A police officer was charged with two counts of forgery and two counts of uttering forged documents after he created firearms destruction waivers by forging the signatures of the weapon owners without their authorization.
The officer completed the waiver forms entirely, signed the owners' names, and attested to witnessing those signatures before uploading the documents to the police service's document management system.
The court found that the signatures were material elements of the waivers, that no authorization existed (express or implied), and that the officer possessed the requisite mens rea for forgery (intent to deceive).
The court rejected the defence arguments that the signatures were non-essential, that implied consent existed, and that uploading the documents did not constitute "using" them.
The officer was convicted on all four counts.