R. v. Wendel, 1992 CanLII 12882 (MB CA)
The factual circumstances are really not in dispute, and may be stated briefly. The complainant, Agatha Ristau, was 76 years of age at the time of the offence. She wanted to have an air conditioning unit and an awning installed in her apartment. The accused were introduced to her by a friend who had had renovation work done by them.
On July 13, 1989, the accused attended at the complainant's apart ment, discussed the work to be done, and wrote out a contract for the work at a price of $6,850. The complainant signed the contract. The accused then drove the complainant to her bank. While Wendel waited in the car, Ballan accompanied the complainant into the bank. He represented himself as her grandson. He asked for $6,000 in cash. He refused to produce the contract for inspection by bank employees, or to provide the name of the contracting company. He gave the bank employees a false name. The bank's savings supervisor described the complainant's behaviour as being "like a frightened little mouse."
In my view, the findings of the trial judge with respect to the nature of the contract and the circumstances of its making, and specifically, his comment that "one would characterize what had happened, in common street vernacular, as criminal" and his finding that the complainant was "a very naive, gullible, easily led person," an easy "prey for persons inclined to take advantage of her," amount to a finding of dishonesty according to the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people. In my view, there is no possibility that a jury, properly instructed, would have a reasonable doubt as to the dishonesty or the conduct of the accused.
Aucun commentaire:
Publier un commentaire