A local contractor charged with numerous counts of fraud formally applied to strike his previous guilty plea from the court’s records on Wednesday.
Brechin-based contractor Scott Eisemann allegedly collected more than $300,000 in payments from a variety of clients in the Simcoe County and Muskoka area — dating back to 2017 — and either failed to complete the projects or failed to deliver the promised work.
After pleading guilty to seven of 13 counts of fraud at the Orillia Courthouse on Jan. 11, he later expressed interest in striking the plea from the court’s records.
On Feb. 8, which was supposed to be his sentencing date, Eisemann told the court there were “so many issues” with the previous statement of facts and that “perception issues” with the facts contributed to his previous guilty plea.
In response, Emily Dyer, who was Eisemann’s lawyer at the time, dropped the case due to “a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship,” and Eisemann has spent the past few months securing new representation in preparation for his application to strike his previous guilty plea.
On Wednesday, Crown attorney Neil Riley argued against striking the plea, while Eisemann’s new defence lawyer, Melina Macchia, argued it should be struck from the record due to numerous issues.
She noted the restitution amount for six of the seven frauds had not been determined at the time of the plea, arguing they constitute “essential elements” affecting “the accused’s ability to understand the nature of the consequences.”
She said there were “no facts on record to make up those substantive counts,” and also argued that Dyer had discouraged Eisemann from speaking in court about his numerous concerns with the facts on the day of the plea.
Eisemann told the court Dyer was “assertive and aggressive” on Jan. 11 as she told him to sign paperwork agreeing to court facts, and that he did not fully understand the details of the facts presented to him.
He said he felt he had “no option” but to plead guilty, despite feeling there were numerous inaccuracies with regard to the fraud charges.
“(I was) really upset with myself, in that moment, that I had signed that piece of paper … that I was stupid enough to sign that piece of paper,” he said. “(She said), ‘You need to sign this piece of paper now.’ I said I need to speak with the judge, (and) she said 'Absolutely not today, but you can on Feb. 8.'”
Eisemann also said that, days earlier, he had a phone call with Dyer in which she said he had “no chance in hell of winning.” He said he felt there was no other option available to him but to plead guilty.
Riley, however, argued that Eisemann was given time to read over the facts ahead of the hearing on Jan. 11, and that Dyer had also explained the facts to him before he went into court and pleaded guilty on the seven counts of fraud.
According to Dyer’s evidence, Riley said the telephone conversation regarding a guilty plea took place after Eisemann had sent her an email expressing his desire to plead guilty, which contradicts Eisemann’s claim that he tried to maintain innocence throughout the process.
Riley argued that “credibility concerns are significant” with Eisemann, citing a lengthy criminal record dating back to 1988.
“We must rely on the evidence of Ms. Dyer,” Riley said. “(I) ask the court to reject outright that this court pressured him (or) told him he couldn’t address the court.”
A decision on Eisemann’s application will be made on May 27.
Earlier in the process, after discussions with the Crown attorney, victims said they anticipated the likely sentence would be around three-and-a-half years in prison — a sentence several do not think is long enough.
“This guy has taken tens of thousands of dollars out of seniors, young people, all ages, for his own benefit, for what conviction? Less than five years, if that's what happens — not enough,” said Kim Burt, who hired Eisemann to build an addition on a home he purchased.
“I'm also let down by the possible sentence — he did two years (for fraud) before,” said Liz Saunders. “Clearly, it wasn't enough because he came back out, started a new company and started doing this again.”
Saunders paid Eisemann $59,000 to lift her cottage, build a new foundation, and set the cottage back down, but she said he only lifted the cottage and left it suspended for two years on wooden blocks without completing the agreed upon work.
“It makes me crazy that there are people out there who could do this,” Saunders said.
“Three-and-a-half years is just not enough for the emotional turmoil that he put us all through. In my case, it was my grandfather's cottage that he built in 1931 that the family has enjoyed, and it was up in the air, six feet in the air, for two years," Saunders said.
None of the victims present at the trial said they expect to be compensated for the funds they gave to Eisemann.
