Alberta serial romance scammer fights dangerous offender designation
Jeffrey Kent's lawyer says he has filed a notice of appeal challenging the recent ruling by an Edmonton Court of King's Bench judge to designate his client a dangerous offender.
The designation is used to keep repeat dangerous offenders in prison for the rest of their lives pending periodic reviews by parole officials.
Kent's lawyer says dangerous offender rulings are usually reserved for those who commit violence.
Court had previously heard Kent bilked five women by romancing them and pretending to be a doctor, lawyer and businessman, and getting them to invest in bogus real estate schemes while running up their credit cards, faking brain cancer to garner sympathy and, in one case, fathering a child by one of them.
The 55-year-old Kent has other fraud and theft convictions under similar circumstances that date back more than three decades. Beginning in B.C., in 1990, he gained women's trust, then stole their money, typically spending it on gambling.
Some lost hundreds of thousands of dollars to Kent, and two became so deeply involved that they had a child with him, learning only after they were pregnant about the extent of his deception.
Dangerous offender status can be considered only if someone is convicted of a "serious personal injury offence," and fraud isn't typically in that category.
Last month, a judge ruled Kent's crimes are of such a serious, harmful nature, and that — coupled with evidence suggesting he will continue such crimes if released — justifies making him a dangerous offender.
Court of King's Bench Justice Melanie Hayes-Richards ruled that an indeterminate sentence was required, concluding it's the only way to manage the risk Kent and his "pattern is the deep deception" poses.
"Using lie upon lie, he inserted himself into his victims' lives, promising a bright and secure future. Instead, he wreaked havoc. He destroyed their finances and left some financially destitute. He shattered their confidence, self-worth and ability to trust others," Hayes-Richards said in her decision.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CTV News
10 minutes ago
- CTV News
Thunder Bay, Ont., police won't be charged in connection with woman's death in 2023
Jenna Ostberg died overnight Dec. 30, 2023. Before her death, 911 had been called, but police deemed it a Priority 2 case and didn't immediately respond. The family of a Thunder Bay woman who died in 2023 say justice hasn't been served after Ontario's police watchdog concluded that no criminal charges were warranted in the case. Jenna Ostberg died overnight Dec. 30, 2023. Before her death, 911 had been called, but police deemed it a Priority 2 case and didn't immediately respond. The 911 call was later cancelled on the mistaken belief that Ostberg, who was 21, had left the residence. Jenna Ostberg3 Jenna Ostberg's obituary photo. (Supplied) Her body was found hanging in a bedroom the next morning. In a statement issued by their lawyer, her parents, Melanie Beardy and Vincent Ostberg, said they were disappointed in the decision, especially after waiting such a long time for the investigation to be completed. 'We continue to live with the reality that Jenna is no longer here and will never be here again,' the statement said. 'We have waited for this report since the SIU first became involved in this matter … more than 18 months ago. This long wait has been incredibly difficult for our family. Throughout this time, we have held on, hoping for answers and accountability.' 'We have waited for this report since the SIU first became involved in this matter … more than 18 months ago. This long wait has been incredibly difficult for our family. Throughout this time, we have held on, hoping for answers and accountability.' — Melanie Beardy and Vincent Ostberg, Jenna's parents The report, released by SIU director Joseph Martino on July 15, described the sequence of events the night Ostberg died. Police were called to respond to a disturbance involving Ostberg and a man. The investigation found that the man had a no-contact order involving Ostberg because of a previous domestic violence incident. The night of her death, she had been texting the man, asking him if she could come to his residence. While he said no, 'the complainant was insistent,' Martino said in his incident narrative. Text messages 'In a text message time-stamped 1:37 a.m. (Dec. 30, 2023), the complainant told (the man) to unlock the door. Shortly after, she entered the home at the residence and went upstairs to (his) bedroom.' The two began arguing, prompting someone else in the house to call 911 and ask police to come and remove her from the residence. The female caller told the 911 operator about the non-contact order and the fact that Ostberg was inebriated. By this time, it was 2:05 a.m. The woman who called 911 also told the man to separate from Ostberg and go to the basement to sleep, and he complied. The person who called 911 fell asleep briefly, waking around 15 minutes later to find the house silent. So she called 911 again and said she assumed Ostberg had left the home and there was no longer an emergency. 'The cancelled call was sent to the (police officer) via the records management system as a task to be reviewed,' Martino wrote. Decided to cancel 911 call 'At that point, the (officer) could either confirm the cancellation or send it back to be reopened. In the event of the latter, the call would again be queued for dispatch. At about 3:08 a.m., the (officer) confirmed the cancellation in the system.' Then around 10:30 a.m., the man woke up and walked upstairs from the basement back to his bedroom. 