The appellant, a home renovation contractor, appealed his convictions for fraud over $5,000 and theft.
He had persuaded an elderly, vulnerable homeowner to enter into contracts totaling over $300,000 for renovations on a house worth $400,000, grossly overcharging her.
The Court of Appeal upheld the fraud conviction, finding that the overcharging, combined with taking advantage of the victim, constituted 'other fraudulent means'.
However, the court set aside the theft conviction, ruling that because the victim intended to part with her money (albeit induced by fraud), the appellant could not be convicted of both theft and fraud for the same funds.
