PRESS RELEASE
ONE DISPUTED FORM. 1,165 DAYS WITHOUT MY PASSPORT.
AMHERST CHRYSLER (1999) LIMITED — JESSICA THERESA AMIRAULT — MICHAEL RODNEY ALLEN — JOHN RICHARD — SCOTIABANK — JEAN-SÉBASTIEN PERREAULT
For nearly eight years, beginning with a vehicle transaction in August 2018, I have been dealing with a chain of legal, financial, personal, and family consequences that, in my view, arose from disputed information connected with a Scotiabank Customer Identification Verification Form and the subsequent handling of the transaction.
The dealership involved was:
Individuals connected with the dealership and transaction who are relevant to my concerns include:
The banking parties central to my allegations include:
The Crown prosecutor in the criminal proceeding is:
PAUL DRYSDALE
The presiding Provincial Court judge involved in my requests for remote participation has been:
JUDGE ROSALIND MICHIE
I am publishing this statement because, after years of proceedings, I maintain that basic questions about the accusation against me remain unanswered.
WHAT EXACTLY IS THE ALLEGED FALSE PRETENCE?
I am facing a charge of false pretence under s. 362(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.
Yet I continue to ask fundamental questions:
WHAT EXACTLY WAS THE ALLEGED FALSE REPRESENTATION?
WHO DOES THE CROWN ALLEGE I MADE IT TO?
WHEN WAS IT ALLEGEDLY MADE?
WHAT WORDS, STATEMENT, OR DOCUMENT CONSTITUTED THE ALLEGED FALSE PRETENCE?
WHAT PROPERTY OR CREDIT WAS ALLEGEDLY OBTAINED BECAUSE OF THAT PARTICULAR REPRESENTATION?
WHO PROVIDED THAT PROPERTY OR CREDIT?
WHAT ACTUAL LOSS RESULTED FROM THAT SPECIFIC REPRESENTATION?
After years of proceedings, I maintain that I still do not have a clear and coherent explanation identifying precisely what I supposedly represented, to whom, when, and what I supposedly obtained because of it.
Those questions go to the heart of the accusation.
THE DISPUTED SCOTIABANK IDENTIFICATION FORM
My position is that I sent two valid identification documents by email in or around August 24–25, 2018:
an Ontario driver’s licence, and
a Nova Scotia identification card.
I maintain that I could not have presented a Nova Scotia driver’s licence on August 25, 2018, because, according to my records, my Nova Scotia driver’s licence was not issued until:
SEPTEMBER 4, 2018 — NINE DAYS LATER
I dispute the accuracy of the Scotiabank Customer Identification Verification Form and contend that information from different identification documents appears to have been combined.
According to records in my possession, the disputed certification was associated with:
JESSICA ALLEN / JESSICA THERESA AMIRAULT
I dispute that the certification accurately represented the identification documents I actually provided.
THE CENTRAL DOCUMENTARY QUESTION
How could documentation connected with August 25, 2018 describe a Nova Scotia driver’s licence when, according to my records, that licence was not issued until September 4, 2018?
That question should have a documentary answer.
WHAT HAPPENED TO THE ORIGINAL EMAILS?
The original emails are critical because they could establish exactly what identification documents I transmitted to the dealership.
I maintain that important 2018 email communications involving Jessica Allen and this transaction are missing from the records produced to me.
According to my understanding of the disclosure and information available to me, those communications were deleted or are otherwise unavailable, while later communications remained available.
That raises another fundamental question:
WHERE ARE THE EMAILS FROM THE CRITICAL 2018 TRANSACTION PERIOD?
Those emails could potentially establish:
exactly which identification documents were sent,
when they were sent,
who received them,
what information Amherst Chrysler possessed,
and whether the subsequent Scotiabank identification certification accurately reflected the documents actually provided.
I believe the preservation, deletion, availability, and production of those communications must be examined through disclosure and lawful court procedures.
