La mens rea de l'infraction de fraude est une question de fait

R. v. Benson (M.) et al., 2012 MBCA 94

Lien vers la décision

149                     As we know, the application of a legal standard, or the application of the law, to the facts of the case is a question of law while deference is owed to the trial judge’s findings of fact and to issues of mixed fact and law.  See R. v. Shepherd, 2009 SCC 35 at para. 20, [2009] 2 S.C.R. 527, and R. v. Grant, 2009 SCC 32 at para. 43, [2009] 2 S.C.R. 353.  It is not always easy to distinguish between questions of law, questions of fact and questions of mixed fact and law.  That distinction is vital since the Crown only has jurisdiction to appeal an acquittal on a question of law.  In this case, the Crown’s appeal rests on a disagreement with the judge’s assessment of the particular facts and their consequences, rather than a general principle of law, and is thus a question of mixed fact and law.  See R. v. Bouchard-Lebrun, 2011 SCC 58 at para. 63, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 575.

150                     A finding of fraud, and more particularly, “dishonest deprivation,” involves issues of fact or, at the very least, mixed fact and law.  Huband J.A., writing for the court, made this point succinctly in R. v. Ross (D.D.A.) (1996), 1996 CanLII 18357 (MB CA), 107 Man.R. (2d) 248 (at para. 32):

 

A criminal fraud involves a “dishonest deprivation”. Both these words conjure up issues of fact.  ….

 

151                     Narrowing the focus to “other fraudulent means,” the court in R. v. Lauer (J.M.), 2011 PECA 5, 306 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 289, makes the following observation (at para. 82):

 

(1)        The issue of whether conduct will be characterized as “other fraudulent means” is a question of fact to be determined by the trier of fact;

 

….

 

152                     As well, the mens rea element in fraud cases has been referenced as a question of fact.  In R. v. Marine Resource Analysts Ltd. (1980), 1980 CanLII 4380 (NS CA), 43 N.S.R. (2d) 1 (C.A.), the appellant company was convicted of fraud.  In affirming the conviction and commenting on the conduct of employees, Jones J.A. had occasion to remark (at para. 19):

 

….  The question as to whether the appellant honestly believed that it had permission to use the equipment was a question of fact for the trial judge.  ….