 |
| John L. Hill |
On Aug. 11, 2025, the Quebec Court of Appeal rejected Mwinda Lezoka’s appeal of a conviction for defrauding four members of his congregation of over $280,000 (Lezoka c. R., 2025 QCCA 1003).
The Crown’s case was that, between 2005 and 2010, Lezoka defrauded members of the Christian Community of Bethel (CCB) while it was searching for a new property. At trial, the judge found that Lezoka lied to the victims because he knew the CCB lacked the funds to repay his parishioners. Lezoka appealed, claiming he had done nothing wrong and that the case had taken too long to prosecute.
Lezoka was charged on Dec. 19, 2011. A trial date was set before the release of the Jordan decision that established reasonable timelines for trials (R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27). The trial was initially scheduled for Oct. 2, 2017; however, it was delayed and finally began on Oct. 29, 2018, ending on June 10, 2020, when the judge reserved the case. The Jordan ceiling of 30 months for a superior court matter was exceeded, breaching the Jordan limit
Vadim Sazhniev: ISTOCKPHOTO.COM
The Quebec Court of Appeal recognized that if the delays involved were directly attributable to the prosecutor, a stay of proceedings would be warranted (R. v. Morin, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 771). However, after analyzing the cause of the delays, the Court of Appeal agreed with the lower courts’ assessments, attributing blame for delays to Lezoka. He was found by a case management judge, a Superior Court judge (Lezoka v. R., 2018 QCCS 4394) and the trial judge to be reluctant to stand trial. The Quebec Court of Appeal, in its decision, detailed how the delays attributable to Lezoka and his frequent changes in counsel resulted in an extraordinary delay.
Any delay attributable to the prosecution alone was considered of little significance in the case as a whole and did not reveal any conduct on the part of the prosecutor that would have delayed the proceedings. As well, Lezoka was unable to convince the court that he was prejudiced by the delays.
The Appeal Court acknowledged that the end of the CCB was challenging for Lezoka. He publicly disagreed with CCB members, which ultimately led to his job loss. Media coverage of these events also led to him losing contracts. His financial situation became so unstable that he had to declare bankruptcy. His health problems were already evident in 2012, when the legal proceedings started. His health, employment, contract and housing issues are all linked to the circumstances surrounding the termination of the CCB, not to the length of the proceedings.
Although there were many victims, Lezoka faced only one charge. The Court of Appeal summarized his situation: Lezoka was a preacher who immigrated to Canada in the early 1990s. By the time of his arrival, he had already built a large group of followers. In 1995, he founded the Christian Community of Bethel and incorporated it as a religious organization. Due to the rapidly growing size of the congregation, the church where it assembled soon no longer met the needs of the CCB. The organization tried to secure funding to purchase a larger building. In 2002, the CCB decided to establish a community organization, Bethel Action Canada (BAC).
The value of BAC Corporation was its ability to engage in a wider range of activities than a religious corporation and to secure funding for its projects more easily. The directors of BAC were members of the CCB, with Lezoka serving as its president. Soon thereafter, BAC decided to acquire a building at 211 Henri-Bourassa Boulevard East in Montreal. A fundraiser was conducted to support the purchase of the building. On March 7, 2007, the building was acquired. Those who loaned money for the building’s purchase and renovations were never repaid.
Fraud is established when it is proven that (1) a prohibited act occurred, whether through deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means; and (2) the deprivation resulting from the prohibited act, which may involve actual loss or the jeopardizing of the victim’s financial interests (R. v. Zlatic, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 29). The mens rea of fraud is demonstrated by proving that the accused had subjective knowledge of the prohibited act and, secondly, that they knew the act could cause deprivation to another person, which may include knowledge that the victim’s financial interests are at risk. The prosecution must establish that the accused knowingly used falsehood, deceit or other fraudulent means while aware that deprivation could occur (R. v. Théroux, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 5).
Lezoka used his influence over many of his congregants to convince them to hand over large sums, while committing to repay them, knowing that he, BAC and the CCB were not in a financial position to repay them. Their financial precariousness was constant. By acting in this manner, Lezoka committed dishonest acts that resulted in pecuniary loss for members of his congregation.
Lezoka’s appeal was dismissed.
John L. Hill practised and taught prison law until his retirement. He holds a J.D. from Queen’s and an LL.M. in constitutional law from Osgoode Hall. His most recent book, Acts of Darkness (Durvile & UpRoute Books) was released July 1. Hill is also the author of Pine Box Parole: Terry Fitzsimmons and the Quest to End Solitary Confinement (Durvile & UpRoute Books) and The Rest of the (True Crime) Story (AOS Publishing). Contact him at johnlornehill@hotmail.com.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.