SCOTT LOCKHART: APPROVED IN APPROXIMATELY FIVE MINUTES
Another important witness, in my view, is:
SCOTT LOCKHART
Scott Lockhart was involved in the vehicle transaction as a salesperson.
According to my recollection of my discussions with him, Scott told me that the financing approval came through in approximately five minutes.
That is important because, from my perspective, it is consistent with a transaction that was processed quickly through the dealership and lender.
I further maintain that Scott told me that he was never contacted by police about the transaction.
If that is correct, I believe it raises another important investigative question.
Scott was directly involved in the original sale, yet according to what he told me, he was not interviewed by police.
I also understand from my discussions with Scott that he recalled receiving copies of my identification by email.
In my view, a salesperson directly involved in the original transaction and who remembers the rapid approval process could potentially provide relevant evidence regarding:
how the financing application was processed,
what identification was provided,
how quickly Scotiabank approved the financing,
and what occurred during the original transaction.
MICHAEL RODNEY ALLEN AND JOHN RICHARD
The dealership’s management is also relevant to the documentary record.
Individuals connected with the dealership include:
MICHAEL RODNEY ALLEN
and
JOHN RICHARD
I believe dealership management and the corporate records of Amherst Chrysler (1999) Limited may possess or have possessed information concerning:
the transaction records,
employee files,
internal emails,
financing documentation,
customer identification records,
dealership policies,
refund documentation,
repossession and resale information,
and the preservation or deletion of communications from 2018.
I intend to seek appropriate disclosure and production of relevant records through lawful court procedures.
MY POSITION: A CIVIL FINANCIAL DISPUTE WAS PUSHED INTO THE CRIMINAL SYSTEM
My position is that the underlying matter was fundamentally a vehicle financing and contractual dispute.
It involved:
a financed vehicle,
contractual obligations,
identification documentation,
repossession,
resale,
and the calculation of any alleged financial loss.
I specifically dispute the manner in which:
JEAN-SÉBASTIEN PERREAULT, IN CONNECTION WITH SCOTIABANK
characterized and advanced this matter.
I allege that representations connected with Jean-Sébastien Perreault / Scotiabank contributed to transforming what I regard as a civil financial dispute into a criminal allegation of false pretence.
That is my allegation. It remains disputed and must ultimately be determined through documentary evidence and lawful court proceedings.
A MATTER ORIGINATING NEARLY EIGHT YEARS AGO
The underlying vehicle transaction occurred in August 2018.
As of August 2026, the events at the centre of this dispute therefore reach back nearly eight years.
The criminal charge itself was laid on:
AUGUST 10, 2021
As of August 17, 2026, approximately five years have elapsed since the charge was laid.
The underlying events date back nearly eight years, while the criminal proceeding itself has remained unresolved for approximately five years.
MORE THAN THREE 18-MONTH PERIODS HAVE ELAPSED SINCE THE CHARGE
The presumptive ceiling generally associated with a Provincial Court criminal trial is 18 months, subject to the legal calculation of defence delay, exceptional circumstances, and other applicable principles.
From August 10, 2021 to August 17, 2026, the gross elapsed time is approximately:
60 MONTHS
Three 18-month periods equal:
54 MONTHS
The gross elapsed time therefore exceeds three complete 18-month periods.
I recognize that the formal constitutional delay calculation is not simply a calendar calculation and that a court must determine which periods are legally included or excluded.
Nevertheless, approximately five years since the charge was laid raises, in my view, an extremely serious delay and access-to-justice issue.
520 DAYS TO RECEIVE MY FIRST SUBSTANTIAL DISCLOSURE
I maintain that it took approximately:
520 DAYS
from my request for disclosure before I received my first substantial disclosure package on:
NOVEMBER 20, 2024
For a person facing a criminal prosecution, disclosure is essential to understanding and answering the case.
I maintain that this delay seriously impaired my ability to:
understand the allegation against me,
identify the alleged false representation,
examine the original records,
compare identification documents,
identify missing evidence,
prepare applications,
and properly defend myself.
