Le fait de cibler des personnes âgées et de leur facturer un prix déraisonnable pour des services insatisfaisants n'entraîne pas nécessairement une condamnation pour fraude

R. v. Gershbain and Madick, 1989 CanLII 7486 (MB KB)

Lien vers la décision

[9] At the risk of oversimplifying, Mr. Conklin's argument is as follows: If I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused were unlicensed, high-pressure salesmen; that they knowingly targeted elderly retired persons; that they overcharged and that the work done was incomplete or unsatisfactory, then the Crown will have proved dishonesty amounting to "other fraudulent means". Further, if there was deprivation, or in the case of the attempted fraud, the risk of deprivation, there will have been fraud.

[10] I agree that all of those features are relevant and that at least to some degree they have been proved in the present case. That may be enough to satisfy me that the accused acted in a way which was unsavory, unethical or unattractive, but more is required to establish the kind of intentional dishonesty necessary to render them liable to conviction and punishment under the criminal law. I will consider each of the charges together and individually to ascertain if that "something more" can be found.