FILE PHOTO

Image Credit: Shutterstock

A Kamloops woman will have to wait even longer to hear her sentence as a provincial court judge continues to question the length of her proposed sentence.

Michele Marie Huston pleaded guilty to fraud over $5,000 and lawyers have agreed on a two-year sentence to be served entirely outside of a prison. Judge Stella Frame said she doubted the proposed conditional sentence is a harsh enough punishment for Huston's crime.

"I'm not questioning the effort you two put into this joint submission," Frame said, adding that she's concerned about the public interest of Huston's sentence.

It's the second time Frame delayed a decision for Huston, after she warned defence lawyer Joe Killoran and Crown prosecutor Leah Winters they were fighting an "uphill battle" last month.

"I'm really uncomfortable with this sentence," Frame said as she decided to take more time to consider their proposal.

Huston has pleaded guilty to defrauding her former employer, Kamloops Heating and Air Conditioning, from which she embezzled more than $11,000.

READ MORE: Former Penticton massage therapist charged with sexual assault

She worked there from July 2019 to January 2020, stealing the money through a combination of time theft, unearned commission and using a company credit card.

Three employees confronted her and she initially denied the time theft, but she admitted to what she did once they showed her the evidence they compiled.

It wasn't until the company hired a new bookkeeper that they noticed the thousands in credit card theft, the court heard.

She used the company credit card to purchase concert tickets, book a hotel at Sun Peaks and schedule rooms at local schools for the Sim'ya Ukrainian Society, a dance group she runs. Huston also bought household goods like a Roomba, a rolling kitchen island and an Xbox.

Crown told the court the air conditioning business was able to get refunds for some of her purchases but many, like the iPad she bought for herself and the cellphone she bought for her daughter, couldn't be refunded.

"It was a family business where a man had died. A woman was going through grief and (Huston) was their support. It's horrific circumstances," Frame said at a June 29 hearing. "It's the most predatory fraud of an employer."

READ MORE: Mother of abducted BC children may be driving different vehicle

Killoran and Winters proposed a two-year conditional sentence, followed by three years of probation. The conditional sentence would have included six months of house arrest with an exception to allow Huston to continue her work as an office administrator.

Her conditions for both the sentence and her probation would have barred her from handling other people's money, which they proposed would protect the public.

Huston will likely be ordered to repay around $7,100 that the business couldn't recover. That amount doesn't include the money the company spent for audits to uncover exactly how much she stole.

The court learned how much Huston stole, but it's not clear how much Huston accrued in unearned income compared to the credit card use.

Killoran and Winters returned with the same joint submission on July 27 as when Frame refused their proposal last month. This time, they brought relevant case law supporting the proposal.

One of those was a recent case in which a former financial advisor in Merritt stole tens of thousands of dollars from her mother-in-law. Hope Thomas, 41, was sentenced to a 24-month conditional sentence last month in a Kamloops courtroom.

The court heard part of the reason Huston's defence and the Crown came to agree on a joint submission is because of potential challenges with a key witness.

READ MORE: Kamloops judge scolds lawyers for fraudster's proposed house arrest

Killoran said the accountant who discovered much of Huston's fraud would likely have to testify not only as a witness, but as a court expert on the topic.

He said it wasn't clear whether that person is qualified as an expert and the Crown would risk losing if it went to trial or it would be adjourned.

Frame wasn't convinced.

She said the crime was quite simple, involving the transfer of unearned funds and using a company credit card for things that were not related to the business.

"That doesn't need an expert," she said. "I don't see why this is necessary for an adjournment on the basis of the fact the accountant is not an expert on fraud. They're just an eyewitness then."

Last month, she sent lawyers away to better research their joint submission. This time, however, she took their proposal and the case law Killoran and Winters prepared and plans to make a decision on whether she will accept it at a future date.

Canadian judges have a high bar to clear if they choose to refuse a joint submission, however.

A Supreme Court of Canada decision, on an appeal from the same firm Killoran works at, ruled that a joint submission should only be rejected if it is so "unhinged from the circumstances" it would make the justice system appear broken.

It's not common for judges to refuse joint submissions, especially since the 2016 Supreme Court decision.

Frame said she will take a careful look at the submission before deciding whether she will accept it.

"I am not a rubber stamp just because the Court of Appeal says I have to be," she said on June 29, undeterred by the ruling from the higher court.

To contact a reporter for this story, email Levi Landry or call 250-819-3723 or email the editor. You can also submit photos, videos or news tips to the newsroom and be entered to win a monthly prize draw.

We welcome your comments and opinions on our stories but play nice. We won't censor or delete comments unless they contain off-topic statements or links, unnecessary vulgarity, false facts, spam or obviously fake profiles. If you have any concerns about what you see in comments, email the editor in the link above. SUBSCRIBE to our awesome newsletter here.

News from © iNFOnews, 2023