R. v. Bateman (C.E.), (1997) 24 O.T.C. 379 (GD)

• Judge: Hill, J.
• Court: Ontario Court of Justice General Division (Canada)
• Case Date: February 06, 1997
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1997), 24 O.T.C. 379 (GD)

R. v. Bateman (C.E.) (1997), 24 O.T.C. 379 (GD)

MLB headnote and full text

Her Majesty The Queen v. Charles Edward Bateman

(File No. 1165/96)

Indexed As: R. v. Bateman (C.E.)

Ontario Court of Justice

General Division

Brampton

Hill, J.

February 7, 1997.

Summary:

The accused marina operator pleaded guilty to fraud. The accused had possession of a boat to sell for the owner for $10,000. The accused, without authority, transferred the boat to White in exchange for a Porsche. The owner rejected the trade and demanded his money. The accused offered to repay him, but never did. The accused was a first offender. His marina business was in financial trouble at the time. The accused was separated, but supporting two children. The Crown and accused jointly recommended a conditional discharge with restitution on an agreed payment schedule.

The Ontario Court (General Division) granted the accused a conditional discharge plus three years' probation. The court ordered restitution at a rate of $1,000 per month for 10 consecutive months, enforceable as an optional condition of the probation order (Criminal Code, s. 738(1)(a)). The court doubted its authority to make a restitution order as a condition of probation through the basket clause (s. 732.1(3)(h)).

Criminal Law - Topic 4431

Procedure - Verdicts - Discharges and dismissals - Conditional discharge in lieu of conviction - See paragraphs 1 to 39.

Criminal Law - Topic 5792

Punishments (sentence) - Restitution - When appropriate - See paragraphs 1 to 39.

Criminal Law - Topic 5859

Sentence - Fraud - See paragraphs 1 to 39.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Katz (Z.) (1996), 17 O.T.C. 309 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Fitzgibbon (C.D.), [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1005; 107 N.R. 281; 40 O.A.C. 81; 55 C.C.C.(3d) 449, refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Scherer (1984), 5 O.A.C. 297; 16 C.C.C.(3d) 30 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused, [1984] 2 S.C.R. x; 58 N.R. 80, refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Debaat (A.D.) (1992), 11 B.C.A.C. 78; 22 W.A.C. 78; 15 C.R.(4th) 226 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 725(1) [para. 26]; sect. 732.1(3)(h) [para. 27]; sect. 737(2)(e) [para. 26]; sect. 738(1)(a), sect. 738(2) [para. 29]; sect. 741(1) [para. 30].

Counsel:

J.J. Hanrahan, for the Crown;

F. Forsyth, for the accused.

This case was heard on January 14 and February 6, 1997, before Hill, J., of the Ontario Court (General Division), who delivered the following judgment on February 7, 1997.