R. v. Pilarinos, 2002 BCSC 1267 (CanLII)
[203] In R. v. Hinchey, supra, the Court was aware of the danger of convicting someone for accepting a small or trivial gift and stated that s. 121(1) was not enacted to criminalize such conduct. A gift must constitute a benefit to form part of the actus reus of the offence. All of the circumstances must be objectively assessed when determining whether a gift is a “benefit”. The majority of the Court referred to some guidelines to consider in making this determination, including:
i) the relationship between the parties. Are they friends or business acquaintances? Is there a history of reciprocal arrangements, such as buying each other lunch or dinner? Was the gift in the context of an on-going friendship, such as a birthday gift?
ii) the size or scope of the benefit. Is it a cup of coffee or a car?
iii) the manner in which the gift was bestowed. Was it done in secret or in the open?
iv) the official or employees' function in government
v) the nature of the giver’s dealings with the government
vi) the connection, if any, with the giver’s dealings and the official or employee’s job
vii) the state of mind of the receiver and the giver (as it relates to the actus reus)
