La réalité de la vie commerciale exige que la ligne de démarcation entre les actes visant à préserver l'entreprise, même s'ils sont désespérés, et les actes frauduleux soit tracée avec minutie

R. v. Lazeo, 2000 BCCA 483

Lien vers la décision

[47]   Finally, unlike Zlatic, there was no finding by the trial judge in the case at bar that Mr. Lazeo bought the bars from Dr. Aubert without concern for payment.  Where Mr. Zlatic diverted money from his business for his own purposes, the evidence in the case at bar demonstrated that Mr. Lazeo, on  receiving a poor price on the resale of the platinum bars, desperately, and perhaps in foolish ways, attempted to find the money to pay his business debt.  In my view there was insufficient evidence before the trial judge for him to conclude that the appellant deliberately, or recklessly used the funds of his business in an unauthorized manner or that by dishonest means he put his ability to pay his creditor, Dr. Aubert, out of his reach.

[48]   As Carthy J.A. said in R. v. Milec (1996), 1996 CanLII 315 (ON CA), 110 C.C.C. (3d) 439 (O.C.A.) at pp. 444-5:

The reality of commercial life mandates that the line between acts directed to the preservation of the business, even if desperate, and acts which are fraudulent, be meticulously drawn.

[49]   I would set aside the conviction for fraud on count two.