B.B. stole over 15,000$ from his employer over the period of 1 month. B.B. was fired, and charged with theft. Celine’s client received a conditional discharge, sparing him from a criminal conviction.

While M.B. was depressed, she met a man online who immediately took advantage of her vulnerability. M.B. took money from her employer, and sent it to the man.  In total, she took more than $40,000.  M.B. was convicted of fraud.  The Crown wanted M.B. to spend a year in jail, in order to learn from her mistake.  But Celine convinced the judge that her client was already remorseful, and more good would come from house arrest, where she could return the funds, instead of sending her client to jail.

E.G.P. stole from her employer. After she quit her job, the employer investigated into her habits, and she was charged with fraud. Celine was able to convince the judge that her client should only receive a discharge. The Judge warned E.G.P. that a discharge is a very odd position in such a breach of trust, but agreed to impose it in that case.

S.S. took more than $30,000 from their employer, by writing false paychecks, and was charged with Fraud and Uttering forged documents in Ottawa.  Crown described those actions as huge breaches of trust, and wanted S.S. to spend at least 9 months in jail for the fraud.  Celine successfully convinced the judge to sentence her client to house arrest, giving S.S. time to repay the funds taken.

C.C. took over 30,000$ from her employer and was charged with fraud and criminal breach of trust.  After completing extensive rehabilitation and repaying the entire amount, Celine convinced the judge that her client should not receive a criminal record.  C.C. was sentenced to a conditional discharge, saving her from a conviction.

M.L. was charged with numerous white collar crimes, including fraud, forgery, of a total of more than 4 million dollars.  The Crown wanted to lock M.L. up for 4 years, but Celine expertly argued on behalf of her client, who was sentenced to 18 months jail, and was ordered to repay a much lower sum to only 2 complainants.