L'apparence de droit n'est pas un moyen de défense recevable en matière de fraude

R. v. Kingsbury, 2012 BCCA 462 (CanLII)

Lien vers la décision

[52]        Finally, the statutory definition of the offences of theft and fraud suggest that while a finding of fact that amounts to a colour of right is relevant to theft, such a finding cannot be automatically transposed to fraud.  It will be recalled that theft includes as an element the taking of property “fraudulently and without colour of right”.  There is no reference in the definition of fraud to deprivation “without colour of right”.  Lack of colour of right is not embraced within the definition of fraud and therefore its relevance is not contemplated by the definition of the offence of fraud.  It is not apparent that colour of right is relevant to crimes that do not incorporate the concept in the statutory definition:  see R. v. Jones, 1991 CanLII 31 (SCC), [1991] 3 S.C.R. 110.  In my view, the appellant’s argument invites the Court to read in a lack of colour of right into the definition of fraud in a manner not contemplated by its express definition.