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 section provides:
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)”.
R. v. Aitchison, 2013 ONCJ 74 (CanLII)