doubt on this count. He must get the benefit of this.  
4.  
Conclusion  
[1073] The Crown has proven beyond all reasonable doubt all of the elements of count 28. In  
addition to the elements admitted by the Defense, the Crown has proven that Mr. MacMullin  
knew about, participated in, and orchestrated the deceit. He used Mr. Parenteau and Ms.  
Bevilacqua as straw buyers. BMO suffered a deprivation (but no ultimate loss) because they  
made a loan on property in which the purchase price was overstated, based on a non-arm’s-  
length transaction, where the purchaser never intended to be a resident in the home (others were  
living there), and where the down payment documentation was deceitful. Mr. MacMullin  
intended this deprivation.  
[1074] Mr. MacMullin’s general denials of guilt are not believed, nor do they raise a reasonable  
doubt. The Bevilacqua / Parenteau evidence is believable. This was an artificial transaction. The  
buyers had no intention to live in the property (the Larges were living there) nor did they make a  
down payment. Mr. MacMullin is guilty of this offense on the evidence that I accept.  
[1075] The Crown has not proven Mr. Elander’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  
X.  
Count 29 - Property 23  
1.  
The Alleged Misconduct  
Allan Dawson MacMullin and Roy Elander stand charged that they  
29.  
Between the 1st day of January, 2000 and the 31st day of July, 2005, at or near the city of  
Edmonton, in the province of Alberta, did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means,  
defraud Bank of Montreal of money, of a value exceeding $5,000.00, by providing false  
information to Bank of Montreal in support of a mortgage application in the name of  
William Tunney and Michael Smith for 10549-130 Street, Edmonton, Alberta (also  
known as Plan 3875P; Block 57; Lot 9), contrary to section 380(1)(a) of the Criminal  
Code.  
     
Page: 234  
2.  
Title Tales  
[1076] The land titles summary [exhibit 29, scan 6595] follows:  
LTO Reg.  
Date  
Document  
$ value  
Observations  
Date m/d/y m/d/y  
9/23/02  
2/27/03  
2/27/03  
9/9/03  
9/9/03  
3/6/04  
9/8/02  
transfer  
transfer  
mortgage  
transfer  
mortgage  
transfer  
265,000  
265,000  
229,755  
275,000  
220,000  
245,000  
Caroca To Langley  
Langley to Smith and Tunney  
BMO  
2/24/03  
2/23/03  
8/26/03  
8/27/03  
1/30/04  
6/10/04  
To 1034469 Alberta Ltd. ( MacMullin )  
To 907840 Alberta Ltd (18%)  
To Donovan Webber  
To BMO  
6/22/04  
7/24/04  
foreclosure 196,000  
unknown transfer  
199,000  
To 3rd party  
3.  
The Facts  
[1077] Ms. Joy Langley, Mr. MacMullin’s mother, purchased this property in September, 2003.  
There are no details, but the hand written transfer registered at the land titles office was  
witnessed by Mr. Seremet, and commissioned by Mr. MacMullin. Ms. Langley used Mr.  
MacMullin’s address for LTO communications. On January 24, 2003, Ms. Langley transferred  
the property to William Tunney and Michael Smith. Both Mr. Tunney and Mr. Smith gave  
evidence. Neither intended to live in the property, make a down payment, nor felt responsible for  
any of the purchase costs. In fact, when Mr. Tunney later transferred the property he completed a  
Dower affidavit which indicated that neither he nor spouse have lived on the lands at any time.  
This affidavit was commissioned by Mr. Seremet [scan 6595, p 40/127].  
[1078] The REPC contemplated a sale price of $265,000.00 with $1,000.00 paid as an initial  
deposit, then $38,750.00 paid to Mr. Elander, with the balance coming from a new mortgage.  
Mr. Elander’s office did the legal work, however the office sent the documents out to be signed  
in Edmonton. These documents are witnessed and commissioned by Mr. MacMullin and Mr.  
Seremet.  
[1079] The statement of sale and adjustments prepared by the law firm reflects that that the cash  
to close was at or near the dollar value of the BMO mortgage. It includes as credits a deposit  
totaling $39,750.00. However, when the transaction funds were distributed to Ms. Langley, Mr.  
Elander accounts only for the mortgage proceeds. In addition, there is nothing in the interim  
agreement or any documentation that indicates that it was a condition of the sale that the vendor  
would pay the purchaser’s legal fees. Nevertheless, the lawyer’s invoice to the purchasers  
indicates that Ms. Langley has paid their legal fees.  
[1080] These file irregularities, the payment of the purchaser’s legal fees by the vendor, sending  
documents to Edmonton for signatures, and the failure to account for the deposit are capable of  
   
Page: 235  
several inferences. One of them is that Mr. Elander had direct knowledge or was willfully blind  
to the fact that a fraud was taking place. The BMO had a specific requirement that the lawyer  
was to confirm the identity of the borrowers; this was a fraud prevention mechanism. Mr.  
Elander did not disclose to BMO that the transaction documents were farmed out and witnessed  
by the son of the vendor and his apprentice.  
[1081] Mr. Smith and Mr. Tunney remained on title for approximately seven months. It then  
became convenient for Mr. MacMullin to transfer title to one of his numbered companies. This  
step was necessary because Mr. MacMullin needed both Mr. Smith and Mr. Tunney to go their  
own way as straw buyers and acquire other property and mortgages for him. Mr. MacMullin also  
needed title back to this property so that he could place a new 18% interest, $200,000 mortgage  
on this property and the West Cove property (property 29) discussed in counts 32 and 33.  
[1082] Lawyers were not involved in the transfer between Mr. Tunney and Mr. Smith and Mr.  
MacMullin’s numbered company. The documents were witnessed and commissioned (as  
applicable) by Mr. Seremet, Mr. MacMullin and Mr. Knezevic. The transfer was registered  
together with the new high interest rate mortgage.  
[1083] Mr. MacMullin’s numbered company later transferred this property to Donovan Webber  
at a stated value which is less than the values in the previous transactions. Soon after, BMO  
acquired title, with a deficiency judgment, against Mr. Webber. The appraisal in the court-  
supervised foreclosure sale sets the value at $196,000.00. BMO later sold the property for  
$199,000.00.  
[1084] BMO was deceived by Mr. MacMullin into approving this mortgage. There was a long  
list of deceptions, deceits, and false information provided to BMO. Mr. MacMullin was the  
source of them all.  
[1085] The REPC between Ms. Langley and Smith/Tunney was not at arm’s-length. No down  
payment or deposit was made. The mortgage application contained fictional information about  
Mr. Tunney’s assets. The mortgage application indicates that the total down payment or equity  
required, $39,000.00, was coming from an investment with Parallel Corp. Parallel Corp. was  
the name used by Mr. MacMullin to create fictional investments for the purpose of convincing  
banks that the borrowers had substance.  
[1086] On January 1, 2003, Parallel Corp. issued a letter in favor of William Tunney which  
confirmed his investment and indicated that investment would be distributed on February 14,  
2003. Mr. Seremet prepared this letter at the request of Mr. MacMullin. I accept this evidence of  
Mr. Seremet. An elaborate statement of accounting, calculating interest was also included.  
[Humeniuk file, scan 6749, p 43/53]. Mr. Tunney did not have an investment with Parallel Corp.  
These were all lies created by Mr. MacMullin to support his mortgage fraud scheme.  
[1087] The mortgage required that the property be used as a principal residence. Neither Mr.  
Smith nor Mr. Tunney intended to live there.  
Page: 236  
[1088] Mr. MacMullin’s involvement in this transaction is apparent from the beginning. He  
arranged the players, used his mother to acquire property for him (or assisted his mother also  
extract inappropriate cash out of overvalued properties), and obtained a mortgage from BMO to  
bring the financing close to 100%, based on deceitful information. Neither Ms. Langley nor the  
individual who sold the property to her gave evidence, but under the circumstances, the absence  
of any lawyer involvement in that sale strongly suggests that there may have been irregularities  
or deferred purchase payments in the arrangement by which Ms. Langley purchased the property.  
Presumably, these steps were to help get this transaction moving.  
[1089] I conclude that Mr. MacMullin was aware of all of the details of the deceit on BMO  
throughout the transaction. He planned and orchestrated it. Mr. MacMullin found the property.  
He found purchasers and the mortgage broker. He found Mr. Elander.  
[1090] Mr. Elander had, by this time been warned by his legal staff that there were problems in  
the MacMullin deals. He had seen and assisted in several transactions where property sold  
(directly or indirectly) by Mr. MacMullin was reacquired by Mr. MacMullin. Mr. Elander was  
eyewitness to numerous irregularities. REPC instructions that down payments that were  
supposed to be held in trust by his office were allegedly instead delivered directly to the seller. In  
an arms-length transaction, people do not turn over large amounts of money to a seller prior to  
the end of the purchase, at least without their lawyer’s approval and control. This is simply  
common sense; any lawyer should be sensitive to the unusual nature of these actions in  
supposedly arms-length transactions.  
[1091] Mortgage funds were paid out in an irregular manner. The mortgage proceeds usually go  
to the seller. Those, however, were often reduced by many other payments to Mr. MacMullin, to  
the buyers, or for the buyer’s costs. Mr. Elander by this time had observed all of this more than  
once.  
[1092] I am satisfied on this transaction, Mr. Elander either had direct knowledge of the fact that  
Mr. MacMullin was engaged in fraudulent mortgage transaction, or he lacked that knowledge  
only as a result of intentional willful blindness as described by the Supreme Court of Canada in  
R v Briscoe. Mr. Elander knew that BMO was being defrauded in this transaction. When he  
participated in completing the deal he became an aider and abettor.  
4.  
Conclusion  
[1093] The Crown has proven beyond all reasonable doubt all of the elements of count 29. In  
addition to the elements admitted by the Defense, the Crown has proven that Mr. MacMullin,  
knew about, participated in, and orchestrated the deceit. He used Mr. Tunney and Mr. Smith as  
straw buyers. BMO suffered a deprivation because it made a loan on property in which the  
purchase price was overstated, based on a non-arm’s-length transaction, where the purchaser  
never intended to be a resident in the home, and where both the down payment documentation  
was deceitful and the application overstated the assets and net worth of the borrowers. Mr.  
MacMullin intended this deprivation.  
 
Page: 237  
[1094] Mr. MacMullin’s general denials of guilt are not believed, nor do they raise a reasonable  
doubt. Mr. Smith, and Mr. Tunney’s, evidence is believable, and supported by the title tale. This  
was an artificial transaction. The buyers had no intention of living in the property. They did not  
make a down payment. Mr. MacMullin is guilty of this offense on the evidence that I accept.  
[1095] Mr. Elander acted in the transaction with either direct knowledge of the deceit or willful  
blindness to that. His actions contributed to the success of the fraud. He aided and abetted it. His  
denials of knowledge do not stand up to the obvious and glaring documentation in his own file,  
and the LTO records, particularly in the overall context of his interactions with Mr. MacMullin.  
He is guilty of this count.  
Y.  
Count 30 - Property 24  
1.  
The Alleged Misconduct  
Allan Dawson MacMullin and Roy Elander stand charged that they  
30.  
Between the 1st day of January, 2000 and the 31st day of July, 2005, at or near the city of  
Edmonton, in the province of Alberta, did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, defraud  
Maple Trust Company of money, of a value exceeding $5,000.00, by providing false information  
to Maple Trust Company in support of a mortgage application in the name of Richard Cannon  
and Veronica Coronado for #1204, 9921-104 Street, Edmonton, Alberta (also known as  
Condominium Plan 7821088; Unit 8 and 171), contrary to section 380(1)(a) of the Criminal  
Code.  
2.  
Title Tales  
[1096] The land titles summary [exhibit 24, scan 6519] follows:  
LTO Reg.  
Date  
Document  
$ value  
Observations  
Date m/d/y m/d/y  
9/22/01  
9/22/01  
1/29/02  
4/30/02  
4/30/02  
3/10/03  
3/10/03  
9/30/03  
9/13/04  
12/17/04  
4/18/05  
8/8/01  
9/19/01  
1/24/02  
N/A  
4/16/02  
N/A  
N/A  
9/15/03  
9/3/04  
transfer  
mortgage  
transfer  
transfer  
mortgage  
transfer  
mortgage  
transfer  
transfer  
120,000 Fred Fibi purchases from a 3rd party  
136,903 To First Marathon  
140,000 To Russellell Campbell  
N/A  
To MacMullin  
22,800  
To EQUIPLAN (18%)  
178,000 To Cannon and Coronado  
175,441 To Maple Trust  
191,000 To 1066888 Alberta Ltd. (MacMullin)  
190,000 To Barbara Hong  
12/14/04 foreclosure 168,000 To Maple Trust  
4/13/05 transfer  
166,900 To 3rd party  
     
Page: 238  
3.  
The Facts  
[1097] On February 28, 2003, Mr. MacMullin transferred this property to Richard Cannon and  
his spouse Veronica Coronado. They obtained a mortgage through Maple Trust. This is the last  
transaction identified in the indictment where Mr. Elander worked with Mr. MacMullin.  
[1098] The events leading to the sale from MacMullin to Mr. Cannon and Ms. Coronado are  
interesting. The ‘title tales’ reveal that Mr. Fred Fibi purchased this property with a mortgage  
greater than the stated value in the transfer. The lender is prohibited by law from lending any  
more than 95%, and only with default insurance. Possibly this occurred similar to the fraud  
revealed in count 23, property 18. Mr. Fibi then transferred the property to Russellell Campbell  
by a transfer that appears to involve the signing services of Mr. Reger (a straw buyer on other  
deals). The Fibi to Reger transfer does not appear to involve a lawyer. Within 90 days the  
property was again transferred, this time to Mr. MacMullin personally. At the same time, an  
EQUIPLAN mortgage with an 18% interest rate is registered.  
[1099] Mr. MacMullin transfers the property to Mr. Cannon and Ms. Coronado. The price has  
increased to $178,000.00. Maple Trust provides a CMHC insured mortgage to Mr. Cannon and  
Ms. Coronado. Six months after the Maple Trust mortgage, the property is transferred from  
Cannon/Coronado to a MacMullin company, 1066888 Alberta Ltd. That company transfers the  
property to Barbara Hong, Mr. MacMullin’s spouse. She loses it to Maple Trust in a foreclosure.  
The appraised value at the foreclosure is lower than the mortgage debt. Maple Trust ultimately  
sold the property to a third party for an even lower sum.  
[1100] Ms. Barbara Hong gave evidence and indicated that she lived in the property alone or  
with Mr. MacMullin for a considerable period prior to the property going in her name. No one  
else lived with her and she implies that Mr. MacMullin set her up in a condominium that she  
described as luxurious and that he paid all the bills. The transfer of the property to Mr.  
MacMullin and the subsequent transfer to his numbered company and later to Barbara Hong did  
not involve lawyers. The witnesses are the usual collection of John Dunne, Mr. Seremet, and Mr.  
MacMullin as Commissioner, or impersonators of them.  
[1101] Mr. MacMullin used mortgage broker Dave Humeniuk to create the necessary fictions  
and background to allow Mr. Cannon and his wife to obtain this mortgage from Maple Trust. Mr.  
Cannon did not have regular and stable employment. When he last did a straw purchase for Mr.  
MacMullin, he was working part-time at the ‘Hooters’ bar, and was an actor. Mr. MacMullin  
owned a balloon shop on 118th Avenue so he created the fiction that Mr. Cannon worked for his  
‘Balloons Galore and Party Store’ with a salary of $42,000.00 per year. That information became  
part of the mortgage application [Humeniuk mortgage broker, file 6729, p 29/153]. It was pure  
fiction. The employment support letter from ‘Balloons Galore and Party Store’ is signed  
(illegibly) by ‘Rock Bay’, general manager [scan 6729, p 32/153]. For the curious - Rock Bay  
did not testify, at least his name is not on the clerks witness list, nor did Mr. MacMullin  
comment.  
 
