R. v. Korem

R. v. Korem

The Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that for a subset of items the accused did not possess an honest belief (colour of right) that they were matrimonial assets awarded to him, so the accused is guilty of theft in respect of those specific items; other charges were dismissed or not proven where ownership or the accused's honest belief could not be excluded.

Citation
2017 NSPC 69
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Nahman Korem; Complainant: Iris Kedmi
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 July 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Theft / Trial Decision
Outcome
Accused convicted of theft in respect of certain items; other counts dismissed or not proven; sentencing not recorded in this decision.
Legal Topics
Theft, Colour of Right, Matrimonial Property, Mens Rea, Wilful Blindness, Contempt, Evidence and Credibility
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Family Law Theft Colour of Right Matrimonial Property Mens Rea Wilful Blindness Contempt +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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Nahman Korem

Accused

Iris Kedmi

Complainant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Theft / Trial Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused had an honest belief (colour of right) that the items removed were matrimonial assets awarded to him
  2. 2 Whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused lacked colour of right for specific items
  3. 3 Whether wilful blindness could negate a colour of right defence

Ratio Decidendi

The Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that for a subset of items the accused did not possess an honest belief (colour of right) that they were matrimonial assets awarded to him, so the accused is guilty of theft in respect of those specific items; other charges were dismissed or not proven where ownership or the accused's honest belief could not be excluded.

Court Disposition

Accused convicted of theft in respect of certain items; other counts dismissed or not proven; sentencing not recorded in this decision.

Orders

  • Convicted of theft contrary to Criminal Code; finding recorded as theft under $5,000 (s.334(b)) in respect of specified items (jars of oil, burl tables, conch shell and certain items included in count 3).
  • Count 4 (alleged Bee Happy Farm property) entered as not guilty (duplicitous / legally not distinct).