R. v. Pilarinos

R. v. Pilarinos

Section 122 is not unconstitutionally vague and is not overly broad when interpreted to require (1) that the accused be an 'official', (2) that the impugned act occur in connection with the duties of office, (3) that the act constitute a fraud or breach of trust giving the official a direct or indirect personal benefit, and (4) a subjectively based mens rea (intent, recklessness or wilful blindness as to the facts and resulting benefit); application to strike down s.122 is dismissed.

Citation
2002 BCSC 452
Parties
Crown/prosecutor: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Dimitrios Pilarinos; Accused: Glen David Clark
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 March 2002
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Challenge to Criminal Code S.122 Under Charter S.7 / Ruling on Constitutional Validity (pre Trial)
Outcome
Application to strike down s.122 dismissed; s.122 upheld as constitutionally valid under s.7
Legal Topics
Breach of Trust, Vagueness, Overbreadth, Mens Rea, Parties to an Offence (s.21 Criminal Code), Charter S.7 and S.1, Interpretation of S.122 Criminal Code
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Public Integrity/anti Corruption Breach of Trust Vagueness Overbreadth Mens Rea Parties to an Offence (s.21 Criminal Code) +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 5 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown/prosecutor

Dimitrios Pilarinos

Accused

Glen David Clark

Accused

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Challenge to Criminal Code S.122 Under Charter S.7 / Ruling on Constitutional Validity (pre Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.122 of the Criminal Code violates s.7 of the Charter as vague
  2. 2 Whether s.122 is overly broad (overbreadth) and violates principles of fundamental justice
  3. 3 Whether s.122 can be saved under s.1 of the Charter

Ratio Decidendi

Section 122 is not unconstitutionally vague and is not overly broad when interpreted to require (1) that the accused be an 'official', (2) that the impugned act occur in connection with the duties of office, (3) that the act constitute a fraud or breach of trust giving the official a direct or indirect personal benefit, and (4) a subjectively based mens rea (intent, recklessness or wilful blindness as to the facts and resulting benefit); application to strike down s.122 is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application to strike down s.122 dismissed; s.122 upheld as constitutionally valid under s.7

Orders

  • Application dismissed
  • Section 122 of the Criminal Code upheld