'He was sitting on his bed when he turned and saw (Ostberg) hanging in the closet,' the SIU said. 'He rushed to her, unwrapped a scarf from around her neck, laid her on the floor and called 911 ... The time was 10:34 a.m.' Paramedics arrived and pronounced Ostberg dead at 10:39 a.m. In his decision, Martino said that 'there is a case to be made that the (police officer) failed in his duty of care.' 'Faced with a domestic disturbance call involving alcohol and potential violence, arising in the context of a history of violence, one might reasonably have expected a police officer … to err on the side of caution and insist on a police response regardless of a subsequent request for cancellation,' Martino wrote. Jenna Ostberg In a statement issued by their lawyer, Jenna Ostberg's parents said they were disappointed in the decision, especially after waiting such a long time for the investigation to be completed. (Facebook photo) 'On the other hand, it may be the policy did not go so far as to say that a call originally categorized as a Priority 2 could not be cancelled if circumstances changed.' In this case, police were told that Ostberg had left the residence, meaning the police officer 'could reasonably believe that any potential for violence had dissipated and that he was within his rights to cancel the call.' Whether the officer's decision was negligent, the issue was 'whether any such negligence amounted to a marked and substantial departure from a reasonable level of care,' Martino wrote. Medical opinion in this case is that death from hanging happens relatively quickly. 'This leaves open the distinct possibility that the complainant hung herself and was dead shortly after her last known cellphone activity at 2:42 a.m.,' Martino wrote. 'If that is what happened, and any criminal negligence on the part of the (police officer) arose at or after he confirmed the cancellation at 3:08 a.m., then the officer's conduct cannot be said to have caused or contributed to the death.' Was a 'busy night' Considering the fact that the 911 call was cancelled at 2:23 a.m., and the last activity on the victim's cellphone was 2:42 a.m., 'that effectively left the officer about 19 minutes in which to turn his attention to the task, consider his options, and make a decision,' Martino said. 'Bearing in mind that there is evidence that it was a busy night in the communications centre and the officer would have been occupied with other matters, and that at least several minutes would have elapsed before officers could attend at the house in any event, I am unable to reasonably conclude in this condensed window of time that any negligence by (police) transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law.' But in their statement, Ostberg's parents said that 'the SIU report does not reflect the full person Jenna was.' 'She was so much more than what is written in those pages. As the police service responsible for protecting First Nations people in Thunder Bay, the Thunder Bay Police Service has given us no reason to feel relief, closure or trust,' her parents said. 'We have no confidence in their ability to properly investigate deaths or ensure the safety of First Nations people. We will continue to fight for our daughter to have her voice be heard now that she cannot speak for herself.' For its part, the Thunder Bay Police Service said it has begun an internal review. Thunder Bay police Thunder Bay Police Service said it will conduct "its required administrative review in accordance with Section 81 of the Community Safety and Policing Act." (Supplied) 'With the conclusion of the SIU investigation, the Thunder Bay Police Service will now commence its required administrative review in accordance with Section 81 of the Community Safety and Policing Act,' police said in a statement. 'The purpose of the administrative investigation is to review member conduct, the policing provided, and procedures ... as they relate to the incident. This administrative review will be reported to the Thunder Bay Police Service Board upon completion.' 'Jenna's family remains convinced that had the Thunder Bay Police Service responded to the first 911 call and followed their policy, Jenna would be alive today.' — Jenna Ostberg's family However, the family said that the SIU 'failed to properly account for the circumstances surrounding her death, and the Thunder Bay Police's well-documented history of failing to protect the safety of First Nations persons in this city.' 'The SIU's report comes after years of public outcry demanding accountability for the Thunder Bay Police Service, which in this case failed to respond despite three separate 911 calls made that day,' the statement continued. 'Jenna was loved by many and is deeply missed by her family, friends, and community.' Legal counsel for the Ostberg family, Julian Falconer of Falconers LLP, said the family needs more time to study the SIU report 'and consider their next steps.' 'Jenna's family remains convinced that had the Thunder Bay Police Service responded to the first 911 call and followed their policy, Jenna would be alive today. We will continue to support Jenna's family while they consider their options and look to ensure that all parties who potentially had a role in Jenna's death will be held accountable.' Read the full SIU report here.