WHAT I DESCRIBE AS PROCEDURAL STONEWALLING
Since obtaining disclosure, I believe I have repeatedly encountered procedural obstacles and what I characterize as stonewalling while attempting to obtain answers, additional disclosure, clarification, and meaningful access to a hearing.
I estimate that I have transmitted approximately:
1,250 FAX COMMUNICATIONS/PAGES
to the Crown, the court, and other authorities while attempting to resolve disclosure issues, obtain procedural answers, clarify the allegations against me, and advance my defence.
Despite that extraordinary effort, I maintain that fundamental questions remain unanswered.
PAUL DRYSDALE: MY ATTEMPTS TO OBTAIN ANSWERS FROM THE CROWN
A particularly serious concern for me has been my inability to obtain meaningful direct communication from:
CROWN PROSECUTOR PAUL DRYSDALE
I maintain that, despite repeated attempts:
Paul Drysdale has not answered my telephone calls;
he has not responded to my emails;
and I have not been able to obtain direct answers from him concerning the fundamental questions I continue to raise about this prosecution.
From my perspective, this has made it extraordinarily difficult to resolve basic questions concerning:
disclosure,
the alleged false pretence,
identification evidence,
the alleged loss,
missing records,
and the path toward finally having this matter determined.
After years of proceedings, I continue to ask:
WHAT EXACTLY IS THE FALSE PRETENCE?
WHO WAS IT ALLEGEDLY MADE TO?
WHEN WAS IT ALLEGEDLY MADE?
WHAT PROPERTY OR CREDIT WAS OBTAINED BECAUSE OF IT?
WHAT ACTUAL LOSS RESULTED FROM IT?
JUDGE ROSALIND MICHIE AND VIDEOCONFERENCE ACCESS
I have repeatedly sought to participate by videoconference because I remain outside Canada and contend that the ongoing passport situation prevents me from returning normally.
My requests for remote participation before:
JUDGE ROSALIND MICHIE
have not resulted in the videoconference hearing I have sought.
I maintain that I have not received reasons that adequately explain to me why meaningful videoconference participation cannot be provided in these circumstances.
For me, this creates a serious access-to-justice problem:
HOW CAN A PERSON BE EXPECTED TO DEFEND A CRIMINAL CASE IN CANADA WHILE HE REMAINS UNABLE TO RETURN NORMALLY TO CANADA?
I am not asking for special treatment.
I am asking for a practical and fair way to participate, challenge the evidence, obtain disclosure, answer the allegation, and finally have the case determined.
MY FAMILY HAS BEEN STRANDED OUTSIDE CANADA FOR MORE THAN THREE YEARS
Since the passport decision affecting me began on:
JUNE 9, 2023
I maintain that my family and I have effectively been stranded in a foreign country for more than three years.
This has affected:
our ability to return to our normal life in Canada,
family stability,
education,
finances,
professional opportunities,
freedom of movement,
family relationships,
and emotional well-being.
As of August 17, 2026, I calculate that I have been without the use of my Canadian passport for:
1,165 DAYS
For my family, this is not an abstract legal dispute.
It affects where we can live, where we can travel, and how we have been forced to organize our lives.
KEY DATES
August 24–25, 2018 — Identification documents sent by email.
August 25, 2018 — Date associated with the disputed identification verification documentation.
September 4, 2018 — Nova Scotia driver’s licence issued, nine days after the disputed transaction date.
September 19, 2018 — FCA cancellation confirmed.
October 31, 2019 — Scotiabank report made.
August 10, 2021 — False pretence charge laid.
June 9, 2023 — Passport refusal/cancellation affecting my ability to travel began.
November 20, 2024 — First substantial disclosure received, approximately 520 days after my disclosure request.
August 10, 2025 — Four years since the charge was laid.
August 10, 2026 — Five years since the charge was laid.
August 17, 2026 — Approximately 60 months since the charge, nearly eight years since the underlying transaction, and 1,165 days without the use of my Canadian passport.
