R. v. Cain

R. v. Cain

The court found the accused's evidence not credible, accepted the victim's credible testimony together with bank records and surveillance photos showing multiple withdrawals without consent, and concluded the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed fraud, unlawful use of a credit card, and possession of credit card data.

Citation
2016 NSPC 10
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Defendant: Mary Ann Cain
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Fraud/unauthorized Use of Credit Card / Trial Verdict/decision (conviction)
Outcome
Guilty on all three counts
Legal Topics
Fraud, Unauthorized Use of Credit Card, Possession of Credit Card Data, Credibility Assessment
Source Language
English

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Mary Ann Cain

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Fraud/unauthorized Use of Credit Card / Trial Verdict/decision (conviction)

  1. 1 Whether the accused withdrew funds from the victim's CIBC account without consent using the victim's card and PIN
  2. 2 Whether the Crown proved fraud contrary to s.380(1)(b) of the Criminal Code beyond a reasonable doubt
  3. 3 Whether the accused unlawfully used a credit card obtained by the commission of an offence contrary to s.432(1)(c) of the Criminal Code

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the accused's evidence not credible, accepted the victim's credible testimony together with bank records and surveillance photos showing multiple withdrawals without consent, and concluded the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed fraud, unlawful use of a credit card, and possession of credit card data.

Court Disposition

Guilty on all three counts

Orders

  • Convicted of offences contrary to Criminal Code s.380(1)(b), s.432(1)(c) and s.342(3)(a)