CTV News
10 minutes ago
- CTV News
B.C. company ordered to pay $10K to employee it fired because of his criminal history
B.C.'s Human Rights Tribunal has ordered a Kelowna-based software company to pay a former employee who was fired after one week on the job $10,000, as it found the employers discriminated against him based on his criminal record. The employee – anonymized throughout the decision as Mr. T – was convicted of robbery and obstruction of justice a number of years before he was hired by MotiveWave Software, according to the decision issued on June 13 and posted online Thursday. Co-founders Tony Lindsay and Leigh Carter, a married couple who run the business out of their home, found out about the convictions when they Googled Mr. T after deciding to fire him, the ruling says. Mr. T admitted he lied about not having a criminal record during his job interview, and the employers did not conduct a criminal record check. Tribunal member Devyn Cousineau ruled the employee would have been fired regardless of his previous convictions, so denied his claims for lost wages, but still found his criminal past was a factor in his termination and approved compensation for 'injury to his dignity, feelings and self-respect.' The B.C. Human Rights Code prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of conviction for an offence, if the offence is unrelated to the job. To explain why, the BCHRT cited a 2003 Supreme Court of Canada decision that stated: 'The saying 'once a criminal, always a criminal' has no place in our society. Individuals who have paid their debt to society are entitled to resume their place in society and to live in it without running the risk of being devalued and unfairly stigmatized.' In this case, there was no dispute that MotiveWave fired Mr. T or that he had prior convictions. Cousineau was tasked with answering two questions: whether Mr. T's crimes were a factor in the termination and whether they were related to his employment – ultimately ruling both were true. The crimes According to the tribunal, Mr. T robbed a bank in December 2014, when he was in his early 20s. He told the HRT he was suffering from undiagnosed mental illnesses at the time and 'became fixated on money as the barrier to his wellness and success.' 'During an episode that his psychiatrist later described as 'full-blown psychosis,' he developed a plan to rob a bank to prove that money is a myth,' the decision reads. 'He planned the robbery, in his mind, to ensure no one would be hurt. While no one was physically hurt, he now acknowledges that the event was traumatic for people present and working in the bank that day.' During the robbery, Mr. T closed the bank's doors with zip ties, approached a teller and shook his bag to 'imply he had a weapon,' and forced the employee to hand over 'increasing sums of money,' according to the tribunal. He was arrested and charged shortly after. While awaiting trial, Mr. T was charged with obstruction of justice, for a matter he claimed was based on a 'misunderstanding of how he was allowed to communicate with witnesses.' He was convicted of that offence in December 2016 and sentenced to nine months in jail. After being released, his mental health deteriorated and he breached probation, and was sent back to prison around July 2017. Mr. T then pleaded guilty to the bank robbery charge in December 2017 and was sentenced to time served plus 18 months probation. 'Mr. T says that he now understands how immature and unwell he was at the time. He accepts that he caused harm and acknowledges his responsibility to earn back the trust of his community. He wants to reintegrate and move forward with his life,' the decision reads. Since 2017, the HRT sys, Mr. T has not been charged or convicted of any crime, and that he started taking medication, returned to school and work, and started a small business. At the time of the crimes, Mr. T's last name started with 'U,' the tribunal noted. He legally changed his last name because he said people were treating him differently after Googling him and finding 'sensationalized' news articles about his convictions. The job Mr. T applied for a job as a product support specialist at MotiveWave in early 2020, a position that involves helping customers via email and phone. On the application, he used his new last name, though the legal change wouldn't become official until October of that year. At the second of three job interviews, Carter asked Mr. T if he had any criminal convictions, explaining the position was based in her home and her children would be present. Mr. T said he did not. She later Googled him and the news articles did not come up, because he did not use his legal name. 