DECISION NOT TO PROSECUTE ELIZABETH ROUX FOR UNEMPLOYMENT FUNDS FRAUD

OTTAWA, July 12, 1996 -- Allan Rock, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada today released the details of the decision not to prosecute Elizabeth Roux.

On August 31, 1995, a letter was received from the RCMP at the Quebec Regional Office of the Department of Justice in Montreal concerning a possible unemployment benefit fund fraud involving Elizabeth Roux, daughter of Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux.

The case was assigned by Jacques Letellier, the Regional Director to Pierre Loiselle, Deputy Group Head for Criminal Prosecutions, who in turn assigned it to Robert Marchi, a Senior Crown Prosecutor.

Mr. Marchi's review and conclusions followed the normal procedures described in the Prosecution Policy of the Attorney General of Canada. Meetings were held with the RCMP and Human Resources Development Canada officers and as is the procedure in all criminal prosecutions, Mr. Marchi reviewed the evidence brought forward by the RCMP. It was his decision, confirmed and supported by Mr. Loiselle and Mr. Letellier not to proceed with a criminal prosecution.

The reasons as provided in a letter dated December 21, 1995 were as follows:

"The Prosecutor must be satisfied that there is sufficient proof (including the possible defence of the accused) to assume that there is reasonable possibility of conviction. Then the Prosecutor must determine if in the light of all the circumstances that it is in the public interest to pursue the prosecution."

"Article 103 of the Unemployment Insurance Act requires a proof beyond reasonable doubt of an intention of the accused to defraud."

"Having regard to the proof available in this case, we are of the opinion that there does not exist a reasonable prospect of conviction. The actions undertaken by Elizabeth Roux revealed by the investigation demonstrate that the accused had no intention to mislead.

-between August, 1994 and December 1994 (or January 1995) Roux attended university as an auditing student (fact corroborated by a letter from the university attended by Roux dated 13 of January 1995). Furthermore, she paid for her apartment by the month.

-consequently, she explained that she was able to return to the country and was available to work;

-on the 22 of December 1994, Roux went to the Unemployment Insurance Office and informed without delay an official of her return to studies, this time as a regular student and was now no longer available to work; she declared that she would be a regular student from the 11th of January 1995; we see here an indication of the good faith of Roux;

-on the 23 of January, 1995, Roux telephoned an office and recounted a version completely compatible with her earlier actions and an eventual court defence (the fact that she was returning to study as a regular student on the 11 of January, 1995 and that she would not be available to work); prior to that date she had been an auditing student and was not officially registered at the university.

-on June 5, during a visit of Canadian authorities at the domicile of Roux at Los Angeles, she made a written declaration reiterating her version of the facts which were again in complete conformity with what she had said to the official on the 23 of January (see the declaration of Roux); we can't state that this was a recent invention on the part of Roux; and

-on top of it all and contrary to the D and C cases submitted as a precedent, the case reveals no attempt by one or other persons to falsify a document to facilitate the obtaining of benefits; nor does the period of time in the present investigation compare to the D and C (4 months and three years).

For all of these reasons, we are of the opinion that no charges should be brought against Elizabeth Roux.

Furthermore as in the case relative to the request for benefits by M.T., which has been submitted as precedent, the Commission can impose on Roux an administrative penalty. But it certainly doesn't warrant criminal charges."

On March 27, 1996 a meeting was held at the request of the RCMP to explain why charges should not be laid. The RCMP and HRDC could have availed themselves of a review of this decision by referring it to the Senior General Counsel in Ottawa, but decided not to do so.

The Minister noted that "it sometimes happens that the police and the Crown have differences of opinion on either the probability of conviction or the public interest in prosecuting. This does not mean that either party is acting improperly or in a less than a professional way."

Ref. :   Jennifer Lang         Clive Doucet
         Minister's Office     Department of Justice
         (613) 992-4621        (613) 957-4207