$17.5 MILLION ALBERTA CIVIL CLAIM
I am also pursuing civil remedies in Alberta arising from the damages I allege resulted from these events.
My civil litigation seeks approximately:
$17.5 MILLION IN DAMAGES
My claims involve defendants connected with the events described above, including parties such as:
and other defendants identified in the applicable court proceedings.
The $17.5 million is an amount claimed in litigation.
It is not presently a judgment and not money already paid.
Liability and the amount of any damages remain matters for the courts to determine.
I intend to pursue disclosure and examination of:
the original identification records,
dealership communications,
Scotiabank records,
police materials,
financial records,
missing email communications,
dealership employee evidence,
disclosure records,
and other evidence necessary to establish what actually happened.
AFTER ALL THESE YEARS, MY QUESTIONS REMAIN BASIC
WHAT WAS THE FALSE PRETENCE?
WHAT EXACT WORDS OR DOCUMENT ARE ALLEGED TO BE FALSE?
WHO WAS THE REPRESENTATION MADE TO?
WHEN WAS IT MADE?
WHAT PROPERTY OR CREDIT WAS OBTAINED BECAUSE OF IT?
WHAT WAS THE ACTUAL LOSS?
WHY DOES THE FORM REFER TO IDENTIFICATION THAT MY RECORDS SHOW WAS ISSUED NINE DAYS LATER?
WHERE ARE THE ORIGINAL 2018 EMAILS?
WHY, ACCORDING TO SCOTT LOCKHART'S ACCOUNT TO ME, WAS THE FINANCING APPROVED IN APPROXIMATELY FIVE MINUTES?
WHY, ACCORDING TO WHAT SCOTT LOCKHART TOLD ME, WAS HE NEVER CONTACTED BY POLICE DESPITE BEING INVOLVED IN THE ORIGINAL SALE?
WHY DID DISCLOSURE TAKE APPROXIMATELY 520 DAYS?
WHY HAVE MY REPEATED COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE CROWN NOT PRODUCED CLEAR ANSWERS TO THESE BASIC QUESTIONS?
WHY HAS A CASE BASED ON 2018 EVENTS REMAINED UNRESOLVED IN 2026?
WHY HAS MY FAMILY REMAINED STRANDED OUTSIDE CANADA FOR MORE THAN THREE YEARS?
ONE DISPUTED FORM.
MISSING EMAIL EVIDENCE.
A FINANCING APPROVAL REPORTED TO ME AS TAKING ABOUT FIVE MINUTES.
A SALESPERSON WHO TOLD ME POLICE NEVER CONTACTED HIM.
520 DAYS TO RECEIVE DISCLOSURE.
APPROXIMATELY 1,250 FAX COMMUNICATIONS/PAGES.
NEARLY EIGHT YEARS SINCE THE UNDERLYING EVENTS.
APPROXIMATELY FIVE YEARS SINCE THE CHARGE.
GROSS ELAPSED TIME EXCEEDING THREE 18-MONTH PERIODS.
1,165 DAYS WITHOUT MY PASSPORT.
$17.5 MILLION IN DAMAGES CLAIMED IN ALBERTA.
I am not asking the public simply to accept my conclusions.
LOOK AT THE DOCUMENTS.
LOOK AT THE DATES.
COMPARE THE IDENTIFICATION INFORMATION.
ASK WHERE THE EMAILS WENT.
ASK THE ORIGINAL WITNESSES WHAT THEY REMEMBER.
ASK WHAT THE ALLEGED FALSE PRETENCE ACTUALLY WAS.
ASK HOW A CIVIL FINANCIAL DISPUTE DEVELOPED INTO A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION.
FOLLOW THE EVIDENCE.
The allegations in this statement are my allegations and characterization of disputed events. The legal responsibility of any individual or organization remains to be determined through evidence and lawful court proceedings.
I will continue to pursue disclosure, accountability, my Charter rights, access to justice, and the truth through lawful legal proceedings.
ROBERT Z.
No comments:
Post a Comment