R. v. Guthrie
- Citation
- [1992] 2 SCR 222
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 16 June 1992
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Alberta Court of Appeal
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 16 June 1992
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Alberta Court of Appeal
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The trial judge fairly reviewed the evidence and properly instructed the jury, specifically on the pivotal issue of whom the bank relied upon; viewed as a whole the charge contained no error sufficient to overturn the conviction or sentence, and the appeal must be dismissed.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- Conviction and sentence affirmed
02
Material facts
Parties
Robert Guthrie
Appellant Counsel: Bryan D. NewtonHer Majesty The Queen
Respondent Counsel: T. J. Matchett03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Alberta Court of Appeal
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether misrepresentation of the value of strip bonds constituted fraud
- 02
Whether the trial judge properly instructed the jury on the critical question of whom the bank relied upon when making loans
- 03
Whether any error in the jury charge rendered the conviction unsafe
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The appellant argued that the trial judge failed to properly instruct the jury on the elements of fraud and, in particular, on the vital issue of whom the bank relied upon when it made the loans, rendering the conviction and sentence unsafe.
- Respondent
- The Crown defended the charge and the verdict, submitting that the trial judge fairly and properly reviewed the evidence, correctly instructed the jury on applicable legal principles including reliance, and that no error warranted appellate intervention.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Supreme Court of Canada decision in R. v. Guthrie [1992] 2 S.C.R. 222
A criminal fraud conviction requires proof of a misrepresentation and that the victim relied on that misrepresentation when acting to the detriment of the accused.
- 02
Supreme Court of Canada decision in R. v. Guthrie [1992] 2 S.C.R. 222
A jury charge must be read as a whole; the judge must identify and explain vital issues for the jury, including who was relied upon by the complainant, but isolated passages should not be dissected to find error.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The trial judge fairly reviewed the evidence and properly instructed the jury, specifically on the pivotal issue of whom the bank relied upon; viewed as a whole the charge contained no error sufficient to overturn the conviction or sentence, and the appeal must be dismissed.
Obiter and limits
- The Court agreed with the reasoning and conclusion of the majority of the Alberta Court of Appeal.
- Looking at the charge as a whole, it cannot be faulted.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld.
- Appeal dismissed
- Conviction and sentence affirmed
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of Canada · 16 June 1992
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Supreme Court of Canada
Judgment· 16 June 1992
R. v. Guthrie Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 1992-06-16 Report [1992] 2 SCR 222 Case number 22371 Judges Lamer, Antonio; Sopinka, John; Cory, Peter deCarteret; McLachlin, Beverley; Iacobucci, Frank On appeal from Alberta Subjects Criminal law Notes SCC Case Information: 22371 Decision Content R. v. Guthrie, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 222 Robert Guthrie Appellant v. Her Majesty The Queen Respondent Indexed as: R. v. Guthrie File No.: 22371. 1992: June 16. Present: Lamer C.J. and Sopinka, Cory, McLachlin, and Iacobucci JJ. on appeal from the court of appeal for alberta Criminal law ‑‑ Fraud ‑‑ Charge to jury ‑‑ Allegation of misrepresentation of value of strip bonds offered to bank as security ‑‑ Vital issue as to whom bank relied on when it made the loans adequately dealt with. APPEAL from a judgment of the Albert Court of Appeal dismissing appeals first from conviction before Wachowich J. and then from the sentence imposed. Appeal dismissed. Bryan D. Newton, for the appellant. T. J. Matchett, for the respondent. The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by //Lamer C.J.// Lamer C.J. -- The Court is ready to hand down judgment. The judgment will be pronounced by Justice Cory. //Cory J.// Cory J. -- We are in agreement with the reasoning and conclusion of the majority of the Court of Appeal. The trial judge in his charge to the jury fairly and properly reviewed the relevant
evidence. He then placed before them the applicable principles of law. He specifically advised them, on several occasions, that they must decide the vital issue as to whom the bank relied upon when it made the loans. Looking at the charge as a whole, it cannot be faulted. The appeal is therefore dismissed. Judgment accordingly. Solicitors for the appellant: Lord & Russell, Calgary. Solicitor for the respondent: T. J. Matchett (Agent of the Attorney General for Alberta), Edmonton.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.