Le fait qu'un accusé ait pu espérer que la privation n'aurait pas lieu ne constitue pas un moyen de défense

R. v. Emms, 2010 ONCA 817

Lien vers la décision

[32] The respondent's second argument turns on the definition of fraud. As McLachlin J. pointed out in R. v. Theroux, 1993 CanLII 134 (SCC), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 5, [1993] S.C.J. No. 42 and R. v. Zlatic, 1993 CanLII 135 (SCC), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 29, [1993] S.C.J. No. 43, the fact that an accused may have hoped the deprivation would not take place is no defence. All that the Crown had to prove was that the appellant knew that he was undertaking a prohibited act that could cause deprivation in the sense of depriving the complainants of their property or putting their property at risk. The appellant's dealings with Ms. Earle did not meet the Crown's case. Even if the appellant honestly and reasonably believed that Ms. Earle would make good on the replacement cheque, that would have been sufficient only to pay back part of the loan to Cheques-4-Cash. The replacement cheque would not have been sufficient to cover the complainants' deposits. Further, that money would not support the furniture order to Global, which the appellant had to pay for when the goods were delivered. The appellant conceded that he had used the complainants' deposits, which totalled approximately $15,000, for his own purposes. The appellant had no other source of income and had other very substantial debts.