'Mr. T gave several explanations for his decision to lie about his criminal convictions, which I accept. First, he says that he did not consider his criminal convictions to relate to the job or the safety of Ms. Carter's children. From his perspective, his convictions had nothing to do with violence or children or any other aspect of the job, as he understood it,' Cousineau wrote. 'Second, he says that he considered it significant that MotiveWave did not require him to complete a criminal record check. He figured that they had done their due diligence and, if it were truly necessary, would have required a criminal record check.' Carter and Lindsay, the co-founders, testified they had reservations about Mr. T as he overstated some of his skills, but liked his 'energy and enthusiasm' and were struggling to find any other qualified applicants, so decided to give him a shot. 'Lindsay testified that they thought that the worst-case scenario was that, if it didn't work out, they would terminate Mr. T's employment and move on,' the decision reads. Mr. T started the job on Aug. 24, 2020 – an employment that lasted seven days. The HRT noted Lindsay and Carter learned of his legal last name when he submitted his banking details and 'found it strange' but didn't follow up. Lindsay and Carter gave the HRT several reasons they decided to terminate Mr. T after one week. Some pertained to his performance, such as not progressing in training and spending too much time trying to change the company's website, which was not part of the job. Carter was particularly concerned about Mr. T's demeanor, the tribunal writing the pair 'were not, in these early days, a good working fit.' She testified Mr. T repeatedly asked for access to the backend of MotiveWave's website to make changes, which made her uncomfortable, and in one instance described him as 'aggressive' and intimidating. Mr. T, for his part, said he thought things were going well and denied having an argument with Carter. 'Ms. Carter told Mr. Lindsay they needed to let Mr. T go. She told him she felt he had been aggressive, and she felt upset and scared,' Cousineau wrote. 'I accept that, at this point, Mr. Lindsay and Ms. Carter had decided to terminate Mr. T's employment the next day. This decision was not based on his criminal convictions, because they did not know about them yet. This is when Ms. Carter remembered that Mr. T's legal name was 'Mr. U' and decided to Google him.' The couple found several news articles about the bank robbery and Mr. T's conviction for obstruction of justice, which they were shocked by. The tribunal accepted Lindsay and Carter 'were scared by what they read and perceived that Mr. T posed a safety threat to them and the kids.' Lindsay called Mr. T and asked if the articles were about him, and he said yes and admitted he lied about not having a criminal record. Lindsay told Mr. T he could not have him working in his house anymore. 'The meaning was clear: because of Mr. T's criminal convictions, he was fired effective immediately,' the decision reads. 'Mr. T started pleading with Mr. Lindsay to find a solution. He tried to explain that the information in the articles was incorrect, that the issue was his mental health, that he had gotten help, and had taken responsibility. He told Mr. Lindsay he could talk to his mother, friends, probationary officer – anyone would confirm that he was a good person. He suggested he could work remotely. However, Mr. Lindsay was resolute. The relationship had been tarnished, and the employment could not continue.' Mr. T filed the human rights complaint the following day, Sept. 2, 2020. The decision MotiveWave's operators argued Mr. T's prior convictions were not a factor in his firing, as they had already decided to dismiss him. However, the tribunal ruled the crimes were part of the decision, as they fired him immediately after finding out, rather than the next day as previously planned. The HRT also noted that if MotiveWave fired Mr. T for lying about the convictions, rather than the crimes themselves, it might have been off the hook. Lindsay and Carter also argued the convictions were related to Mr. T's job because he worked out of their home where their three young children were present, and that the product support specialist role involves accessing baking information from customers. 