An employee of a drive test centre has been jailed for accepting
a bribe from a driving instructor, who has also been jailed.
Harvey Aitchison worked as a driving examiner for DriveTest
Centre, the agency that tests Ontario drivers, in Oakville. He
accepted bribes from Cyril Julius Marques, who was the owner
and driver instructor of a driving school, to guarantee that that
Marques' driving students passed their Ministry of
Transportation road examination.
Marques would charge $450.00 to his driver students, $300.00 of
which he would give to Aitchison. Marques would keep the
remaining $150.00. The bribing came to light after Marques
offered a DriveTest coordinator a pack of cigarettes if she
assigned Aitchison to test his student. The coordinator blew
the whistle. Aitchison resigned from his job.
Both Aitchison and Marques pleaded quilty to accepting a bribe,
contrary to section 426(1)(a) of the Criminal Code. That
426 (1) Every one commits an offence who
(a) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or
agrees to give or offer to an agent or to anyone for the benefit of
the agent — or, being an agent, directly or indirectly,
corruptly demands, accepts or offers or agrees to accept from any
person, for themselves or another person — any reward,
advantage or benefit of any kind as consideration for doing or not
doing, or for having done or not done, any act relating to the
affairs or business of the agent's principal, or for showing or
not showing favour or disfavour to any person with relation to the
affairs or business of the agent's principal
Aitchison claimed the he accepted the bribes out of frustration
towards his employer; Marques said that his actions were caused by
his financial problems and his wife's health problems.
The court sentenced Aitchison, a 64-year-old man with no
criminal record, to a jail term of 4 months to be followed by
2 years of probation. The court sentenced Marques, a 58-year-old
man who also did not have a criminal record, to a jail
term of 90 days, which he was permitted to serve intermittently
given his employment status and his wife's medical needs.
The court stated that their corrupt scheme was a breach of trust
offence that put the public at real risk of harm: sending
unqualified drivers onto the roads. The court pointed
out that, "Public corruption is of significant concern to
the citizens of Canada and general deterrents and denunciation must
be the dominant sentencing factors."
While there is no indication in this decision that the employer
was charged or implicated in this case, employers that knowingly
permit employees to accept bribes could also be subject to
prosecution under the Criminal Code: subsection 426(2) of
the Criminal Code provides that, "Every one commits
an offence who is knowingly privy to the commission of an offence
under subsection (1)".
FMC is one of Canada's leading business and litigation law
firms with more than 500 lawyers in six full-service offices
located in the country's key business centres. We focus on
providing outstanding service and value to our clients, and we
strive to excel as a workplace of choice for our people. Regardless
of where you choose to do business in Canada, our strong team of
professionals possess knowledge and expertise on regional, national
and cross-border matters. FMC's well-earned reputation for
consistently delivering the highest quality legal services and
counsel to our clients is complemented by an ongoing commitment to
diversity and inclusion to broaden our insight and perspective on
our clients' needs. Visit:
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
Unfortunately, reasonable accommodation for employees in the workplace continues to be the source of significant litigation and even today we continue to see outrageous examples of employers behaving badly.
We are now beginning to see reported cases involving charges and subsequent fines laid against employers for failing to provide information, instruction and supervision to protect a worker from workplace violence.
On October 13, 2016, the Supreme Court of Canada denied leave to appeal an Ontario Court of Appeal decision which ordered an employer to pay a former employee 37 months of salary and benefits following termination.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).