B.C. Court of Appeal refuses reduction in sentence for convicted fraudster

B.C.’s highest court has refused to trim a jail sentence so that a Filipino man convicted of identity theft can appeal an deportation order.

In June 2011, Domingo Mari-ones Gonzales, 48, was sentenced in Vancouver provincial court to eight months in jail after pleading guilty to possessing 12 documents, including credit cards, driver’s licences and bank debit cards, in the names of other people.

At the time of the offences, the father of four was on bail on charges of committing two similar crimes, attempting to cash stolen cheques.

Gonzales, who came to Canada in 1980 and has permanent residency status but remains a citizen of the Philippines, launched his sentence appeal after the Conservative government changed the law in 2013 so that a criminal receiving a prison term of greater than six months could not appeal deportation.

In May 2015, Gonzales was found inadmissible to Canada because he had received a sentence of more than six months. After being denied an appeal of a removal order, he applied to the Legal Services Society for funding to appeal his jail sentence in a bid to stave off deportation.

His lawyer argued the eightmonth sentence was unfit because the sentencing judge was unaware of the “collateral” immigration consequences — the changes to the law were made two years after sentencing.

In a ruling released Monday, a three-judge panel of the B.C. Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. In her reasons, Justice Daphne Smith found that while the immigration consequences were significant to Gonzales, his lengthy criminal record meant that the eight-month sentence was not unfit.

At the time of the sentencing, Gonzales had 20 convictions, including nine property-related offences, one for possession of a nar- cotic, two for uttering threats, one for assault, one for attempted fraud and three for fraud.

Smith said the judge in Gonzales’ case was in “general terms” aware of potential immigration consequences.

“In my view, Mr. Gonzales’ sentence of eight months for identity theft, targeting 12 individuals, given the extent of and number of prior-related offences in his criminal record, was a fit sentence,” said the judge.

“While this court has intervened in a great number of cases to effect a modest reduction in penalty to take account of unknown and unanticipated immigration consequences, deciding when to do so is very much a case-specific exercise.”

In my view, Mr. Gonzales’ sentence of eight months for identity theft, targeting 12 individuals ... was a fit sentence.