R. v. Wilson

R. v. Wilson

The judge found overwhelming and irresistible evidence that the accused knowingly used deceit, falsehoods and forged documents to obtain and convert Band funds, subjectively appreciated that her conduct would deprive the Band of funds, and therefore was guilty of fraud under s.380(1); theft was also proven but, applying Kienapple and related authority, the court entered a conviction on the fraud count and a conditional stay on the theft count.

Citation
2003 BCSC 99
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Hazel Margaret Wilson
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 January 2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Trial (judge Alone) Judgment
Outcome
Conviction entered on count 1 (fraud under s.380(1)); conditional stay of proceedings entered on count 2 (theft) pursuant to Kienapple and R. v. D.W.P.
Legal Topics
Fraud Under S.380(1) Criminal Code, Theft Under S.322(1) / S.334 Criminal Code, Mens Rea and Actus Reus of Fraud, Kienapple Principle and Conditional Stay
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Fraud Theft Social Assistance Administration Fraud Under S.380(1) Criminal Code Theft Under S.322(1) / S.334 Criminal Code Mens Rea and Actus Reus of Fraud Kienapple Principle and Conditional Stay

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Hazel Margaret Wilson

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Trial (judge Alone) Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused committed fraud by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means contrary to s.380(1) Criminal Code
  2. 2 Whether the accused committed theft contrary to s.322(1) (and as charged s.334) Criminal Code
  3. 3 Whether the Crown proved the requisite mens rea (subjective knowledge and appreciation of deprivation)

Ratio Decidendi

The judge found overwhelming and irresistible evidence that the accused knowingly used deceit, falsehoods and forged documents to obtain and convert Band funds, subjectively appreciated that her conduct would deprive the Band of funds, and therefore was guilty of fraud under s.380(1); theft was also proven but, applying Kienapple and related authority, the court entered a conviction on the fraud count and a conditional stay on the theft count.

Court Disposition

Conviction entered on count 1 (fraud under s.380(1)); conditional stay of proceedings entered on count 2 (theft) pursuant to Kienapple and R. v. D.W.P.

Orders

  • Conviction entered on count 1 (fraud under s.380(1) Criminal Code)
  • Conditional stay of proceedings entered on count 2 (theft)