R. v. Sukhjit Kaur Sandhu, 2014 BCPC 169 (CanLII)
Citation: R. v. SUKHJIT KAUR SANDHU Date: 20140709
2014 BCPC 0169 File No: 196463-1
Registry: Surrey
IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
REGINA
v.
SUKHJIT KAUR SANDHU
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
OF THE
HONOURABLE JUDGE K. ARTHUR-LEUNG
Counsel for the Crown: R.D. Fox
Counsel for the Defendant: S. Kalkat
Place of Hearing: Surrey, B.C.
Date of Hearing: November 19, 2013
Date of Judgment: July 9, 2014
[1] THE COURT: The sentencing is scheduled for this afternoon of this matter. Earlier this morning I found Ms. Sandhu guilty on a one-count Information, 196463-1, to have provided false and misleading information, pursuant to s. 42.1(2)(a) of the Insurance Vehicle Act.
[2] I thank both counsel for providing me various cases regarding their position of sentencing, and I am aware that the legislation sets no minimum as to finding and permits this court to fine an individual up to a maximum of $25,000 and up to a period maximum of two years in jail. Neither counsel are seeking that I impose a period of incarceration.
[3] I have carefully considered the submissions and carefully considered the facts throughout the trial. In reading R. v. Patel, a 2009 decision of the Honourable Judge Woods out of the Port Coquitlam Provincial Court Registry, Mr. Patel alleged that what was referred to as a "phantom" vehicle struck his vehicle. The court concluded that no such vehicle existed. In paragraph 7, Judge Wood notes that, "Mr. Patel's deception was, in the scheme of things, elaborate and multifaceted."
[4] Similar to Ms. Sandhu, none of these parties in the cases that I will refer to have any criminal record. A driving record for Ms. Sandhu has not been presented to me, and therefore I do not have that for consideration.
[5] Similar to all the decisions, and notably in the Patel decision, as with Ms. Sandhu, I concur with the words of the Honourable Judge Wood, namely at paragraph 15 that states, "This offence has the attributes of fraud. It is an offence that the courts respond to with a measure of moral disapprobation," meaning disapproval. In the Patel decision, Judge Wood imposed a $3,000 fine and made a stand-alone restitution order to the credit of ICBC.
[6] I have also reviewed the R. v. Gill decision, a 2006 decision, again out of the Port Coquitlam Registry, with the Honourable Judge de Couto. That, I find, is unique, however, in that it has a guilty plea as a mitigating factor, and in that decision, it is also a historical decision, Judge de Couto imposed a $2,500 fine.
[7] I have also carefully reviewed the R. v. Sidhu decision, which is also a historical decision out of the Abbotsford Registry, of my colleague the Honourable Judge Hicks, and it is this decision that I take significant amount of guidance. In that decision, Judge Hicks reviews similar to the legislation before me as to the principles and as to the sentencing that is available. Similarly with Ms. Sandhu, this is a first conviction. Judge Hicks relies on the authority of R. v. Eurosport Auto Company, a 2003 decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal, which are words that Ms. Sandhu should listen to very carefully. In that decision Mr. Justice Braidwood states, and I quote:
The insurance fund established by the Province is for the benefit of all persons who have legitimate claims under the scheme. The importance of accurate, honest, and good faith conduct to the integrity of the insurance plan is obvious. The plan must of necessity rely on the honesty and integrity of the persons who participate in it through the provision of goods and services or the making of a claim.
He continues to state:
I am of the opinion that the section was enacted in relation to this program, namely, to provide a penalty that would assist in the furtherance of a valid provincial purpose. Both the penalty and the repayment provisions of this section are integral parts of the insurance scheme.
He continues:
In my view, it cannot be said that s. 42.1 has a general criminal public purpose or object. Its purpose is not to suppress a public evil or safeguard public morals, rather it is aimed at ameliorating the deleterious effects on the Province's insurance plan that occur when illegitimate claims are made against it. Its purpose is to reinforce the obligations on claimants and participants in the claims process to provide truthful, accurate information and to act with the utmost good faith in dealing with the provincial insurer and to preserve the integrity of the plan by penalizing persons whose conduct jeopardises the insurance plan's operation.