Page: 239  
[1102] Since Mr. Cannon was purportedly already occupying a property he had purchased with  
Mr. Parenteau in a previous straw buy deal, Mr. MacMullin needed to concoct a sale of Mr.  
Cannon’s ‘former’ home to permit a high-ratio loan on the new acquisition. A fictional REPC  
was created selling that property to Rod Caroca for $219,000.00. The closing date was January  
17, 2003. We know from the ‘title tale’ of the earlier Cannon/Parenteau transaction the title did  
not pass to Mr. Caroca in December, 2003.  
[1103] Mr. MacMullin had full knowledge of this deceit. He had arranged the straw buyers. He  
worked with Mr. Humeniuk, Mr. Elander, and Mr. Seremet to ensure the pieces fell into place.  
His motive was obvious: Mr. MacMullin set up this transaction to keep his spouse in a high life  
paid for by other peoples’ money.  
[1104] Mr. Cannon and Ms. Coronado indicated they never intended to live in the property,  
make any down payment, pay legal fees for the purchase transaction, or in any way be  
responsible for any costs. The REPC contemplated an initial deposit of $1,000.00. The balance  
of the down payment ($7,800.00) was to be held in trust by the vendor’s solicitor, Mr. Elander.  
Mr. Elander’s file provides no evidence or record, whatsoever, that he ever received the down  
payment or made any inquiry about it.  
[1105] Further, when Mr. Elander accounts to Mr. MacMullin he did not account for the cash to  
close as reflected on the statement of adjustments, which would have required $176,668.44  
[Elander file, exhibit 171, scan 7560, p 16/141], but instead only for the net mortgage proceeds:  
$168,723.74 [Elander files, exhibit 171, deal 24, scan 7560, p 118/ 141]. On its own, this  
evidence from the file leads to an inference that Mr. Elander had direct knowledge that the real  
estate transaction was a sham, or at least that the deposit and down payment were not intended to  
be collected.  
[1106] The Maple Trust’s instructions to Mr. Elander specifically required that the solicitor  
investigate and report this kind of discrepancy:  
It is your responsibility to ensure that:  
i) if the proceeds of the mortgage loan are to be used to purchase the secured  
property, you have no reason to believe that the purchase price to be paid for  
the secured property and the amount actually paid on closing (subject to  
usual adjustments) is not as statedin the Agreement of purchase & sale  
relating to the purchase.  
[Bold in original, Elander file, scan 7560, p 26/141]  
Maple Trust is alive to the fraud of price manipulation and relied on their solicitor to protect  
them.  
[1107] Mr. Elander did not to report the monetary deficiency to Maple Trust. He had to have  
known about this inconsistency prior to distribution of the mortgage proceeds. Mr. Elander aided  
and abetted the fraud on Maple Trust when he failed his obligation. Mr. Elander was still their  
Page: 240  
solicitor at the time he made his final report. The subsequent transfer of this property to a  
MacMullin numbered company was a clear indication that the Cannon/Coronado purchase was a  
fiction. Mr. Elander did not provide an accurate required report to his client. That may reflect  
gross negligence, but other more reasonable inferences are possible. The preferable inference is  
knowledge of fraud or willful blindness.  
[1108] Mr. Elander indicated that he stopped working for Mr. MacMullin because documents in  
the last four MacMullin transactions were signed in Edmonton. Mr. Elander testified this was  
contrary to his instructions, and he did not know this was happening.  
[1109] I have doubt about that evidence (see main judgment, para 374). I believe that Mr.  
Elander quit working for Mr. MacMullin because of incidents such as this where Mr. Elander  
knew the mounting evidence of fraud meant he had lost the cloak of plausible deniability, and  
that he could be found liable for his part in the plot. As this judgment shows, that was in fact  
true.  
[1110] Mr. Elander’s withdrawal was not a significant obstacle to the continued deceit of  
Canada’s financial institutions. Mr. MacMullin found another ‘go to’ lawyer and carried on.  
[1111] On the surface, this real estate transaction has the trappings of a sale from one party to  
another with the purchase being financed by a new mortgage, and the vendor being the sole  
recipient of the net mortgage proceeds. However, beneath that surface, this was just another  
MacMullin fraud. Richard Cannon and his wife Veronica Coronado accurately described the  
untruthful nature of the transaction. There were many people on title, but this was always Mr.  
MacMullin’s property. This was another mortgage fraud.  
4.  
Conclusion  
[1112] The Crown has proven beyond all reasonable doubt all of the elements of count 30. In  
addition to the elements admitted by the Defense, the Crown has proven that Mr. MacMullin  
knew about, actively participated in, and orchestrated this deceit. He used Mr. Cannon and Ms.  
Coronado as his straw buyers. Maple Trust suffered a deprivation because it made a loan on  
property in which the purchase price was overstated, based on a non-arm’s-length transaction,  
where the purchaser never intended to be a resident in the home and where the down payment,  
and mortgage application documentation was deceitful. Mr. MacMullin intended this  
deprivation.  
[1113] Mr. MacMullin’s general denials of guilt are not believed, nor do they raise a reasonable  
doubt. The Cannon/Coronado evidence is believable. This was an artificial transaction. The  
purchasers had no intention of living in the property. They did not intend to make a down  
payment. Mr. MacMullin is guilty of this offense on the evidence that I accept.  
[1114] Mr. Elander acted in the transaction with direct knowledge of the deceit. His actions  
contributed to the success of the fraud. He aided and abetted it. His denials of knowledge do not  
stand up to the obvious and glaring documentation in his own file. Plus, there exists the other  
 
Page: 241  
informed indicators of knowledge including past participation in deals with warning signs. Even  
before Mr. Elander made his final report to the lender, this property was handed back to a  
MacMullin company. This event required action, but Mr. Elander did nothing. He knew the true  
and fraudulent circumstances of these dealings. He is guilty of this count.  
[1115] The Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt both the guilt of Mr. MacMullin and  
Mr. Elander on this count.  
Z.  
Count 31 Property 25  
1.  
The Alleged Misconduct  
Allan Dawson MacMullin stands charged that he  
31.  
Between the 1st day of January, 2000 and the 31st day of July, 2005, at or near the city of  
Edmonton, in the province of Alberta, did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, defraud  
ING Mortgage Broker Services Inc. of money, of a value exceeding $5,000.00, by providing false  
information to ING Mortgage Broker Services Inc. in support of a mortgage application in the  
name of William Tunney for 11733-92 Street, Edmonton, Alberta (also known as Plan 2256 AD;  
Block 48; Lot 10), contrary to section 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.  
2.  
Title Tales  
[1116] The land titles summary [exhibit 25, scan 6509] follows:  
LTO Reg.  
Date  
Document  
$ value  
Observations  
Date m/d/y m/d/y  
4/5/95  
unknown title  
49,000  
68,000  
See discussion, first paragraph below  
Collins to Seremet  
5/23/03  
5/31/03  
5/31/03  
7/2/04  
5/14/03  
5/15/03  
5/21/03  
6/25/04  
transfer  
transfer  
mortgage  
115,000 Seremet to Tunney  
113,346 ING - CMHC insured  
foreclosure 90,000  
To ING  
11/30/04  
11/23/04 transfer  
79,000  
ING to 3rd party  
3.  
The Facts  
[1117] The Land Titles record for this property did not have the starting point title, owned as  
early as 1995 by Mr. Collins. The first line item in the ‘title tales’ above (a title search) is found  
in the Castillo legal file [scan 7710, p 47/ 95]. A transfer from Mr. Collins to Mr. Seremet for  
$68,000.00 was registered on May 23, 2003.  
[1118] On May 31, 2003, there is a second transfer, now from Mr. Seremet to Mr. Tunney. This  
time, however, the price is stated as $115,000.00.00. Mr. Tunney’s purchase is financed by a  
$113,000.00 CMHC insured ING Financial Services [“ING”] mortgage. In the affidavit of  
       
Page: 242  
transferee for the Collins purchase, Mr. Seremet certifies that he is assuming a $65,000.00  
mortgage and paying $3,000.00 cash. The Collins to Seremet transfer was handled privately; no  
lawyers are involved. Barbara Hong was one of the witnesses. Mr. MacMullin was the  
Commissioner. Mr. Seremet signed as purchaser, where required.  
[1119] These two transactions have very different prices. Although the Collins to Seremet  
transfer is dated only one day before the Seremet to Tunney transfer, the stated purchase price  
had increased from $68,000.00 to $115,000.00. The REPC between Mr. Seremet and Mr.  
Tunney actually predates the transfer between Mr. Collins and Mr. Seremet. If the sale price to  
Mr. Tunney is at market value, then Mr. Seremet swore a false affidavit when he indicated that  
when he bought the land from Collins it was only worth $68,000.00. These facts are instead  
consistent with only one reality: that Mr. Tunney was a straw buyer and the property value  
represented to ING overstated the property’s true worth by about $48,000.00.  
[1120] The deal went badly for ING. They foreclosed Mr. Tunney and in the foreclosure, the  
price crashed back down to $90,000.00. A few months later, ING sold the property for  
$79,000.00. Thus, in the intervening time between Collinssale to Mr. Seremet and ING selling,  
the price moved from a low of $68,000.00, to a high of $115,000.00 and dropped to $79,000.00  
about 18 months later.  
[1121] Mr. Tunney gave evidence, which I accept. He never planned to live in this home. He did  
the deal in exchange for a fee. He did not set the transaction price. The transaction was not at  
arm’s-length. Someone paid for the down payment but it was not Mr. Tunney.  
[1122] ING was deceived. Deceived into believing this was a normal, regular arms-length  
transaction and the property was worth $115,000.00. ING was also deceived into believing that  
Mr. Tunney was going to live in the property, which made him eligible for a CMHC high-ratio  
mortgage.  
[1123] Grace Nichols acted as the mortgage broker. Her file contains the REPC between Mr.  
Seremet and Mr. Tunney [Nichols file, scan 6713, p 24/ 34]. The REPC reflects an initial deposit  
of $3,000.00 paid to the vendor. Two further deposits of $2,500.00 and $2,750.00 were to be  
held by vendor’s lawyer. The mortgage would be for $109,250.00.  
[1124] There was a feature sheet for the property which resembles the feature sheets found on  
other properties. This was created by Mr. MacMullin, although Mr. Seremet may have done the  
keyboard entry. The REPC found in Mr. Castillo’s legal file [scan 7710, p 39/95] shows Mr.  
Seremet accepted Mr. Tunney’s REPC offer on March 27, 2003. That predates the transfer of the  
property from Collins to Seremet by approximately 60 days.  
[1125] The ING file [deal 25 (Tunney), no scan number] contains the mortgage application  
which indicated Mr. Tunney’s assets were worth $296,000.00. This was based on a principal  
residence whose title was shared with Mr. Smith. Even if Mr. Tunney had legitimately owned  
that property with Mr. Smith, he would have only owned a 50% share, which was not worth the  
asset value claimed in the mortgage application [ING file, p 120/138].  
Page: 243  
[1126] In reality, Mr. Tunney had no equity in the property. His apparent interest was the result  
of another deceitful real estate transaction in which he and Mr. Smith acquired the property (see  
count 29, property 23), financed by a BMO first mortgage. To close both this transaction, and the  
property in count 32 (property 26), a fictional deal was created where Mr. Tunney and Mr. Smith  
sold the property to Marko Knezevic for $275,000.00. (ING file, p 125/138).  
[1127] Two deal opportunities opened when Mr. MacMullin created the fictional Tunney/Smith  
to Knezevic REPC. Mr. Smith went one way on another straw deal (count 32, property 26a). Mr.  
Tunney became the straw buyer in this transaction. Mr. Tunney’s payroll and employment  
information was obtained in January 2003, nearly half a year before this transaction. It is clear  
that this documentation was diverted from another file and another straw deal [ING file, p  
124/138].  
[1128] The inference that one draws from this is that Mr. MacMullin, using mortgage broker  
Grace Nichols, lined up the financing for Mr. Tunney’s non-arm’s length purchase before Mr.  
MacMullin committed to Mr. Collins by getting his transfer signed and delivered to the LTO in  
favor of Mr. Seremet. Then Mr. Castillo completed the sale that would generate the money. The  
difference between the purchase and the pre-arranged resale to the straw buyer Mr. Tunney  
generated a positive cash difference of approximately $47,000.00. The surplus was obtained by  
deceiving ING. Mr. Tunney never intended to live in the home. He was not involved in setting of  
the purchase price. He did not pay a down payment. Mr. Tunney was only involved to receive a  
fee.  
[1129] He instead was the target of a full recourse CHMC collection which resulted in a  
deficiency judgment against him plus costs, on a full solicitor-client basis, in an amount of  
approximately $26,000.00.  
[1130] Mr. MacMullin was the ringleader. His wife Barbara Hong witnessed the transfer from  
Mr. Collins to Mr. Seremet. Mr. MacMullin commissioned the document. Mr. MacMullin lined  
up Mr. Tunney. Lawyers became innocent facilitators of his deceitful conduct. Mr. MacMullin  
was the mastermind of this transaction and orchestrated the deceit; he intended to deceive ING  
for personal economic gain.  
4.  
Conclusion  
[1131] The evidence is overwhelming; ING was deceived by inaccurate documentation, false  
application information, and the creation of a false impression that this was an arm’s-length deal.  
These were all lies. Mr. MacMullin intentionally planned and executed this deceit, with innocent  
lawyers, a mortgage broker, and a straw buyer.  
[1132] The Crown has proven beyond all reasonable doubt all of the elements of count 31. In  
addition to the elements admitted by the Defense, the Crown proved that Mr. MacMullin knew  
about, actively participated in, and orchestrated the deceit. Mr. Tunney was a straw buyer. ING  
suffered a deprivation because it made a loan on property where the purchase price was  
overstated, based on a non-arm’s-length transaction, where the purchaser never intended to live  
 
