Brandon Harder
Regina Leader-Post
Alena Marie Pastuch is hoping a Regina judge will decide that her guilty plea for stealing millions from investors is null because of missing paperwork.
Court of King’s Bench Justice Catherine Dawson heard an argument to that end from Pastuch’s lawyer, Christina Skibinsky, in Regina on Monday.
The judge also heard from Crown prosecutor Dana Brule, who argued that the motion brought by Pastuch should fail for a number of reasons.
In June 2019, Pastuch was convicted on charges of fraud, theft and money laundering after a trial in which she represented herself without a lawyer.
The charges were related to an investment scheme that played out over the course of about seven years, beginning in 2006.
In August of 2019, she was sentenced to seven years in prison.
Pastuch appealed her sentence and, in October 2022, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal (SKCA) ordered a new trial after finding she should not have had to represent herself.
The new trial never went ahead, with Pastuch entering a guilty plea to theft over $5,000. Brule quoted a total of $4,940,218.
In September 2024, Brule and Pastuch’s then-lawyer Chris Murphy put forward a joint submission that a three-and-a-half-year sentence would be appropriate.
But before Dawson could rule on the joint submission, Pastuch sought an adjournment to arrange medical appointments and get a new lawyer.
Since then, over a series of dates, court has heard Skibinsky make varied submissions based on her client’s instructions, and the crux of Monday’s arguments came as a change of course.
A nullity
Skibinsky argued that when Pastuch filed her notice of appeal, she indicated — if the SKCA was to order a new trial — that she wanted a jury trial. Because of that, before her client could plead guilty, the law dictates a formal piece of paperwork needed to be filed but wasn’t, said the defence lawyer.
“Following a successful conviction appeal, the proceedings cannot take place before a judge alone without formal re-election, which requires the prosecutor’s consent and must be in writing,” Skibinsky said.
An accused person has the right to “elect” their mode of trial — be it by judge and jury, or judge alone. Guilty pleas must be entered before a judge alone.
Brule argued that once Murphy began representing Pastuch, he filed an amended notice of appeal indicating Pastuch sought a judge trial and, therefore, Pastuch would not have needed to re-elect to a judge alone before entering her plea.
Skibinsky repeatedly told Dawson that the amended notice did not mean her client’s original notice wasn’t still valid and relevant.
Brule argued that the Court of King’s Bench is not able to review decisions of the higher court and submitted that even if Pastuch had elected a jury trial, entering a guilty plea would not have required the procedure Skibinsky described.
After Skibinsky made submissions regarding an affidavit from Murphy, Brule asked for the ability to cross-examine Murphy on what discussions he had with Pastuch pertaining to elections.
Dawson reserved her decision and plans to advise lawyers as to whether she will order cross-examination of Murphy. bharder@postmedia.com
