[1]            While the victims of Earl Jones spent their lives saving for a comfortable and happy retirement or to ensure that their families would not be financially burdened, the accused spent the best years of his life living luxuriously off their money.

[2]            The accused pleaded guilty to two counts of fraud that extend from 1982 to 2009. The admitted total amount of these frauds is a little over $50 M. The accused would have personally profited of more than $13 M.

[3]            The accused, who is 67 years old, studied in commerce at Sir George Williams University but never completed his degree. He presented himself as a financial advisor specialized in will and estate planning.

[4]            He told his clients that if they entrusted their money with him, they could have rates of return as high as 8%. Some clients would ask for more and he would promise as high as 12%. He never invested the money, which was simply put into bank accounts. As far back as 1980, he had been experiencing liquidity problems.

[5]            Using a special computer program, he would calculate the promised  interest rate revenue and make some of his clients very happy over the years. As he says in his statement to the police, he took Peter’s money to reimburse John. As a commissioner of oath for 25 years, he falsified and/or fabricated documents.

[6]            Over the years, he knew he was only buying time and he was hoping that one big client would appear and he would be able to repay his existing ones. Four or five years ago, he realized that this scheme was a total disaster. Most of his clients were friends and he would wake up some days wondering what he was doing.

[7]            He always thought he would be able to repay everyone, that a rainbow would be around the corner. Instead, with the recent financial scandals, some of his clients were questioning the rate he was promising. 

[8]            Asked as to how he had recruited clients at the beginning, he related that a friend who had formed a group called Women in finance approached him to give lectures on will and estate planning. In those days, according to the accused, 90% of women did not know about finance, let alone will-planning.

[9]            A good example of that is the case of Mrs. J. D., whose husband was murdered by Valery Fabrikant in 1992 at Concordia University. During this time of grief and sorrow following her husband’s death, she turned to Earl Jones for financial advice and management. She had accompanied her husband to the accused’s financial planning session in Pointe Claire a few years earlier.

[10]        As the accused seemed incredibly worldly and sophisticated in money management, an area where she admittedly was not, she, over the years, allowed him to make more and more decisions on her behalf. 

[11]        When the news broke about Earl Jones, Mrs. J. D. was confused. The stories portrayed him as a financial predator. She thought he genuinely cared for her and her family as he coached her through the mourning period following her husband’s death. She wanted to hear the real story before abandoning him. As she writes in her statement, the real story is that he abandoned her and the others. He showed no mercy for his clients regardless of age and needs. Having had to deal with the tragic death of her husband, she was victimized a second time by the accused.

[12]        Due to amendments to the sentencing provisions in fraud cases which occurred in 2004,  the crimes for which the accused has pleaded guilty carry different maximum terms of imprisonment.  For count 1, it is 10 years; for count 2, it is 14 years.

[13]         Counsel advanced a joint submission of 11 years of incarceration. Both are senior and respected members of the Bar with great experience in fraud prosecutions and sentencing. This joint submission is undoubtedly the result of a long and careful examination of all the relevant factors to be considered on sentence and, I presume, was the object of lengthy, detailed and difficult negotiations.

[14]         In 2002, in the case of R. v. Douglas[1], the Quebec Court of Appeal had this to say to first instance judges about joint submissions:

Appellate courts, all over Canada, increasingly in recent years have stated time and again, that trial judges should not reject jointly proposed sentences unless they are unreasonable, contrary to the public interest, unfit or would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

[15]        Of the four aggravating factors mentioned in section 380.1 of the Criminal Code,  three apply to this case, namely: 

-      the value of the fraud committed exceeds one million dollars;

-      the offence involves a large number of victims (158); and

-      in committing the offence, the accused took advantage of the high regard in which he was held in his community.

[16]        Although one would agree with the victims, who wrote in their victim impact statement that no sentence can ever reflect the devastation this man caused to so many people and that he should be imprisoned for the rest of his life, the Court is of the opinion that the joint submission in this case is reasonable. 

[17]         I will therefore follow the suggestion. The Court wishes to ensure that the accused be aware of the recurring themes found in those statements.

[18]        All victims now suffer from insomnia. Almost all have seen their health suddenly deteriorate with symptoms never experienced before. Two have seen recurrence in the cancer they are suffering from. Some who took pride in never having  taken medication are now living on antidepressants. Some even experienced suicidal thoughts.

[19]        Some feel isolated as they are ashamed and feel responsible for not having been more careful. The accused is also responsible for irreparable tensions in family relations and the ending of long time friendships.

[20]        His niece writes that people blame her own family for what her uncle has done. She adds that he is a disgrace to the Jones good name and she is relieved that her grandmother is not alive to see this. It would have broken her heart. The accused took advantage of those who loved him and trusted him as he ruined many family lives.

[21]        Some victims call him a liar, a demon, a parasite, a snake, a financial predator and a social sociopath, as he promised them that their money was not only to be safe with him but growing.

[22]        His own brother writes that he goes to bed angry and wakes up as angry in the morning. He would resent anything that can ever bring the accused pleasure in his life. He cannot stop thinking about the lavish lifestyle that the accused led, while he lived modestly. He stole from both the rich and the poor with no conscience.

[23]        In short, as one victim stated: there are no more happy thoughts when you wake up in the morning or when you go to bed at night.

[24]        The accused not only robbed the victims of their money, he robbed them of their freedom and self-esteem and of a decent life they expected in their retirement. All of them trusted him. For many, this word has no meaning anymore. He is responsible for irrevocable changes in all of the victims’ lives and this has left all of them humiliated.

[25]        Therefore, it is no surprise that some of the victims would have him locked up for the rest of his life.

[26]        But the sentencing process is not one in which vengeance is to be considered. The Court recognizes, as did Wagner, J.S.C., who sentenced Vincent Lacroix[2] to 13 years of imprisonment, that although the acts of the accused were not accompanied with physical violence, they nevertheless are at the root of moral and psychological violence with unlimited repercussions.

[27]        Me Boro stressed the fact that the accused had no criminal record. Again, I agree with Justice Wagner that this is not, due to the type of case, a mitigating factor. The planning, the reputation of the accused, his knowledge of commercial affairs and the forgery of documents do not permit the Court to consider the absence of a criminal record as attenuating.

[28]        Vincent Lacroix was sentenced to 13 years for a fraud approaching $100 M that belonged to 9200 investors.

[29]        The Court  sentences Bertram Earl Jones to 11 years of imprisonment : 9 years on the first count and 11 years on the second to be served concurrently. Due to the length of the prison term imposed and his current lack of financial resources, it is not appropriate to impose a victim fine surcharge. After reflection, the Court believes that this is the only benefit the accused should receive. It is not appropriate to credit him with the one month he has been incarcerated since his guilty plea.  

[1]       2002 162 C.C.C. (3d) 37.

[2]       R.c.Lacroix 2009 QCCS 4519.