Background

  • Karen Gushue, also formerly known as Karen Robinson and Karren Hannis, of Fort Erie, Ontario was convicted of two counts of acting as a travel agent without registration, contrary to the Travel Industry Act, 2002.

Conduct leading to the convictions

  • In 2016-2017, Ms. Gushue sold two cruises, one to the Bahamas and one to Hawaii, to a large number of consumers.
     
  • Ms. Gushue operated primarily from the Royal Canadian Legion Fort Erie branch. She promoted the cruises as fundraisers for the Legion or for veterans. Consumers were Legion members or family, co-workers, friends or neighbours of members.
     
  • She promoted the cruises as all-inclusive. Consumers made written agreements and paid Ms. Gushue up front.
     
  • Ms. Gushue told consumers they could cancel 10 days prior to departure for a full refund.
     
  • The Bahamas cruise occurred in February 2017. It was not as promised – ground and return air transportation were not included. Some consumers cancelled their cruise and did not receive any of the promised refunds.
  • The Hawaii cruise did not occur. Consumers who paid Ms. Gushue did not receive any of the promised refunds.

Trial, sentencing and appeal

  • After a trial in January 2018, the Court convicted Ms. Gushue on February 8, 2019 on two counts of operating as a travel agent without registration.
  • On December 13, 2019, the Court sentenced Ms. Gushue to 75 days in jail on count 2 (Hawaii), and 45 days on count 1 (Bahamas), to be served at the same time, on weekends. This sentence was the decision of the Court.
  • Ms. Gushue filed an appeal of her convictions to the Superior Court of Justice. The Court granted her bail until the appeal is heard. We anticipate the appeal will be heard in early-to-mid 2020.

Complaints and losses reported to TICO

  • TICO received a total of 42 complaints, totalling $65,581.73 in losses.
  • This amount represents: 1) travel services paid for, not provided and not refunded; 2) trip completion costs, including return airfare, ground transportation to and from origin and destination airports.
  • This amount is based on written complaints submitted to TICO before the trial, and supported by receipts, invoices and other documentation.

Travel Industry Compensation Fund coverage not available

  • The Travel Industry Compensation Fund covers consumers for travel services that were purchased from a TICO-registered travel agency, and not received because the Ontario travel agency, Ontario tour operator, or any airline or cruise line went out of business or ceased operations.
  • Because Ms. Gushue was not a TICO-registered travel agency, consumers are not covered by the Travel Industry Compensation Fund

Restitution

  • Prior to sentencing, Ms. Gushue paid $15,000 to TICO as partial restitution.
  • TICO will pay this out in the coming weeks to 42 consumers who: 1) filed complaints with TICO before the trial; and 2) who provided confirming documentation including receipts and invoices.
  • The restitution will be paid on a pro-rated basis. Consumers will receive an amount in proportion to the total losses.
     
  • LOSSES INCLUDED The losses included are: 1) travel services paid for, not provided and not refunded; and 2) trip completion costs, including return airfare, and ground transportation to and from origin and destination airports.
     
  • LOSESES NOT INCLUDED: Bahamas cruise: inclusions that were not provided and for which consumers purchased substitutes on-board. Additionally, beverage packages are not covered.

Related criminal charges

  • Niagara Regional Police have also charged Ms. Gushue with criminal fraud in these matters. The criminal trial is scheduled to begin on May 11, 2020, lasting for three weeks.
  • The TICO case is NOT the criminal fraud case. The criminal fraud case is prosecuted by the Ministry of the Attorney General, Welland Crown Attorney’s Office.
  • If Ms. Gushue is convicted on the criminal fraud allegations, she may face further jail time.
  • If Ms. Gushue is convicted on the criminal fraud allegations, the Court may order further restitution, including for consumers who were not TICO complainants. This would be the Court’s decision.