R. v. Slaunwhite

R. v. Slaunwhite

On the totality of credible evidence the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused repeatedly represented she had performed billable services when she had not, submitted purchase receipts to be paid by TKMT while withholding refund receipts and thereby caused deprivation; the accused's explanations were not credible and the only reasonable inference is that she acted with subjective knowledge or recklessness as to deprivation, satisfying the mens rea and warranting conviction under s.380(1)(a).

Citation
2022 NSSC 308
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Kathleen Marie Slaunwhite
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 September 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Fraud / Trial Judgment (conviction)
Outcome
Convicted
Legal Topics
Fraud Under S.380(1)(a) Criminal Code, Mens Rea (subjective Knowledge/recklessness), Actus Reus (deceit/falsehood/other Fraudulent Means), Circumstantial Evidence and Inferences, Training and Accounting Practices, W(d) Credibility Direction, Theroux Principles
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Commercial/corporate Conduct Fraud Under S.380(1)(a) Criminal Code Mens Rea (subjective Knowledge/recklessness) Actus Reus (deceit/falsehood/other Fraudulent Means) Circumstantial Evidence and Inferences Training and Accounting Practices +2 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 6 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Kathleen Marie Slaunwhite

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Fraud / Trial Judgment (conviction)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the actus reus of fraud was established
  2. 2 Whether the accused had the requisite subjective mens rea (intention or recklessness) to defraud TKMT
  3. 3 Whether omission of refund receipts and submission of purchase receipts amounted to deceit/other fraudulent means

Ratio Decidendi

On the totality of credible evidence the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused repeatedly represented she had performed billable services when she had not, submitted purchase receipts to be paid by TKMT while withholding refund receipts and thereby caused deprivation; the accused's explanations were not credible and the only reasonable inference is that she acted with subjective knowledge or recklessness as to deprivation, satisfying the mens rea and warranting conviction under s.380(1)(a).

Court Disposition

Convicted

Orders

  • Accused convicted of fraud contrary to s.380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code
  • Court finds the loss to victim (TKMT) exceeds $5,000; approximate loss referenced at $57,000 (subject to adjustments)