Lien vers la décision
[28] Both R. v. Théroux, supra, and R. v. Zlatic, supra, were discussed by the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal in R. v. Trotchie(1994), 1994 CanLII 4685 (SK CA), 116 Sask. R. 161. A useful discussion of mens rea in the offence of fraud is contained in the dissenting judgment of Vancise J.A. commencing at p. 183. In R. v. Martin (A.) (1997), 1997 CanLII 9717 (SK CA), 152 Sask. R. 164 (C.A.), at p. 176, the Court adopted the elements of the offence as enunciated by Madam Justice McLachlin in R. v. Théroux and R. v. Zlatic.
[29] To found a conviction in fraud it must be proven that a prohibited act caused deprivation and that the act was intentionally committed by the accused with knowledge both of the prohibited act and that a consequence could be deprivation. In this case the Crown alleges that the accused used false invoices to obtain monies to which he was not entitled and that he knew the invoices were false and that their use would result in the public, as represented by the Department of Finance, being deprived of money.
[30] In R. v. Baker (1998), 1998 CanLII 13818 (SK QB), 164 Sask. R. 131 (Q.B.), at p. 145, Scheibel J. described the application of the law in this way.
In summary the means rea of fraud is established by proof of subjective knowledge of the prohibited act, and subjective knowledge that the act could have, as a consequence, deprivation in the sense of causing another to lose their pecuniary interest in certain property or in placing that interest at risk. There is no requirement that the accused subjectively appreciates the dishonesty of his acts.
In the end, as soon as a victim suffers a loss or some risk of loss or other prejudice to his/her economic interests by the fraudulent conduct of the accused, the offence of fraud is complete as long as the evidence establishes that the accused intentionally committed the conduct with an awareness of what he was doing and that a likely consequence of that would or could be deprivation.
Aucun commentaire:
Publier un commentaire