Claude Haccoun

The appellant appealed a conviction for the unlawful use of a credit card.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Quebec Court of Appeal that even if the initial possession of the credit card was innocent, the appellant subsequently chose to keep it wrongfully, making his possession unlawful prior to its use to obtain goods.

The appellant appealed a judgment affirming the issuance of a writ of certiorari.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that even if the magistrate erred, the error was made within the scope of his jurisdiction and therefore could not be the basis for a writ of certiorari.

The writ was quashed and the magistrate's decision restored.

The respondent, a lawyer, prepared fictitious bills for fees to a company to facilitate a kickback scheme to his father-in-law, a bank employee.

He was acquitted at trial of uttering forged documents.

The Crown appealed the acquittals.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that even if the bills were forged documents, the respondent only prepared them and did not use or deal with them as genuine documents.

Acts in preparation for uttering do not constitute the offence of uttering.

The accused, a lawyer, was charged with conspiring with a police officer to obstruct justice, attempted obstruction of justice, and extortion.

The trial judge acquitted the accused on all counts, finding reasonable doubt.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal on the conspiracy count, finding the trial judge's doubt was purely conjectural.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the accused's appeal and dismissed the Crown's appeal, holding that the trial judge's doubt regarding the conspiracy and obstruction charges was based on the evidence and did not constitute an error of law.

Furthermore, the request for money without threats or violence did not amount to extortion.