The respondents were acquitted at trial on charges of conspiracy to commit frauds upon the government under s. 110 of the Criminal Code.
The Crown appealed, arguing the trial judge erred in his interpretation of 'benefit', 'consideration', and 'cooperation, assistance, exercise of influence'.
The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the trial judge made errors of law in interpreting the constituent elements of the offence—specifically by failing to recognize that arranging meetings could constitute cooperation or assistance—the acquittals must stand because the trial judge made findings of fact that there was no agreement for the accused to provide such services.
The appeal was dismissed.