Page: 244  
in the home, and where the down payment, and mortgage application documentation was  
deceitful. Mr. MacMullin intended this deprivation.  
[1133] Mr. MacMullin’s general denials of guilt are not believed, nor do they raise a reasonable  
doubt. The Tunney evidence is believable. This was an artificial transaction. The straw buyer had  
no intention to live in the property, nor did he make a down payment. Mr. MacMullin is guilty of  
this offense on the evidence I accept.  
AA. Count 32 & Count 33 - Property 26a & 26b  
1.  
The Alleged Misconduct  
Allan Dawson MacMullin stands charged that he  
32.  
Between the 1st day of January, 2000 and the 31st day of July, 2005, at or near the  
county of Lac Ste. Anne, in the province of Alberta, did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent  
means, defraud Toronto Dominion Bank of money, of a value exceeding $5,000.00, by providing  
false information to Toronto Dominion Bank in support of a mortgage application in the name of  
Michael Smith for 1619 and 1620 Marine Crescent, Darwell, Alberta (also known as Plan 721  
MC; Block 16; Lot 19 and 20), contrary to section 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.  
Allan Dawson MacMullin stands charged that he  
33.  
Between the 1st day of January, 2000 and the 31st day of July, 2005, at or near the  
county of Lac Ste. Anne, in the province of Alberta, did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent  
means, defraud Bank of Montreal of money, of a value exceeding $5,000.00, by providing false  
information to Bank of Montreal in support of a mortgage application in the name of Alcide  
Ouellette for 1619 and 1620 Marine Crescent, Darwell, Alberta (also known as Plan 721 MC;  
Block 16; Lot 19 and 20), contrary to section 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.  
[1134] Counts 32 and 32 relate to the same property located in the summer village of West  
Cove. They are handled together.  
2.  
[1135] The land titles summary [exhibit 26, scan 6510] follows:  
LTO Reg. Date Document $ value Observations  
Title Tales  
Date m/d/y m/d/y  
4/16/03  
4/16/03  
transfer  
int.  
74,500? Johnson to 1034469Alberta Ltd. (MacMullin)  
6/17/03  
74,500  
1034469Alberta Ltd. to Smith  
transfer  
6/17/03  
9/9/03  
6/18/03  
8/25/03  
mortgage 73,429  
transfer 80,000  
Toronto Dominion - CMHC insured  
Smith to 1034469 Alberta Ltd. (MacMullin)  
     
Page: 245  
9/9/03  
8/27/03  
10/5/03  
11/1/03  
mortgage 200,000 To 907840 Alberta Ltd. (Hoffman, Dorchuk)  
11/28/03  
11/28/03  
11/28/03  
transfer  
transfer  
178,000 To Marko Knezevic  
225,000 To Ouellette  
10/24/03 mortgage 213,750 BMO - GE Capital default insured  
3.  
The Facts  
[1136] The subject matter of this property is a single-family home on two lots in the summer  
village of West Cove. In the five months between June 2003 and November 2003 the property  
was used to deceive two financial institutions:  
TD Bank - count 32, property 26a  
BMO - count 33 property 26b  
[1137] Two different straw buyers were involved: Mr. Mike Smith, and Mr. Ouellette. Both had  
previously participated in Mr. MacMullin’s schemes. The Ouellettes had participated in the deal  
involving the Chins highlighted in the main body of the judgment, and later in this schedule.  
Smith had participated in two earlier deals, one with Mr. Tunney.  
[1138] Mr. MacMullin was involved in every element of these two transactions. In count 32  
Grace Nichols, a previous business investor with Mr. MacMullin (see count 4), was utilized as a  
mortgage broker. In count 33 David Humeniuk served in that role.  
[1139] Our ‘title tale’ begins in April 2003. Mr. MacMullin found Mr. Johnson who wanted to  
sell this property. The price in that transaction was less than $74,500.00. It is not possible to  
determine how much less because that amount was typed over. Mr. Smith acquired the property  
from a MacMullin company 1034469Alberta Ltd. in a transaction that we identify as an  
intervening transfer (see main judgment paras 108, 109).  
[1140] The sale by the first MacMullin company to Mr. Smith was notionally for $74,500.00.  
This purchase was financed by a TD personal residence mortgage of $73,429.00. Within two  
months, Mr. Smith transferred the property back to a MacMullin corporation. This provided Mr.  
MacMullin the opportunity to take out an 18% $200,000 mortgage on this and another property.  
Two months after the $200,000.00 mortgage was registered, the second MacMullin company  
transferred the property to Marko Knezevic at a stated price of $178,000.00. That transfer was a  
sham. It started the second ‘straw deal’ to Mr. Ouellette.  
[1141] I begin with the TD/Smith deal. Grace Nichols helped Michael Smith acquire his  
mortgage to purchase the property [Grace Nichols, broker file, scan 6718]. Michael Smith was a  
straw buyer. He had no money but he had previously pulled another mortgage with Mr. Tunney  
(count 31). The fictional sale of that property to Marko Knezevic created $10,000.00 of false  
equity [scan 6718, p 12/33]. The mortgage application was signed on April 24, 2003, and  
submitted to the TD for approval.  
 
Page: 246  
[1142] The Nichols file also contains the REPC between 1034469 Alberta Ltd. and Michael  
Thomas Smith. The plan was to purchase that property for $74,500.00. The deposit and down  
payment was $3,725.00 (subject to adjustments). The vendor’s signature on that offer is Mr.  
MacMullin’s.  
[1143] The transaction between 1034469 Alberta Ltd. and Michael Smith was not at arm’s-  
length. Second, Mr. Smith and Mr. Tunney were not equitable owners of the property that they  
held and purportedly sold to Mr. Knezevic. Third, it was impossible for Mr. Knezevic to buy the  
existing Smith property because he had no money. Mr. Knezevic’s unconditional offer was never  
intended to go anywhere other than to Grace Nichols’ file and the TD bank. This was a fictional  
sale and nothing else. Similarly, Mr. Smith never intended to pay the deposit or the down  
payment. He did not do so.  
[1144] In short, TD was deceived. Mr. Smith’s assets were exaggerated. The purported purchase  
was not at arm’s-length, Mr. Smith did not intend to live in the property. He did not intend to pay  
the down payment. The disposition of his notional property to Mr. Knezevic on an unconditional  
basis was pure fiction. Based on the deceit TD granted a loan which would not have been  
advanced if it was aware of the true state of affairs.  
[1145] My comments about Marco Knezevic expressed in the main judgment bear repeating. He  
had no role in these transactions; his name was borrowed as and when needed by Mr. MacMullin  
or by Mr. Seremet on behalf of Mr. MacMullin (and at Mr. MacMullin’s request). Mr. Knezevic  
had no money to make this purchase. From time to time, he would assist his brother by signing  
documents placed in front of him. He was a convenience and nothing more. The use of Mr.  
Knezevic’s name in these transactions is a neon light that the signed document is a fiction, or a  
document with fictional components.  
[1146] In November, 2003 Mr. Knezevic transferred the property to Mr. Ouellette. This started  
the second deceit based on this same property. BMO was induced to lend a CMHC-insured first  
mortgage of $213,750.00  
[1147] This property is different from many others. There actually was a significant renovation  
performed on the property. However, despite what the appraisal may suggest, that renovation  
was not finished at the time Mr. Ouellette dealt with BMO. Mr. Ouellette had originally made a  
business loan to Mr. MacMullin to improve this property. When that proved inadequate, he  
agreed to “pull a mortgage as a straw buyer. Mr. MacMullin retained appraiser Bruce Anderson  
to appraise the property on August 19, 2003, because of the amount of work that was financed by  
Mr. Ouellette [Humeniuk file, scan 7145, p 6-12/103]. The appraisal at face value, valued the  
property in August 2003 at $230,000.00.  
[1148] The appraisal reconfirms the definition of market value, which is discussed in the main  
portion of this judgment. [Humeniuk file re-Ouellette (scan 7145) p 6-12 /103. Two integral  
concepts are the arm’s length nature of the transaction and the presumption that vendor  
inducements to purchaser distort market value.  
Page: 247  
[1149] BMO issued their commitment letter to Mr. Ouellette on October 8, 2003. It contained a  
condition that Mr. Ouellette would confirm the rental income from the existing Ouellette home  
was $1,500.00 per month. That home was identified as now becoming a rental property. There  
would be no rental income. A false lease had been created between Mr. Ouellette and Marko  
Knezevic. Unfortunately, that lease was for less rent than BMO required.  
[1150] The next two facts of this count are troubling. On October 9, 2003, Mr. Humeniuk wrote  
to Mr. MacMullin and indicated that he has made an error in the rental calculation. The rent in  
the Knezevic lease is not enough. Mr. Humeniuk suggested the remedy is to rewrite the lease for  
a higher amount, or to lease out the basement [Humeniuk, scan 7145, p 41/103]. Mr. MacMullin  
chose to create a retroactive lease for the basement dated September 30, 2003 (nine days before  
the memo which suggested the lease changes) and sent that to Mr. Humeniuk. This document  
was then forwarded to BMO to satisfy the $1,500.00 per month rent income requirement.  
[1151] The REPC between Knezevic and Ouellette is for a stated price of $225,000.00 [scan  
7145, p 86], on the assumption that the property was fully finished. In fact, the renovations were  
never completed, although this is glossed over in the REPC. BMO was never told about the true  
condition of the property. The reason that Ouellette was drawn into pulling this mortgage was to  
get the necessary funds to finish the home and make it saleable. This was not an arm’s-length  
sale. The price has been created artificially. There was never an intention to pay the initial  
deposit, the additional deposit, or the cash to close the transaction.  
[1152] The BMO mortgage application required Mr. Humeniuk and Mr. MacMullin develop a  
narrative that would explain the previous MRS Trust deal with the Chins [Count 34 property 27]:  
... the home apparently is quite close to Silverwood Heights Mall. The noise level is  
apparently much worse than the client expected and he just cannot live there. He has a  
purchaser and has sold it privately to maximize the cash for the down payment of the new  
place. We then had him approved through Laurentian bank and CMHC, this time the  
vendor backed out of the deal. We have an appraisal on file giving the property being  
purchased a value of $230,000. ...  
[1153] This detail explains the transfer from Mr. Ouellette to a MacMullin company two  
months after he pulled the mortgage to assist the Chins. The REPC for the sale of the Chin  
property by Ouellette to a MacMullin company is found on this file.[scan 7145, p 95/103].  
[1154] In one of the understatements reviewed during this long trial Mr. Humeniuk faxed Mr.  
Seremet on August 27, 2003 to suggest that Mr. Ouellette not acquire another home for a  
minimum of six months!  
[1155] BMO was deceived. The REPC was not at arm’s-length, it was never intended that the  
down payment suggested in the offer would be collected or paid. The home was not finished but  
the offer made no reference to that. Fictional leases were created to explain away the retention of  
the Ouellette personal home. A transfer and REPC were created to remove the Chin property out  
of the name of the Ouellettes, even though their personal recourse for the high-ratio mortgage  
Page: 248  
would continue. The application did not disclose that debt. Any one of these items would  
constitute a material deceit.  
[1156] Mr. MacMullin planned and was the ringleader of this deceit. He put the parties together.  
He worked out the triangulations and covered off the combination of deceitful documentation  
that was necessary. He responded in a positive way to the suggestions by Mr. Humeniuk to  
improve the optics of the deal. It was Mr. MacMullin’s deal all the way. He knew BMO was  
being deceived. That was his intention, and he benefited.  
[1157] Mr. Ouellette begins taping the calls between himself and Mr. MacMullin as the  
relationship between them deteriorates. In these calls Mr. MacMullin acts as he did on the  
witness stand: he is vague and diversionary. He attempts to reassure Mr. Ouellette, but also  
cautions him that if Mr. Ouellette starts going to the authorities there could be legal  
repercussions. He suggests Mr. Ouellette could be implicated. He observes in martyr-like fashion  
that if it is God’s will that he go to prison, then he will minister to those in prison. The combined  
effect of all of these recorded messages between Mr. MacMullin and Mr. Ouellette is in effect a  
confession by Mr. MacMullin.  
4.  
Conclusion  
[1158] The Crown has proven beyond all reasonable doubt all of the elements of count 32 and  
33. In addition to the elements admitted by the Defense, the Crown has proven that Mr.  
MacMullin had knowledge of, and actively participated in and orchestrated the deceit. Mr. Smith  
then Mr. Ouellette were used as straw buyers. Maple Trust and BMO each suffered a deprivation  
because each made a loan on property in which the purchase price was overstated, based on a  
non-arm’s-length transaction, where the purchaser never intended to be a resident in the home or  
pay the down payment and mortgage application documentation was deceitful. Mr. MacMullin  
intended this deprivation.  
[1159] Mr. MacMullin’s general denials of guilt are not believed, nor do they raise a reasonable  
doubt. The Ouellettes’ and Smith’s evidence is believable, this transaction was artificial, as they  
had no intention to either live in the property or make a down payment into it. Mr. MacMullin is  
guilty of this offense on the evidence that I accept.  
BB. Count 34 - Property 27  
1.  
The Alleged Misconduct  
Allan Dawson MacMullin stands charged that he  
34.  
Between the 1st day of January, 2000 and the 31st day of July, 2005, at or near the city of  
Edmonton, in the province of Alberta, did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, defraud  
M.R.S. Trust Company of money, of a value exceeding $5,000.00, by providing false information  
to M.R.S. Trust Company in support of a mortgage application in the name of Alcide Ouellette  
     