'I agree, without reservation, that an employer has no obligation to employ someone who poses a threat to their children. But the law is clear that the threat must be assessed contextually, and not solely by focusing on a past crime,' Cousineau wrote. The tribunal deemed Mr. T's risk of engaging in further violent or threatening behaviour 'very low, if not negligible' because when he robbed the bank he was dealing with an untreated mental illness and has since received treatment, is taking medication and understands his triggers. 'He is resolute in a determination to rehabilitate himself and move forward after his convictions. However, one of the biggest obstacles to his rehabilitation is how people respond to him when they learn about the convictions,' the decision reads. 'He described his job with MotiveWave as a 'dream job' that allowed him to work in the field he was passionate about, with people he admired. He foresaw opportunities to grow and progress. Mr. T's commitment to rehabilitation and success cement my conclusion, considering all the circumstances, that his previous convictions were unrelated to his employment with MotiveWave.' Cousineau thus declared MotiveWave terminating Mr. T was discriminatory. The compensation The tribunal denied Mr. T's claim for 18 months worth of wages, as it found he would have been fired for 'non-discriminatory' reasons the next morning regardless. However, the tribunal awarded half of the $20,000 he claimed for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect. In his testimony, Mr. T said it would have been much easier to move on if Lindsay and Carter gave any other reason for firing him. 'The indication to me that the only reason they fired me was because of my criminal history and it had nothing to do with who I was as a person, or the work I did as a worker; it basically indicated to me that I could be the best worker and the most courageous and happy person and people will still fire me for a criminal event that happened many, many, many years ago,' he said. 'That process made me think that my life isn't worth anything. And I had some really deep thoughts about what purpose I have in society or in a community in which no one wants me or no one would give me the time of day to give them my knowledge or to help them.' Cousineau accepted the incident seriously impacted Mr. T's mental health, and, while reiterating he would have lost the job anyway, ordered MotiveWave to pay him $10,000.
CTV News
10 minutes ago
- CTV News
7 people face 99 charges in connection with organized vehicle theft ring: RCMP
Alberta RCMP have recovered about $1.9 million in stolen vehicles in its organized vehicle theft ring investigation. (Supplied) Seven people face 99 charges in connection with an organized vehicle theft ring. RCMP say its Auto Theft Unit began investigating numerous people in December after finding they were using Alberta Registries' Third-Party Authorization System to register fake VINs under unsuspecting persons' names without their permission. The fraudulent VINs were then used to conceal stolen vehicles. Since the investigation, police have recovered about $1.9 million in stolen vehicles and are working to locate another 150. Mounties have also seized more than one kilogram of cocaine, more than 200 OxyContin pills and nearly $10,000 in cash. RCMP seizure RCMP seized more than one kilogram of cocaine, more than 200 OxyContin pills and nearly $10,000 in an investigation into am organized vehicle theft ring. (Supplied) One 40-year-old man from Edmonton faces 28 counts of uttering forged document charges. He also faces dozens of other charges including fraudulent concealment, fraud over $5,000, possession for the purpose of trafficking, participation in criminal organization and more. Another 40-year-old man from Edmonton faces 22 counts of uttering forged documents as well as fraudulent concealment and fraud over $5,000. Two other men face uttering forged document charges as well as fraud over $5,000 and trafficking in property obtained by crime over $5,000. The four are to appear in court on July 29. Warrants are out for three others who each face several counts of uttering forged document charges.
