The appellant, a travel agent, received funds from clients for airline tickets but failed to pay the tour operator, leaving clients without tickets or refunds.
He was convicted of theft.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeal was based on a question of fact, not law.
The Court affirmed that while mere expectations do not amount to a direction under section 292 of the Criminal Code, expectations known to the recipient as a result of express instructions constitute a valid direction.
