R. v. Rutenberg

R. v. Rutenberg

Given the totality of the evidence — funding applications and agreements in the accused's name, repeated monthly enrolment reports under her contractor ID, large monthly Ministry cheques sent to and in many instances endorsed or negotiated by her, independent witness evidence showing actual attendance and hours far below billed levels, and her own communications seeking to resolve the matter — the only reasonable inference is that the accused knowingly participated in and benefited from a scheme to defraud the Ministry; guilty verdicts on all three counts follow beyond a reasonable doubt.

Citation
2013 BCSC 2215
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused/defendant: Victoria Ann Rutenberg
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal (fraud) / Trial Judgment (conviction)
Outcome
Accused found guilty on three counts of defrauding the Ministry (s.380(1)(a) Criminal Code).
Legal Topics
Fraud (s.380(1)(a) Criminal Code), Child Care Operating Funding Program (ccofp), Funding Agreements and Enrolment Reports, Forensic Signature Evidence
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Administrative Funding Law Regulatory Licensing Fraud (s.380(1)(a) Criminal Code) Child Care Operating Funding Program (ccofp) Funding Agreements and Enrolment Reports Forensic Signature Evidence

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Victoria Ann Rutenberg

Accused/defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal (fraud) / Trial Judgment (conviction)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused knowingly obtained money by deceit contrary to s.380(1)(a) Criminal Code
  2. 2 Whether the accused submitted or authorized false funding applications and enrolment reports or otherwise participated in the scheme
  3. 3 Whether the Crown established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on the only reasonable inference

Ratio Decidendi

Given the totality of the evidence — funding applications and agreements in the accused's name, repeated monthly enrolment reports under her contractor ID, large monthly Ministry cheques sent to and in many instances endorsed or negotiated by her, independent witness evidence showing actual attendance and hours far below billed levels, and her own communications seeking to resolve the matter — the only reasonable inference is that the accused knowingly participated in and benefited from a scheme to defraud the Ministry; guilty verdicts on all three counts follow beyond a reasonable doubt.

Court Disposition

Accused found guilty on three counts of defrauding the Ministry (s.380(1)(a) Criminal Code).

Orders

  • Convicted on Count 1: defrauding CCOFP of approximately $118,000 (Royston)
  • Convicted on Count 2: defrauding CCOFP of approximately $118,000 (Cumberland)