Page: 249  
for 8732-179 Street, Edmonton, Alberta (also known as Plan 3498; Block 22; Lot 7), contrary to  
section 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.  
2.  
The land titles summary [exhibit 27, scan 6511] follows:  
LTO Reg. Date Document $ value Observations  
Title Tales  
Date m/d/y m/d/y  
11/20/00  
transfer  
transfer  
transfer  
122,000 The Chins add her father to their title  
19,000 The Chins remove her father  
225,000 Chins to Ouellette  
5/29/03  
6/25/03  
6/25/03  
9/3/04  
5/19/03  
6/18/03  
6/13/03  
mortgage 207,562 M.R.S. Trust  
caveat  
10/7/03  
4/2/04  
9/3/04  
8/16/03  
3/27/04  
transfer  
transfer  
caveat  
230,000 Ouellette to 1066888 Alberta Ltd. (MacMullin)  
224,000 1066888 Alberta Ltd. to Chin  
Charge in favor of Ouellette  
3.  
The Facts  
[1160] This count was the subject of significant discussion and analysis in the main part of the  
judgment (paras 149-152). A count-specific summary is presented here. This activity occurred  
prior to count 33. The order is switched because the Crown grouped multiple counts on one  
property together.  
[1161] Mr. and Mrs. Chin were in financial difficulty. They turned to Mr. MacMullin. Mr.  
MacMullin conceded in his cross-examination that he wrote a document which outlines a  
financial method to extract the Chins from their mess.  
[1162] He instructed them to go deeper into debt to make an investment with him. That  
investment would pay their mortgage payments. Being free of mortgage payments would lower  
their cost of living. Mr. MacMullin had also been working with Mr. Ouellette and his wife, and  
drawn them further and further into his questionable business practices. Mr. MacMullin  
separately sold both the Chins and the Ouellettes on a transaction where the Chins would sell (on  
paper only) their property to the Ouellettes for $225,000.00, with a mortgage greater than the  
total of the Chins’ existing mortgage load. The Chins would then invest the surplus with Mr.  
MacMullin.  
[1163] Mr. MacMullin through broker David Humeniuk put together an application to M.R.S.  
Trust for a principal residence CMHC-insured mortgage. The evidence of the Chins and the  
Ouellettes dovetails. They all admit the true nature of the transaction and that the Chins never  
intended to move out of the home, nor do the Ouellettes move in. Later, following the transfer  
and new mortgage, Mr. Ouellette transferred the property to Mr. MacMullin’s 1066888 Alberta  
Ltd. Company. At that point, he took a sworn statement as part of the Dower Act requirements  
   
Page: 250  
that neither he nor his wife had ever resided in the property at any time since their marriage [scan  
6511, p 20/71]. The entire transaction between the Chins and the Ouellettes was a sham  
organized by Mr. MacMullin to fuel Mr. MacMullin’s need for cash. There was no investment to  
pay an amount equal to the mortgage payment. The Ouellettes paid the mortgage payments until  
they got wise after a meeting with the Chins and realized that Mr. MacMullin had tricked both  
families.  
[1164] The viva voce evidence on this count is so graphic that I need not review any of the files  
in detail. The Chins never received any money out of the “pretend deal”; they got an old vehicle  
and a refurbished computer. The money was all diverted to Mr. MacMullin. M.R.S. Trust was  
deceived in the following ways:  
The sale between Chin and Ouellette was not at arm’s-length.  
The price reflected in the sale exceeded the value of the property.  
The down payment reflected in the transaction was never paid.  
The mortgage application contained fictional information about the Ouellettes’  
situation in needing a new principal residence, because they intended to rent their  
home [Humeniuk file, scan 6728, p 33/80].  
Possession never changed; the property did not become the principal residence of the  
Ouellettes  
All lies!  
[1165] Later, the Ouellettes wanted out of the property. Mr. MacMullin arranged a transfer of  
land for $230,000.00 to a MacMullin company as an intermediary. The property was then  
returned to the Chins. That transfer (which did not involve a lawyer) was completed by Mr.  
Dunne, Mr. MacMullin, Mr. Knezevic and Mr. Seremet as witnesses and Commissioner of  
Oaths. The land later went back the Chins. Mr. Ouellette filed a caveat to protect him for the  
unpaid amounts that he invested into the Chin property for mortgage payments and other costs.  
To get their own home back the Chins had to pay back Mr. Ouellette and assume a mortgage that  
was greater than the mortgages paid out through the M.R.S. Trust mortgage. The Chins lost  
greatly in this transaction. M.R.S. Trust never lost any money because the Ouellettes were  
willing to help the Chins after both couples had been preyed upon, and victimized by Mr.  
MacMullin.  
[1166] Four credible witnesses, the Chins and the Ouellettes, provide the evidence for the Crown  
to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. MacMullin was the ringleader and set up a scheme  
to deceive M.R.S. Trust into granting a mortgage that it would not have otherwise granted had it  
known the true circumstances. M.R.S. Trust was deceived by Mr. MacMullin. He used the  
Ouellettes, the Chins, David Humeniuk (the mortgage broker) and Mr. Castillo (lawyer) to assist  
him in pulling off this deception. He intended to deceive M.R.S. Trust.  
Page: 251  
[1167] Mr. MacMullin admits he was involved. As I have indicated in the main judgment body, I  
reject Mr. MacMullin’s opinion that parties can legitimately waive a down payment, than not tell  
the financial institution about that effective lowering of the price. I also reject the concept of  
satisfying residency by taking momentary possession.  
[1168] Toward the end of this transaction Mr. Ouellette had started recording his calls to Mr.  
MacMullin. Mr. MacMullin’s responses are vague and elusive. This was just as his evidence is  
on the witness stand, but, notably, at one point he cautions Mr. Ouellette about saying too much  
to M.R.S. Trust, to not get M.R.S. Trust thinking the deal is a “scam”. But that is all it ever was -  
a scam!  
4.  
Conclusion  
[1169] The Crown has proven beyond all reasonable doubt all of the elements of count 34. In  
addition to the elements admitted by the Defense, the Crown has proven that Mr. MacMullin,  
knew about, participated in, and orchestrated the deceit. He used the Ouellettes as straw buyers.  
M.R.S. Trust suffered a deprivation because it made a loan on a property where the purchase  
price was overstated, in a non-arm’s-length transaction, where the purchaser never intended to  
live in the home and the down payment and mortgage application documentation was deceitful.  
Mr. MacMullin intended this deprivation.  
[1170] Mr. MacMullin’s general denials of guilt are not believed, nor do they raise a reasonable  
doubt. The evidence of the Ouellettes and Chins is believable and accepted; it dovetails on the  
material particulars. This was an artificial transaction. The Ouellettes had no intention to either  
live in the property or make a down payment. Mr. MacMullin is guilty of this offense on the  
evidence that I accept.  
CC. Count 35 - Property 28  
1.  
The Alleged Misconduct  
Allan Dawson MacMullin stands charged that he  
35.  
Between the 1st day of January, 2000 and the 31st day of July, 2005, at or near the city of  
Edmonton, in the province of Alberta, did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, defraud  
Bank of Montreal of money, of a value exceeding $5,000.00, by providing false information to  
Bank of Montreal in support of a mortgage application in the name of Stephen Lu for 16B  
Callingwood Court, Edmonton, Alberta (also known as Condominium Plan CD8476; Unit 104  
and 76), contrary to section 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.  
2.  
Title Tales  
[1171] The land titles summary [exhibit 28, scan 7596] follows:  
       
Page: 252  
LTO Reg. Date  
Document  
$ value  
Observations  
Date  
m/d/y  
m/d/y  
10/15/03  
10/15/03  
12/12/03  
9/29/04  
11/1/04  
9/12/03 transfer  
9/17/03 mortgage  
caveat  
9/25/04 transfer  
10/5/04 transfer  
118,000  
114,125  
unknown  
115,000  
115,000  
Doucet to Lu  
BMO  
Caveat - condominium fees  
Lu to 1087407 Alberta Ltd. (MacMullin)  
1087407 Alberta Ltd. to Vanderploeg  
3.  
The Facts  
[1172] Mr. Lu was approached by either Mr. MacMullin or Mr. Seremet to participate in a real  
estate transaction as a straw buyer. Mr. Doucet transfers this property (a condominium in the  
Collingwood area of Edmonton) to Lu at a transfer price of $118,000.00 funded through a BMO  
CMHC insured first mortgage. Mr. Doz acted for BMO and Mr. Lu, while Mr. Castillo acted for  
Mr. Doucet. Mr. Seremet attended at the Doz law office to pick up documents on behalf of Mr.  
Lu. The statement of sale and adjustments indicates that the purchaser paid the entire deposit to  
the vendor. Closing interest was waived by the vendor. The only funds the Doz office handled  
was the mortgage money.  
[1173] The Doz legal file [Doz legal file, scan 7165, p 40/ 99] contains a fax cover sheet from  
the “Freedom!!” fax which has been identified as being from Mr. MacMullin. This fax forwarded  
insurance for Mr. Lu on the Collingwood condominium.  
[1174] The REPC [Doz’s file, p 89/99] is a self-counsel press preprinted form. The transaction  
amount indicated is $125,000.00 and the price (which may be subject to negotiation) was later  
reduced to $118,000.00. Mr. Doucet’s signature is not witnessed. Mr. Lu’s signature appears to  
be witnessed by one of Mr. Seremet’s alternative signatures.  
[1175] Mr. Lu gave evidence under oath that he was told by both Mr. Seremet and possibly Mr.  
MacMullin that if he participated by obtaining a mortgage he would be paid a fee. He had no  
intention to live in the property, nor had any vested interest in the property. He made no down  
payment. All details of the transaction were arranged by either Mr. Seremet or Mr. MacMullin.  
[1176] The BMO records are not an exhibit nor is there a mortgage broker’s file. It is therefore  
unclear about what representations were made to BMO. Mr. Doz’s file simply reports to the  
Bank of Montréal with a copy of the title and that law firm’s standard legal report. There is no  
evidence that a statutory declaration confirming principal residence was obtained, or in this case  
required. The Land Titles mortgage does not reflect a CMHC mortgage document and the  
mortgage default fee (described in that manner) may well reflect a GE Capital insurance fee. Mr.  
Doz’s file was not fully provided. He took the position that the BMO had privilege in some of  
the documents and had not consented to their release.  
[1177] Mr. Lu’s oral testimony is the only evidence that I have that suggests a deceit occurred.  
He says he did not pay the down payment and did not intend to live in the property. There is no  
 
Page: 253  
evidence whatsoever that the property price was inflated or what, if any, representations were  
given to BMO.  
[1178] Mr. MacMullin obtained the title to this property nine months later for effectively the  
mortgage principal, and then re-transferred the property for the same price. That downstream  
buyer, Mr. Vanderploeg, gave evidence that at that point the property had deteriorated to the  
point of being condemned. He got the property as his parents had lent Mr. MacMullin  
$10,000.00 and had not been repaid. I am highly suspicious that a fraud occurred in this  
transaction, but without the mortgage broker’s file or the BMO file I am unable to satisfy myself  
of that beyond a reasonable doubt. Mr. Lu is adamant that he did not pay any down payment into  
the transaction and therefore either there was a special arrangement between Mr. Doucet, Mr.  
MacMullin, and Mr. Seremet - none of which has been proved - or Mr. Seremet or Mr.  
MacMullin paid the down payment for him.  
[1179] Mr. MacMullin is linked to this transaction because his company acquired title, after Mr.  
Lu became dissatisfied when Mr. MacMullin did not reimburse him for the mortgage payments  
as promised.  
[1180] Lawyers do not appear to have been involved in the last two transfers: Lu to 1087407  
Alberta Ltd., and 1087407 Alberta Ltd. to Vanderploeg. The transfers witnesses and  
Commissioner of Oaths were identified as John Dunn, Al MacMullin, and Mr. Seremet.  
4.  
Conclusion  
[1181] There is strong pattern evidence here that leads to a high probability that the BMO  
received false information upon which it relied upon to grant a mortgage. It is clear that Mr. Lu  
believed throughout he was participating in a type of arrangement that is consistent with the  
typical MacMullin straw buyer. However, the exhibits before the court, the land titles records  
and Mr. Doz’s partial legal file, do not provide any evidence other than a pattern of  
circumstantial evidence that a deceit occurred on the Bank of Montréal. In result, the Crown has  
not satisfied me beyond a reasonable doubt that a deceit occurred and therefore irrespective of  
Mr. MacMullin’s involvement in this file he must receive the benefit of the doubt. Mr.  
MacMullin is acquitted of this count.  
DD. Count 36 - Property 29  
1.  
The Alleged Misconduct  
Allan Dawson MacMullin stands charged that he  
36.  
Between the 1st day of January, 2000 and the 31st day of July, 2005, at or near the city of  
Edmonton, in the province of Alberta, did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, defraud  
M.R.S. Trust Company of money, of a value exceeding $5,000.00, by providing false information  
to M.R.S. Trust Company in support of a mortgage application in the name of Erik Marney (also  
known as Eric Marney) for #201, 12331 Jasper Avenue, Edmonton, Alberta (also known as  
     
Page: 254  
Condominium Plan CD 5622, Unit 3 and 819), contrary to section 380(1)(a) of the Criminal  
Code.  
2.  
Title Tales  
[1182] The land titles summary [exhibit 29, scan 6512] follows:  
LTO Reg. Date  
Document  
$ value  
Observations  
Date  
m/d/y  
m/d/y  
2/27/03  
3/28/03  
3/28/03  
6/27/03  
8/13/03  
11/27/03  
2/20/03  
3/25/03  
3/25/03  
6/19/03  
unknown caveat  
11/10/03 transfer  
transfer  
175,000  
55,000  
80,000  
22,000  
Cu Lac to Donovan Webber  
Canadian Western Bank (13%)  
L. Biblow (13%)  
mortgage  
mortgage  
mortgage  
830271 Alberta Ltd. (10%)  
unknown Unpaid condominium fees  
175,000  
Webber to 1066688 Alberta Ltd.  
(MacMullin)  
11/27/03  
11/5/03  
11/1/04  
10/31/03 transfer  
249,000  
228,480  
1066688 Alberta Ltd. to Marney  
M.R.S. Trust - CMHC insured  
M.R.S. Trust no deficiency judgment  
11/5/03  
mortgage  
10/26/04 foreclosure 148,000  
3.  
The Facts  
[1183] This property is a residential unit and parking stall in the Liberty Building on Jasper  
Avenue. The ‘title tale’ begins with Mr. Cu Lac selling the property to Donovan Webber (Mr.  
Webber was also involved in count 29, property 23). One of the documents filed at the land titles  
office was commissioned by Ronald Mercier, who is also identified as having historic dealings  
with Mr. MacMullin. It is clear that there is some connection between Mr. MacMullin, Mr.  
Mercier and Mr. Webber, but the exact nature of that connection is unclear. Neither Mr. Mercier  
nor Mr. Webber gave evidence, and Mr. MacMullin did not discuss this relationship in his  
evidence. Mr. Seremet did allude to some relationship.  
[1184] Mr. Webber acquired the unit at a stated value of $175,000.00. Two mortgages totalling  
$135,000.00 were later registered. A few months after taking title Mr. Webber placed a third  
mortgage on title for $22,000.00. The Condominium Corporation filed a caveat for unpaid fees  
in August 2003. In October 2003, Mr. Webber transfers this property to 1066688 Alberta Ltd., a  
MacMullin company. That company in a further transfer (registered the same day) transfers the  
property to Mr. Marney. The only difference in the two purchases is the purchase price has  
escalated from $175,000.00 to $249,000.00.  
[1185] Mr. Marney financed the property through a CMHC (principal residence) insured  
mortgage of $228,480.00. The property was foreclosed less than a year later, but M.R.S. Trust  
only sought a foreclosure order and not a deficiency judgment order. The foreclosure order  
   
