The defendant, a Member of Parliament, faced two counts of breach of trust under section 122 of the Criminal Code, alleging he solicited funds by deceit or for personal benefit in connection with his official duties.
After the Crown closed its case, the defence brought a motion for a directed verdict.
The court examined the evidence regarding loans obtained from individuals who had received immigration assistance or invitations to a Prime Minister's event.
The court found that the Crown failed to adduce sufficient evidence to establish the second element of the offence, specifically that the alleged conduct was "in connection with the duties of his office." The court determined that the inferences required to support the Crown's theory, such as the loans being connected to prior immigration assistance or the event invitations demonstrating partiality, amounted to impermissible speculation or conjecture.
Consequently, the motion for a directed verdict was granted, and the defendant was acquitted on both charges.
