R. v. Vanderveen

R. v. Vanderveen

The Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt the accused engaged in prohibited acts (failure to report income, false representations of residency and shelter costs) that caused an overpayment exceeding $5,000 and that both accused had the requisite subjective knowledge (inferred from their conduct and admissions); accordingly both were guilty of fraud under s.380(1)(a).

Citation
2002 BCSC 236
Parties
Crown/prosecution: Her Majesty The Queen; Accused: James Vanderveen; Accused: Linda Mae Vanderveen
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 February 2002
Procedural Posture
Criminal Fraud (s.380(1)(a) Criminal Code) / Trial Judgment Conviction
Outcome
Both accused found guilty of fraud under s.380(1)(a) Criminal Code
Legal Topics
Fraud Under S.380(1)(a), Mens Rea (subjective Knowledge), Income Assistance Eligibility, Credibility Findings, Circumstantial Evidence
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Fraud Social Assistance Law Evidence Fraud Under S.380(1)(a) Mens Rea (subjective Knowledge) Income Assistance Eligibility Credibility Findings +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty The Queen

Crown/prosecution

James Vanderveen

Accused

Linda Mae Vanderveen

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Fraud (s.380(1)(a) Criminal Code) / Trial Judgment Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused committed fraud contrary to s.380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code by deceit or falsehood in obtaining income assistance
  2. 2 Whether the Crown proved mens rea (subjective knowledge that the deception could cause deprivation) for both accused
  3. 3 Whether the false representations and omissions caused a pecuniary loss exceeding $5,000 to the Ministry

Ratio Decidendi

The Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt the accused engaged in prohibited acts (failure to report income, false representations of residency and shelter costs) that caused an overpayment exceeding $5,000 and that both accused had the requisite subjective knowledge (inferred from their conduct and admissions); accordingly both were guilty of fraud under s.380(1)(a).

Court Disposition

Both accused found guilty of fraud under s.380(1)(a) Criminal Code

Orders

  • Convictions entered against James Vanderveen and Linda Mae Vanderveen for fraud contrary to s.380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code