Page: 255  
affidavit of value opines that the property is worth $148,000.00, nearly 45% less than the  
notional sale value from 1066688 Alberta Ltd. to Mr. Marney.  
[1186] M.R.S. Trust was deceived when it granted Mr. Marney a CMHC insured first mortgage.  
[1187] Mr. Marney gave evidence under oath that he did not participate in this deal. His  
signature, and identity, were stolen! His documents and personal details were taken from another  
file and then used to obtain the M.R.S. Trust mortgage. Others completed the deal, in his name.  
[1188] I accept his evidence on this point. When the one straw deal in which he admits to be a  
participant went bad he honored his commitment. He paid the bank. This evidence of identity  
theft alone constitutes a deceit on M.R.S. Trust. Mr. MacMullin was the one who used Mr.  
Marney’s identity. Mr. Seremet was away in Europe at the relevant time.  
[1189] Mr. Marney’s evidence is consistent with other facts, both internal and external. First,  
Mr. Marney’s conduct after finding out about the identity theft was consistent with his claim. Mr.  
Marney immediately retained lawyers to present his allegation to M.R.S. Trust and to Mr.  
Barclay after he discovered the identity fraud. Mr. Barclay had acted for all three sides on the  
real estate transaction by which Mr. Marney obtain title and acquired a M.R.S. Trust mortgage,  
but had not witnessed any signatures!  
[1190] Second, despite the mortgage being a CMHC full recourse mortgage, M.R.S. Trust  
elected simply to foreclose on the property rather than attempt to obtain a deficiency judgment.  
This constituted extreme prejudice to M.R.S. Trust and CMHC because their mortgage was for  
nearly $250,000.00 while the foreclosed value of the unit was only $148,000.00.  
[1191] Theft of Mr. Marney’s identity was not the only deceit. Deceits flow through this  
transaction. A river of wrong! The mortgage application was forged. The affidavit which  
declared that the home would be a principal residence, and not be rented was forged and falsely  
sworn. The REPC between Mr. MacMullin’s 1066688 Alberta Ltd. company and Mr. Marney  
was forged, deceitful, and not at arm’s-length. A down payment was never paid. The lawyer’s  
statement of sale and adjustments indicates that the full difference between the mortgage and the  
purchase price was paid directly to the seller. A false document purporting to sell Mr. Marney’s  
existing property (the purported source of the down payment) was also forged and untrue.  
[1192] So how can deceit like this happen? Mr. Barclay was a lawyer in southern Alberta. He  
did not attend in Edmonton to witness any of the signatures. He relied completely on statutory  
declarations completed by Mr. Seremet. Second, Mr. Humeniuk (the mortgage broker) had “the  
nasty habit” of witnessing mortgage applications when he had not in fact seen the people sign.  
That lack of external third-party scrutiny allowed Mr. MacMullin free reign.  
[1193] The false REPC between Mr. MacMullin and Mr. Marney is dated 21 October, 2003.  
This predates the date of the transfer from Mr. Webber to 1066688 Alberta Ltd. There is no  
REPC in any of the exhibits for the transaction between Mr. Webber and 1066688 Alberta Ltd.  
Barbara Hong (Mr. MacMullin’s wife) was the real estate agent for the transaction. The REPC  
does not describe any major renovation work required in the unit, although it is unfinished.  
However the mortgage broker’s file has a fact sheet of features. This was sent to the broker from  
Page: 256  
the “Freedom!!” fax machine. The document’s style is consistent with other feature sheets that  
have appeared in other transactions. The sheet shows the property listed for sale at $259,000.00.  
The feature sheet confirms that the property has a “new kitchen, upgraded bathrooms, new  
flooring throughout, window upgrades”; this information was then taken by the mortgage broker  
and added to the mortgage application [Humeniuk brokers file, scan 6739, p 83/117].  
[1194] The broker’s file discloses receipt of the fax (again from the “Freedom!!” fax line  
purported to come from Mr. MacMullin) where the sender indicates Mr. Marney’s property in  
Blackfalds, Alberta has been sold for $149,900.00, with $120,000 owing on it. In the mortgage  
application Mr. Marney is said to have $25,000.00 of liquid assets. In reality Mr. Marney never  
sold that Blackfalds property. He was stuck with it. Two false REPCs were used here .One to  
acquire the property on a non-arm’s length identity theft basis, the second a fictional REPC to  
establish entitlement to a CMHC insured mortgage.  
[1195] On October 27, 2003 Mr. Humeniuk faxes to Mr. MacMullin concerns about the Marney  
down payment. He indicates that it does not quite add up. Mr. Marney is still short  
approximately $7,700.00 based on his disclosed asset information. Mr. Marney needs $3,735.00  
the estimated closing costs. The broker also notes that the unconditional sale of Mr. Marney’s  
existing home in Blackfalds does not leave enough to cover the full down payment after the  
realtor’s fees are paid. Mr. MacMullin solves this problem by obtaining a mortgage payout  
statement showing slightly more cash.  
[1196] On December 8, 2003, ‘Mr. Marney’ accepted the mortgage commitment from M.R.S.  
Trust. Mr. Humeniuk was the witness [scan 7118, p 30/117]. The commitment includes as a  
required condition:  
A sworn declaration that the dwelling will be owner occupied and will be used as  
a single-family dwelling with no portion rented out and complies with current  
zoning bylaws.  
Mr. Marney never intended to move into this property because he was unaware he had  
purportedly purchased this condominium.  
[1197] On this count, the Crown has proven to the level of absolute certainty that M.R.S. Trust  
granted this mortgage because of various deceits and falsehoods contained in the mortgage  
application and its related documents. This starts with stealing Mr. Marney’s identity, but even  
without that each of these features proves a fraud:  
the price manipulation in the value of the property,  
a non-arm’s-length REPC,  
a false affidavit on the buyer’s intention to reside in the home as a principal residence,  
and  
the nonpayment of the down payment.  
Page: 257  
The fictional sale of the straw bought other property  
Together this evidence is overwhelming.  
[1198] There is no question Mr. MacMullin was involved in this transaction. First, Mr. Seremet  
was away in Europe for a part of this time. I have already rejected the concept of this being ‘Mr.  
Seremet’s fraud show’. It was Mr. MacMullin’s numbered company which purchased the  
property from Mr. Webber, and then immediately flipped the property to ‘Mr. Marney’ but with  
an increase in price of almost $50,000.00. Mr. MacMullin’s wife is identified as the realtor. Mr.  
MacMullin benefited from the money. He used the mortgage money to pay out Mr. Webber and  
perhaps pocketed the difference.  
[1199] Mr. Seremet also gave an alternate reason for this deal. Mr. MacMullin owed Mr.  
Webber favors and agreed as a return favor to Mr. Webber, to increase his financing on the  
property and get Webber, and not MacMullin the money to finish the project. That only alters  
Mr. MacMullin’s motive. It was still a fraud.  
[1200] It is also instructional that the unpaid condominium fee arrears, which had attracted a  
condominium caveat were not paid out by Mr. Webber, as you would expect, but instead by Mr.  
MacMullin, out of the new mortgage. Mr. MacMullin masterminded and assembled the players  
to pull off this fraud. He had a mortgage broker who was prepared to cut corners. His previous  
straw buyer dealings provided him with Mr. Marney’s information. He intended to deceive  
M.R.S. Trust into granting a mortgage in Mr. Marney’s name. That would provide a benefit of  
some type to Mr. MacMullin. The identity fraud prevented M.R.S. Trust from getting a  
deficiency judgment against Mr. Marney.  
4.  
Conclusion  
[1201] The Crown has proven beyond all reasonable doubt all of the elements of count 36. In  
addition to the elements admitted by the Defense, the Crown has proven that Mr. MacMullin,  
knew about, actively participated in, and orchestrated the deceit. He stole Mr. Marney’s identity  
and used that without his consent in a straw buyer purchase. M.R.S. Trust suffered a deprivation  
because they made a loan on property in which the purchase price was overstated, based on a  
non-arm’s-length transaction, where the purchaser never intended to be a resident in the home,  
and where the down payment and mortgage application documentation was deceitful. Mr.  
MacMullin intended this deprivation.  
[1202] Mr. MacMullin’s general denials of guilt are not believed, nor do they raise a reasonable  
doubt. He did not specifically address this deal. Mr. Marney’s evidence is believable. He was  
uninvolved and unaware of this artificial transaction.  
[1203] The evidence about this count is overwhelming! M.R.S. Trust granted a mortgage that  
they would not have granted had they known the true state and circumstances of the transaction  
(i.e. they were dealing with a ghost). The entire transaction was deceitful and based on a stolen  
identity. Mr. MacMullin was the author and ringleader of the deceit. He intended to deceive  
 
Page: 258  
M.R.S. Trust and accomplished that. There was significant deprivation and real economic loss to  
M.R.S. Trust and CMHC arising from this fraud. Mr. MacMullin is guilty of count 36.  
EE.  
Count 37 - Property 30  
1.  
The Alleged Misconduct  
Allan Dawson MacMullin stands charged that he  
37.  
Between the 1st day of January, 2000 and the 31st day of July, 2005, at or near the city of  
Trust Company of money, of a value exceeding $5,000.00, by providing false information to  
Resmor Trust Company in support of a mortgage application in the name of Jessie McCorkle,  
Sandra Lamouche for #207, 10169-104 Street, Edmonton, Alberta (also known as Condominium  
Plan 0222718; Unit 17 and 264), contrary to section 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.  
2.  
Title Tales  
[1204] The land titles summary [exhibit 30, scan 6518] follows:  
LTO Reg.  
Date  
Document $ value  
Observations  
Date m/d/y m/d/y  
5/10/02  
condo  
plan  
Phillips Lofts Ltd  
12/16/03  
12/16/03  
1/26/04  
8/21/06  
8/20/03 transfer  
12/1/03 mortgage 215,694 Resmor Trust - CMHC insured  
1/16/04 transfer  
7/26/06 transfer  
204,000 Phillips Lofts to McCorkle and Lamouche  
215,000 McCorkle/Lamouche to Law  
309,000 Law to Corbett  
3.  
The Facts  
[1205] The most critical fact in this situation is that Sandra Lamouche had her identity stolen.  
She then purportedly purchased a condominium in the Phillips lofts along with Jessie McCorkle.  
This purchase was financed by a mortgage. However, Ms. Lamouche had absolutely no part in  
this transaction.  
[1206] It appears from the REPC that Mr. MacMullin was the original intended buyer, for  
$204,000.00. The land titles transfer used in this transaction looks like it had two sets of typing.  
(A vendor’s lawyer may leave the transferee blank recognizing that the purchaser’s lawyer will  
make the specific descriptions necessary.) Technically the transfer should have been altered to  
reflect an intervening purchaser and the increasing price, but that was not the case.  
[1207] Mr. Humeniuk was the mortgage broker. His file reveals an attempt to get the mortgage  
solely in Mr. McCorkle’s name to assist Mr. MacMullin in financing his proposed purchase of  
this unit [Humeniuk file, scan 7148, p 144/163]. Mr. Humeniuk tried to find a mortgage for Mr.  
       
