2 total
An honest belief that a dishonest act will not ultimately cause loss does not negate the mens rea of fraud.
The appellant, the directing mind of a residential construction company, took deposits from potential home purchasers on the false representation that the deposits were insured.
The company became insolvent, the project was not completed, and most depositors lost their money.
The trial judge found the appellant guilty of fraud, noting that while he sincerely believed the project would be completed, he deliberately lied about the insurance.
The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the mens rea of fraud is established by proof of subjective knowledge of the prohibited act and subjective knowledge that the act could result in deprivation.
An honest belief that the project would be completed and no one would ultimately be harmed does not negate the mens rea of fraud.
Accused must be acquitted if the trial judge cannot determine whether her explanation might reasonably be true.
The accused was arrested while driving a recently stolen car.
She gave statements to the police admitting she knew the car was stolen, but later testified at trial that she did not know.
The trial judge convicted her, stating he could not determine whether she was telling the truth in her statements or her testimony.
The Court of Appeal overturned the conviction.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the Crown's appeal, holding that the trial judge erred in law; if a judge cannot decide whether an accused's explanation under oath might reasonably be true, the accused must be acquitted.
