Elliot Lake woman admits drugs, gambling led her to steal from her employer

A woman from Elliot Lake, Ont., admits that her drug and gambling addictions led her to steal at least $60,000 from her employer, but denies claims from the Crown that her theft was closer to $800,000. (File)

A woman from Elliot Lake, Ont., admits that her drug and gambling addictions led her to steal at least $60,000 from her employer, but denies claims from the Crown that her theft was closer to $800,000.

Her lawyer wants to call witnesses to back her claims, but the Crown argued that such testimony could stray into areas that affect solicitor-client confidentiality, since her former employer is a lawyer.

In a decision released last month, the judge in the case ruled the questions could proceed, provided the defence was careful in the way she crafted her questions.

The case itself dates back several years. Stephenie Chevis worked for a law firm in Elliot Lake, with duties that included bookkeeping. She was hired in 2007 and was fired in 2017 when her theft was discovered.

Transaction details

Her defence lawyer wants to raise details of transactions handled by the firm in an effort to prove that some of the thefts were, in fact, legitimate transactions, while others were the responsibility of someone else.

Chevis pleaded guilty in December 2024 to one count of fraud over $5,000. The court heard that she often worked at night, explaining that she said she “found it easier to do her accounting software work at night when no other employees were using the computer.”

By 2016, the lawyer she worked for started getting suspicious.

“Despite working full-time, he found he was unable to draw personal funds from the business, as the firm’s general account was dipping into the negative,” the court decision said.

So he installed security cameras and told Chevis to stop working at night.

“In April and May 2017, Ms. Chevis was surveilled entering the office after midnight and she was terminated from employment in June 2017,” the decision said.

Traced back to her

An investigation uncovered a number of irregularities that were traced back to her. When her lawyer contacted her, she quickly confessed.

“Ms. Chevis broke down and told him she had stolen some money the previous year, in the amount of $60,000 to $70,000,” the court said.

“Ms. Chevis was arrested on Sept. 7, 2022. During a video interview with the North Bay OPP, she explained that her conduct was the result of drug and gambling addictions. She admitted to taking $60,000. That remains the extent of Ms. Chevis’s admission and the basis for her plea of guilt.”

She admitted to issuing checks to her benefit or that of her former spouse. She used some of the money to pay her personal bills, while other cheques were deposited into her accounts at various financial institutions.

The lawyer she worked for was left in dire straits and was forced to remortgage his home, use his line of credit and cash in more than $300,000 in RRSPs.

During a hearing Dec. 10, 2024, Chevis’s lawyer was cross-examining a former employee from the law firm when she paused to raise an issue.

She wanted to ask questions about three transactions, but was concerned about whether the answers would raise “potential issues of solicitor-client privilege,” the court decision said.

“It is important to note that Ms. Chevis explicitly waived any solicitor-client privilege she may have had in respect of any of these transactions … The privilege concerns were with respect to (the law firm’s) other clients as potential privilege-holders.”

The ‘Lottery Winner’

Specifically, the defence wanted to raise the case of a client of the firm dubbed ‘the Lottery Winner,’ who won a large amount of money and left it in a trust with the firm.

Other cases involved private mortgages given to Chevis using other unnamed clients’ funds.

“Ms. Chevis proclaims to have knowledge of these transactions already,” the decision said.

“She is not seeking production. She is simply seeking to elicit the evidence.”

The Crown argued that these cases involve solicitor-client privilege, something that can only be breached in specific cases, such as when it’s the only way to prove someone’s innocence.

“To engage the exception, the Crown submits, an accused must show that she is otherwise unable to raise a reasonable doubt as to her guilt and that there is a risk of wrongful conviction,” the decision said.

“The Crown emphasizes that a finding of guilt has already been made in this case and the proceedings before the court involve sentencing.”

Public documents

However, Justice Graham Jenner ruled that once something like a mortgage or a will has been executed, it becomes a public document.

“I have difficulty … with the notion that a legal instrument such as a will, a power of attorney, or a private mortgage, could possibly remain covered by solicitor-client privilege once the instrument is acted on, and enters the public sphere,” Jenner said.

“Indeed, when this question was put to the parties, they agreed that it would seem illogical to protect the existence of such public-facing instruments within the scope of the privilege.”

As long as the questions were limited in scope to cases no longer covered by privilege, the judge ruled that questions would be allowed to be put to witnesses.

I “instruct counsel to apply that vigilance in the formation of their questions to be put to witnesses,” Jenner wrote in his decision.

“Care must be taken not to pose questions that could tend to elicit evidence that remains covered by the privilege.”

Read the full decision here.