Page: 259  
McCorkle, but he had a heavy debt load. Mr. Humeniuk was stymied. On October 28, 2003 Mr.  
Humeniuk faxed Mr. MacMullin, expressing concern about Mr. McCorkle’s income and of the  
difference between his employment letter which indicated his annual income was of  
$100,000.00, and his T4’s tax information which only indicated an annual income of $46,000.00.  
Mr. Humeniuk was also frustrated because he had no signed offer to purchase the condominium  
and has no financial information on Ms. Lamouche [e-exhibit scan 7148, p 106/163].  
[1208] The original MacMullin/McCorkle REPC sets the property price at $219,900.00. Ms.  
Lamouche’s name was added later. The purchase contract was delivered to the broker from Mr.  
MacMullin’s “freedom!!” fax. On November 14, 2003, Mr. Humeniuk faxed Mr. MacMullin,  
complaining that the confirmation of down payment was not sufficient nor was an adequate  
source identified. More funds were required. Worse, the void cheque presented to cover the  
mortgage payments was a counter cheque with an account number that is impossible to read.  
[1209] The broker also required a feature sheet. One was received from the “freedom!!” fax  
source. The feature sheet contains stylistic and formatting features that match other feature sheets  
submitted on other properties involved in the MacMullin frauds. The feature sheet’s source is not  
identified. It does not indicate it was prepared by a realtor. This is despite the fact that the  
property was listed with the MLS (multiple listing services) system, and with other professional  
realtors. The obvious explanation is that Mr. MacMullin was trying to create a false basis to  
explain an increase in the price of his purchase at $204,000.00. He needed to show more value  
than the Phillips Loft real estate sales team.  
[1210] Mr. McCorkle had no money for a down payment. Ms. Lamouche was unaware that her  
name is being used in this way. The solution comes from Kings Development with its catchy  
slogan: “building your vision”. Marko Knezevic wrote that Jessie McCorkle had invested  
$25,000.00 with Kings Development and they agreed to cash out some of that investment, but  
with no interest or bonus attached. Although Mr. McCorkle did not testify (the Crown indicated  
he is deceased), there is a strong inference that this investment is a fiction. Mr. McCorkle had a  
poor financial track record. Kings Development is another MacMullin alter-ego with no apparent  
substance. Mr. Knezevic is a high school student with no assets, and not an investment fund  
manager. This leads me to conclude that Mr. McCorkle had no investment with Kings  
Development; this was a document produced to deceive a potential financial institution.  
[1211] Information in the ResMor mortgage application is also fraudulent. The application  
included a narrative section titled “general notes”. Ms. Lamouche is described as the primary  
borrower and Mr. McCorkle is her brother, who has agreed to act as a co-signer. The mortgage  
commitment issued by ResMor contains the requirement that:  
By signing your acceptance of the mortgage commitment you warrant that the  
property will be your personal residence and that no portion of this property will  
be rented out.  
There was also a condition that:  
Page: 260  
... the applicant(s) certify that the information given is true and correct and that  
any subsequent changes to the applicant(s) financial or employment information  
provided in the application may result in cancellation of this mortgage  
commitment.  
[1212] Mr. Seremet confirmed he made his sales pitch to Ms. Lamouche and her husband,  
including the markup concept. This was the scheme where marking up a property by 10% meant  
that a high-ratio mortgage at 90% or 95% of the marked up value translated into 100% financing.  
However, Mr. and Mrs. Lamouche were turned off by Mr. Seremet’s ‘mortgage pulling’  
proposal. They refused to go further.  
[1213] Mr. MacMullin then started phoning the couple and pressured them to enter the scheme.  
The Lamouches continued to refuse. Unfortunately, they had initially provided financial  
information to see if they qualified for these investments, before they had the details of the  
scheme. That is how Mr. MacMullin stole Ms. Lamouche’s identity.  
[1214] No one verified her identity. Mr. Humeniuk had the “nasty habit” of witnessing  
signatures that he had not personally observed. The lawyer used on this transaction, Brett  
Barclay, was based in southern Alberta, and he sent the documents for signature. I accept Mr.  
Seremet’s evidence that Mr. MacMullin badgered him to witness and commission Ms.  
Lamouche’s signature. When Mr. Seremet wanted to telephone Ms. Lamouche to confirm she  
was a straw buyer Mr. MacMullin became distressed. I accept that Ms. Lamouche’s signature  
was forged and Mr. Seremet assisted in perpetrating this fraud by commissioning and witnessing  
a signature which he had not seen.  
[1215] I completely accept Ms. Lamouche’s evidence that her identity was stolen. She is  
absolutely exonerated of any wrongdoing in this mortgage fraud. It is a great credit to this couple  
that unlike so many others, they pierced through the sales pitch and concluded that the  
MacMullin ‘pulling a mortgage’ scheme was wrong.  
[1216] Mr. MacMullin did not give specific evidence about this transaction.  
[1217] Perhaps the review on this purchase could have ended with the observation about the  
stolen identity, however that was only one of the many deceits perpetrated to obtain this  
mortgage. The transaction between Mr. MacMullin and Mr. McCorkle was not at arm’s-length,  
Ms. Lamouche had no intention to live in the property (she had no idea it existed). The purported  
funding source for Mr. McCorkle’s down payment was a fraudulently created document on the  
letterhead of Kings Development. The list goes on. ResMor was deceived. They relied on the  
information to their detriment. Mr. MacMullin was the mastermind of the scheme and a direct  
player. He arranged all of the others to assist in the deception.  
[1218] Shortly after acquisition, Mr. McCorkle and (purportedly) Ms. Lamouche transferred title  
to Mr. Law. Mr. Seremet appears to have prepared and completed that transfer. The price was the  
assumption of the mortgage. Several years later Mr. Law sold the property for nearly  
$100,000.00 more than he paid. One presumes ResMor was paid so in this case it did not suffer a  
Page: 261  
final economic loss. Of course, my finding that Mr. MacMullin is guilty does not require an  
actual loss.  
4.  
Conclusion  
[1219] The Crown has proven beyond all reasonable doubt all of the elements of count 37. In  
addition to the elements admitted by the Defense, the Crown has proven that Mr. MacMullin  
knew about, participated in, and orchestrated the deceit. He used Mr. McCorkle and Ms.  
Lamouche’s identity as straw buyers. ResMor Trust suffered a deprivation because it made a  
loan on a property in which the purchase price was overstated, based on a non-arm’s-length  
transaction, where the purchaser never intended to be a resident in the home and the down  
payment and mortgage application documentation was deceitful. Mr. MacMullin intended this  
deprivation.  
[1220] Mr. MacMullin’s general denials of guilt are not believed, nor do they raise a reasonable  
doubt. The Lamouche evidence is believable. This was an artificial transaction where the  
purported buyers had no intention to live in the property or make a down payment on it. One had  
no intention to be involved in any way! Mr. MacMullin is guilty of this offense on the evidence  
that I accept.  
FF.  
Count 38 - Property 31  
1.  
The Alleged Misconduct  
Allan Dawson MacMullin stands charged that he  
38.  
Between the 1st day of January, 2000 and the 31st day of July, 2005, at or near the city of  
Edmonton, in the province of Alberta, did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, defraud  
Laurentian Bank of Canada of money, of a value exceeding $5,000.00, by providing false  
information to Laurentian Bank of Canada in support of a mortgage application in the name of  
Randy Yuk Mah for #1004, 9816-112 Street, Edmonton, Alberta (also known as Condominium  
Plan 8320201; Unit 54 and 182), contrary to section 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.  
2.  
Title Tales  
[1221]  
The land titles summary [exhibit 31, scan 6526] follows:  
LTO Reg.  
Date  
Document  
$ value  
Observations  
Date m/d/y m/d/y  
8/2/01  
8/14/02  
6/27/03  
7/26/01  
7/19/02  
6/19/03  
mortgage  
transfer  
2nd  
71,068  
80,000  
22,500  
Royal Bank  
3rd party to Donovan Webber  
To 3rd party lender  
mortgage  
       
Page: 262  
1/14/04  
1/14/04  
1/14/04  
6/7/04  
12/21/03 transfer  
12/27/03 Transfer  
12/27/03 mortgage  
130,000 Webber to Seremet  
165,000 Seremet to Yuk Mah  
151,470 Laurentian Bank  
5/8/04  
transfer  
153,000 Yuk Mah to Reynolds  
12/6/04  
5/4/05  
11/29/04 foreclosure 140,000 Laurentian Bank  
4/11/05  
transfer  
112,000 Laurentian Bank to 3rd party  
3.  
The Facts  
[1222] This property is a condominium unit and parking stall in the Crestwood Towers,  
Edmonton. Randy Yuk Mah gave evidence and confirmed that he was a straw buyer who  
participated in this transaction for a fee.  
[1223] In 2002 Donovan Webber (who had some association with Mr. MacMullin, and involved  
in other deals) was the owner of the property. He had purchased it from the prior owner for  
$80,000.00 and assumed the prior owner’s Royal Bank mortgage. Later, Mr. Webber placed a  
second mortgage with a corporate lender for $22,500.00.  
[1224] Mr. Webber sold the property to Mr. Seremet who concurrently resold it to Mr. Yuk  
Mah. The Yuk Mah purchase was principally funded by a Laurentian Bank insured first  
mortgage. Between these two transactions the price jumped by $35,000.00.  
[1225] The application and related documentation form the basis of the allegation of fraud in this  
case. We begin with the basic proposition that the transaction between Mr. Seremet and Mr. Yuk  
Mah was not at arm’s-length. This conclusion flows from the evidence of both Mr. Yuk Mah and  
Mr. Seremet. Mr. MacMullin did not give specific evidence about this transaction. Mr. Yuk Mah  
was in it for the money; he had no intention of living in the property. He was referred to Mr.  
Seremet and Mr. MacMullin through a friend. This was a way to get some cash for a down  
payment to buy the home that he would actually want to live in. The Crestwood Towers unit was  
not it. Assuming that the transaction between Webber and Seremet represented market value  
there was an unexplained $35,000 price escalation. Mr. Seremet indicated that Mr. MacMullin  
set all of the prices.  
[1226] The REPC between Mr. Seremet and Mr. Yuk Mah indicated a $5,000.00 initial deposit,  
another $3,250.00 owing, and a projected mortgage of $156,750.00. The REPC was signed on  
November 24, 2003, approximate one month before Mr. Webber signed the transfer of the  
property to Mr. Seremet. The feature sheet on the mortgage broker’s file again uses Mr.  
MacMullin’s style and layout, but it is uncertain whether Mr. MacMullin composed this or asked  
Mr. Seremet to do that. It is clear that the feature sheet was sent to the mortgage broker from  
either Mr. MacMullin or through Joe Seremet.  
[1227] The broker informed Mr. MacMullin that Mr. Yuk Mah needed to prove that he had the  
closing costs in the bank: $2,700.00. Mr. Yuk Mah was not going to put in any money. His deal  
with MacMullin was to the contrary. Mr. Seremet told Mr. Yuk Mah to meet Mr. MacMullin at  
 
Page: 263  
the ATB. He did, Mr. MacMullin advised him he had deposited $2,200.00 in Yuk Mah’s  
account. Mr. Yak Mah was astounded, but checked and sure enough - that deposit had just been  
made. Mr. MacMullin then asked Mr. Yuk Mah to withdraw the $2,200.00. Mr. Yak Ma  
bargained for some of his straw buyer fee, so only $1,200.00 was withdrawn and returned to Mr.  
MacMullin. The post-deposit balance slip was used to satisfy the lender that Mr. Yuk Mah had  
the closing cost funds.  
[1228] This incredible story had such a ring of truth to it that it did not even need Mr. Seremet’s  
corroboration. I accept it completely. Mr. MacMullin, in addition to being the mastermind and  
organizer, was prepared to personally deal with this small detail. This simply confirms the steps  
he would take to orchestrate a fraud on a financial institution. He was the mastermind behind the  
deceit.  
[1229] In the application submitted to the bank around November 27, 2003, the proposed  
borrower certifies:  
We hereby certify that the information given in my/our mortgage application is  
complete and correct and is given for the purpose of obtaining the mortgage loan  
and/or financial services applied for.  
On December 5, 2003, Mr. Yuk Mah accepts the commitment for funding ‘witnessed’ by Mr.  
Humeniuk.  
[1230] The mortgage application indicated that it was conditional upon:  
A declaration that property will be owner occupied and used as a single-family  
dwelling.  
[1231] Mr. Barclay’s file reveals that Mr. Yuk Mah did take such a statutory declaration. Mr.  
MacMullin commissioned it, December 27 2003. His commissioner’s stamp was applied. The  
signature looks like Mr. MacMullin’s from the observation of the numerous documents signed  
by him, but one cannot rule out a forgery by Mr. Seremet. I accept that if Mr. Seremet did forge  
Mr. MacMullin signature to this document then he did so with Mr. MacMullin’s knowledge,  
consent and supply of his stamp.  
[1232] Mr. Brett Barclay from the Chinook County Law Office completed all of the legal work  
for the parties. He sent the documentation to Edmonton. There it was (purportedly) signed before  
Mr. MacMullin as a Commissioner for Oath’s and Mr. Seremet as a witness.  
[1233] Mortgage payments were due after the transaction closed. Mr. Yuk Mah testified he  
became increasing frustrated in his attempting to find either Mr. Seremet or Mr. MacMullin to  
reimburse him for the required mortgage payments.  
[1234] Then he inspected the property and quickly realized that he had been duped. It was  
stripped clean. Mr. Yuk Mah wanted out. At that point, he did not even care if he got his fee. I  
accept Mr. Seremet’s evidence that after Mr. Yuk Mah purchased the property Mr. MacMullin  
Page: 264  
had some of his workers take out high quality bathroom fixtures. Those were then installed in the  
unit occupied by Barbara Hong.  
[1235] The conversations between Mr. MacMullin and Mr. Yuk Mah became increasingly  
strident. Mr. Yuk Ma went to the police. Mr. MacMullin responded that he would not help him  
further.  
[1236] The property then transferred to Mr. Reynolds for a couple of thousand dollars more than  
the Laurentian Bank mortgage, and less than the notional purchase price between Mr. Seremet  
and Mr. Yuk Mah. This transfer was prepared, and witnessed by Mr. Seremet. Laurentian Bank  
foreclosed not long after that. The valuator (appraisal) in the foreclosure concluded that the  
market value of the property at the time of the foreclosure was $140,000.00, leading to a deficit  
judgment against Mr. Yuk Mah and Mr. Reynolds. Even that estimate turned out to be overly  
optimistic as the property was later sold to a bona fide third party for only $112,000.00.  
[1237] I am satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt, that the Laurentian Bank based their mortgage  
on deceitful false information including a non-arm’s-length transaction that overpriced the  
property to allow sufficient funding to pay out the initial vendor. Laurentian Bank was also  
deceived by the commitment and undertaking that this would be a principal residence while Mr.  
Yuk Mah had no intention to live in this unit. He was in it for the money. I conclude beyond a  
reasonable doubt that Mr. MacMullin was the mastermind of this particular mortgage fraud by  
setting up the details, involving and lining up the players, and directing the mortgage broker Mr.  
Humeniuk. He also assisted or directly prepared of some of the deceitful paperwork, including  
the trip to the ATB to salt Yuk Mah’s account. Mr. Seremet acted as his agent with full  
knowledge and the direction of Mr. MacMullin.  
4.  
Conclusion  
[1238] The Crown has proven beyond all reasonable doubt all of the elements of count 38. In  
addition to the elements admitted by the Defense, the Crown has proven that Mr. MacMullin  
knew about, participated in, and orchestrated the deceit. He used Mr. Yuk Ma as a straw buyer.  
The Laurentian Bank suffered a deprivation because it made a loan on property in which the  
purchase price was overstated, based on a non-arm’s-length transaction, where the purchaser  
never intended to be a resident in the home, and where the down payment, and mortgage  
application documentation was deceitful. Finally the condition of the unit was overstated, and its  
amenities stripped away to increase the comfort level of Barbara Hong – Mr. MacMullin’s  
spouse. Mr. MacMullin intended this deprivation.  
[1239] Mr. MacMullin’s general denials of guilt are not believed, nor do they raise a reasonable  
doubt. Mr. Yuk Ma’s evidence is believable. This was an artificial transaction. He never intended  
to live in the property. He did not make a down payment. The evidence here is overwhelming  
and conclusive that Laurentian Bank was defrauded by Mr. MacMullin. Mr. MacMullin is guilty  
of count 38 on the evidence that I accept.  
 
Page: 265  
GG. Count 39 - Property 32  
1.  
The Alleged Misconduct  
Allan Dawson MacMullin stands charged that he  
39.  
Between the 1st day of January, 2000 and the 31st day of July, 2005, at or near the city of  
Edmonton, in the province of Alberta, did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, defraud  
Resmor Trust Company of money, of a value exceeding $5,000.00, by providing false  
information to Resmor Trust Company in support of a mortgage application in the name of  
Chandararith Ngeth for condo #403, 10106-105 Street, Edmonton, Alberta (also known as  
Condominium Plan 0226956; Unit 18 and 104), contrary to section 380(1)(a) of the Criminal  
Code.  
2.  
[1240] The land titles summary [exhibit 32, scan 6624] follows:  
LTO Reg. Date Document $ value Observations  
Date m/d/y m/d/y  
Title Tales  
12/15/03 transfer  
12/15/03 transfer  
130000 1077380 Alberta Ltd. to MacMullin  
167500 MacMullin to Ngeth  
153765 ResMor - CMHC insured  
3/23/04  
3/23/04  
6/1/05  
3/16/04  
5/25/05  
8/3/05  
mortgage  
foreclosure 84000  
transfer 79000  
To ResMor  
8/19/05  
ResMor to 3rd party  
3.  
The Facts  
[1241] This count involves another residence and parking space in the Liberty Building on  
Jasper Avenue in Edmonton. An Alberta company, 1077380 Alberta Ltd. (probably owned by  
Mr. Mercier) transferred this property to Mr. MacMullin for $130,000.00 on an intervening  
transfer basis. The registration was ultimately completed with Mr. Ngeth as the owner, and a  
purchase price of $167,500.00. That represents a $37,500 price increase through the intervening  
transfer process. The initial transfer is prepared on December 15, 2003 but the portions involving  
Mr. Ngeth were completed in March 2004.  
[1242] The ResMor mortgage at $153,765.00 provided the funding to close this deal. It is  
unclear what, if any, building improvement went on in this unit between December of 2003 and  
March 2004.  
[1243] Mr. Ngeth was foreclosed about a year later. The foreclosure appraisal sets the value of  
the property at approximately $85,000.00, resulting in a deficiency judgment against Mr. Ngeth  
for nearly $75,000.00. The ultimate resale to a third party was for even less: $77,000.00.  
[1244] ResMor was deceived in the mortgage application upon which they based their  
$153,765.00 loan.  
       