That is exactly what Ms. Sandhu has done here.
[8] The prime objective for sentencing, as set out by Judge Hicks, in considering what to impose, is to maintain the confidence in and the integrity of the insurance scheme on this province. She, more than anyone, should be knowing that. Ms. Sandhu is the owner and operator of a British Columbia driving school.
[9] Judge Hicks continues to state at paragraph 12:
Everyone must appreciate that fraud on the scheme will be treated seriously. As Justice Braidwood and others have noted, fraud on the scheme affects every driver in the province and every victim who must turn to the fund. There must be a clear message in each case. Each case, however, must also of course address the personal circumstances of the offender and the court must find a balance between those circumstances and the need to preserve that highly valued integrity which the insurance scheme requires. The offender must, therefore, feel the effect of his sentence, in this case by way of a fine imposed, but at the same time account of his circumstances must be taken.
[10] Similarly in the Sidhu decision, I also find that Ms. Sandhu's conduct was very troubling, and while not premeditated, it was persistent and flagrant over a long period of time.
[11] It was abundantly clear in the decision that I made that a number of independent witnesses with no correlation to one another, corroborated abundantly clear, repeatedly, that she was in the 7-Eleven store, and yet despite being furnished the names of witnesses, they were not contacted by Ms. Sandhu or her counsel, and despite being advised that the Insurance Corporation found this to be a fraudulent claim, she still continued to persist. Her disregard for the law is troubling. I also find it extremely aggravating that as an owner/operator of a driving school she, more than the average driver in this Province whose livelihood depends on a good relationship with the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, continued to maintain falsely and steadfastly that she was in the vehicle. It was abundantly clear on the evidence she was not in that vehicle.
[12] So too am I guided by the R. v. Bains decision, a decision historical again, out of this Registry, of the Honourable Judge MacGregor in 2006. She too, similarly to my colleagues and to myself, reminded those, day in, day out, that it is required in the public interest and the principle of deterrence that Ms. Sandhu and others are aware of the importance of this.
[13] Defence counsel submits to me mitigating or factors for consideration are that Ms. Sandhu is in her second relationship, common-law at this time, and is pregnant. Late in the day after sentencing had concluded, defence counsel provided to me a scanned signature of a note indicating Ms. Sandhu is in a pregnancy with twins at this time and unable to work. None of that information was furnished, despite repeated requests of counsel before concluding this matter.
[14] Other factors defence counsel requested that I take into consideration are that Ms. Sandhu led a troubled life, including a breakdown of a marriage, and an inability to produce offspring. I do not find that a factor of consideration in the matter before me.
[15] What I do find, however, of importance to consider is her steadfast commitment to falsely mislead the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. She had a number of opportunities in which to relinquish or withdraw her claim and did not do so repeatedly. What I also find of consideration is that she is the owner/operator of a driving school in the Province of British Columbia where young learners and novice drivers rely upon her, ironically, to teach them the rules and the regulations of this Province, and she herself failed to do so in conducting this fraud.
[16] I have carefully considered the submissions of Crown who is seeking a $3,500 fine plus the victim surcharge and a stand-alone restitution to the Corporation.
[17] Defence counsel submits that a $3,000 fine and a stand-alone restitution would be appropriate.
[18] To Ms. Sandhu, I have carefully considered this and I want you to know that had Crown asked for a higher fine I would have imposed a higher fine. Your conduct is very troubling. It is troubling to a public insurance fund. It is troubling to every driver and insurer in the Province of British Columbia, and your actions are very prevalent in this Province and deterrence needs to be the message.
[19] Based on all of the considerations, I will impose a $3,500 fine plus the victim surcharge fine. Those are to be paid within six months of today's date.
[20] There will also be a stand-alone restitution order payable to the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia in the amount of $989.37. As it is a stand-alone restitution order, court order interest will accrue as of, with prejudgment interest, effective June 27th, 2012. Payment of this stand-alone restitution order is to be made within six months of today's date.
(REASONS FOR SENTENCE CONCLUDED)