Case Summary
In 1994, Darcy Bjorge was convicted of fraud and possession of stolen property for selling a used Mustang that was reported stolen. At the time, he had an extensive, though non-violent, criminal record. Bjorge was sentenced to three years in prison. He unsuccessfully appealed to the Alberta Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court of Canada subsequently denied his application for leave for a further appeal.1 Because he never admitted to his guilt, he was not granted parole.2
With assistance from retired detective Len Svajilenko – who had originally arrested him – defence counsel April Kellet, and law professor Michael Jackson, Bjorge filed an application to the Minister of Justice for a review of his convictions in 2000.3
In 2005, Justice Minister Irwin Cotler determined that the possession of stolen property conviction “could not be maintained,” on the basis of new evidence that the car Bjorge had sold was not stolen, but had been falsely reported stolen by previous owners in an attempt to defraud an insurance company. Justice Minister Cotler overturned this conviction and ordered a new trial, but the prosecution chose to stay the proceedings instead of trying Bjorge a second time.4
However, Justice Minister Cotler did not provide a remedy of a new trial or new appeal for Bjorge’s fraud conviction, finding that: “The various transactions involving the Mustang, the character of those involved in the transactions, and the surrounding circumstances … all suggest that [Bjorge] knew he was committing a fraud.”5
Bjorge expressed his dissatisfaction with this outcome, stating that while he wanted an apology for his time served and compensation for his wrongful conviction, “more than that, he wanted someone to take responsibility for the lies and errors that landed him in jail.”6 Referencing his denial of parole, he told the press: “The whole time I was in prison, they said to me, ‘You’re minimizing your crime, you’re not taking responsibility.’ Now who’s not taking responsibility?”7
In 2008, Bjorge was represented by the UBC Innocence Project, working on a new application in hopes of overturning his remaining fraud conviction.8 The Innocence Project team focused on the logic used to convict Bjorge of both crimes: the trial court had found that the crimes were so entangled that, “if [Bjorge] was convicted of one, he should definitely get convicted of the other.”9 The team believed that the reverse should also be true.10 The status of this application is unknown as of 2026, and it appears that Bjorge has not received an apology or compensation.