Page: 266  
[1245] First, the sale between the intervening purchaser Mr. MacMullin and Mr. Ngeth was not  
at arm’s-length. There is significant circumstantial evidence that the price was greatly inflated,  
assuming the initial transaction between Mr. MacMullin and 1077380 Alberta Ltd. was an arm’s-  
length purchase at market value. Second, the unexplained 50% drop in price through the  
foreclosure procedure is very strong circumstantial evidence that the earlier transaction prices  
were inflated. Mr. Ngeth did not make any down payment. He did not intend to live in the  
property as his principal residence.  
[1246] Dave Humeniuk of Power Mortgage Center Limited acted as a mortgage broker in the  
application. He ‘witnessed’ both the application and commitment letter accepted by Mr. Ngeth,  
although he conceded under oath on the witness stand that he did not actually see Mr. Ngeth  
sign. It is unclear whether Mr. Ngeth signed the document or whether his signature was forged  
by Mr. MacMullin, or by Mr. Seremet acting on the direct instruction of Mr. MacMullin.  
[1247] The ResMor mortgage commitment required the borrower agree to certain conditions and  
sign. Condition 3 reads:  
The applicant(s) certify that the information given is true and correct and that any  
substantial subsequent changes to the applicant(s) financial, or employment  
information provided in the application may result in cancellation of this  
mortgage commitment.  
A short position above the signature of Mr. Ngeth is the following note:  
1, by signing your acceptance of the mortgage commitment you warrant that the  
property will be your personal residence and that no portion of this property will  
be rented out.  
[1248] This is a transaction where a false financial history was produced. An October 19, 2002  
investment agreement was created between Mr. Ngeth and LAM Development International Inc.,  
for an $8,000.00 investment with a high rate of return. That was to fuel the $14,000.00 down  
payment, which must go through the lawyer’s office. This investment is fictional.  
[1249] The mortgage broker also receives informational data about the condition of the suite,  
and its restoration and renovation. However, in reality this unit was under renovation and  
incomplete. The description supplied to the lender was inaccurate.  
[1250] The REPC between Mr. MacMullin and Mr. Ngeth sold the property for $167,500.00  
with a total down payment of $16,000.00. There is no indication in the interim agreement that  
the property is anything but a properly completed condominium unit. The REPC was dated  
February 15, 2004, shortly after Mr. MacMullin acquired the unit. To the extent that this was  
fictional, ResMor was again deceived. The author of this deception is Mr. MacMullin. The  
application indicates an investment with Mr. MacMullin’s company as the source of the down  
payment.  
[1251] This file reflects Mr. Humeniuk’s assisting Mr. MacMullin. By now, Mr. Humeniuk is  
aware that Mr. Ngeth has purchased several other properties all within a short period of time. He  
knows this would raise the eyebrows of potential lending institutions and the CMHC. Mr.  
Page: 267  
Humeniuk suggests to the lender that it seek insurance approval through GE Capital [Humeniuk  
file, scan 7157, p 93/98].  
[1252] Mr. Cox acted for all parties in completing this real estate transaction. When he  
distributed the $14,000.00 cash shortfall check he received in his office and the ResMor  
mortgage proceeds he transferred $132,200.00 to the corporate file 1077380 Alberta Ltd., paid  
Ronald Mercier $15,000.00, and Alan MacMullin $16,375.00. This is Mr. MacMullin’s benefit  
for having arranged the straw buyer. Mr. Cox’s legal file is precise in detail. The report letter  
dated May 18 2004 was sent to Mr. Ngeth at the unit he purportedly purchased. However, that  
correspondence is then returned “address unknown”. On September 21 2004, a report was mailed  
to a different address care of Joseph Seremet.  
[1253] Mr. Ngeth never moved in and probably could not have done so in any case because of  
the state of construction. Mr. Ngeth’s evidence is consistent with the paper trail and with Mr.  
Seremet’s evidence. Mr. MacMullin did not give direct specific evidence about this transaction.  
[1254] The evidence is overwhelming that ResMor granted a mortgage on false, misleading, and  
untruthful information, and the supporting documentation that came with it. ResMor relied on  
this based on the certifications of the borrower. The ringleader and mastermind of this particular  
fraud on a financial institution was Mr. MacMullin. He set the details up, he engaged the parties,  
and he used them for his own economic benefit. He intended all of this and the result.  
4.  
Conclusion  
[1255] The Crown has proven beyond all reasonable doubt all of the elements of count 39. In  
addition to the elements admitted by the Defense, the Crown has proven that Mr. MacMullin  
knew about, participated in, and orchestrated this deceit. He used Mr. Ngeth as a straw buyer.  
ResMor Trust suffered a deprivation because it made a loan on property in which the purchase  
price was overstated, based on a non-arm’s-length transaction, where the purchaser never  
intended to be a resident in the home, and the down payment, and mortgage application  
documentation was deceitful. Mr. MacMullin intended this deprivation.  
[1256] Mr. MacMullin’s general denials of guilt are not believed, nor do they raise a reasonable  
doubt. The Ngeth evidence is believable. This was an artificial transaction. Mr. Ngeth had no  
intention of living in this property. He did not make a down payment. Mr. MacMullin is  
convicted of count 39 on the evidence which I accept.  
HH. Count 40 - Property 33  
1.  
The Alleged Misconduct  
Allan Dawson MacMullin stands charged that he  
40.  
Between the 1st day of January, 2000 and the 31st day of July, 2005, at or near the  
hamlet of Evansburg, in the province of Alberta, did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent  
     
Page: 268  
means, defraud ING Mortgage Broker Services Inc. of money, of a value exceeding $5,000.00, by  
providing false information to ING Mortgage Broker Services Inc. in support of a mortgage  
application in the name of Michael Smith for 4815-52A Avenue, Evansburg, Alberta (also known  
as Plan 7720687; Block 16; Lot 11), contrary to section 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.  
2.  
Title Tales  
[1257] The land titles summary [exhibit 33, scan 6600] follows:  
LTO Reg.  
Date  
Document  
$ value  
Observations  
Date m/d/y m/d/y  
4/1/03  
3/26/03  
transfer  
transfer  
mortgage  
transfer  
83,000? Whitty to Olmstead  
4/16/04  
4/16/04  
3/28/01  
3/2/05  
3/16/04  
4/5/04  
83,700  
Olmstead to Knezevic (MacMullin) to Smith  
106,915 ING - CMHC insured  
112,000 Smith to Whitty  
7/30/04  
2/22/05  
6/23/05  
foreclosure 90,000  
transfer 72,500  
To ING  
7/20/05  
ING to 3rd party  
3.  
The Facts  
[1258] This property is a small residential home in Evansburg, Alberta. In the spring of 2003,  
Mr. and Mrs. Whitty transfer the property to Mr. Olmstead. The value is not clear. The buyer  
assumed an Alberta Treasury Branch mortgage with a face value of $83,000.00. The mortgage  
was registered by the Whittys in 1988. Mr. Olmstead deposes in the affidavit of transferee that  
the value of the property is $93,000.00. It is unclear how he paid that amount. As circumstances  
develop, his relationship to the Whittys is also uncertain.  
[1259] In March 2004, Mr. Olmstead signed a transfer selling the property to Marko Knezevic  
(Mr. Seremet’s younger brother) for $83,700.00. That transfer was used in an intervening  
transfer style (see main judgment paras 108-110) to sell the property to Mr. Mike T. Smith for  
$110,000.00. An ING, CMHC principal residence mortgage of $106,000.00 funds this purchase.  
This was Mr. Smith’s third ‘straw deal’. He was not paid for any and yet Mr. MacMullin could  
get him back on board with the promise of more reliable funding ahead.  
[1260] Mr. Smith retransferred this property three months later, not to Mr. Olmstead, but instead  
to the parties who sold to Mr. Olmstead: the Whittys. That transfer did not go through a law  
office. The documentation appears to have been completed by Mr. Seremet.  
   
Page: 269  
[1261] Mr. Olmstead was not a witness, but his name also arose in count 33 (property 26(b)). In  
that property, Mr. MacMullin induced Mr. Ouellette to purchase 16 Marine Crescent, Westcove,  
as a ‘straw buyer’. The cash from that transaction would then pay to finish the property. When  
Mr. MacMullin and Mr. Ouellette began fighting, Mr. MacMullin put Mr. and Mrs. Olmstead  
into that property on some type of rental purchase agreement.  
[1262] Therefore, this transaction is really a swap of houses with Mr. Olmstead selling a lower-  
priced home to Mr. MacMullin, and Mr. MacMullin selling a higher-priced home to Mr.  
Olmstead. The higher-priced home was the subject of the higher Ouellette mortgage. Straw  
buyers facilitated both deals.  
[1263] When Mr. Ouellette unraveled these transactions, it appears that the Whittys (the  
individuals who sold the property to Olmstead) obtained the title back. While intriguing, this  
resale is not relevant to whether Mr. MacMullin orchestrated a fraud on ING by arranging its  
mortgage to Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith even listed the 16 Marine Crescent Westcove property as his  
address on the Humeniuk mortgage application [e-exhibit, Humeniuk mortgage file, scan 6748, p  
17/65]. A cheque was altered by either Mr. Seremet or Mr. MacMullin to establish Mr. Smith’s  
address was in Westcove (property 26). That is where he had ‘pulled the mortgage’ before the  
one conducted by Mr. Ouellette.  
[1264] The mortgage application was made through Power Mortgage Center (David Humeniuk).  
The application said Mr. Smith had various assets including: a loan receivable, and various  
stocks and bonds worth $20,000.00, and personal effects with a value of $25,000.00. Mr. Smith  
had none of this.  
[1265] Another fiction was a letter on the Kings Development (1034469 Alberta Ltd.), letterhead  
confirming a $20,000.00 investment with that company. John Dunne purportedly signed the  
letter. The letter attached supporting documents: a copy of fictional investment agreement,  
fictional accounting records, and a March 2004 authorization to withdraw $7,000.00 from the  
investment. This letter was supplied to the mortgage broker and forwarded to ING. The letter  
was pure fiction, as Kings Development is an alter ego of Al MacMullin or a MacMullin  
company [e-exhibit, Humeniuk mortgage file, scan 6748, p 38/65]. The detail included made it  
seem Kings Development was a legitimate investment house. Mr. Seremet testified he prepared  
this false documentation. I believe him. He also indicated he prepared it at Mr. MacMullin’s  
request. I believe that also!  
[1266] There was also a sheet that described the mortgaged property as an ‘Evansburg Gem’,  
and which referenced extensive features and renovations. This document was likely prepared by  
Mr. MacMullin or Mr. Seremet at his request. I cannot be sure of which, but it does not affect the  
outcome on this count.  
[1267] The REPC used was the Alberta Realtors Association form. The transfer was between  
Marko Knezevic and Mr. Smith for $109,000.00, with an initial deposit of $1,000.00 and another  
$4,450.00 to be paid in cash. The balance would come from the mortgage. The Kings  
Page: 270  
Development documents that substantiated the $7,000.00 to complete the deal was in response to  
ING’s demand for evidence that funds were available to pay closing costs such as legal fees and  
tax adjustments. The REPC was submitted to ING and became part of the basis on which it  
granted the mortgage. The application was a deceitful document in that it was based on a REPC  
not at arm’s-length, the price had not been individually negotiated, the price was greater than  
what the property was worth, and in reality no down payment was ever contemplated. The Cox  
legal file (e-exhibit, scan 6743, p 11/268) reveals that Mr. MacMullin used Mr. Knezevic to  
extract approximately $17,000.00 out of this transaction.  
[1268] On page two of the application [scan 6748, p 18/65] a fiction is created about Mr. Smith.  
It indicates that he was living with relatives, but had bought a home with a friend. When they  
proved incompatible Mr. Smith bought a fixer-upper home at Westcove (the Westcove property  
is featured in count 32), and was now moving on to this Evansburg property. All lies!  
[1269] ING was deceived by the mortgage application. It accepted it was financing a house  
worth $110,000.00. Nothing was further from the truth. At best, the house was worth about  
$83,000.00, and that high estimate assumes some element of arm’s length and fair market value  
in the Olmstead/MacMullin transaction. The price increased when Mr. Knezevic (possibly  
without his knowledge or consent) acted as an intervening purchaser. ING received only the  
REPC between Mr. Knezevic and Mr. Smith. That REPC was not at arm’s-length.  
[1270] Second, the mortgage was a CMHC approved mortgage, where the purchaser intends the  
property to be his principal residence. Mr. Smith never intended to live in the home. He had no  
money for a down payment, nor did he pay one. He was another of Mr. MacMullin’s victims,  
living the dream, and hoping he would someday receive the money that Mr. MacMullin had  
promised.  
[1271] The direct evidence that we have on this file comes from Mr. Knezevic, who indicated he  
had no real involvement in these frauds other than signing to help his brother, and in any case his  
signature was often forged. We had the evidence of Mike Smith who made clear that he had no  
intention to either live in this property or pay a down payment. He acknowledged that in fact he  
had no money. Mr. Seremet confirms this.  
[1272] The Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that ING was deceived in this  
transaction by believing the value of the property was higher than it was, that the purchaser had  
paid a down payment, and that the purchaser intended to live in the home. All of these statements  
and understandings were untrue. The fraud was perpetuated by the ringleader of this mortgage  
scheme: Mr. MacMullin. Mr. MacMullin used Mr. Smith, the mortgage broker David Humeniuk,  
Mr. Knezevic and Mr. Seremet all as pawns to perpetrate this fraud.  
[1273] The title tale continues to tell a sad tale about property overvaluation. ING foreclosed on  
Mr. Smith and the Whittys. The foreclosure appraisal was $92,000.00. Even that figure proved  
overly optimistic. ING sold the property to an arm’s length third party four months after it had  
acquiring title for a modest $73,000.00  
Page: 271  
[1274] The Cox legal file [e-exhibit, scan 6743, p 11/268] reveals that Mr. MacMullin received  
approximately $17,000.00 for arranging the straw buyer deal. Ultimately, CMHC or ING lost  
more than this.  
4.  
Conclusion  
[1275] The Crown has proven beyond all reasonable doubt all of the elements of count 40. In  
addition to the elements admitted by the Defense, the Crown has proven that Mr. MacMullin  
knew about, participated in, and orchestrated the deceit. He used Mr. Smith as a straw buyer.  
ING suffered a deprivation because it made a loan on property in which the purchase price was  
overstated, based on a non-arm’s-length transaction, where the purchaser never intended to be a  
resident in the home, and where the down payment, and mortgage application documentation  
was deceitful. Mr. MacMullin intended this deprivation.  
[1276] Mr. MacMullin’s general denials of guilt are not believed, nor do they raise a reasonable  
doubt. Mr. Smith’s evidence is believable. This was an artificial transaction. Mr. Smith never  
intended to live on this property. He did not make a down payment. Mr. MacMullin is guilty of  
this offense on the evidence I accept.  
II.  
Count 41 - Property 34  
1.  
The Alleged Misconduct  
Allan Dawson MacMullin stands charged that he  
41.  
Between the 1st day of January, 2000 and the 31st day of July, 2005, at or near the city of  
Edmonton, in the province of Alberta, did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, defraud  
London Life Insurance Company of money, of a value exceeding $5,000.00, by providing false  
information to London Life Insurance Company in support of a mortgage application in the name  
of Pierre Cazabon and Roger Durocher for #305, 10106-105 Street, Edmonton, Alberta (also  
known as Condominium Plan 0226956; Unit 15 and 237), contrary to section 380(1)(a) of the  
Criminal Code.  
2.  
[1277] The land titles summary [exhibit 34, scan 6591] follows:  
LTO Reg. Date Document $ value Observations  
Title Tales  
Date m/d/y m/d/y  
12/18/03  
5/31/04  
5/31/04  
3/28/01  
12/8/03 transfer  
5/10/04 transfer  
5/12/04 transfer  
5/14/04 mortgage  
250,000 Fullcorp Holdings Inc. acquires 4 units  
212,800 1087407 Alberta Ltd. (MacMullin)  
340,000 Cazabon and Durocher  
330,400 London Life mortgage  
       
Page: 272  
7/18/05  
3/20/06  
6/20/06  
5/10/05 foreclosure 265,000 To London Life  
2/14/06 transfer  
5/5/06 transfer  
nominal London Life to CMHC  
219,000 CMHC to 3rd party  
3.  
The Facts  
[1278] This is the last count. Fittingly, this tale ends on a low note. In late 2003, FullCorp  
Holdings Inc. (Mr. Ronald Mercer) owned at least four units in the Liberty Building on Jasper  
Avenue. This was the building that Mr. MacMullin testified he wanted to purchase, only to have  
that opportunity slip through his fingers.  
[1279] I assume the four units represent two living spaces and two parking stalls. The solicitor  
who acted in the purchase referenced a parking stall plus a living unit. In May 2004, Mr.  
MacMullin (as 1087407 Alberta Ltd.) acquired for $212,800 two of the four units: one living unit  
and one parking stall. Mr. Seremet completed the affidavit of transferee. It states the properties  
were worth $340,000.00. It is clear that by this point Mr. MacMullin has lined up Mr. Cazabon  
and Mr. Durocher to purchase the property for that amount. They had a London Life mortgage  
for $330,000.00. That permitted Mr. MacMullin to pay Fullcorp Holdings Inc. for the property.  
[1280] These values are obviously suspect. A property purchased for only $212,000.00 was  
allegedly worth $340,000.00, even though the transfers occurred close in time, and both were  
registered on the same day: May 31, 2004.  
[1281] Mr. Durocher’s evidence is straightforward. He reluctantly went along to co-sign. He  
wanted to help a relative acquire property. He personally had no intention to live in the property,  
and in fact never even saw the property. He lived in Ontario. The subsequent foreclosure affected  
him negatively. Mr. MacMullin was told that Mr. Durocher was reluctant, so Mr. MacMullin  
coached Mr. Cazabon about what to say to Mr. Durocher to reel him in.  
[1282] Mr. Cazabon gave evidence that when he saw the property it was not yet complete, but it  
had potential. Joe Seremet showed him another unit in the building that was essentially  
completed. It was excellent. Perhaps the other unit was one that Mr. MacMullin had purchased.  
Mr. Cazabon was assured that the purchased unit would be completed before the deal closed.  
After the deal closed, he was ‘stonewalled’ about getting into the property. There were various  
excuses, including that the elevator was out of service. He finally got a locksmith to let him in  
and to change the keys.  
[1283] Post-sale inspection revealed nothing had been done. All work had stopped as soon as  
Mr. Cazabon first inspected the property. Both Mr. Cazabon and the financial institution were  
misled into thinking that the sale was for a completed residence when it was in fact never  
completed. The intervening price, nearly $100,000.00 less than what Mr. Cazabon agreed to pay,  
makes sense in that context. Mr. Cazabon was in fact prepared to reside in the property once it  
was complete. However, Mr. Cazabon’s real intention was to participate in this transaction for a  
straw buyer fee, only living in the property to satisfy CMHC requirements and until it could be  
 
Page: 273  
flipped. He would then get his fee. None of these things happened. He ended up being foreclosed  
out of the property by London Life.  
[1284] During the foreclosure London Life gave a realtor selected by Mr. Durocher 60 days to  
sell the property for around $340,000.00. He was unable to do so. The property ended up being  
foreclosed on the market value asserted by the London Life appraiser: $265,000.00. That is much  
closer to the price that Mr. MacMullin paid for the units than when they were resold to Mr.  
Cazabon. Much later, CMHC disposed of the unit for $248,000.00, closer yet to Mr.  
MacMullin’s acquisition cost, notwithstanding the implied continuous real estate appreciation  
which occurred during that period of Alberta’s history.  
[1285] Mr. MacMullin orchestrated this deal, planned it completely, and knew all about it. Mr.  
Seremet would sometime act as an intermediary. The evidence, including evidence of Barbara  
Hong’s involvement as the spouse of Mr. MacMullin, does not support any suggestion that this  
was Mr. Seremet’s deal. When the mortgage broker Dave Humeniuk put the mortgage  
application together he assumed as well that the property was completed. Mr. MacMullin knew  
differently. I conclude that the interim agreement contains fraudulent information: the property  
was completed when it was not.  
[1286] On the witness stand Mr. MacMullin did not indicate any intention to complete the  
property, nor did he describe any business impediment as to why the renovations were  
incomplete. As an Accused he is not obliged to provide any information, however absent that  
information all conclusions and inferences must come from the evidence which I heard and  
accept. I accept that Mr. MacMullin knew and intended that the mortgage describe a completed  
property, even though he had no intention to deliver the property in that state. Mr. MacMullin  
deceived London Life by effectively overstating the purchase price in the interim agreement  
without making any corresponding provision for a buyer’s holdback or any obligation to  
complete the outstanding work.  
[1287] There were the other deceits as well. Mr. Cazabon did not pay the down payment and  
really did not intend to live there unless it was to bend the occupancy rules. The entire  
transaction was to get funding so that Mr. MacMullin could acquire the property with 100% plus  
funding.  
[1288] Any work on the project that occurred after Mr. MacMullin received the money was  
simply to stall off Mr. Cazabon. Mr. Seremet explained that towards the end of this deal there  
was a frantic period where the people with whom Mr. MacMullin was doing business were  
becoming more and more threatening, and this frightened Mr. Seremet. I equate this to the end  
game of a Ponzi scheme where an increasing numbers of investors want contact and payments  
from proponents of the scheme to mitigate their losses. Some of the investors appeared to Mr.  
Seremet to be quite threatening. On at least one occasion he too, like Mr. MacMullin, was  
beaten.  
Page: 274  
[1289] Mr. MacMullin was also having a more difficult time making the straw buyer’s mortgage  
payment. They too became frantic, and individuals such as Mr. Yuk Ma had involved lawyers  
and worse yet from Mr. MacMullin’s point of view, the police.  
[1290] There are two other deceptions in this transaction. First, the interim agreement for  
$340,000.00 (really between Mr. MacMullin and Mr. Cazabon) was initially structured in the  
name of Pinehurst. Pinehust was the original vendor of this property which dealt with Fullcorp  
Holdings Inc.) [e-exhibit, Cox legal file, scan 6928, pp 153/165, 163/165]. When the proposed  
sale from Pinehurst to Cazabon was questioned, a new REPC was created with a transfer from  
Parallel Corp. (a MacMullin trade name). It used the identical terms as the Pinehurst variation.  
The transfer was dated April 18, 2004, well before Mr. MacMullin obtained title. Neither REPC  
contains any reference to any construction defects or holdbacks for the completion of the project  
[scan 6918, p 151/165]  
[1291] Second, Mr. MacMullin diverted some unearned money to his spouse Barbara Hong, the  
realtor, by having this transaction appear to go through that realtor’s office, even though it was  
really Mr. MacMullin’s deal. There was another benefit too: this created an independent realtor’s  
document that seemed to confirm that the property was fully renovated when it was not.  
[1292] The solicitor’s legal file indicates that Mr. Seremet brought in a $10,000.00 CIBC money  
order while requesting by signed authorization that it be immediately paid out. This satisfied the  
solicitor that the full down payment had been made. This is consistent with Mr. Cazabon’s  
advice that he only paid the $1,000.00 down payment and he was expecting that if all went well  
he had the option of not moving into this property, and could instead get $1,000.00 back plus a  
fee for his service.  
[1293] The London Life file is 830 pages, and is identified without a scan number: London Life  
- deal 34 (Cazabon & Durocher).pdf. The file supports the viva voce evidence of Mr. Cazabon.  
Initially he felt that he was acquiring the property as an investment opportunity where he would  
receive a fee for assisting in the financing. He felt that if the unit was completed to match the  
other MacMullin unit in that building it would be a reasonable place for him to live, in particular  
since the down payment came from others and he expected the return of his $1,000.00 initial  
deposit.  
[1294] Once he gained access to the unit after the deal closed, Mr. Cazabon immediately  
concluded he had been tricked. He became quite vocal. Mr. Cazabon video recorded the  
incomplete state of the property. Prior to Mr. Cox closing his legal file he received a report from  
Mr. Cazabon indicating he had not received any documents and requesting another set. He also  
received a short letter from another member of the bar retained by Mr. Cazabon to investigate  
what was going on.  
[1295] The London Life file reveals that by September 1, 2004 one of their financial center  
employees recorded a memo about this transaction referencing communications going back to  
early August. The London Life employee opines that London Life was led to believe the  
property was complete. The mortgage broker’s file included a statement from Barbara Hong that  
Page: 275  
the unit had been fully refurbished. Although this employee did not give evidence, the London  
Life records are exhibits and the memo is consistent with the oral evidence of Mr. Cazabon. Mr.  
Cazabon’s short video of the unit was introduced as an exhibit. A picture is worth a thousand  
words. The condominium was not much more than a drywall shell.  
[1296] This count is also instructional about the concept of deprivation. While on its face, armed  
with CMHC insurance, London Life could be said to have no risk and therefore no deprivation.  
While the law has evolved away from this simplistic overview. The London Life 800 page file  
reveals several months of extensive effort by London Life to mitigate its losses. It then got into  
an insurance dispute with CMHC, and CMHC refused to cover all of London Life’s losses,  
particularly the condominium and legal fees. The London Life file revealed the reality that the  
relationship between London Life and CMHC is one of insurer and insured, with complicated  
convoluted terms of their contract that can lead companies like London Life into real economic  
deprivation, even though the Crown only has to prove a risk of deprivation.  
4.  
Conclusion  
[1297] The Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt all of the elements of count 41. In  
addition to the elements admitted by the Defense, the Crown has proven that Mr. MacMullin,  
knew about, participated in, and orchestrated the deceit. He used Mr. Durocher and Cazabon as  
straw buyers. London Life suffered a deprivation because it made a loan on a property, in which  
the purchase price was overstated where the property description was inaccurate, based on a non-  
arm’s-length transaction, where the purchaser made no down payment, and where the mortgage  
application documentation was deceitful. Mr. MacMullin intended this deprivation.  
[1298] Mr. MacMullin’s general denials of guilt are not believed, nor do they raise a reasonable  
doubt. The Cazabon evidence is believable. This was an artificial transaction. The evidence is  
overwhelming. Mr. MacMullin orchestrated a deceit on London Life using Mr. Cazabon, Mr.  
Durocher, Mr. Humeniuk, and Ms. Hong to create the impression that a shell of a condominium  
was completely refurbished. This is a deceit on which London Life relied, and to its detriment. In  
this way, Mr. MacMullin was able to take a $218,000.00 property, flip it for $340,000.00, all  
without doing the necessary work to justify that price. London Life was accordingly deceived  
into making the mortgage loan which it would not otherwise have made if it knew the true state  
of affairs. Mr. MacMullin’s intention was to deceive, and he was successful. He is guilty on this  
count.  
 
Page: 276  
Schedule B R. v. MacMullin & Elander  
TIMELINE  
Date Mortgage  
Seremet  
Elander  
MacMullin  
Property  
Count  
Signed  
Jan 18  
Apr 27  
May 06  
1(a)  
2
3
1
3
4
5
Jun 23  
4(a)  
2000  
Oct 13  
5
7
Nov 01  
Nov 24  
Nov 29  
Jan 03  
Feb 12  
Feb 19  
6
7
8
9
8
9
10  
11  
12  
14  
16  
17  
18  
20  
21  
22  
2
19  
23  
24  
25  
26  
6
28  
29  
30  
31  
32  
34  
35  
33  
36  
37  
15  
13  
38  
27  
39  
40  
10(a)  
11(a)  
12  
13  
14(a)  
15  
16  
17  
1(b)  
14(b)  
18  
19  
20  
21(a)  
4(b)  
22  
23  
24  
May 10  
May 24  
2001  
Jul 17  
July 19  
Nov 26  
Mar 17  
Apr 22  
Apr 29  
2002  
May 09  
Sept 12  
Oct 31  
Nov 20  
Jan 02  
Feb 02  
Feb 23  
Feb 28  
May 21  
Jun 02  
Jun 13  
Sept 17  
Oct 24  
Nov 05  
Dec 01  
Dec 19  
Dec 22  
Dec 27  
Jan 29  
Mar 16  
Apr 05  
25  
26(a)  
27  
28  
26(b)  
2003  
2004  
29  
30  
11(b)  
10(b)  
31  
21(b)  
32  
33  
Page: 277  
May 14  
34  
41  


© 2022 IncJournal is not affiliated with or endorsed by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission